ARNOLD BRECHT'S POLITICAL THEORY REVISITED Political ...

ARNOLD BRECHT ' S POLITICAL THEORY REVISITED 173
sets the goal, or forms the purpose, which it pursues" (83). He notes
that "[t]he striking appearance of entelechy in nature has, therefore,
always been one of the strongest arguments for the belief in a
Creator." And that is to say that the existence of a creator was an inductive
conclusion drawn, however reluctantly, from a consideration
of the apparent facts, as Brecht indicates. But the apparent
necessity for that conclusion was removed, he tells us, about a hundred
years ago, with Darwin's publication of his theory on the
evolutionary origin of species through "natural selection." Brecht
discusses this alternative to the teleological explanation at greater
length, emphasizing both its "scientific" utility and its bearing upon
the question of Creation. 3E
Brecht concludes that "Scientific Method provides no answer to
the question which alternative is correct" (85). However impressive
the results of research based upon the Darwinian view, he cautions
that the evidence in its support is "still limited" and inconclusive.
And "the same holds true for the divine alternative" (87). Brecht implies
again in this context a certain shallowness or insufficiency of
the modern "causal" explanation, when he observes that:
Even if fully verified, natural evolution would fail to explain how the entire
chain of events that led to such miraculous results was set going and to establish
whether or not that was done by a Creator with a purpose-a purpose incorporated,
not perhaps in individual things, but in the entire chain of events and
the evolutionary laws governing them. (88)
These considerations explain why Brecht considers it appropriate
32. Brecht is more skeptical of the "scientific" utility of kindred attempts to explain
the course of human events by reference to historical patterns understood to be
"causal " or necessary. This is at least somewhat surprising since such historical theories
are like the evolutionary theory in purporting to discover a natural order which is
manifest in a pattern which gradually unfolds over a great stretch of time. But, of the
historical theories, Brecht says: "Limited knowledge of relevant events, plurality of
possible causal factors, limited possibility for actors in history to foresee the effects, and
the limited ability of the historian to list all the possible alternatives of action and their
potential effects, plus the immense number of other variables involved in the analysis
of history-all this makes the causal interpretation of macro-history a free field for
almost unlimited adventures in speculative thought, while the possibilities of verification
are narrowly limited. Owing to these limitations such interpretations can rarely
claim a scientific status higher than that of `working hypotheses "' (91). He concludes
that the investigation of causal relations in history is likely to produce better scientific
fruit when confined within "more narrow and specific limits. "