Introduction
Dear Readers,
I am at last releasing the first section of my evolution research series, and because it has been so long since I last announced the structure of the series, I thought I should re-introduce you to its purpose and intent.
The Nobel-Prize winning biologist Peter Medawar once said, “For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.” (Medawar 1977) Medawar was signifying not only his personal commitment to a single theory, but also the commitment of an entire field of science to a paradigmatic way of developing theories. Evolutionary theory, or simply “evolution,” is not only important — it is dominant and necessary.
Since Darwin first published his original version of the theory in 1859, the field of biology has (nearly) continuously operated with the conviction that Darwin was essentially correct. With almost two centuries of research behind the modern iterations of his theory, there can be almost no doubt among professional scholars that “evolution,” broadly speaking, is an essentially true description of the origin of all species.
Yet, controversy about Darwin’s theory has persisted even more continuously, particularly among philosophers and the non-technical layman. Perhaps the easiest way to see why is to consider a quote by the great 20th-century biologist John Maynard Smith —
“But if, before you die, you want to understand why you lived in the first place, Darwinism is the one subject that you must study.” (Smith 1993)
For many, this statement takes a step beyond the realm of natural science into the world of philosophy, perhaps even pseudo-religion. It ascribes a quasi-mystical quality to evolutionary theory; even signifying evolution as almost a philosophical worldview by use of the term Darwinism. The alleged philosophical implications of so-called “Darwinism” have caused many to simply reject biological evolution out-right, some with more legitimate grounds than others.
Outside of the world of scholarship, popular level debates continue to rage about the validity of biological evolution as a scientific theory, as well as its proper place in the scientific education of children. When these “street debates” occur, there is often a wide gap between them and the world of professional scholarship.
In one sense, that is what this series is about. As much as I am able in this limiting format, I would like to narrow the gap between our layman discussions of evolutionary theory and the world of professional scholarship. I aim to do this not because scholarship should always be accepted uncritically, but because no matter what our opinions are, we are better off possessing a clear understanding of the best thinking on this issue.
In a word, then, one purpose of this series is to introduce my readers to a clear and structured presentation of the various arguments, weaknesses, and strengths of the participants in the evolution debate. My aim in doing this is to help strengthen the conversations we have at the popular level, no matter which position you hold.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Cato's Letters to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.