السلام عليكم و رحمة الله
We've all heard that mutations are random, though that is being disputed today.[1]
But did the father of Social Darwinism, Charles Darwin, believe that mutations, or as Darwin called it "variation" (even though Lamarck used the word "mutation[2]), are random? The surprising answer is no.
Darwin in his Origin of Species made it very clear that variations, "however slight", are not due to randomness or chance. Rather when Darwin does use the word "chance" he simply means that we don't understand the current law(s) that cause mutations. Whether the word "chance" had such a meaning at that time, I can't say but that is how Darwin used it in his works.
If you want to understand whether Darwin did believe in chance or not, shouldn't you go to his work where he discusses such a subject? Of course. Well, chapter V in Origin is called Laws of Variation. In that chapter we expect him to explain his view and he does. The very first sentence says,
"I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations - so common and multiform in organic beings- under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature - had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variations"[3]
Don't forget, the title is called Laws of variation not Randomness of variation. So from the very first sentence Darwin denies chance. All variations are due to some natural law. Obviously as Darwin repeatedly said, we don't know the laws of variation but he did accept Lamarck's law of use and disuse as one but the rest, we are ignorant of and I bet we are far from understanding the whole picture.
But before you get confused, it doesn't mean he believed that evolution was intelligently guided by some God or creator but rather that these mutations are caused due to some laws. Whether those laws were designed or not is a different story altogether. Darwin was Agnostic when it comes to the design of the Universe and the laws of nature but nevertheless, he did not accept chance or randomness but believed everything was determined.
In November 1860, Darwin sent Asa Gray a letter where he explains that when it comes to the question of design, he is in "hopeless muddle" but the letter says,
"I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; & yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design... Again I say I am, & shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle"[4]
When Darwin says that he is inclined to believe that everything is left to the working of chance, he then says "Not that this notion at all satisfies me" meaning, that the idea of pure chance or as he sometimes calls it "brute force" does not satisfy his beliefs.[5]
If you in fact carry on reading the first sentence of chapter V, he carried on saying,
"Nevertheless, we can here and there dimly catch a faint ray of light, and we may feel sure that there must be some cause for each deviation of structure, however slight" (my emphasis)
Which means, that whatever change that occurs, no matter how tiny it is or how irrelevant it is to us, it must have a cause.
And in a letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin informs him that "The formation of a strong variety or species, I look at as almost wholly due to the selection of what may be incorrectly called chance variation or variability"[6]. As Zitzer correctly notices "He never uses "incorrect" to describe design or determinism. He will express doubts about design, but he never outright identifies it as incorrect"[7]
Historical note
This, of course, makes you question. If Darwin denied chance then why were the people at his time and the fathers of Neo Darwinism claiming that he believed in chance? And also constructed Neo-Darwinism based on chance which was taught by the Nazis and in our schools today. There are only two answers I can come up with, 1) they misread him, which is unlikely and 2) due to the rise of anti-religion, atheism and the like required chance as a mechanism because if some law was behind it then, by logic, there is a law-giver. Thus this misrepresentation was a means to increase a hostile environment to religious communities.
Summary
Darwin did not believe in chance. He denied chance completely and doubted design which leads me to say that he was confused about the origin of the Universe and the laws of nature but was very strict and clear that mutations are not random. In this case, he is in line with Lamarck and Chambers when it comes to the source of variations, it's all determined.
If Darwin was alive today, he'd accept James Shapiro's view that mutations are not random or simply followed the footsteps of Lamarck.
References
1. James Shapiro, 2011, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, Ft Press.
2. Jean Baptiste-Pierre-Antoine de Monet de Lamarck, Zoological Philosophy, translated by Hugh Elliot, pages 39, 41-43 and 45.
3. I am very thankful to Leon Zitzer for pointing out that Darwin did not believe in chance. Leon Zitzer, Darwin's Racism, 2016, iUniverse, pages 356-360. All my information on Darwin's belief on chance vs design is from Zitzer.
4. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 2998. Click here to access the letter.
5. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 2814. Click here to access the letter.
6. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 1997. Click here to access the letter.
7. Leon Zitzer, Darwin's Racism, 2016, iUniverse, page 359.
 |
| DNA |
But did the father of Social Darwinism, Charles Darwin, believe that mutations, or as Darwin called it "variation" (even though Lamarck used the word "mutation[2]), are random? The surprising answer is no.
Darwin in his Origin of Species made it very clear that variations, "however slight", are not due to randomness or chance. Rather when Darwin does use the word "chance" he simply means that we don't understand the current law(s) that cause mutations. Whether the word "chance" had such a meaning at that time, I can't say but that is how Darwin used it in his works.
If you want to understand whether Darwin did believe in chance or not, shouldn't you go to his work where he discusses such a subject? Of course. Well, chapter V in Origin is called Laws of Variation. In that chapter we expect him to explain his view and he does. The very first sentence says,
"I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations - so common and multiform in organic beings- under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature - had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variations"[3]
Don't forget, the title is called Laws of variation not Randomness of variation. So from the very first sentence Darwin denies chance. All variations are due to some natural law. Obviously as Darwin repeatedly said, we don't know the laws of variation but he did accept Lamarck's law of use and disuse as one but the rest, we are ignorant of and I bet we are far from understanding the whole picture.
But before you get confused, it doesn't mean he believed that evolution was intelligently guided by some God or creator but rather that these mutations are caused due to some laws. Whether those laws were designed or not is a different story altogether. Darwin was Agnostic when it comes to the design of the Universe and the laws of nature but nevertheless, he did not accept chance or randomness but believed everything was determined.
In November 1860, Darwin sent Asa Gray a letter where he explains that when it comes to the question of design, he is in "hopeless muddle" but the letter says,
"I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; & yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design... Again I say I am, & shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle"[4]
When Darwin says that he is inclined to believe that everything is left to the working of chance, he then says "Not that this notion at all satisfies me" meaning, that the idea of pure chance or as he sometimes calls it "brute force" does not satisfy his beliefs.[5]
If you in fact carry on reading the first sentence of chapter V, he carried on saying,
"Nevertheless, we can here and there dimly catch a faint ray of light, and we may feel sure that there must be some cause for each deviation of structure, however slight" (my emphasis)
Which means, that whatever change that occurs, no matter how tiny it is or how irrelevant it is to us, it must have a cause.
And in a letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin informs him that "The formation of a strong variety or species, I look at as almost wholly due to the selection of what may be incorrectly called chance variation or variability"[6]. As Zitzer correctly notices "He never uses "incorrect" to describe design or determinism. He will express doubts about design, but he never outright identifies it as incorrect"[7]
Historical note
This, of course, makes you question. If Darwin denied chance then why were the people at his time and the fathers of Neo Darwinism claiming that he believed in chance? And also constructed Neo-Darwinism based on chance which was taught by the Nazis and in our schools today. There are only two answers I can come up with, 1) they misread him, which is unlikely and 2) due to the rise of anti-religion, atheism and the like required chance as a mechanism because if some law was behind it then, by logic, there is a law-giver. Thus this misrepresentation was a means to increase a hostile environment to religious communities.
Summary
Darwin did not believe in chance. He denied chance completely and doubted design which leads me to say that he was confused about the origin of the Universe and the laws of nature but was very strict and clear that mutations are not random. In this case, he is in line with Lamarck and Chambers when it comes to the source of variations, it's all determined.
If Darwin was alive today, he'd accept James Shapiro's view that mutations are not random or simply followed the footsteps of Lamarck.
References
1. James Shapiro, 2011, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, Ft Press.
2. Jean Baptiste-Pierre-Antoine de Monet de Lamarck, Zoological Philosophy, translated by Hugh Elliot, pages 39, 41-43 and 45.
3. I am very thankful to Leon Zitzer for pointing out that Darwin did not believe in chance. Leon Zitzer, Darwin's Racism, 2016, iUniverse, pages 356-360. All my information on Darwin's belief on chance vs design is from Zitzer.
4. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 2998. Click here to access the letter.
5. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 2814. Click here to access the letter.
6. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 1997. Click here to access the letter.
7. Leon Zitzer, Darwin's Racism, 2016, iUniverse, page 359.
No comments:
Post a Comment