DOCSLIB.ORG

Systemic Darwinism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Systemic Darwinism Systemic Darwinism Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther* Philosophy Department, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 Edited by Peter Crane, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, and approved June 6, 2008 (received for review December 6, 2007) Darwin’s 19th century evolutionary theory of descent with mod- Systems Biology is one such productive interdisciplinary re- ification through natural selection opened up a multidimensional search program (2, 3). and integrative conceptual space for biology. We explore three However, Systemic Darwinism provides a significantly more dimensions of this space: explanatory pattern, levels of selection, general and integrative perspective on complex biological sys- and degree of difference among units of the same type. Each tems than Systems Biology. First, it highlights the astounding dimension is defined by a respective pair of poles: law and ontological complexity of biological reality: dynamical self- narrative explanation, organismic and hierarchical selection, and organizing systems (composed of hierarchical networks of parts) variational and essentialist thinking. As a consequence of concep- are genealogical and can therefore undergo selection. Systemic tual debates in the 20th century biological sciences, the poles of Darwinism thus follows a ‘‘compositional paradigm’’ according each pair came to be seen as mutually exclusive opposites. A to which complex systems together with their diverse hierarchical significant amount of 21st century research focuses on systems networks of parts—and not just basement parts—are considered (e.g., genomic, cellular, organismic, and ecological/global). Sys- the focus of biological investigation. temic Darwinism is emerging in this context. It follows a ‘‘compo- Second, Systemic Darwinism emphasizes epistemic complexity. sitional paradigm’’ according to which complex systems and their Although Systemic Darwinism does not seek to replace, or legislate hierarchical networks of parts are the focus of biological investi- over, ongoing local investigations across the biological sciences, it gation. Through the investigation of systems, Systemic Darwinism wishes to forestall radical fragmentation of biological theory. Its promises to reintegrate each dimension of Darwin’s original logical basic argument is that because biological systems are complex, a space. Moreover, this ideally and potentially unified theory of unified theoretical framework that coordinates, integrates, and biological ontology coordinates and integrates a plurality of math- even partially embeds a plurality of theories about systems is EVOLUTION ematical biological theories (e.g., self-organization/structure, cla- required to capture and manage this complexity. No single manner distics/history, and evolutionary genetics/function). Integrative of analyzing biological complexity can provide a complete repre- Systemic Darwinism requires communal articulation from a plural- sentation of biological reality. Insisting on the epistemic (i.e., ity of perspectives. Although it is more general than these, it draws explanatory and descriptive) completeness of any single theoretical on previous advances in Systems Theory, Systems Biology, and abstraction would lead to dangerous reifications. Hierarchy Theory. Systemic Darwinism would greatly further bio- Thus, the integration and ideal unification of a plurality of engineering research and would provide a significantly deeper and biological theories investigating the same basic entities/ more critical understanding of biological reality. processes—complex systems—are necessary for complete and nonreified scientific understanding and for effective means of biological theory ͉ ecology ͉ genetics ͉ evolution ͉ systems theory intervention. That is, Systemic Darwinism harnesses epistemic complexity to analyze and control ontological complexity. It There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several does this in two ways: powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling 1.1.1. Each pole of each dimension—and each dimension it- on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple self—of Darwin’s three-dimensional view of life is found a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most to be productive for theory and practice. Systemic Dar- wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. winism makes Darwin’s conceptual space whole. Ref. 1, p. 490. 1.1.2. Each of the three great 20th century mathematical bio- logical theories remains essential for articulating a general theory of biological systems: the theory of dynamical hus concludes Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of self-organization [a theory of complex structure (e.g., Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the T 4–7)], cladistics [a theory of biological history (e.g., Struggle for Life (hereafter referred to as On the Origin of 8–10)], and evolutionary genetics [a theory of adaptive Species). We interpret Darwin’s ‘‘view of life’’ as a conceptual function (e.g., 11–13)]. Systemic Darwinism coordinates, space consisting of three dimensions: explanatory pattern, levels integrates, and partially embeds these three explanatory of selection, and degree of difference among units of the same theories, in part through the use of the conceptual space type. Each respective dimension is defined by a pair of poles: law of 1.1.1. and narrative explanations, organismic and hierarchical selec- Moreover, the historical arc of this argument is: tion, and variational and essentialist thinking. Darwin’s integra- tive theory linking biological structure, history, and function was 1.2.1. Darwin lays out the logical space of evolutionary theory nursed and reared within this logical space. During the 20th in 1859. century, the poles of each pair came to be seen as mutually 1.2.2. As a consequence of conceptual debates in the 20th exclusive. Systemic Darwinism, emerging at the beginning of the century biological sciences, the poles of each pair come to 21st century, promises to reintegrate Darwin’s view of life. be seen as mutually exclusive opposites. We are, in all likelihood, at a historical cusp of biological theory. Exponential progress is being made in developing new interdisciplinary ways of conducting experiments, gathering Author contributions: R.G.W. wrote the paper. data, and articulating theory about systemic objects and pro- The author declares no conflict of interest. cesses at spatiotemporal scales and hierarchical levels ranging This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. from tiny genomic systems to midlevel cellular and organismic *E-mail: [email protected]. systems to truly immense ecological/global systems. The rise of © 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0711445105 PNAS ͉ August 19, 2008 ͉ vol. 105 ͉ no. 33 ͉ 11833–11838 Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 1.2.3. New ways of thinking about genomic, cellular, organismic, in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws and ecological/global systems at the beginning of the 21st acting around us. century promise to restructure Darwin’s view of life and Ref. 1, p. 489, emphasis added. to successfully integrate the 20th century’s three main Even in an entangled bank—even in a complex system—laws act mathematical biological theories. (Again, these two ef- and produce. Laws govern. forts intertwine.) A communal and explicit articulation of Now, his main goal in 1859 was to establish the plausibility and Systemic Darwinism is necessary to achieve this. empirical adequacy of descent with modification through natural In what follows, the three dimensions of Darwin’s view of life selection. Descent with modification was represented— are analyzed (i) in his work, (ii) in the 20th century, and (iii)in conceptually and in the only diagram in his 1859 book—as a Tree the context of 21st century Systemic Darwinism. In the conclu- of Life [which, today, we know can be reticulated (24)]. With sion, methodologies and directions useful for attaining Systemic respect to classification, Darwin observed: ‘‘. I believe this Darwinism are briefly sketched. element of descent is the hidden bond of connexion which naturalists have sought under the term of the Natural System’’ Explanatory Pattern: Law and Narrative. The iconic view of science (ref. 1, p. 433). Furthermore, concerning embryology, Darwin is that it fundamentally concerns mathematical laws (14, 15). wrote: ‘‘. community in embryonic structure reveals commu- These empirical generalizations and theoretical principles con- nity of descent’’ (ref. 1, p. 449). Thus, genealogy is a fundamental stitute the universal regularities of nature; moreover, they explanatory principle of biological systems. The models for this ground surprising and dangerous predictions. The more success- sort of explanation are narratives rather than laws sensu stricto. ful the law-based predictions of a science are, the more justified Darwin did not discuss predictive power in the physicists’ we are in believing its theories (16). In particular, physics is sense nor did he ever attempt to formalize laws (Darwinists were highly mathematical—consider the two great 20th century phys- to do that in the 20th century). However, his narrative-centered ical theories, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory. Al- view of life still provides precious understanding. In a passage though an absolute consensus about the importance of laws and indicative of his colonial prejudices,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aristotle's Essentialism Revisited
    University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 4-15-2013 Accommodating Species Evolution: Aristotle’s Essentialism Revisited Yin Zhang University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Zhang, Yin, "Accommodating Species Evolution: Aristotle’s Essentialism Revisited" (2013). Theses. 192. http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/192 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Accommodating Species Evolution: Aristotle’s Essentialism Revisited by Yin Zhang B.A., Philosophy, Peking University, 2010 A Thesis Submitted to The Graduate School at the University of Missouri – St. Louis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Philosophy May 2013 Advisory Committee Jon D. McGinnis, Ph.D. Chairperson Andrew G. Black, Ph.D. Berit O. Brogaard, Ph.D. Zhang, Yin, UMSL, 2013, p. i PREFACE In the fall of 2008 when I was a junior at Peking University, I attended a lecture series directed by Dr. Melville Y. Stewart on science and religion. Guest lecturers Dr. Alvin Plantinga, Dr. William L. Craig and Dr. Bruce Reichenbach have influenced my thinking on the relation between evolution and faith. In the fall of 2010 when I became a one-year visiting student at Calvin College in Michigan, I took a seminar directed by Dr. Kelly J. Clark on evolution and ethics. Having thought about evolution/faith and evolution/ethics, I signed up for Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourth Perspective: Evolution and Organismal Agency
    The Fourth Perspective: Evolution and Organismal Agency Johannes Jaeger Complexity Science Hub (CSH), Vienna, Josefstädter Straße 39, 1080 Vienna Abstract This chapter examines the deep connections between biological organization, agency, and evolution by natural selection. Using Griesemer’s account of the re- producer, I argue that the basic unit of evolution is not a genetic replicator, but a complex hierarchical life cycle. Understanding the self-maintaining and self-pro- liferating properties of evolvable reproducers requires an organizational account of ontogenesis and reproduction. This leads us to an extended and disambiguated set of minimal conditions for evolution by natural selection—including revised or new principles of heredity, variation, and ontogenesis. More importantly, the con- tinuous maintenance of biological organization within and across generations im- plies that all evolvable systems are agents, or contain agents among their parts. This means that we ought to take agency seriously—to better understand the con- cept and its role in explaining biological phenomena—if we aim to obtain an or- ganismic theory of evolution in the original spirit of Darwin’s struggle for exis- tence. This kind of understanding must rely on an agential perspective on evolu- tion, complementing and succeeding existing structural, functional, and processual approaches. I sketch a tentative outline of such an agential perspective, and present a survey of methodological and conceptual challenges that will have to be overcome if we are to properly implement it. 1. Introduction There are two fundamentally different ways to interpret Darwinian evolutionary theory. Charles Darwin’s original framework grounds the process of evolution on 2 the individual’s struggle for existence (Darwin, 1859).
    [Show full text]
  • Foucault's Darwinian Genealogy
    genealogy Article Foucault’s Darwinian Genealogy Marco Solinas Political Philosophy, University of Florence and Deutsches Institut Florenz, Via dei Pecori 1, 50123 Florence, Italy; [email protected] Academic Editor: Philip Kretsedemas Received: 10 March 2017; Accepted: 16 May 2017; Published: 23 May 2017 Abstract: This paper outlines Darwin’s theory of descent with modification in order to show that it is genealogical in a narrow sense, and that from this point of view, it can be understood as one of the basic models and sources—also indirectly via Nietzsche—of Foucault’s conception of genealogy. Therefore, this essay aims to overcome the impression of a strong opposition to Darwin that arises from Foucault’s critique of the “evolutionistic” research of “origin”—understood as Ursprung and not as Entstehung. By highlighting Darwin’s interpretation of the principles of extinction, divergence of character, and of the many complex contingencies and slight modifications in the becoming of species, this essay shows how his genealogical framework demonstrates an affinity, even if only partially, with Foucault’s genealogy. Keywords: Darwin; Foucault; genealogy; natural genealogies; teleology; evolution; extinction; origin; Entstehung; rudimentary organs “Our classifications will come to be, as far as they can be so made, genealogies; and will then truly give what may be called the plan of creation. The rules for classifying will no doubt become simpler when we have a definite object in view. We possess no pedigrees or armorial bearings; and we have to discover and trace the many diverging lines of descent in our natural genealogies, by characters of any kind which have long been inherited.
    [Show full text]
  • AR Wallace's Approach
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo Volume 5, No. 4 16 Evolutionism Combined with Spiritualism: A. R. Wallace’s Approach ∗ Li LIU Peking University Abstract: A. R. Wallace was the co-founder of the theory of natural selection and a solid supporter of Darwin, but he combined evolutionism with spiritualism, and tried to understand human evolution and evolutionary ethics with a spiritualistic teleology. This teleological version is a typical example of non-Darwinian evolutionism ， which was rooted in the ideology of Victorian progressionism, and was used to avoid the materialism implicated in Darwinism. Through investigating Wallace's approach, we may realize how progressionism had worked as the bridge between science and religion in Victorian Age. Key Words: A. R. Wallace, evolutionism, spiritualism, Victorian progressionism ∗ Department of Philosophy, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China. E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Cambridge Studies 17 1. INTRODUCTION Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Robert Darwin independently discovered the principle of natural selection and their articles were announced to scientific community by a joint publication, on 1st July 1858. It’s the starting point of the Darwinian revolution or as Peter Bowler put in his book, “the non-Darwinian revolution”. Stimulated by Wallace, Darwin finally finished and then published his Origin of Species, and got “the whole credit for one of the most liberating advances in scientific thought”, as Wallace “agreed of his own free will to play moon to Darwin’s sun.”1 Considered as a Darwinist, Wallace positively defended Darwinism in his time, and published a book named Darwinism (1889).
    [Show full text]
  • "Struggle for Existence,"
    ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. By Charles Darwin, M.A., Fellow Of The Royal, Geological, Linnaean, Etc., Societies; Author Of 'Journal Of Researches During H.M.S. Beagle's Voyage Round The World.' From the First Edition LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1859. Down, Bromley, Kent, October 1st, 1859. "But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws." W. Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise. "To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning. INTRODUCTION When on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Language in on the Origin of Species
    Metaphysica 2018; 19(2): 185–200 Bárbara Jiménez Pazos* The Deteleologization of Nature: Darwin’s Language in On the Origin of Species https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2018-0009 Published online December 19, 2017 Abstract: Although a detailed analysis of Darwin’s lexicon in On the Origin of Species has not been undertaken, critical literature claims that there are lexical signs of a teleological nature in the language used in this work. I intend to refute, through an analysis of the lexicon in Darwin’s work, the criticisms that claim a teleological subtext in Darwin’s language and that conceive said lan- guage to be a reflection of a teleological conception of nature. I will place special emphasis on the lexical material that Darwin uses in those paragraphs dedicated to the description of the function of Natural Selection. Keywords: teleology, nature, Darwin, Origin of Species, lexicon analysis There has never been a comprehensive critical analysis of Darwinian lexicon in On the Origin of Species1 undertaken, although there are brief studies2 (I will be referring to some of these studies in the next chapter) focusing on certain aspects of the vocabulary chosen by Darwin for his works. The collision between a line of thinking free of teleological concepts, and another influenced by deterministic or finalist beliefs and concepts, is one of the issues that is most often studied by Darwin’s critics.3 1 All citations from On the Origin of Species will be extracted from the first edition of the work (1859), as it is the most original edition and its lexical content has not been affected by modifications and stylistic corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • Essentialism Story’’: a Case Study of German Idealistic Morphology
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Theory in Biosciences 124 (2006) 281–307 www.elsevier.de/thbio The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayr’s ‘‘Essentialism Story’’: A case study of German idealistic morphology Georgy S. LevitÃ, Kay Meister Institut fu¨r Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft und Technik, Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Friedrich-Schiller-Universita¨t, Berggasse 7, D-07745 Jena, Germany Received 17 October 2005; accepted 18 November 2005 Abstract Idealistic morphology as perhaps the most important historical manifestation of typology is very suitable for a historical analysis of Ernst Mayr’s ‘‘Essentialism Story’’, which postulates an antagonism between ‘‘typological thinking’’ and ‘‘population thinking’’. We show that German- language idealistic-morphological theories consisted of two clearly distinguishable parts. The cornerstone of these theories was the concept of the type as an abstract pattern representing a certain class of phenomena and embodying the norm of this class. The primary objective of pure typology was to create a non-phylogenetic classification system for living organisms based on structurally explicable characters. Thus, typology, as a non-phylogenetic foundation of idealistic morphology, was conceptually neutral with respect to hypotheses of evolutionary mechanisms. Typology was often accompanied by concepts such as Lamarckism, orthogenesis, creationism, essentialism, etc. These peripheral (with respect to pure typology) concepts were autonomous constructions and did not represent a direct logical consequence of typology. In our view ‘‘population thinking’’, as part of the Darwinian theory of evolutionary mechanism, could not be directly opposed to ‘‘typological thinking’’. Rather, it was peripheral concepts such as essentialism or creationism that led to conflicts between the Modern Synthesis and idealistic morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
    Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection A new theory of biological species Waseda University, SILS, Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science The Facts about Evolution In the early modern period, due to colonialism and empire building, European naturalists, working in centralized botanical gardens and national zoos, investigated an unprecedented variety of animal and plant specimens. Starting in the 18th century, naturalists began to systematically investigate the fossil remains of various organisms and compare these with living organisms. In the early half of the 19th century, it became clear that there had once existed entire families of flora and fauna (plants and animals) that had passed out of existence, and that moreover, in the periods – that is, geological strata – in which these creatures existed, much of the flora and fauna that are alive today did not exist. The evidence for large-scale biological change was gathered slowly and was still ongoing when Darwin was working. 1 / 30 Various Theories of Evolution Although there was a lot of disagreement about how these changes had taken place, and what they implied, by Darwin’s time, most naturalists accepted that there had been some changes in biological species. However, even if we accept that there has been change in species throughout the history of the earth, we might have several different theories about how this change occurred. All of the theories advanced before Darwin argued for some kind of directed change – in some sense responding to, and hence directly influenced by, the environment and the actions of organisms. Darwin tried to distinguish his theories from these by arguing that evolutionary changes were based only on naturally occurring processes – processes that are still occurring around us now.
    [Show full text]
  • The Changeful Fate of a Groundbreaking Insight: the Darwinian Fit- Ness Principle Caught in Different Webs of Belief
    The changeful fate of a groundbreaking insight: the Darwinian fit- ness principle caught in different webs of belief Ulrich Krohs Abstract Darwin’s explanation of biological speciation in terms of variation and natural selection has revolutionised biological thought. However, while his principle of natural selection, the fit- ness principle, has shaped biology until the present, its interpretation changed more than once during the almost 150 years of its history. The most striking change of the status of the principle is that, in the middle of the 20th century, it transmutated from an often disputed, groundbreaking insight into a tautology. Moreover, not only the interpretation of the fitness principle, but the whole body of biological knowledge was subjected to significant modifi- cations. In this paper, I relate modifications of the fitness principle to those of the respective body of biological knowledge. This body of knowledge is conceived as a Quinean web of belief. After an exposition of Darwin’s conception of the principle, which equated fitness with adaptedness to the environment, several of its changes are analysed with respect to dif- ferent webs of biological knowledge. It is concluded that the different interpretations and the reshaping of the fitness principle are rational responses to the modified systems of back- ground knowledge, which saved the coherence of the web of biological knowledge in each single case. Introduction The evolutionary theories of Darwin and Wallace were the naturalists’ answer to the question of the origin of species that was, until the 19th century, a domain for religious ideas and myths. The idea of a phylogenetic evolution was already around when these theories were developed, with, e.
    [Show full text]
  • Provided for Non-Commercial Research and Educational Use. Not for Reproduction, Distribution Or Commercial Use
    Provided for non-commercial research and educational use. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. This article was originally published in the Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non- commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution's administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution's website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial Gontier, N. (2016) Symbiosis, History of. In: Kliman, R.M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology. vol. 4, pp. 272–281. Oxford: Academic Press. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Author's personal copy Symbiosis, History of N Gontier, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal r 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Glossary Transformation and metamorphosis are precursors to Deism The idea that the universe follows natural, transmutation and evolution theory. mechanical laws even though it was created by a deity. The Symbiogenesis Evolutionary mechanism that results from deity is presumed not to intervene after its original creation hereditary symbiosis. act. Deism was introduced by Natural Philosophers and is Symbiont Any organism that engages in a symbiotic foundational for nineteenth century Natural History schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Darwinian Thinking and Charles Darwin
    Pre-Darwinian Thinking and Charles Darwin http://nayagam.files.wordpress.com/2006/02/397px-Charles_Darwin_by_G._Richmond.jpg 1 Outline • Pre-Darwinian ideas on life • The voyage of the Beagle • The Origin of Species and fallout • Post-Darwinian ideas NOTE: many slides in the four evolution lectures obtained from Web sources: Ken Miller [“Hot Science, Cool Talks” at UT Austin], Elizabeth Saunders, Carl Wozniak, Caltech Bio 1 2 In Linnaeus's original system, genera were grouped Who’s to blaintmo ordeer sf, oorderrs hintou clmasseas, nands c labssees innto g kingdoms. Thus the kingdom Animalia contained the classifcilaessd Ve rtaebsrat a,p whricihm conataitned sthe? order Primates, which contained the genus Homo with the species sapiens -- humanity. Not Charles Darwin. Carolus Linneaus: the father of modern scientific classifcation, and a creationist X “Deus creavit; Linneaus disposuit” 3 Darwin’s Beginnings • Born 1809 • A self-described “born naturalist” • Briefly studied medicine at Edinburgh University • Studied theology at Christ’s College, University of Cambridge Images Source: Wikipedia 4 Geological Training “Henslow promises to cram me in geology” Darwin, April 1831 Images Source: Wikipedia 5 1831: A Year in Transition • Mentored by John Stevens Henslow • Completed his degree in January, 1831 • Worked for Adam Sedgwick, Summer 1831 • Introduced to Captain Robert Fitzroy, and offered a position on the H.M.S. Beagle • Departed December 27th, 1831 6 One of Darwin’s First Geological Maps of Shropshire 7 Image Source: Herbert 2005 Darwin’s Ideas Did Not Develop in a Vacuum Contributors to Darwin’s thinking included: Charles Lyell – uniformitarianism. 1797-1875 Georges Cuvier – species extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mystery of Mysteries Darwin's Search for the Origin of Species
    Warning: This lecture contains material on evolution. Evolution by natural selection is more than a mere fact, it is a robust scientific theory which offers the best possible explanation for the complexity of biological systems. Engaging this theory will promote critical awareness and a greater comprehension of one’s place in the complexity of nature. Be Forewarned! Dennis C. Shaw, PhD Instructor of Anthropology Charles Darwin (1809-1882) “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Charles Darwin, 1859) “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973) Charles Darwin: The Formative Years William Paley’s Natural Theology: The Anglican Compromise. Crucial Points of Paley’s Natural Theology 1. Embraces St. Thomas of Aquinas’ Design Argument. 2. Formulates argument as Inductive Inference. 3. Proposes the study of God’s work in addition to the study of God’s words with a religious rationale for the study of natural history 4. Defines the study of biology as the pursuit of the intricate relationship between structure and purpose. 5. Establishes purpose as the teleological explanation for biological structures. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Design Argument 1. Wherever complex design exists, there must be a designer. 2. Nature is complex. 3. Therefore, Nature must have had an intelligent designer. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both.
    [Show full text]