Michael Ruse

Humans are by nature social. And yet, we humans can be so cruel to each other. The dreadful wars of the last century: the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and so the list expands. Then there is the prejudice that members of one group show to members of other groups. Americans and slavery come at once to mind. So how do we explain the paradox? Why do such nice people do such awful things? I am an evolutionist, so I believe that the answers to the present are to be found in the past. Simply put, we humans were hunter-gatherers, and natural selection made us highly suited to our lifestyle. Then came agriculture and all changed. Our formerly efficient adaptations were too often not adequate for our new circumstances and lifestyles. Conflicts, group and individual, arose. I shall ask whether we can reconcile the tensions in our position. Can we move forward, bringing the knowledge of our biological past combined with the awareness of our cultural present to speak positively and creatively to the challenges that lie before us? I am ever an optimist. Is my optimism justified?

La ética evolutiva tiene (merecidamente) mala reputación. Sin embargo, no deberíamos permanecer prisioneros de nuestro pasado. Los avances recientes en biología evolutiva darwiniana allanan el camino para un vínculo entre ciencia y moral que es más modesto pero, al mismo tiempo, más profundo que las excursiones anteriores en esta dirección. Al mismo tiempo, no hay necesidad de repudiar las ideas de los grandes filósofos del pasado, particularmente de David Hume. De ahí que los orígenes simiescos de los seres humanos realmente importan. La pregunta no es si acaso la evolución debería relacionarse con la ética, sino cómo. Nosotros los seres humanos somos monos modificados, no la creación favorecida de un Dios benévolo, en el sexto día. Por lo tanto, ha llegado el momento de hacernos cargo de nuestra naturaleza animal, particularmente en relación con nuestra interacción con los demás. Es cierto que la llamada ética evolutiva tiene mala reputación. Sin embargo, la pregunta no es si la evolución está conectada con la ética, sino cómo. Afortunadamente, gracias a los avances recientes en las ciencias biológicas, el camino se está volviendo más claro. Comienzo esta discusión con una breve introducción histórica al tema. Luego voy al núcleo de mi caso científico y filosófico. Concluyo retomando algunas objeciones centrales.

Charles Darwin, the leading evolutionist, introduces and discusses his key mechanism, natural selection, in Chapter IV of his On the Origin of Species (1859). He shows how the mechanism follows from the struggle for existence, together with random variation, and he argues that it not only explains change, but change in the direction of features of adaptive worth. He introduces the secondary mechanism of sexual selection and then, through examples, shows how selection might be expected to work in nature. He argues, based on the economic notion of the division of labor, that this shows how selection can lead to there being different species. He ends the chapter by showing how the overall result is a tree of nature, with the primitive at the bottom and the complex at the top.

Philosophy of biology has a long and honourable history. Indeed, like most of the great intellectual achievements of the Western World, it goes back to the Greeks. However, until recently in this century, it was sadly neglected. With a few noteworthy exceptions, someone wishing to delve into the subject had to choose between extremes of insipid vitalism on the one hand, and sterile formalizations of the most elementary biological principles on the other. Whilst philosophy of physics pushed confidently ahead, the philosophy of biology languished. In the past decade, however, things have changed dramatically. A number of energetic and thoughtful young philosophers have made real efforts to master the outlines and details of contemporary biology. They have shown that many stimulating problems emerge when analytic skills are turned towards the life-sciences, particularly if one does not feeI con strained to stay only with theoretical parts of biology, but can range over to more medical parts of the spectrum. At the same time, biology itself has had one of the most fruitful yet turbulent periods in its whole history, and more and more biologists have grown to see that many of the problems they face take them beyond the narrow confines of empiric al science: a broader perspective is needed.

Biologists are remarkably visual people. Yet, the classics of logical empiricism never raised the general question of scientific illustration. Moreover, one suspects that the silence was, if anything, actively hostile. People did not talk about biological illustration, because they did not judge it to be part of “real science”. This enterprise produces statements or propositions, ideally embedded in a formal system. It may be about the real world, but it is not in any sense of the real world, in being a copy or mirror image. Philosophers recognized that regretfully human weakness demanded the visual. But it was judged at best a prop. (See, for instance, Braithwaite 1953, Hempel 1965, and Bunge 1967; although see also Achinstein 1968. The best discussion of scientific illustration that I know is Rudwick 1976.)

The objections to evolution were always more philosophical than scientific, in particular the needed explanation of the design‐like nature of organisms. Charles Darwin supplied the answer with his mechanism of natural selection. There are still major issues about the relationship of Darwinism to religion, to Christianity specifically. These include the problem of miracles, the problem of evil, and the needed progress to produce humankind. The issues continue to be more philosophical than scientific.

Originally published in 1979, The Darwinian Revolution was the first comprehensive and readable synthesis of the history of evolutionary thought. Though the years since have seen an enormous flowering of research on Darwin and other nineteenth-century scientists concerned with evolution, as well as the larger social and cultural responses to their work, The Darwinian Revolution remains remarkably current and stimulating. For this edition Michael Ruse has written a new afterword that takes into account the research published since his book's first appearance. "It is difficult to believe that yet another book on Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution could add anything new or contain any surprises. Ruse's book is an exception on all counts. Darwin scholars and the general reader alike can learn from it."--David L. Hull, Nature "No other account of the Darwinian Revolution provides so detailed and sympathetic an account of the framework within which the scientific debates took place."--Peter J. Bowler, Canadian Journal of History "A useful and highly readable synthesis...skillfully organized and written with verve, imagination, and welcome touches of humor."--John C. Greene, Science.

The section on the Argument from Design in collections of readings in the philosophy of religion usually begins with an expository selection drawn from Archdeacon William Paley’s Natural Theology, and follows with a critical selection drawn from David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Only from the footnotes does the student learn that Hume’s Dialogues was published over twenty years before Paley’s Natural Theology. Probably the student will feel that Hume’s devastating critique of the Argument must strike every reasonable person with equal force, and so he will conclude that Paley must have been an archetypal intellectual conservative—a man whose ideas were dead and fossilized long before he put pen to paper. In fact, historically, the very opposite was the case. Although few could deny Hume’s towering intellect—“God’s greatest gift to the infidel” one fellow Scot grudgingly called him—Hume failed entirely to break the hold that the Argument from Design had on people’s imaginations. As many of us feel about Descartes’s arguments from illusion, people “knew” that somehow there must be a flaw in Hume’s argumentation, for, in the words of the anatomist Richard Owen, organic characters like the hand, the foot, and the eye, bear “irrefragable evidence of creative foresight.” Far from being outdated before it appeared, Paley’s book, in which he drew lucidly upon the most recent findings in natural science, rapidly became the standard work on the Argument from Design. It was, for instance, considered essential reading in any young man’s university education.

Bergson never dared to entitle his own work in such a fashion. However, his philosophical contribution on the workings of intelligence deserves such a high title. This article seeks to elucidate Bergson's contribution to philosophy in terms of his anticipation of several developments in human understanding. The work begins by investigating the relation between thought and the world (reality) by reviewing a series of constructivist concepts. In many ways, constructivism is related to both structuralism and post-structuralism, however this work does not seek to detail these interrelations in any overt way. Instead, these concepts lay the groundwork for a review of Bergson's discussion of intellect in relation to life, psyche, and modern physics. Central concepts include limitation, circularity, and complementarity. Ultimately, the article seeks to display how Bergson's work is not only a precursor to constructivism but lays the foundation for a modified constructivism that can achieve a rigorous philosophical level. The proposed ground for the intellect is in the organic. Such an epistemological foundationalism would ultimately justify an evolutionary epistemology, in that, the structuring of the organic is evolving and thus the structuring of intellect would likewise evolve. Clarifying such an epistemology may aid in developing Delueze's an-organic bergsonism.