Radical Science: 150 Years of Evolutionary Theory
Charles Darwin once wrote that it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one that is the most adaptable to change. And since this year marks the 200th anniversary of the English naturalist’s birth and one hundred and fifty years since On the Origin of Species took global bookstores by storm, it is worth pausing for a minute and reflecting on how Darwinism has changed our society.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
This famed quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky is no overstatement. Evolutionary theory continues to underpin biological inquiry. Whether it is investigations on the population, cellular or molecular level, the assumption that all organisms, proteins and genes are related to each other by common ancestors has proved an immensely powerful notion. It is one that allows researchers to elucidate the biological roles of newly discovered genes and proteins, and to track the spread and adaptation of infectious diseases, for example. Additionally, better understandings of the evolutionary relationships between different species allows scientists to improve wildlife and environmental conservation practices, an ability that is a crucial in dealing with a changing climate.
Defense of the status quo is not a survival trait, but it is an instinctive one. Darwin’s theory on evolution through natural selection was met with understandably polarized reactions. Theorists like Thomas Huxley, along with many of the scienti? c community, regarded On the Origin of Species as a turning point in human thought as significant as Copernicus’s heliocentric model of the solar system [2]. Many religious groups, however, saw it as nothing short of blasphemy; a direct challenge to the creation myth and the pillars of Christian faith [3].
The one thing both sides could agree on was that this was clearly a revolutionary work. What made Darwin’s theories so radical is that he presented evolution not as a vague or imprecise theory, but as a scienti? cally testable mechanism. Scienti? c readers had been aware of the effect the laws of nature had on the evolution of a species, but never before had these theories been distilled into a cogent device like natural selection. For the ? rst time, evolution could be studied, manipulated, tested and analyzed. Organized religion objected to Darwin’s theories not just because they went against scripture, but because they were presented as testable fact, as scienti?c truth.
This hostility has persisted to the present day. One hundred and fifty years have not softened many opponents’ stances towards Darwin’s theories. The debate in US schools between the teaching of creationism and evolution shows that, if anything, that stance has intensi?ed. In several states, ‘creationist science’ as it has now been coined, is taught alongside Darwin’s theories as fact, not faith. In the 1980’s Louisiana passed legislature which stated that, whenever evolution was taught in schools, ‘creation science’ would be taught alongside it [4]. This is a tribute not just to the success of democracy in the States, but also to the political muscle of insistent Christian lobby groups. Some evangelical polemics now view Darwinism as synonymous with atheism [5].
It has become a pejorative expression in many religious circles, denoting close-mindedness and an unreasonable hostility to organized religion. Of course, it would be wrong to lump religion wholly in the anti-Darwin camp. In response to the widespread scientific acceptance of Darwin’s theories, many religious groups have shown an adaptability that would have made the old man proud, and decided to flow around evolutionary theory, absorbing it into religious doctrine. The Unitarian church in particular has been quick to embrace science; to see it as evidence of, rather than at odds with, God’s creation of the universe.
This ‘theistic evolution’ takes God as its starting point. It claims that the process of evolution was created in a divine spark, neatly circumventing the whole religion vs. science debate. A cynic might assume that this is simply an attempt to gain more support (and perhaps funding) by appealing to the largest cohort of potential ‘believers’. But by Darwin’s own standards, this sort of flexibility is simply in keeping with the secrets to evolutionary success.
Religion is not the only social sphere to feel the effects of Darwinism. The theory of natural selection, like most things conceived in the pursuit of human enlightenment, has been adopted as the foundation for various ethical and social systems, with often inhumane results. One such system is Social Darwinism. Its reasoning runs that, if natural selection is the key to a successful species, weeding out the weak so that the strong may flourish, why have we designed a society that deliberately subverts that system? A society that protects the rights of the ‘weak’, caring for them at the expense of the state long after they are, objectively speaking, ‘productive’?
Some polemics, such as Richard Weikart, have gone so far as to single out Darwinism as a driving force behind atrocities like euthanasia, infanticide and racial extermination [6]. Many critics have even linked Darwinism to the ideals of the Nazi state.
This sort of commentary is an unfortunate stain on Darwin’s legacy. Not only does it take Darwin’s theories far outside the spheres for which they were originally intended, it misses one of the crucial messages behind his premise: sympathy, empathy, acceptance and co-operation are essential evolutionary traits. These values are a cause, not a symptom, of a successful species. Indeed, according to Darwin, sympathy is a product of natural selection; a trait beneficial to social animals, such as humans. “Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason,” he said, “without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature” [7].
Darwin’s theories have even influenced the dialogue on animal rights. Advocates point out that if animals and humans share a common origin, then our rights cannot be held to be superior. There is nothing special about us. We are simply the dominant species within the ecosystem. When viewed like this, Darwinism might seem like an almost nihilistic path. But that is to miss the point. Humans are special: we are unique in the extent to which we have succeeded within the evolutionary framework.
Of course it would be inaccurate to suppose that there is any single message or meaning to be learned from Darwin’s theories. What is clear is that Darwinism has served as a source of inspiration, understanding and justification within the context of a range of political, social and economic projects of the modern world. After all, a theory that holds the promise of answering questions about who we are as a species, how we got here and where we are going is not only groundbreaking but also open to interpretation and adaptation within any number of different value systems.
Looking back on the last one hundred and fifty years, it’s easy to see that humans exhibit many of the characteristics of a successful species. But not all of them. According to Darwin, the ability to change was the ultimate quality needed for survival. And sadly there has been little change in our attitudes evolutionary theory. Today, much as when it was first published, On the Origin of Species generates just as much anger and distrust as it does admiration and respect. But perhaps that doesn’t matter. If Darwin has taught us anything it’s that, ultimately, conflict drives us forward.
James Shackell is currently studying Arts/Law at the University of Melbourne.