Is It a Myth That Darwin Rejected Design?
In the new book I’m reviewing here, Darwin Mythology: Debunking Myths, Correcting Falsehoods, the actual title of Michael Ruse’s chapter is “Myth 4: That Darwin Always Rejected the Argument from Design in Nature and Developed His Own Theory to Replace It.” (See my first post in this review series here.) I have never heard anyone claim that Darwin always rejected the argument from design, because before he came to believe in evolution in the late 1830s, he found William Paley’s natural theology — which was based on the argument from design — convincing. Many scholars — myself included — believe that as Darwin formulated his theory in the late 1830s, he rejected the argument from design and used natural selection as a way to explain how things could look designed without actually being designed. Ruse disagrees, claiming that Darwin still embraced design when he wrote The Origin of Species in 1859.
In his essay, the late Professor Ruse correctly explains that Darwin rejected theism and embraced deism in the 1830s, and he continued using deistic language in The Origin of Species. Deism is the idea that God created the cosmos and its natural laws, but thereafter did not intervene with miraculous events. Sometime after 1859 and before 1870, Ruse informs us, Darwin gave up on deism and embraced an agnostic position.
So Far, So Good
However, Ruse then makes the controversial — and misguided — claim that throughout this deistic phase of Darwin’s life — including during his writing of The Origin of Species — he continued to believe in the argument from design in nature. Ruse is correct that in Origin and in his correspondence, Darwin continued to admit that the universe and natural laws seem designed, and some kind of deistic God probably created those laws. However, Ruse then confuses this notion that the cosmos as a whole is designed with the idea that biological organisms exhibit design.
Strangely, Ruse even quotes from an 1860 letter that Darwin wrote to Harvard biologist Asa Gray. Darwin continually debated with Gray about the argument from design, with Darwin taking the position that organisms are not designed. Here is the passage Ruse quotes:
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. — I am bewildered. — I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do & as I sh[oul]d wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.
This is a clear expression of Darwin rejecting the design of organisms and their adaptations. Ruse, however, will not admit this, but instead inexplicably states, “The argument from design interpreted in a deistic manner seems still to have legs.” Really? Where? Darwin has just stated that he “cannot see . . . evidence of design,” and he denied that cats or eyes are designed.
An Untenable Position
Ruse’s position is simply untenable, especially if one reads even more of Darwin’s correspondence in the year or two after publishing Origin, where he directly confronted the issue of design.
In a July 1861 letter Darwin explained clearly his view of design:
The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is, without having been designed; yet, where one would most expect design, viz. in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think on the subject, the less I can see proof of design. Asa Gray and some others look at each variation, or at least at each beneficial variation (which A. Gray would compare with the rain drops which do not fall on the sea, but on to the land to fertilize it) as having been providentially designed. Yet when I ask him whether he looks at each variation in the rock-pigeon, by which man has made by accumulation a pouter or fantail pigeon, as providentially designed for man’s amusement, he does not know what to answer; and if he, or any one, admits these variations are accidental, as far as purpose is concerned (of course not accidental as to their cause or origin); then I can see no reason why he should rank the accumulated variations by which the beautifully adapted woodpecker has been formed, as providentially designed.1
So, while Darwin may have had a vague idea about the cosmos being designed, he clearly rejected the notion that biological organisms exhibited design.
Correspondence with Charles Lyell
Another example is an 1861 letter to his friend Charles Lyell, the founder of uniformitarian geology. Darwin discussed his disagreement with Gray, who believed that God guided variations. Darwin wrote:
The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make natural selection entirely superfluous, & indeed takes whole case of appearance of new species out of the range of science. . . . It seems to me that variations in the domestic & wild conditions are due to unknown causes & are without purpose & in so far accidental; & that they become purposeful only when they are selected by man for his pleasure, or by what we call natural selection in the struggle for life & under changing conditions.2
In this letter Darwin maintained that natural selection could explain purpose or design in organisms, thus rendering divine providence unnecessary.
As many scholars have argued, Darwin’s rejection of the argument from design preceded his publication of Origin by many years; it was not an afterthought.
Rather Awkward
Interestingly, at the close of his essay, Ruse puts forward an argument that is rather awkward in light of his overall point. He claims that Darwin — after writing Origin — “came to see that the variations produced by a deistic God are no less directed than the variations produced by a theistic God.” Ruse then states, “Natural selection makes guided variations unnecessary. No need to assume a Designer. Hence, even as it keeps the major premise, that organisms are as-if designed, natural selection destroys the argument from design.” (p. 55) Ruse never explains why he thinks Darwin did not understand this point already in the late 1830s as he developed his theory, as many other scholars have insisted.
In sum, Ruse admits that natural selection eliminates the need for design. However, he wrongly argues that Darwin did not fully understand that until after writing Origin.
Notes
Charles Darwin to Frances Julia Wedgwood, July 11, 1861, Darwin Correspondence Project,https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-3206.xml&query=design.
Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, August 1, 1861, Darwin Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-3223.xml&query=purpose
No comments:
Post a Comment