The Darwinian Revolution: Rethinking Its Meaning and Significance Author(s): Michael Ruse Source: Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 106, Supplement 1: In the Light of Evolution III: Two Centuries of Darwin (Jun. 16, 2009), pp. 10040-10047 Published by: National Academy of Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40428420 . Accessed: 24/05/2013 18:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Academy of Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheDarwinian revolution: itsmeaning Rethinking andsignificance

Michael Ruse1
Tallahassee, FL 32306 Department of Philosophy,Florida State University,

The Darwinian revolution is generally taken to be one of the key events in the history of Western science. In recentyears, however, the very notion of a scientificrevolution has come under attack, and in the specificcase of Charles Darwin and his Originof Species thereare serious questions about the nature of the change (ifthere was such) and the specificallyDarwinian input. This articleconsiders these issues by addressing these questions: Was there a Darwinian revolution! That is, was there a revolution at all? Was there a Darwinian revolution? That is, what was the specific contributionof Charles Darwin? Was there a Darwinian revolution! That is, what was the conceptual nature of what occurredon and around the publication of the Origin! I argue that there was a major change, both scientifically and in a broader metaphysical sense; that Charles Darwin was the major player in the change, although one mustqualifythe nature and the extent of the change, at things in a broader historicalcontext than looking particularly just as an immediate event; and that the revolution was complex and we need the insights of rather different philosophies of scientificchange to capture the whole phenomenon. In some respects, indeed, the process of analysis is still ongoing and unresolved.
evolution | Kuhn

a book withthemaintitleThe yearsago 1(1) published Thirty Darwinian Revolution. No one questionedwhether or not I had a real topic.Therewas a Darwinianrevolution and mybook was about it. Today, one could not be so sure. The idea of scientific revolutions has been questioned;Darwin's contributionhas been challenged; and even ifyoucan come up positively on thesematters, what on earthare we talkingabout anyway? These are the 3 questionsI shall addressin thisarticle.
Was There a Darwinian Revolution!

HistorianJonathanHodge (2) has been one of the strongest on this matter.He thinksthat the whole talk of naysayers scientific of an obsessionbymanyhistorevolutions, something rians and philosophersof science in the years afterThomas Kuhn's engaging and influentialThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions The term is obviously taken (3), is deeplymisleading. thatthere byanalogyfrom politicsand even thereit is doubtful are suchthings withcommon (at least thatthereare suchthings and in sciencelikewise we have no reasonto think that features) thereare suchthings withcommonfeatures. In anycase, thetalk is wrong-headed because it drivesyou to concentrate on some people and eventsand downplayor ignore other people and events. In response, let us agree at once thatfocusing on revolutions skewthings in certain (in science) does rather ways.Dwellingat the contribulengthon Darwin carriesthe dangerof ignoring tionsof othersin the 19thcentury, fromthe Naturphilosophen (people like the German anatomistLorenz Oken who saw at thebeginning to theorthogeneticists homologies everywhere) (people like the Americanpaleontologist Henry FairfieldOsbornwho thought thatevolution has a momentum thatcarriesit beyondadaptivesuccess) at the end. Worse,it givesthe impression that unless you have somethingdramatic and crisisthescienceis oflittle value. Remember, thealternative breaking, to Kuhn's revolutionary science is normalscience,and thishas
10040-10047 | PNAS | June 16, 2009 | vol.106 | suppl. 1

of a 3-h sermonby a Pres(a perhapsundeserved)reputation minister on a wet Sundayin Scotland. byterian of one can point out thatthe history Againstthis,however, is little morethan50 yearsold scienceas a professional discipline and thatyou have to startsomewhere.In the case of Darwin, would The tragedy even30 yearsago therewas no real synthesis. ofsciencehad stoppedthereand gone no havebeen ifhistorians nottrue.In thepast 30 yearsor more, further. But thisis clearly therehas of evolutionary thinking, staying just withthe history been a hugeamountofworkon people beforeand after Darwin, like Thomas Henry Huxley [for and on his contemporaries one can pick Desmond (4)]. To namebut3 researchers, instance, out Robert J. Richards (5-8) and the work he has done on beforeand in the 19thcentury, German evolutionary thinking withpaleontolafterDarwin; PeterBowler(9-12), who started on the and since has written extensively ogyin the 18thcentury his in the 19thcentury, now extending post-Darwinian figures and WilliamProvine(13,14), who grasp into the 20thcentury; has offereddetailed and brilliantanalyses of the impact of It just has notbeen of evolution. geneticson the understanding the case thatfocusing first on Darwin led us to an inescapable dead end withrespectto the restof evolution'shistory. Should we nevertheless persistwiththe term"revolution"? we can Well,itsurely dependson thecase to be made. Obviously in somewhatgenerically use the term revolution legitimately and theFrench No one thinks theAmericanRevolution politics. didsharecharacteristics Revolution werethesame,butthey that, for example, the move fromRonald Reagan as presidentto George H. W. Bush did not. There was a break fromthe old and thiswas done bya groupseizingpower,leading government to dramatic changes.I see no reasonwe should not extendthe inthe Thinkofthetechnological term revolution metaphorically. past 20 years or so. Laptop computers are commonplace, electronicuse of libraries is the norm,and search engineslike of informathe gathering Google and Yahoo have transformed tion.If thisdoes not all add up to a revolution of some kind,it is hardto knowwhatdoes. There is as muchof a breakwiththe was foran American ruledfrom rather pastas there Washington thanLondon.At an immediate even level,thechangeis probably greater. So ifyou wantto extendthe termrevolution to science,ifit of whatgoes on, thenall powerto the use. capturessomething But nowthequestioniswhether merits theDarwinianrevolution the use. Was there a big break with the past, sufficiently to speakofrevolution? Did something significant big,really big,a specialplace in the happenaround1859,and does itstillmerit of evolutionary In respects, our appreciation of history thought? whathappened is even greaterthanit was 30 yearsago: If you
This paper resultsfromthe ArthurM. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of 16-1 7, 2009, Sciences,"In the Lightof EvolutionIII:Two Centuriesof Darwin," held January at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of Sciences and CA. The complete programand audio filesof mostpresentationsare Engineeringin Irvine, available on the NAS web site at www. nasonline.org/Sackler.Darwin. Author contributions:M.R. wrote the paper. The author declares no conflictof interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. 1E-mail:mruse@fsu.edu.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/IO.IOya/pnas.OgOIO1

1 106

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of Darwin's birthas like,todayin 2009 the 200thanniversary of Darwin's death. opposed to 1982, the 100th anniversary Daniel Dennett(15) has referred to Darwin'sidea aboutnatural selectionas the greatestever. One could debate this (Plato's of forms theory givesit a good run forits money),but all will certainly agree thatsomething reallybig happened aroundand in 1859 (16). But here,let us take note of because of the Origin some of Hodge's worries.The basic questionis: What are we about?In theDarwiniancase thereare 2 levelsofactivity talking and interest. Withoutpretending that the divisionsare comthereis the level of science and the level of pletely simon-pure, thatthisincludesthings thatmight be metaphysics (recognizing considered scientific at one end and religiousor otherwise ideologicalat the otherend). On one hand, there is the scientific theoryof evolution natural thecentral On the selection, through topicof theOrigin. otherhand,thereis whatscholarslike Robert M. Young (17), a titlefrom Thomas HenryHuxley(18), used to refer borrowing to as the debate over "man's place in nature."While todaywe would neverdare to use thatkindof language,in essence they At some level,the Darwinianrevolution right. got it absolutely theold picture of humansas somehowmiracforever destroyed and literally as touchedby magic. ulouslyspecial,symbolically fundamentalists to this Christian (and thoseof day Admittedly, refuseto accept this,but it is true.Even ifyou otherreligions) a Christian thatyou can stillbe religious, think even,you have even more thanintellectuto rethink emotionally dramatically, witha certain whatitmeanstobe a human. modesty Starting ally, about ourselves(19). It is hard to knowhow one would respondto someone who of the changesat eitherof these 2 questionedthe significance levels. At the level of science, changingover to the idea of is a massivechangeto make,whether in itself evolution you are of eternallifewithout a Greektheory from changeor a moving vision of the instantaneous more Christianized appearance of of naturalselection, life.And thenyou add in the mechanism and you have an used by at least 90% of today'sevolutionists, even greaterbreak with the pre-Origin past. At the level of the change is yet deeper if that is possible. The metaphysics, fundamenabove-mentioned oftheAmerican violent opposition could. It is notjust showsthatifanything or creationists talists a questionofwhowe are butalso ofhowwe shouldliveour lives is Darwinianthinking theonlyfactor, it is hardly (20). Although in some broad sense. at the centerof the move to modernism, Are we stillto be subjectto the old ways(womeninferior, gays to a truly abortion banned) or are we to look forward persecuted, the withreasonand evidencemaking world, post-Enlightenment secularfashion? in an entirely running in Grantthenthatsomething bigdid happen.But are we right oftheOrigin itall on 1859and thepublication ofSpeciesl putting Thisraisesmysecondbigquestion.Divide theansweraccording to the levelsof inquiry.

at theend to inherit all oftheglory. (Trywww.darwin-legend.org fora cross-sample of these sortsof charges.) There is little need to spend much time on these claims because basicallytheydon't hold muchwater.Let it be shouted out loud. Darwin did not steal fromWallace. Darwin's ideas the ideas of the Origin thatis - are all right therein the35 page Sketchof his ideas thathe wrotein 1842 (25). There was some about the natureof adaptation;perhapshe hitin the tweaking - although of divergence thereare early1850s on the principle certainlyhints of that in the species notebooks - but the mechanisms (naturaland sexual selection) are there,as is the structure of the argumentof the Origin(more on this in a the final moment).Even some of the flowery passages,notably paragraphabout grandeurin viewsof life,can be foundin the Wallace certainly stimulated Darwin to get movearlywritings. was it.And incidentally, ifyoustudy Wallace's essay ing,butthat fromDarwin. Wallace, for incarefully, you see differences selection.Wallace stance, denied the pertinenceof artificial neverhad theterm"naturalselection."Wallace had inclinations to group selectionin a way absent fromthe Originor earlier This is notto belittle Wallace. Not at all! But he was not writings. Charles Darwin. The claimsofotherscan be dismissed as well.BeforeDarwin, therewereseveralpeople who had thoughts of naturalselection and we know that he read some of them. For instance,in a there is an explicit pamphletby the breeder John Sebright, referenceto the force of natural selection,a referencethat Darwinto underline stimulated thewordsand make a comment inthemargin (26). But thereis no real questionthatthesepeople in Darwin,and generally the sparkedfullevolutionary thoughts lastthing wantedto do was use natural selection to promote they evolution.Edward Blyth(27), withwhomDarwin was to have very cordial and helpful correspondence(he actually drew Darwin's attention to an important earlier essay by Wallace) had evolutionary deniedthathisthinking implications. explicitly And as far as otherswere concerned,pre-Darwinian(that is in particular, evolutionists had effects they certainly pvQ-Origin) on general opinion,but not like Darwin. Chambers'sVestiges so bythe timethat out of evolution, took the sting undoubtedly extent old hat,butitdid not itwas to a certain Darwinpublished of the Origin.The same is true of others,like have the effect HerbertSpencer.For all thatSpencer(28), too, hiton the idea that Lamarckismis the chief of selection,he always thought did influcause of evolutionary change,and whilehis thinking his big friend Thomas HenryHuxley,he ence some, including likewisedid not swingpeople in the way thatthe Origindid. thereare some interesting Having said all of this,however, was truly questions about the extentto which the revolution is needed, starting Darwinian. Clearlysome nuanced thinking withthe factthattherewas 150 yearsof evolutionary thinking beforeDarwin, including speculationsby his own grandfather of dividethe history ErasmusDarwin.Toward a fuller analysis, first from 3 The into period, thinking periods(29). evolutionary the early18thcentury (the timeof the FrenchEncyclopediast Science Revolution? a Darwinian WasThere of the Denis Diderot) to the publication and earlyevolutionist Startwith one indubitablefact.There always have been and Originin 1859, was the time when the statusof evolutionary thatnot onlywas Alfred thinking therealwayswill be people who think was that of a pseudo science: an emergenton the of naturalselection, Rssel Wallace, the codiscoverer unappre- culturalvalue of progress.Second, fromthe Originto the full ciated but that Charles Darwin pinched all of the good ideas say thinking, incorporationof Mendelism into evolutionary It shouldbe called theWallacean evolutionist. theyounger from ~1930 withthe workof Ronald Fisher,J. B. S. Haldane, and evolutionhad the statusof a popular science. withCharles Darwin but a minorfootnote.[Brack- Sewall Wright, revolution in the There are othercandi- There was some professional workgoingon, particularly man (21) is the classic exemplification.] was a museum Indian natu- area ofphylogeny evolution butgenerally an English-born dates forthe job. Edward Blyth, tracing, Causal thinking of progress. has longbeen a popularname.[Eiseley(22) was thesource science,stilla vehicleforthoughts ralist, workin or (often) absententirely. in an award-winning forthisone.] More recently, book, James was second-rate Top-quality from who turned Secord (23) argued that reallyit was Robert Chambers,the biologywas increasingly byyoungresearchers to microscope-based authorof the Vestiges Scottish sciences,especiallycytracing oftheNaturalHistory phylogeny anonymous from in the20thcentury. and thenon to genetics Darwin came along tology, Finally, (24), who did the heavylifting. of Creation
Ruse PNAS | June 16, 2009 | vol.106 | suppl. 1 | 10041

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1930 to the presentwe have a fullyprofessionalscience of We enteredthe era of neo-Darwinism evolutionary biology. (as itwas called in Britain)or the synthetic of evolution(as theory it was called in the United States). Now, framethe discussionagainst the backgroundof this in a broad Ifwe consider 3-fold division ofhistory. therevolution of the 18thcentury to the beginning sense,fromthe beginning we wantto ofthe21stcentury, thereare 2 majorpointsat which say that it is a Darwinian revolution.The firstwas in the transition from being a pseudo science to being a popular science.BeforetheOrigin, theevidenceforevolution justwas not there.Ifyoubelievedin evolution, by youwerefueledprimarily ideologicalreasons.It is truethatpeople knewabout homolowas to fillout, embryology gies, the fossilrecordwas starting But thefullpicture was notthere.After and so forth. suggestive, was just plain commonsense. the Origin, beingan evolutionist Even church And people didbecome evolutionists. people. With in the thenotableexception ofAmerican especially evangelicals, was some was accepted(30). It is truethatthere South,evolution in the CatholicChurchespecially end, bycentury's backsliding, but overallpeople became evolutionists (31). to thestructure This changewas thanks to Darwin,especially of the argument in theOrigin. The methodologists of scienceof of science of the the day,moreparticularly, the methodologists and formulating his theory, 1830swhenDarwinwas discovering insisted thatthebestsciencehas at itshearta truecause, a vera causa. Theydiffered overwhatis themarkof a veracausa. John F. W. Herschel(32), withempiricist leanings,insistedthatwe have direct evidenceor something sensory analogical.We know thata forcepulls the moon towardthe Earthbecause swinging a stonearoundon a piece ofstring youto pull thestone requires in towardyou. WilliamWhewell(33, 34), withrationalist leanthe acceptance of our hypothesis ings,insistedthatwe justify its implying a whole rangeof empiricalevidence,thus through whatWhewellcalled a "consilienceof inductions." manifesting As in a courtoflaw,wheretheguiltis ascribedthrough thewide both rangeof clues thatit explains.Darwin set about satisfying vera causa criteria(35). First, he argued analogicallyfrom artificial selection(the work and triumphs of the animal and from knownand plantbreeders)to naturalselection, something seen to something notknownand seen. Then he turned around, and showed how evolutionthroughselection throwslighton instinct, topicsacrossbiology, paleontology, biogeography, sysand more.As evolution tematics, anatomy, embryology, through selectionexplains,so conversely the explainedareas justify our faithin evolutionthrough selection. There are questionsabout how effective was the appeal to artificial selection.Generally beforetheOrigin itwas takenas a reason not to believe in ongoingchange (no one has turneda horse into a cow) and I have mentionedhow Wallace denied thatit was relevantto the evolutionissue. Afterthe explicitly to createnewspecies Origin, people likeHuxleytookthefailure as a reason to hesitate before full acceptance of artificially naturalselection'spowers.However,undoubtedly at some level the analogysoftenedpeople up to evolution.Part of Darwin's contexts. He geniuswas alwaysto puthis ideas intocomfortable forexistence, which arguedto naturalselectionvia the struggle was something thatcame out of the thinking of the Reverend Thomas RobertMalthus(36), who pointedout thatpopulation demandswill alwaysoutstrip potentialgains in space and food. and, even Everyoneknewabout these Malthusiancalculations, if theydid not much like them,generallytheyaccepted the conclusions. Likewisewiththeworldofbreeders, people at least took some comfort fromthe arguments providedby Darwin, even iftheywere not definitive. The consiliencewas a different matter.Here, Darwin did persuade.At least,he persuadedto a point.As noted,evolution after theOrigin was nigha truism. The mechanism was another
10042 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/IO.IOya/pnas.OSOIOinoe

selection. matter. No one deniednatural Veryfewacceptedthat it could be as powerfulas Darwin suggested.People became of pure Darwinians,as we in droves.The number evolutionists was veryfew,and the mostprominent termselectionists, might of Wallace (37), becameenamored after Darwinhimself, namely in the 1860s and he startedto denyselectionwhen spiritualism it came to humans.The reasonsforthishalfway acceptanceare well known.On one side, therewere scientific problemswith thatitcould neverbe strong selection.It was thought enoughto Even the natureof heredity. overcomethe supposed averaging best new variationswould be swamped into nonbeingin a as or two (38). Added to thisthephysicists (ignorant generation denied radioactive effects of the were of decay) warming they thatthere was timeenoughforsucha leisurely processas natural selection (39). On the other side, there was the matterof about change.It brings adaptation.Selectiondoes notjust bring about adaptivechange.This ran into troublefromfolkat both likeHuxley German-influenced ends of thespectrum. biologists and a minor is but that phenomenon, adaptation (40) thought hence feltno need to embrace selectionon that score. Nonadaptive saltations(jumps,whatwe todaywould call "macromutations")would do the job forevolution.HeavilyChristian that Asa Gray(41) thought botanist likeAmerican evolutionists wanted selectioncould not fully explainadaptationand so they As Darwin said, this rathermade (God-) directedvariations. naturalselectionredundant. muchless So after1859,itwas evolution selection, yes;natural so. This meantthatthedreamthatDarwin had had of founding based on natural a professional scienceof evolutionary studies, was selection,neverreallygot offthe ground.There certainly thataroundthe German evolutionism, particularly professional a lot ofwhatwas ErnstHaeckel (42). But,increasingly, biologist tales were spun as fantabulous producedlost touchwithreality law,ontogeny phyrecapitulates biogenetic usingthe unreliable paradoxthatthechief logeny.In Britainyou had the incredible in the second halfof the 19thcentury, evolutionist post-Origin on postsecondary in and highly influential a mandeeplyinvolved to his evolution nevertaught Thomas HenryHuxley, education, and on physiology shouldconcentrate students. He thought they morphology (29). So evolutionbecame the subjectof the popular lecturehall, British Association men's clubs and the public-friendly working forthe Advancement of Science, and the leadingevolutionists E. to the museums. movedfrom theuniversities Huxleystudent Ray Lankesterran the BritishMuseum (Natural History)in London and Huxley studentHenry FairfieldOsborn ran the in New York. And what AmericanMuseum of NaturalHistory you want in museumsare displays,with an educational and cultural displays message.So thisis whatwas supplied.Terrific of fossils, especiallyof all of those dinosaursnow beingdiscovered and brought back fromthe AmericanWest,and all put in a progressive thatlifemayhave started fashionto demonstrate as blobs but thatit ends as humans,especially whitehumans. Finally, ^1930 came the move from popular science to the science. Firsttherewere the mathematicians, professional mentioned above. Then came the empirpopulationgeneticists and naturalists, who put fleshon the icists,the experimenters, mathematical bones: E. B. Ford and his school in Britainand in the Theodosius Dobzhansky and his fellow evolutionists United States. Now we had university gradposts,researchers, else uate students and grants, and everything journals,societies, we associate with professionalscience, and not just at the based sociologicallevel,because theworkproducedwas firmly on empiricalstudieswith mathematical models doing the excoherplaining.The epistemicvirtuesof science (consistency, and weretakenseriously ence,predictability, fertility, simplicity) ofworkwas judgedbyitssuccessagainstthesevirtues. theworth to whichcontinues And right at the heartwas naturalselection,
Ruse

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thisday.Here,againthenDarwinhas made a majorcontribution cally,one thinks of social Darwinism, a movement thatcovered to evolutionary studies. many different ideologies and that generallyowed more to HerbertSpencerthanto CharlesDarwin (49). When,to take a Was There a Darwinian Revolution? Metaphysics von particularly egregiousexample,German generalFriedrich in thebroadersense,theside Whatof theDarwinianrevolution Bernhardi is right (50) claimedthatDarwin showedthatmight view of ourselves,our place in and thatthe Motherland has almostan obligation to seize from dealingwithour metaphysical nature?Here, Darwinwas crucially ifnotcompletely its neighbors, he owed littleto the old evolutionist important who had successful. He himself was stone-cold certain that we humansare workedawayin his study in the Englishcountryside. One might His experience withthenative as muchcreditPlato because the doctrine partoftheworldofnature. people more closelyresemthebottom of SouthAmerica,theTierradel Fuegians,had from bled the thinking of Thrasymachus in the Republic.Today one himof that(43). And he made his case publicly, convinced as is has similar divisions. For instance, PeterSinger(51) philosopher not in the Origin(whichwas somewhat well known, reticent on has claimed the authority of Darwin foran explicitly left-wing thehumanquestion)butin theDescentofMan, publishedsome manifesto. Philosopher LarryArnhart (52) has no less enthusi12 yearslaterin 1871 (44). However,now we mustask what it view of asticallyclaimed Darwin's support for a right-wing meansto put ourselvesin nature.There are 3 possibleanswers. society. itcan simply be to make humanspartof thenaturalorder First, Second, it mustbe appreciatedthat (apart fromthose who ofthings. We are ruledbythelawsof physics and chemistry and the naturalistic reject programin itself)there are those who else. Second, it can be just like anything biologyand so forth thatnatural selection is nottheappropriate toolto analyze argue was thechiefcausal forcemaking humannature. thatnatural selection showing a lot of social scientists think butso this, Clearly us whatwe are, and perhaps that selectionis stillsignificant. also do The Harvard geneticist Richard prominent biologists. fromanything Third,it can be to claimthatwe are no different a committed is one who denies thatevoluMarxist, An oak tree,a warthog,a human, Lewontin, else,at leastinvalue or worth. is the to Homo sapiens.He tionary biology key understanding and axiologically theyare the same. ontologically rather foreconomicand likeforces It maywellbe that opts (53). of the first of theseclaims,ifyou think of If you are thinking thelate StephenJay Gould sharedhissentiments. Withsomefew as an attempt to makehumans theDarwinianrevolution entirely ElliottSober (54) who has not onlyargued notably exceptions, in the sense of producedand working natural, accordingto the forthe influenceof selectionon our modes of in the thinking same laws of natureas everyone else, one can truly say thatfor realmof sciencebutwho has also coauthoreda defense spirited has succeeded and Darwin played manypeople thisrevolution in thenatural of the selection-basednature of human morality(55), the a majorrolein itssuccess.The Origin putus firmly feels negatively inclinedto the seleccommunity up theDescentof Man was a major philosophical pictureand thenfollowing The are thought tion-explains-humans program. particulars froma naturalistic of humankind covering perspective, analysis Lisa Lloyd (56) launcheda heavy philosopher butalso our moralbeliefsand social wrong;feminist frames notjustour physical No one wouldwantto saythat attack on the putativebiological basis of the human female natures and intellectual generally. the overallprogram is declared orgasm.But more importantly itwas Darwin alone. Huxleyand hisMan's Place in Nature(18) and who think Even those there be ideological inadequate. might backthenand ofcoursetherehavebeen literally was a keyfigure of a selection-basedapproach to human nature since.But a possibility in and out of biology, of othercontributors, hundreds thatthequality oftheworkproducedthusfar Darwin deserveshis name up there.Even those who may not declareregretfully fallsfarshortof the standardsof adequate science (57, 58). to seem muchcare forthe workactually agree beingproduced We come to the third claim,namelythatwe humansare not take one and thatitmust is theright thatthenaturalistic program in any way special. You mightthinkthat provingthis was evolutioninto account. Althoughhavingsaid this,it mustbe neverto use the after all, he did cautionhimself thatthereare manyforwhom thisprogramis unac- Darwin'sintent; admitted this on the of his and "lower" terms or Darwin has succeeded flyleaf that (writing "higher" who would and deny ceptable, indeed could succeed. The officialCatholic position,for in- copy of Vestiges)and the mechanismof natural selection is Whatis itbetter to be, theAIDS virus ifnotegalitarian. stance,is thatwe have souls and theseare createdand inserted nothing thereare few or a lowlandgorilla?Speakingpurely humanzygotes(45). intohumanframes, biologically, actually, miraculously it cannot be gainsaid for the who would all that However, the end of is but one And thisobviously ape. speak up goes spectrum it of the Darwinianrevolution the kind of directedevolutionallowed by thatifthiswas indeed the intent of the way,through He alwaysthought of of the intelligent some members designtheorists (46), acrossto would have been newsto Darwin himself. who thinkthat humans humansas being at the top of the tree of life and European the hard-line youngearth creationists branchesof all (6, 29). Indeed, humansas beingon the highest on the sixthday (47). were createdmiraculously that he added material suggesting Second,whatabout naturalselection?Again,Darwin is very in latereditionsof the Origin and ultimately to intelligence. thanjust the natu- natural selectionleads to progress perhapsindeed more important important, call "arms races" where ralismpart.The Descentof Man showed in detail how natural He invokedwhattoday'sevolutionists selection(combinedwithsexual selection)is a crucialexplana- linescompeteagainsteach other,improving adaptationsin the and ofas human, we think thiswould lead to intellibehindmuchthat factor physical, tory process,and argued that eventually mostnotablyin gence and progress. social. This is a path thatmanyhave followed, recenttimesby HarvardbiologistEdward O. Wilson in his On the If we take as the standardof high organisation, Human Nature (48), a work that covers morality, religion, of the sevand differentiation amount of specialization a hard-line is not Wilson more. much and evolutionary conflict, eral organs in each being when adult (and this will but he does arguethat(in his language) the twigis determinist, include the advancementof the brain for intellectual bent.The humanmindis not a tabula rasa but shaped by the in the evolutionworkers purposes), natural selection clearlyleads towardthis of naturalselection.And many forces admitthatthe specializastandard:forall physiologists from would field physical anthropologists agree, today ary tion of organs,inasmuchas in thisstate theyperform human behavioral ecologistsand on to evolutionary through is an advantageto each being;and functions their better, psychologists. hence the accumulationof variationstendingtoward mustbe expressed.First,muchthat However,2 reservations is within the scope of naturalselection. has been claimedin the name of Darwinianselectionbears but specialisation Darwin (59) to the programof the Descent.Historia passingresemblance
Ruse PNAS | June16, 2009 | vol.106 | suppl. 1 | 10043

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

did not rely on Althoughmost of Darwin's contemporaries assumedthatevoluselection, too, virtually they, automatically tion was progressive, with humans at the top. One possible was the older Thomas HenryHuxleywho in 1893,2 exception yearsbeforehis death,arguedthatevolutionis not progressive and that if we are to succeed morallywe must conquer the evolved beast within(60). Perhaps even he thoughtwe are special it is just thatwe mustuse our evolvedmoralsenses and to claim our rightful intelligence places at the top. scientists are Wheredo we stand today?Few actual working goingto make any such claims,especiallynot in theirscience. Simon The exceptions, paleontologist people liketheCambridge ConwayMorris(61) who arguesthatthereare nichesand that seek themout and occupythemand thatat the topic organisms is the intelligence-cultural niche thatwe humansuniquelyhave forbooks thatare aimed tendto keep such speculations found, at thegeneralaudience.Moreover, thereare those,StephenJay who would say that Gould (62, 63) was a leader in thisrespect, shows thereis no progressand thatthe Darwinian revolution natural selection is not a that there cannot be. Ultimately, mechanism. So we could say thatthe Darprogress-producing winianrevolution does provethe nonspecialstatusof humans, and finally todaypeople recognizethe fact.However,thismay thatstill A case can be made forsaying notbe the entiretruth. is of progress leadingto humans. todaythe popularperception That was Gould's lament. Surveyssuggestthat this is what to evolution, tendto teach even thosefavorable schoolteachers, to theirstudents(64). And museumsas oftenas not give the same impression. Go to the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle in Parisand find thatthedisplay starts withblobsand endswith you Ifyou are in anydoubtas to themessage, on television. yourself the floor above has a displayof technology fromthe crudest to the sophisticated formsthatwe have today. beginnings Summing up: Darwin played a major role in movingus to a naturalistic view of human nature,althoughthere are those if not alwaysworking froma religiousperspective) (generally who would deny that this can ever be done completelyand Darwinplayedno less (and perhapsmoreof) a role successfully. in convincing people that natural selection is the key causal in molding factor and perhapstodaycontrolling humannature, one shouldbe waryof all thatis claimed in his name although and now thereare manymorecritics (not necessarily religious) who are uncomfortable withthisprogram and would rejectit in thatDarwinpaved partor inwhole.One can make an argument thewayfora view of humankind thatgivesus no special status hereon thisearth, thiswas certainly notDarwin'sown although aim and, especiallyin the public domain, beliefs privileging humanspersisttoday.

can be shownthespecial consequenceof another theory. theory ofgases (Boyle'slaw themacroscopic understanding Supposedly and so forth)could be showna special instanceof the kinetic of gases. theory viewofThomas On theotherhand,we have therevolutionary we Kuhn (3). Here, thechangeis abrupt.In Kuhn'sterminology is no and there to from one another, continuity. paradigm go to another, one paradigm from Hence, thechangeofviewpoint, can neverbe fueled by reason. It alwayshas to be more of a conversionexperience.This is the reason there is oftensuch There is no commonor shared betweenscientists. bitter fighting set of beliefsthat can be decisive.As with politicaldisputes, theirown system. everyonearguesfromwithin blandintoa gray to homogenize Without everything wanting to say that ness, it is probable thatboth positionshave things throwlighton Darwin and his achievements. Clearly,as the would lead one to expect,in some respects logical empiricists withnew ones. If you think old positions Darwin was replacing the violently for instanceof Darwin's old friendand mentor, Adam antievolutionist, Sedgwick Cambridge paleontologist ofthefossil thatSedgwick's reading saying (67), Darwinis simply will recordis wrong.Sedgwickarguesthatthereare and always real breaksin the be gaps in therecordand thattheserepresent of Darwin is saying that the gaps are artifacts continuity. and thattherewerebridging fossilization organisms, incomplete thatshouldneverstop us even ifwe neverfindthem,although holdsforthe An analogousargument in thepursuit ofsuchlinks. period.At the timeof theOrigin, problemof the pre-Cambrian absence thisperiodand their at all from there wereno organisms The was rightly taken as a major problemforDarwin's theory. werehighly of all, liketrilobites, earliestorganisms complexand on havejust arrived How could they invertebrates. sophisticated the scene? Sedgwick said simplythat there were no preDarwin said that theyhad existed.Two Cambrianorganisms. was accepted, and as Darwin's overalltheory views conflicting was pushedout.Today we have manysuchorganisms, Sedgwick and we knowthatDarwinwas right (68). We had a simplecase one and theright and theotherwrong, ofone theory beingright pushingout the wrongone. What about reduction? One does not see anycases of whole but ifyou look at positionsbeingtakenup by Darwin's theory, does not therangeofotherpre-Origin talkofreduction positions, Thinkof the positionof someone seem entirely inappropriate. like RichardOwen, deeplyinfluenced bytheNaturphilosophen. In a worklike On theNature ofLimbs (69), it is hardto sayifhe is actuallyendorsing evolution;the answeris thathe probably was butthathe wantedto be sufficiently to escape the ambiguous critics. (Even as it was, Sedgwickwas highly suspicious.)More Owen certainly does notdenyadaptation, importantly, although WasThere a Darwinian Revolution! he stresses in a very homology bigway.NowwhenDarwincomes Finally,how does one analyze conceptuallywhat happened alongwiththeOrigin, he is certainly notgoingto stress homology because oftheOrigin with2 basic theories over all other ofSpecies?Let us start as did Owen,but he is notgoingto denyit things of theory traditional either.Most change. On one hand,we have the fairly he arguesthatit followsas a conseinterestingly, like Ernest Nagel view, represented by the logical empiricists of evolutionthrough naturalselection. quence (65) and Carl Hempel (66). This viewtendsto stress continuity, with movesmade driven It is generally thatall organicbeingshave bytheevidenceand reason.To a certain acknowledged therewillbe replacement been formedon two great laws: unityof typeand the of old theories truer extent, bynewer, theories. Something like this happened when Copernicus conditionsof existence.By unityof typeis meantthat knocked out Ptolemy.But therewill probablybe continuity. fundamental whichwe see in agreementin structure, Therewas in theCopernicancase. It was thesame worldthatthe organic beings of the same class and which is quite two were describing: the same earth,the same sun, the same of theirhabitsof life.On mytheory, independent unity of typeis explainedbyunity of descent.The expression moon,the same planets,the same stars.Both sides agreed that circular motion mustbe preserved. Bothsidesused epicycles of conditionsof existence,so ofteninsistedon by the and deferents. It is true thatalmostall of thiswas changed as the illustrious embracedby the principle of Cuvier,is fully of science was evolutionary not naturalselection.For naturalselection acts by either yearswenton, but the growth You can have revolutions, but theyare gradual now adapting the varyingparts of each being to its revolutionary. not abrupt, and important is the notionof reduction, whenone organic and inorganicconditionsof life; or by having when one theoryis absorbed in another,or more accurately adapted them duringlong-pastperiods of time: the
10044 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/IO.IOya/pnas.OSOIOmoe Ruse

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

than George Darwin, Charles Darwin's mathematically beingaided in some cases byuse and disuse, gifted adaptations son. So CharlesDarwinwas not allowedto forget or escape the affected actionoftheexternal beingslightly bythedirect conditions of life,and beingin all cases subjectedto the had to problem.However,even thoughin the end theysimply several laws of growth. thatthe Hence, in fact,the law of the disagree,neitherCharles Darwin nor Kelvin thought was personalor ideological.Itwasjustnotthatsort of existenceis the higher conditions law; as it includes, disagreement of difference the inheritance of former of (78). So in thesense thatthereweredifferences through adaptations,thatof thatsort,differences wherebecause of rivalmetaphysical views of type. unity Darwin (16) people talked past each other,one could claim that the Darwinianrevolution was Kuhnian. is all about.Darwinwouldnothave Thisiswhattheory reduction There is another is insightful. A wayinwhichKuhn'sthinking But therewas conaccepted everyaspect of Owen's thinking. within whicha scientist that works, paradigmis a worldpicture, with olderideas beingabsorbedintonewerones,and this tinuity, and whichseems obvious giveshimor her tasksforthe future, to note about Darwin and hisworkand his or certainin some sense. Obviousor certainin thesense that is an important thing (as importance. just noted) you cannotsee thepointofviewof othersnotin the some for the Kuhnian view. Take Now letus express sympathy paradigm(79). Think again of the divide in biologybetween and pickup on thepointwhereDarwin formalism ofhomology thequestion and functionalism and put it in a broaderhistorical would breakwithOwen. Huxley(70) brings context.As Aristotle and his supporters pointed out, on one hand we have the out thisoppositionin his Croonian lectureon the vertebrate whathe called finalcauses,meaning adaptiveside to organisms, skull,given at the Royal Society the year before the Origin thatthepartsfunction forthebenefit of thewhole.On theother appeared. He faultedOwen forbeing an idealistratherthan a wherethepartsmay hand,we have homologies(isomorphisms) naturalist, claiming(correctly)that for Owen the archetype well be used fordifferent ends. Down through the ages people ic pattern rather than something have continuedto note these2 sides to representsa divine platn and interestorganisms, produced purelyby mechanical laws. As it happens, he also inglypeople tend not to be ecumenical on the matter.Like that this led Owen to see more than was claimed correctly are partisans forone side or theother.Eitherthey Darwin,they verthe skullis made fromtransformed that namely with formsecondaryor formwith function justified, opt for function tebrae,a claim thatDarwin had accepted and thathe dropped secondary.What is fascinating is the way thatthisdividegoes evolution- right beforetheOrigin At the beginning appeared.The pointis that, across the Darwinian revolution. of the smartly ist or not, Owen did have a vision of the world that was who did not accept evolution, 19thcentury one had formalists fromthatof Darwin. And it persisted many of the Naturphilosophen different for instance.The philosopher fundamentally in knotsover the hippocam- Hegel (80) is a case in point.One also had functionalists as he tied himself afterthe Origin, whodid or notin humansand apes (71). It was notthefacts not accept evolution. anatomist The greatFrenchcomparative pus,present visionsof reality. as such thatcounted,but different Georges Cuvier (81), with his theoryabout the conditionsof Kuhnian going on, existence So in this sense, we do have something was one tiedto final-cause thinking), (thathe explicitly different we have people who suchperson.Then at thetimeof theOrigin paradigmsif you will. But note that it is not just a not of crossedthe evolutionary but dividewho were one or the other, question of evolutionor not evolution,and certainly matterof biblical notboth.Darwinwas a hard-line selectionor not selection.Nor is it a simply functionalist. That is thewhole in the American point of naturalselection.Huxleyequallywas a hard-line There were literalists, literalism. forincreasingly South,butbyand largethisis not an issue in thedebate around malist(82). That's whyhe could not see muchneed of natural had moreto do witha defenseof slavery selection. Today, the differences Literalism the Origin. persist. Take the 2 great of fossils(20, 72). The big religious popularizersof evolution,EnglishmanRichard Dawkins and thanwiththeinterpretation all acceptedan old and BishopWilberforce likeSedgwick critics has Gould. Dawkins(83, 84) is and always American StephenJay was "man'splace in nature"that earthand a lotmore.It is rather For him,it is adaptationall of the been an ardentfunctionalist. Darwin'sgreat wayand theonlyproblem natural He thinks at stake.Owenwas on one side. So was Sedgwick. worth solving. really Asa Graywas on thisside,too, a pointthat selectionis a universallaw of nature.Gould (63, 85, 86) was American supporter thatGray'sappeal to directed notoriously Darwin saw,whenhe grumbled ambivalentabout natural selection and function, out of the realmof science.And and he took the discussion variations it a holdoverfromEnglish naturaltheology, thinking This was the centralmessageof we could include more, especially Darwin's old friend the again and again stressedform. Richard withgeneticist cowritten paperon spandrels, geologistCharles Lyell,who staggeredacross the evolutionary hisfamous Lewontin(87). line but bitterly having"to go thewhole orang" (73). regretted I would arguethatin a real sense we have Kuhnianparadigm On theotherside,we have Darwin and Huxley(forall thatthe there And also of the differences latter visions,unable to bridge selection). significance operatinghere. Different downplayed a host of the gap (88). I findit interesting thatmetaphorsare involved, was Joseph Hooker, the botanist,and increasingly in paradigm thinkas beingimportant thatKuhn stresses who did not depend on churchappointments things workers younger in a secular ing. We have the organic world as a human artifact.[See incomesand whowantedto workand think fortheir book on Darwin's use of thismetaphorin the littlepost-Origin fashion. of Kuhn,thisis wherewe tendto getthe orchids(89).] We also have the organicworld as a snowflake And in confirmation to thenewspaper [Kant's 1790picture irateletters nastiness: [used byWhewell(91)]. (90)] or as a crystal Sedgwick (74, 75) writing withthe thissense of paradigmdoes not fitexactly aboutDarwin'smethodology; (76) sneering Admittedly, BishopWilberforce Revoluhe could to senses of paradigmfoundin the Structure Owen (77) doing everything at Huxley'sancestry; of Scientific of bothsides do recognizesome of the merits give the Darwinians a bad name; and so forth.There were tions.For a start, are that the to think is hard did the side. It other but the the about debates science, ontologies rarely certainly vigorous For a second, with respectto the same different. science itselfcause unpleasantness.It was always (as in the completely With in and out ofdifferent could be 2 of the cause in the the over paradigms. bigger things people brain) squabble Huxley-Owen Owen and Huxleywere dividedover the is the age-of-the-earth respectto homology, picture.Very instructive metaphysical that to thinking WilliamThompson(later Lord Kelvin) did idealistic/naturalistic issues,and yetwithrespect question.Physicist than function, but homologymore important notmuchlikeDarwin'snaturalistic theywere together. approachto humankind, the 2 paradigms(without to the longtimespan thatDarwin needed. Third, perhaps most importantly, he objectedpublicly the ages. downthrough As it happens,Thompson'sresearchassistantwas none other prejudice,let us call themthis)persist,
RuSe PNAS I June 16, 2009 | vol. 106 | suppl. 1 | 10045

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

It is nota matter ofone beating out theother.It is truethattoday functionalism has the upper hand,but things could change. In have moved,withevolutionary fact,in the past 20 yearsthings enthusiasts development comingonside in a verystrong wayfor formalism. The homologies they find,for instance between humans'and fruitf lies' geneticsequences,strike themas absofundamental and calling fora totalrevision ofevolutionary lutely thinking. The homologies of processwithin fields morphogenetic providesome of the bestevidenceforevolution, just as skeletal and organ homologiesdid earlier. Thus, the evidenceforevolutionis betterthan ever. The role of naturalselectionin evolution, is seen to play however, for unsucless an important role. It is merelya filter cessful morphologies generated by development. Populationgenetics is destined to changeifitis notto become as irrelevant to evolution as Newtonianmechanicsis to contemporary physics. Gilbertet al. (92) We shallhave to see howthisall pans out.An ardentDarwinian like me is less than overwhelmed (93, 94). But then I am an ardentfunctionalist, so I am proofof the point I am making about the divide.Obviously, the ideas do persistand notjust as fossils.

Conclusion
If the pointbeingmade now is well taken,thenperhapsHodge was rightall along. There was no Darwinian revolution. The ofform and function wentinbeforeDarwinand came paradigms out after Darwin.This takenas a generalconclusion is obviously false.Because of Darwin and theOrigin ofSpecies,majorthings did happen in biologicalscience. Less paradoxically, let us say that a complex phenomenon like the Darwinian revolution demandsmanylevels of understanding. will Bluntinstruments failus as we tryto understand scientific change.It is necessary
1. Ruse M (1979) The Darwinian Revolution:Science Red in Tooth and C/aw(UnivChicago Press,Chicago). 2. Hodge MJS(2005) Against "revolution" and "evolution." J Hist Biol 38:101-124. 3. Kuhn T (1962) The Structureof Scientific Revolutions(Univ Chicago Press,Chicago). 4. Desmond A (1999) Huxley:FromDevil's Disciple to Evolution'sHigh Priest(Basic Books, New York). 5. RichardsRJ(1987) Darwin and the Emergence of EvolutionaryTheories of Mind and Behavior (Univ Chicago Press,Chicago). 6. RichardsRJ(1992) The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Constructionand of Darwin's Theory(Univ Chicago Press,Chicago). Ideological Reconstruction 7. Richards RJ (2003) The RomanticConception of Life:Science and Philosophyin the Age of Goethe (Univ Chicago Press,Chicago). 8. Richards RJ(2008) The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle Over EvolutionaryThought (Univ Chicago Press,Chicago). 9. Bowler PJ(1976) Fossilsand Progress(Science History Publications,New York). 10. Bowler PJ(1984) Evolution: The History of an Idea (Univ CaliforniaPress,Berkeley). 11. Bowler PJ(1988) 77?eNon-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth (JohnsHopkins Univ Press. Baltimore). 12. Bowler PJ(1996) Life'sSplendid Drama (Univ Chicago Press,Chicago). 13. ProvineWB (1971) The Originsof TheoreticalPopulation Genetics(UnivChicago Press, Chicago). 14. Provine WB (1986) Sewall Wrightand Evolutionary Biology (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago). 15. Dennett DC (1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Simon and Schuster,New York). 16. Darwin C (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservationof Favored Races in the Struggle forExistence (John Murray,London). 17. Young RM (1985) Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in VictorianCulture(Cambridge UnivPress,Cambridge, UK). 18. Huxley TH (1863) Evidenceas to Man's Place in Nature (Williamsand Norgate, London). 19. Ruse M (2001) Can a Darwinian be a Christian?The RelationshipBetween Science and Religion (Cambridge Univ Press,Cambridge, UK). 20. Ruse M (2005) The Evolution-CreationStruggle (Harvard UnivPress,Cambridge, MA). 21 . BrackmanAC (1980) A Delicate Arrangement:The Strange Case of CharlesDarwin and AlfredRssel Wallace (Times Books, New York). 22. EiseleyL (1958) Darwin's Century: Evolutionand the Men Who Discovered It (Doubleday, New York).

as we try to tease strandsapart and considerthemindividually and to assess whatis goingon. to understand thus far here) There are other controversies (unmentioned notjusttheevents directly veryactivetoday.Oftentheseinvolve around Darwin but aspects of the broader picture.Robert J. to the Richards (who has been noted as a major contributor that the of post-Darwinian biology)argues history evolutionary by the German evolutionist period, especiallythat influenced Ernst Haeckel, was much more pure-Darwinianthan people in thatDarwinwas deeplyRomantic He thinks have recognized. thatcame from histhinking, influenced Germany bythecurrents and thatafterthe Origin at the beginning of the 19thcentury, on to and building responding people like Haeckel were simply oftheperiod was alreadythere(7, 9). Otherstudents thatwhich that(as Karl Marx thinking disagreestrongly, myself) (including and noted) Darwin was quintessential^Englishin his thinking to non-Darwinian thatit is right to see Haeckel as responding an attitude thatinflected themes, biologyuntilthe evolutionary on the centers of the 1930s (95). Anothercontroversy synthesis ofPeterJ.Bowler(also notedabove as workand interpretations He agrees that post-Darwinian a major contributor). thought thatitwas thinks buthe nevertheless was deeplynon-Darwinian, intothesynthesis. scienceand thatit fedsmoothly good-quality the former Indeed the latterwould not have occurredwithout me, disagreestrongly, arguing (11, 12). Others,again including was oftenreally thatpost-Darwinian poorbiology evolutionary unHaeckel in spinning following qualityscience (notoriously and palesustainableanalogiesbetweenembryology, ontogeny, of the 1930shad and thatthe synthesizers ontology, phylogeny) of the to the thinking to cleanse the Augean stablesand return withthenewgenetics)beforefurther Origin (melded admittedly advance was possible (29). mustbe the topic of another These controversies, however, essay. Here, I rest confidentthat I have shown why,for a the Darwinian of science,analyzing philosopherand historian revolution is such a worthwhile challenge.
23. Secord JA(2000) VictorianSensation: The Extraordinary Publication,Reception,and Secret Authorshipof Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago). 24. Chambers R (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Churchill, London). 25. Darwin C, Wallace AR (1958) Evolution by Natural Selection (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK). 26. Ruse M (1975) Charles Darwin and artificial selection. J Hist Ideas 36:339-350. 27. BlythE (1835) An attempt to classify the "varieties" of animals, with observationson the marked seasonal and other changes which naturallytake place in various British species, and which do not constitutevarieties. Magazine Nat HistJZool Bot Mineral Geol Meteorol 8:40-53. 28. Spencer H (1852) A theory of population, deduced fromthe general law of animal Westminster Rev 1: 468-501. fertility. 29. Ruse M (1996) Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in EvolutionaryBiology (Harvard Univ Press.Cambridqe. MA). 30. RobertsJH(1988) Darwinismand the Divine in America: ProtestantIntellectualsand Organic Evolution, 1859-1900 (Univ Wisconsin Press,Madison). 31. Artigas M, Martinez TF, GlickRA (2006) Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902 (JohnsHopkins Univ Press,Baltimore). 32. HerschelJFW(1830) Preliminary Discourse on the Studyof Natural Philosophy(Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown,Green, and Longman, London). 33. Whewell W (1837) The History of the InductiveSciences (Parker,London). 34. Whewell W (1840) The Philosophyof the InductiveSciences (Parker,London). 35. Ruse M (1975) Darwin's debt to philosophy:An examination of the influenceof the philosophical ideas of JohnF. W. Herscheland WilliamWhewell on the development of Charles Darwin's theoryof evolution. Stud HistPhilos Sci 6:159-181. 36. MalthusTR (1826) An Essayon the Principle of Population (Everyman, London), 6th Ed. 37. Wallace AR (1870) Contributions to the Theoryof Natural Selection: A Series of Essays (Macmillan, London). 38. Greg WR (1868). On the failure of "natural selection" in the case of man. Fraser's Magazine. September:353-362. 39. Burchf ield JD(1975) Lord Kelvinand the Age of the Earth(Science History Publications, New York). 40. HuxleyTH (1884) The Darwinian hypothesis.Collected Essays:Darwiniana (MacMillan, London), pp 1-21. 41. GrayA (1876) Darwiniana (Appleton, New York). 42. Haeckel E (1866) General Morphology of Organisms(Georg Reimer,Berlin).

10046

| www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/IO.IOya/pnas.OQOIOinoe

Ruse

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

43. Darwin C (1969) Autobiography,ed Barlow N (Norton, New York). 44. Darwin C (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (John Murray, London). 45. JohnPaul II (1997) The Pope's message on evolution. 0 Rev Biol 72:377-383. 46. Behe M (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The BiochemicalChallenge to Evolution(Free Press, New YorlcV 47. WhitcombJC, MorrisHM (1961) The GenesisFlood: The BiblicalRecordand ItsScientific and ReformedPublishing,Philadelphia). Implications(Presbyterian 48. Wilson EO (1978) On Human Nature (Harvard Univ Press,Cambridge, MA). 49. Ruse M (2000) The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Controversies(ABC-CLIO,Santa Barbara, CA). 50. von BerhardiF (1912) Germanyand the Next War (Edward Arnold, London). 51. SingerP (2000) A Darwinian Left:Politics, Evolution,and Cooperation (Yale UnivPress, New Haven, CT). 52. ArnhartL (2005) Darwinian Conservativism Academic, Exeter,UK). (Imprint 53. LevinsR,LewontinRC (1985) The Dialectical Biologist(HarvardUnivPress,Cambridge, MA). 54. Sober E (1981) The evolution of rationality. Synthese46:95-120. 55. Sober E, Wilson DS (1997) Unto Others: The Evolutionof Altruism (Harvard UnivPress, Cambridge. MA). 56. Lloyd EA (2005) The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution (Harvard Univ Press,Cambridge, MA). ana we Persistent 57. Buiieru (uvb) Adapting Minas: tvoiutionaryPsychology Quest ror Human Nature (MIT Press,Cambridge, MA). 58. RichardsonRC (2007) EvolutionaryPsychologyas Ma adapted Psychology(MIT Press, Cambridge,MA). 59. Peckham M, ed (1959) The Originof Species by CharlesDarwin: A VariorumText(Univ PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia). 60. HuxleyTH (1893) Evolution and Ethics;reprinted(2009), ed Ruse M (PrincetonUniv Press,Princeton). 61. Conway Morris S (2003) Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (Cambridge Univ Press,Cambridge, MA). 62. Gould SJ (1988) On replacing the idea of progress with an operational notion of Progress,ed NiteckiMH (Univ Chicago Press,Chicago), pp directionality. Evolutionary 319-338. 63. Gould SJ(1989) WonderfulLife:The BurgessShale and the Nature of History (Norton, New York). 64. Zimmerman M (1987) The evolution-creation controversy:Opinions of Ohio high school biology teachers. Ohio J Sci 87:1 15-124. of Science, Problemsin the Logic of Scientific 65. Nagel E (1961) The Structure Explanation (Harcourt,Brace and World, New York). 66. Hempel CG (1966) Philosophyof NaturalScience (Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ). of Cambridge(Cambridge 67. SedgwickA (1850) Discourseon the Studiesat the University UnivPress,Cambridge, UK), 5th Ed. 68. Knoll A (2003) Life on a Young Planet: The FirstThree Billion Years of Evolution on Earth(PrincetonUniv Press,Princeton).

69. Owen R (1849) On the Nature of Limbs(Voorst, London). 70. Huxley TH (1857-1859) On the theory of the vertebrate skull. Croonian Lecture delivered before the Rovai tarietv lune 17 1RS PrnrR nr Y-3ft1-A<;7 71 . Rupke NA (1994) RichardOwen: Victorian Naturalist(Yale UnivPress,New Haven, CT). 72. Noll M (2002) America's God: FromJonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (Oxford Univ Press,New York). 73. Wilson LG,ed (1970) SirCharlesLyell'sScientific Journalson the Species Question (Yale Univ Press,New Haven, CT). 74. Sedgwick A (24 March,1860) Objections to Mr.Darwin'stheoryof the originof species. The Spectator 285-286. 75. Sedgwick A (7 April,1860) Objections to Mr. Darwin's theoryof the originof species. The Spectator 334-335. 76. Huxley L (1900) The Lifeand Lettersof Thomas HenryHuxley(Macmillan, London). 77. Owen R (1860) Darwin on the origin of species. EdinburghRev 111:487-532. 78. Burchfield JD (1974) Darwin and the dilemma of geological time. Isis 65:300-321. 79. Ruse M (1999) Mystery of Mysteries:Is Evolutiona Social Construction? (HarvardUniv Press,Cambridge, MA). 80. Hegel GWF (1817) Philosophyof Nature (Oxford Univ Press,Oxford). 81. CuvierG (1817) The Kingdom of Animals ClassifiedAccordingto TheirOrganization, in Order to Give a Foundation to the Natural History of Animals and an Introduction to Comparative Anatomy (HenryG. Bohn, London). 82. HuxleyTH, Martin HN (1875) A Course of PracticalInstruction in ElementaryBiology (Macmillan, London). 83. Dawkins R (1976) The SelfishGene (Oxford Univ Press,Oxford). 84. Dawkins R (1986) The Blind Watchmaker(Norton, New York). 85. Gould SJ(1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny(Belknap, Cambridge, MA). 86. Gould SJ(2002) The Structure of EvolutionaryTheory(HarvardUnivPress,Cambridge, MA). 87. Gould SJ,Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critiqueof the adaptationist program.Proc R Soc London Ser B 205:581-598. 88. Ruse M (2003) Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? (Harvard Univ Press,Cambridge, MA). 89. Darwin C (1862) On the VariousContrivances and ForeignOrchidsAre by WhichBritish Fertilizedby Insects,and On the Good Effects of Intercrossing (JohnMurray, London). 90. Kant I (1951) Critiqueof Judgement(Haffner,New York). 91 . Whewell W (2001 ) Of the Plurality of Worlds.A Facsimileof the First Editionof 1853: Plus Previously Beforethe Book Went UnpublishedMaterial Excisedby the AuthorJust to Press; and Whewell's Dialogue Rebutting His Critics, Reprinted fromthe Second Edition,ed Ruse M (Univ Chicago Press,Chicago). 92. GilbertSF, Opitz JM,RaffRA (1996) Resynthesizing evolutionaryand developmental biology. DevBiol 173:357-372. 93. Ruse M (2006) Forty years as a philosopher of biology: Why evo-devo makes me still excited about mysubject. Biol Theory*' 35-37. 94. Ruse M (2008) Charles Darwin (Blackwell,Oxford). 95. Ruse M (2004) The romanticconception of RobertJ.Richards.J HistBiol 37:3-23.

Ruse

PNAS

June 16, 2009

| vol. 106

suppl. 1

10047

This content downloaded from 168.176.162.35 on Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions