Posts Tagged ‘Charles Darwin’

Marx and Darwin: Two great revolutionary thinkers of the nineteenth century

November 10, 2009

Part 1

By Chris Talbot, WSWS.og, June 17, 2009

This is the first of a three-part series comprising a lecture by WSWS correspondent Chris Talbot to meetings of the International Students for Social Equality in Britain. Part 2 was posted on June 18 and Part 3 on June 19.

We have organised these meetings of the International Students for Social Equality in honour of Charles Darwin from a different standpoint from the many other bicentenary events. We want to bring out the connection between Darwin and that other great thinker of the mid-19th century, Karl Marx.

Darwin
Charles Darwin

The importance of Marx hits you when you take in the events of the last few months. We are now in a world economic crisis comparable to, if not more severe than, that of the 1930s, which will have a major effect on all of our futures. Current economic theory completely failed to predict this crisis. The economists cannot explain how it happened and have no answer to it [1]. In contrast, Karl Marx spent much of his life developing an economic analysis that explains the inherent instability of capitalism and provides a scientific basis for the development of the socialist working class movement.

Continues >>

The strange evolution of “intelligent design”

February 26, 2009

Scott Johnson reviews a new book that traces the debate over intelligent design–and its anti-materialist roots.

The strange evolution of intelligent design (Eric Ruder | SW)

THE RALLYING cry of the intelligent design (ID) movement is that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is “only a theory” and that schools should “teach the controversy.” They then go about attempting to poke holes in this mere “theory”–ignoring that relativity and even Newtonian mechanics are also “theories”–with little to show for their own theory.

Every attempt to explain a presumably unexplainable adaptation by evoking the theory of an “intelligent designer” eventually collapses under the weight of research that shows the evolutionary roots of the organism or its trait.

In spite of–or probably because of–the weaknesses of their arguments, ID supporters prefer to focus on the “gaps” in Darwinian evolution, no matter how small, rather than talk about the background to their own theory. Many biologists who provide brilliant and devastating critiques of ID tend to keep the argument on this ground as well, reluctant to take on the philosophical implications behind either theory.

There are a number of excellent books upholding the science of natural selection and criticizing the pseudo-science of intelligent design, but few look the philosophy behind the ID movement square in the face and challenge it on those terms. Critique of Intelligent Design by John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark and Richard York attempts to rectify this situation.

Review: Books

John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark and Richard York, Critique of Intelligent Design. Monthly Review Press, 2008, 240 pages, $16.95.

The modern roots of the intelligent design movement lie in the1987 Supreme Court ruling Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that teaching Biblical creation as an alternative to evolution was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The vague notion of an intelligent designer–possibly but not necessarily a God or other supernatural force, but not requiring a religious commitment to the Garden of Eden or Noah’s Ark–suddenly became the new theory of creationists.

A creationist book in the making called Creation Biology was renamed Of Pandas and People, with the word “creationism” crudely substituted with “intelligent design” throughout, a fact that would expose the religious roots of the ID movement in a 2005 trial.

An even bigger exposé, however, occurred with the publication of the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document”–an explicit multi-year battle plan documenting the actual goals of the movement’s leading think-tank. Never meant for public eyes, this document was “liberated” in 1999 by a part-time worker entrusted with copying it and his tech-savvy friend who posted it on the Internet.

In one key passage quoted by Bellamy et al, we find that “The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.” Elsewhere, the document states that their goal is to change attitudes on “sexuality, abortion and belief in God.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

SO IT is clear that the background and purpose of ID are religious, but a further theme of Critique of Intelligent Design is the anti-materialist roots of the ID arguments. These neo-creationists are opponents of all of the obvious figures in materialist philosophy and the scientific revolution such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. But they also have a particular bone to pick with Epicurus, the ancient Greek materialist philosopher who was a contemporary of Plato and Aristotle.

According to leading ID ideologue William Dembski, “All roads lead to Epicurus and the train of thought he set in motion.” Apparently, this is a grudge going back many centuries before Christ.

ID proponents despise Epicurus because he rejected the interference of the Gods as explanations of the material world and even had a crude theory of evolution to explain the development of life. While he avoided engaging in politics in favor of contemplating philosophy in his academic “Garden,” he admitted women and slaves to study as equals–unlike other Greek academies. Karl Marx, who was impressed by his philosophy, would later write his doctoral dissertation on Epicureanism.

In return for his philosophical contributions, as Critique explains, Western thinkers have attacked and downplayed the ideas of Epicurus for centuries. Dante’s Inferno “consigned Epicurus and his followers to an eternity of torture in open coffins in the sixth circle of Hell.”

The Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas rejected Epicurus in favor of the idealist Plato because he “denied that there is any providence” and “held that the world came about by chance.” Aquinas also argued that the material world was directed by some “intelligence…like an archer giving a definite motion to an arrow to wing its way to the end.”

The book provides a specifically Marxist perspective that the authors employ in an attempt to avoid the traps of either ceding too much ground to religious ideas (as they argue radical paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould did) or simply retreating to a “crude atheism” that dismissively snubs its nose at religion:

As a materialist, Marx opted not to invest in the abstraction of God and religion. At the same time, he did not attempt to disprove the supernatural existence of God, since that transcended the real, empirical world and could not be answered, or even addressed, through reason, observation, and scientific inquiry…[A]s Marx observed in his Theses on Feuerbach, a crude atheism that sought to establish itself alongside traditional religion “as an independent realm in the clouds” had relatively little to offer. The critique of religion was therefore socially meaningful only to the extent that it…[was] rooted in “revolutionary practice.”

Much of Critique of Intelligent Design discusses this centuries-long battle between materialists and anti-materialists. Fortunately, even though the book is more about philosophy than science and politics, it is not an unreadable tome of abstract ideas.

Rather, this slim volume is meant as an intervention in the discussion around intelligent design, giving a philosophical underpinning to the debate in a way that most scientific discussions do not. The book also provides a valuable and brief introduction to the history of materialist philosophy and its detractors.

What is surprising is how often the book is able to show that the battles against materialist ideas have invoked evidence of “intelligence” and a “designer,” much like the arguments taking place in the classrooms and courtrooms today. The authors are quite convincing in using this fact to make the point that these arguments are not new not, are not going away, and are about even more than whether evolution is taught in the classroom.

Why Darwin was right

February 14, 2009

worldismycountry.org, 12th February, 2009

Posted by Jeeves

Today is the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin, author of the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, and commonly ascribed as the father of evolutionary thought. Evolutionary ideas had been alluded to by several philosophers and early biologists including Darwin’s own grandfather Erasmus Darwin. A paper containing a similar theory of natural selection by a contemporary biologist Alfred Russell Wallace convinced him to publish his seminal work. But, the comprehensive nature of the argument accompanied by detailed observations meant that, despite the modest competition, the theory of evolution by natural selection laid out by Darwin in The Origin of Species has gone down as ‘the single best idea anyone has ever had’.

Charles Darwin born in 1809

Charles Darwin born in 1809

The beauty of Darwin’s theory of evolution is the elemental simplicity that describes the seemingly infinite complexity of the history of life on earth. Over hundreds of millions of years life transformed from the simple combination of a protozoan and a bacterium into the whole cornucopia of life that inhabits almost every conceivable part of our planet today, via the existence of everything that ever lived, ever.  Its genius is that all that can be explained by a simple process of selection of minute genetic differences which increase the survival chances of that gene in a world of scarce resources and fearsome competition. Over many generations the combination of many small changes and their impact on the survivability of the host and therefore its genes leads to the emergence of new traits, new behaviours and eventually new species.

As a scientific concept Darwinian evolution has received universal acceptance and has underpinned the whole study of evolutionary biology and is a unifying principle in the biological sciences, much like Newtonian laws of gravity underpin the physical sciences.

Darwin as the founder of evolutionary biology had the misfortune of knowing less than all subsequent evolutionary biologists. There remains much legitimate debate concerning the actual processes and patterns of evolution. But subsequent discoveries of molecular genetics and numerous examples from the fossil record have shown the emergence of new species, transitional forms between known species and animal groups all occurring in exactly the way and by the exact method Darwin described. Fifty years after the publication of Darwin’s theory (and in the year of his 100th anniversary) there was still considerable doubt as to its legitimacy. But, as concurrent theories such as Lamarckian inheritance have been debunked, a further 100 years later we can now say that the evidence is overwhelming and there is no conceivable scientific alternative.

Unfortunately this scientific acceptance of Darwin has not been matched by public acceptance. The original publication of Darwin’s theory caused a huge outcry from the contemporary scientific and religious establishment. As scientific knowledge of biology has progressed legitimate scientific criticism has faded away.  But, Darwinian evolution is still the target of religious attacks based on ardent belief, flawed and evasive arguments and misrepresented or bad science.

Natural selection creates a perfectly comprehensible and effectively simple explanation for the whole evolution of life with no need for external intervention by supernatural forces, omnipotent creators and intelligent designers. Evolution’s implicit threat to religion is that it demystifies the apparent miracle of life to a process of random chance driven by ruthless selection often caused by acts of remarkable violence. Evolution does not disprove the existence of gods but it really demarcates their area of operation. This threat has inspired an ongoing campaign which has created the allure of controversy and debate where there is none, and prevented Darwin from gaining the universal acceptance that he should. In recent years this religious assault has tried to assume a quasi-scientific cover with the theory of intelligent design.

I commented earlier that their is no conceivable alternative theory to describe the complexity of life. Intelligent design fails due to its adherence to supernatural forces in the action between designer and designed (or should that be creator and created). Some ID advocates have said that the exclusion of ID from the scientific lexicon on this basis is evidence of some convoluted arrogance and sinister atheisitic scientism. It is actually as a result of scientific method requiring hypothesis, experimentation, reproduction and then acceptance. ID by definition has only one being capable of experimentation. However, there is no clear consensus around many of ID’s arguments and no unifying theory to describe its processes. Most ID argumentsare flawed and misrepresented criticisms of evolution and rather than explaining these alleged flaws with an alternative scientific explanation they use them as proof of a supernatural intervention.

Much of the evidence to support Evolution (but by no means all) comes from the fossil record. At the time of the publication of The Origin of Species that record was a fraction of the size it is today and corresponding theories of geology were similarly underdeveloped meaning it was very unclear how old it actually was. We now know that this fossil record covers hundreds of millions of years. This record is also not a complete record of all life on earth. Only a tiny fraction of living organisms will die in the exact conditions that will favour preservation as fossils and only a tiny fraction of them will be discovered. Hard structures like bones, teeth and claws lend themselves much better to fossilisation than less robust structures like scales, skin and feathers.

The fossil record has alwasy been used as the stick to beat evolution and in Darwin’s day these accusations were far more credible. This record is now far more expansive and exclusively supports that theory. The apparent sudden appearance of complex forms in the Cambrian era has been shown to have happened over 35 million years and the hard and bony creatures that evolved at that time are much more likely to fossilise than the soft bodied creatures that preceded them. We now see extensive evidenceof complex life in the Pre-Cambrian seas in the fossil record. It is rarer because it is inevitably older and deeper and made up of species not conducive to fossilisation but it is there.

An absence of transitional forms in the fossil record caused Darwin much soul searching in his own lifetime. Now the fossil record is littered with transitional forms between species. The evolution of horses has over thirty transitional formsto link modern Equus to its earlier mammalian ancestors. Indeed some arguments state that transitional forms are seen in the higher taxa but not in more primitive forms, it is unclear why the designer would have designed some species to evolve and others to remain stable. Fossils like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are clear evidence of special emergence between great animal kingdom groups and proponents of design have had to resort to clumsy reclassification into one group or another or making accusations of elaborate hoaxes.

The continuation of this argument is that the fossil record shows species in a stable state for millions of years. This is an inevitable result of evolution by natural selection. Increased mortality driven by changing circumstances, and concurrent scarcity of resources and competition for them, is the prime driver to the emergence of new forms. If a species inhabits an environment to which it is well suited with little competition for resources it will propogate and survive. With more offspring there will be a greater impact on the fossil record. The fossils we find are much more likely to show evolutions winners.

ID advocates also point to so called ‘living fossils’ or organisms alive today which appear in the fossil record in an apparently identical form hundreds of millions of years ago. Whilst this clearly demonstrates ancestry in many cases the fossilised specimen is not the same species. These are merely two closely related species with a highly successful collection of genes wll adapted to their environments and robust enough to weather the ravages of geological time. The many species of Crocodiles today are not the same as the first species of Crocodylidae to appear in the fossil record 200 million years ago.

Advocates of intelligent design make their trade by misrepresentation of scientific method and avoidance of scientific fact. They state that they merely wish to debate the controversy where none exists and then try and use that as a controversy that needs to be debated. They see evolution as having to prove itself every step of the way, explain every anomoly, justify every feature observed in taxonomy (which it does surprisingly well) and offer only a devotional faith in an ethereal puppet master as an alternative. They ascribe design to every living organism and see no need to explain by what process it was designed or, for what purpose. Their view of the world is that it is too complicated to be understood and therefore god did it. Luckily 200 years ago someone was born who didn’t accept such an elementary view of life.

Happy birthday Charles, and thanks for the single best idea anyone has ever had.

Darwin’s revolutionary ideas

February 13, 2009

February 12 is the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. Phil Gasper explains the significance of his ideas, and why they still spark controversy today.

Charles DarwinCharles Darwin

CHARLES DARWIN’S ideas revolutionized biology in the 19th century, but they also had a profound and lasting impact far outside narrow scientific circles, challenging religious dogmas and affecting almost every field of human knowledge.

Yet Darwin himself was a reluctant revolutionary–a man who shunned the limelight, hated controversy and became physically ill worrying that his ideas would shock Victorian England.

Darwin was a child of the rising liberal bourgeoisie. His paternal grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a prominent doctor and freethinker who wrote a speculative work on biological evolution in the 1790s. His mother was the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, founder of the famous pottery.

Darwin grew up in Shropshire in England, and later attended Edinburgh University to study medicine, but soon discovered he did not have the stomach for it. He transferred to Cambridge with ideas of becoming a country parson, but instead, the botanist John Stevens Henslow ignited his interest in science.

In 1831, Henslow arranged for Darwin to join a surveying voyage on HMS Beagle as personal companion to the ship’s captain, Robert FitzRoy. The voyage lasted nearly five years and was the turning point in Darwin’s life.

What else to read

A collection of Darwin’s writings can be found in The Darwin Reader, edited by Mark Ridley. Ridley is also the author of How to Read Darwin, a short and clear introduction. Darwin’s complete works are now available online.

The best biography of Darwin is Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. Desmond and Moore have also just published Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution.

For those interested in the debate around creationism and “intelligent design,” Philip Kitcher’s Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith is a good introduction. The debate is put into a broader historical context in Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism From Antiquity to the Present by John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark and Richard York.

Finally, Ever Since Darwin, a collection of essays by the late Stephen Jay Gould, explores the continuing relevance of Darwin’s ideas and criticizes their misappropriation by biological determinists of various stripes.

The Beagle took him to South America, the Galapagos Islands, Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia and southern Africa, before returning to England in 1836. Darwin made detailed geological, botanical and zoological observations and accumulated a large collection of specimens. Back in England, he gained respect for his work as a geologist, including proposing a novel theory for the origin of coral reefs.

Much more radically, however, by the time of his return, Darwin had come to privately reject orthodox accounts of the origin of biological species, which viewed them as having been created in pretty much their present forms.

His observations of the similarities between living and fossil mammals, and between the distinct species of plants and animals on the Galapagos Islands and their counterparts on the South American mainland, persuaded him that biological evolution had taken place, even though he was not yet sure how.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

WITHIN A few years, Darwin had elaborated his entire theory of evolution. The crucial idea is that evolution is the result of natural selection–organisms that are better adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce, thus passing on their advantageous traits to the next generation.

Although Darwin formulated his theory as early as 1837, it was to be more than 20 years before he finally made it public.

The main reason for this delay was his nervousness about the materialist implications of his views and the challenge they posed to the dogmas of orthodox religion, regarded by the upper classes as a bulwark of the status quo during a period of social unrest in early Victorian Britain.

In Darwin’s account, evolutionary change was largely the result of the random, ultimately purposeless process of natural selection. This suggests a thoroughly materialist picture of the world that banishes vital forces and preordained purposes from nature, and which implies that mental phenomena emerge when matter is arranged in complex ways.

Such ideas undermine not only traditional religious views of divine creation, but also more sophisticated versions of theism, which claim that God works through evolution.

“Love of the deity effect of organization [of the brain], oh you materialist!” he wrote privately in the late 1830s. “Why is thought being a secretion of brain more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It is our arrogance, our admiration of ourselves.”

Darwin confided to his friends that going public with his ideas about evolution would be like “confessing to a murder.” In 1839, Darwin married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood, who, unlike him, was devoutly religious, adding a personal dimension to this conflict.

Darwin and his wife moved to Down House in Kent, and from this period onwards, he was in poor health, probably caused at least in part by his intellectual anxieties. But Darwin’s family inheritance allowed him to devote his time to science and to accumulate a mass of evidence supporting his views.

Darwin finally went public with his ideas in 1858, after learning that a young Welsh naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, had reached similar conclusions. The following year Darwin published his masterpiece, The Origin of Species, which makes a methodical case for evolution.

Darwin argues that natural selection is a real process, analogous to the way in which plant and animal breeders can dramatically alter the characteristics of a group of organisms over a series of generations by permitting only those with desired traits to reproduce.

In the natural world, a population of organisms can become better and better adapted to its environment over a period of time, and the characteristics of its members at the end of the process may be very different from those of their ancestors.

Darwin went on to argue that natural selection is capable of giving rise not simply to new varieties, but to new species, and that it can in principle account for all the characteristics of existing organisms, even “organs of extreme perfection” like the human eye.

In the Origin, Darwin presents an enormous quantity of evidence that natural selection is not only a possible explanation of the origin of species, but that it is the only reasonable one. The data ranges from the pattern of development revealed in the fossil record, to facts about the geographical distribution of organisms, to anatomical and developmental similarities between otherwise very different living things.

Darwin demonstrates that his view can provide satisfying explanations of such matters, while from the point of view of those who believe in divine creation, they remain conundrums.

For instance, the forelimbs of humans, cats, bats, porpoises and horses perform very different functions and have very different forms, but remarkably share the same underlying bone structure. This only makes sense if all these creatures had a common ancestor in the distant past.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

EVEN THOUGH Darwin avoided the issue of human evolution in the Origin (a subject he was later to discuss at length in The Descent of Man), its publication inevitably sparked intense controversy. The eminent geologist Adam Sedgwick condemned Darwin’s views for their “unflinching materialism,” and figures such as Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, attacked evolution from a religious perspective.

But it was precisely Darwin’s materialism that explains the enthusiasm of his contemporaries Karl Marx and Frederick Engels for his new theory. Less than a month after the Origin was published, Engels remarked in a letter to Marx: “Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.”

Marx himself read the Origin the following year and commented to Engels, “Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our own view.” Several years later, Marx sent Darwin an inscribed copy of Das Kapital (although the story that he wanted to dedicate the second edition of this work to Darwin is a myth).

Although Darwin didn’t engage in the public debate around The Origin, several younger scientists, including Joseph Hooker and Thomas Huxley, came to his defense. Within less than a decade, the bulk of the scientific establishment had been won over to evolution, although it took longer for natural selection to be accepted as the central mechanism.

Darwin’s ideas were initially viewed as a challenge to the existing social order, but attempts were soon being made to use them in its support. The political theorist Herbert Spencer formulated the doctrine of Social Darwinism, defending laissez-faire economics on the grounds that it represented the principle of the “survival of the fittest” applied to human society.

Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, founded the eugenics movement, which viewed social inequalities as having a biological basis and advocated intervention to “improve” the human stock.

But while there have been many attempts to link Darwin’s ideas to the claim that social inequalities are biologically determined, and while Darwin undoubtedly shared many of the prejudices of his era, there is evidence of the opposite–that his biological theories were shaped by a commitment to human equality.

Darwin was horrified by slavery, and from an early age was a committed abolitionist who believed that all men are brothers. According to a new book by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, his convictions played an important role in leading him to the idea of the common descent of all organisms.

New attempts to use Darwinian ideas to explain social inequality have emerged in recent decades, including sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, which argue that evolution has shaped human beings to live in hierarchical, competitive societies.

But the history of human evolution reveals that the distinctive characteristic of our species is its flexibility, and that for most of human history, our ancestors lived in societies based on common ownership, cooperation and equality.

While Darwin’s ideas have been misused by defenders of the status quo, they continue to come under attack from religiously motivated critics who advocate creationism or its somewhat more sophisticated variant the theory of “intelligent design.”

The truth is, however, that Darwin had already refuted such ideas 150 years ago. Today, they are utterly without merit, and represent an attack not just on evolutionary biology but on scientific rationality itself. Although Darwin did not get everything right, the evidence for evolution has only increased since his death in 1882.

Darwin’s ideas represent one of the great achievements of humanity’s efforts to understand the natural world. Properly understood, they should be part of the arsenal of everyone fighting for progressive social change today.

Why Charles Darwin matters

February 8, 2009

Big enough to undermine the idea of creation but simple enough to be stated in a sentence, the theory of natural selection is a masterpiece, writes Richard Dawkins

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin had a big idea, arguably the most powerful idea ever. And like all the best ideas it is beguilingly simple. In fact, it is so staggeringly elementary, so blindingly obvious that although others before him tinkered nearby, nobody thought to look for it in the right place.

Darwin had plenty of other good ideas – for example his ingenious and largely correct theory of how coral reefs form – but it is his big idea of natural selection, published in On the Origin of Species, that gave biology its guiding principle, a governing law that helps the rest make sense. Understanding its cold, beautiful logic is a must.

Natural selection’s explanatory power is not just about life on this planet: it is the only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet. If life exists elsewhere in the universe – and my tentative bet is that it does – some version of evolution by natural selection will almost certainly turn out to underlie its existence. Darwin’s theory works equally well no matter how strange and alien and weird that extraterrestrial life may be – and my tentative bet is that it will be weird beyond imagining.

Explanation ratio

But what makes natural selection so special? A powerful idea assumes little to explain much. It does lots of explanatory “heavy lifting”, while expending little in the way of assumptions or postulations. It gives you plenty of bangs for your explanatory buck. Its Explanation Ratio – what it explains, divided by what it needs to assume in order to do the explaining – is large.

If any reader knows of an idea that has a larger explanation ratio than Darwin’s, let’s hear it. Darwin’s big idea explains all of life and its consequences, and that means everything that possesses more than minimal complexity. That’s the numerator of the explanation ratio, and it is huge.

Yet the denominator in the explanatory equation is spectacularly small and simple: natural selection, the non-random survival of genes in gene pools (to put it in neo-Darwinian terms rather than Darwin’s own).

You can pare Darwin’s big idea down to a single sentence (again, this is a modern way of putting it, not quite Darwin’s): “Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design.” I have put “which occasionally miscopy” in brackets because mistakes are inevitable in any copying process. We don’t need to add mutation to our assumptions. Mutational “bucks” are provided free. “Given sufficient time” is not a problem either – except for human minds struggling to take on board the terrifying magnitude of geological time.

A certain kind of mind

It is mainly its power to simulate the illusion of design that makes Darwin’s big idea seem threatening to a certain kind of mind. The same power constitutes the most formidable barrier to understanding it. People are naturally incredulous that anything so simple could explain so much. To a naive observer of the wondrous complexity of life, it just must have been intelligently designed.

But intelligent design (ID) is the polar opposite of a powerful theory: its explanation ratio is pathetic. The numerator is the same as Darwin’s: everything we know about life and its prodigious complexity. But the denominator, far from Darwin’s pristine and minimalist simplicity, is at least as big as the numerator itself: an unexplained intelligence big enough to be capable of designing all the complexity we are trying to explain in the first place!

Here may lie the answer to a nagging puzzle in the history of ideas. After Newton’s brilliant synthesis of physics, why did it take nearly 200 years for Darwin to arrive on the scene? Newton’s achievement seems so much harder! Maybe the answer is that Darwin’s eventual solution to the riddle of life is so apparently facile.

Claims to priority were made on behalf of others, and by Patrick Matthew in the appendix to his work On Naval Timber, as was punctiliously acknowledged by Darwin in later editions of the Origin. However, although Matthew understood the principle of natural selection, it is not clear that he understood its power. Unlike Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, who hit on natural selection independently, prompting Darwin to publish his theory, Matthew seems to have seen selection as a purely negative, weeding-out force, not the driving force of all life. Indeed, he thought natural selection so obvious as to need no positive discovery at all.

Garbled versions

Although Darwin’s theory can be applied to much beyond the evolution of organic life, I want to counsel against a different sense of Universal Darwinism. This is the uncritical dragging of some garbled version of natural selection into every available field of human discourse, whether it is appropriate or not.

Maybe the “fittest” firms survive in the marketplace of commerce, or the fittest theories survive in the scientific marketplace, but we should at very least be cautious before we get carried away. And of course there was Social Darwinism, culminating in the obscenity of Hitlerism.

Less obnoxious but still intellectually unhelpful is the loose and uncritical way in which amateur biologists apply selection at inappropriate levels in the hierarchy of life. “Survival of the fittest species, extinction of poorly adapted species” sounds superficially like natural selection, but the apparent resemblance is positively misleading. As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species, not between them.

I’ll end on a subtler legacy of Darwin’s big idea. Darwin raises our consciousness to the sinewy power of science to explain the large and complex in terms of the small and simple. In biology we were fooled for centuries into thinking that extravagant complexity in nature needs an extravagantly complex explanation. Darwin triumphantly dispelled that delusion.

There remain deep questions, in physics and cosmology, that await their Darwin. Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Why are there laws at all? Why is there a universe at all? Once again, the lure of “design” is tempting. But we have the cautionary tale of Darwin before us. We’ve been through all that before. Darwin emboldens us – difficult as it is – to seek genuine explanations: explanations that explain more than they postulate.

Richard Dawkin FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. His latest book is The God Delusion