Gould vs. Bethell DARWIN'S UNTIMELY BURIAL

Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwin's Untimely Burial," Natural History 85 (Oct. 1976): 24-30. ]

Ever since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, individuals involved with science and religion have tried to negate his thesis. Some scholars, such as British philosopher Tom Bethell, have seen "something very, very wrong with this idea," and hoped to contain it to the sphere of biology and ban its spread into cosmology, psychology, the arts, ethics and religion. Others, such as scientist Jay Gould, recognize Darwin as one of the most brilliant people in history. In the essay, "Darwin's Untimely Burial," Gould refutes Bethell and claims (paraphrasing Mark Twain) "Despite reports to the contrary, the theory of natural selection remains very much alive." Bethell finds Darwinian theory rotten to the core while Gould finds a pearl of great price at the center.

Bethell says he does not support Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection because: "Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. ... At one point in his argument, Darwin was mislead." In the first place, Bethell has a problem with the idea of "survival of the...

"The crucial phrase of natural selection means no more than "the survival of those who survive" -- a vacuous tautology" such as "my father is a man," argues Bethell.
In the second place, Bethell agrees that Darwin proposed an independent criterion to define fitness other than survival. However, this also presented a problem, because it was an analogy ... A dangerous and slippery strategy. "Later evolutionists," argues Bethell, "recognize the failure of Darwin's analogy and redefined 'fitness' as mere survival. But they did not realize that they had undermined the logical structure of Darwin's central postulate. Nature provides no independent criterion of fitness; thus, natural selection is tautological."

Bethell moves from these thoughts to his next two corollaries: First, if fitness just means survival, then how can natural selection be a "creative" force, as Darwin supporters strongly note. Natural selection can explain how "a given type of animal became more numerous," but not "how one type of animal gradually changed into another." Secondly, why were Darwin and other 19th-century scientists so positive that mindless nature could be compared with conscious selection by breeders? The philosophy of the capitalistic industrial society considered any change as inherently progressive: Mere survival in nature could only be for the good. Adds Bethell: "It is beginning to look as though what Darwin really discovered was nothing more than the Victorian propensity to believe in progress."

To the tautology argument, Gould responds that people can call Darwin anything but stupid. This Victorian scientist would never expect anyone to understand and accept his argument on this definition of fitness alone. Rather, just look at Darwin's first…