Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology

38
Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, Vol. 10 (2005)
Eve-Marie Engels
Thus the emergence of purposefulness in nature is viewed by Darwin as the result of
a blind natural process, this bringing forth traits which prove to be useful for the individual
and his survival after the fact. According to this view, evolutionary change, i.e. the
transformation of species, constitutes a process dictated by chance. In other words, the
individual variation of organisms which are involved in natural selection does not occur
as the result of any purpose to be fulfilled or a certain telos of evolution in general. Even
if one assumes there is such a thing as evolutionary progress, it is to be interpreted as the
result of blind laws of nature and not systematic design, he posits. In response to objections
raised against his terminology to the effect that he spoke of natural selection as one
might of an “active power or Deity” or that he personified the concept of nature, Darwin
emphasizes the metaphorical nature of such expressions used for the sake of simplicity,
rejecting such objections as being superficial. As he explains, what he means by
“nature” is merely the overall effect and result of many laws of nature, and for him
“laws” constitute series of events as we ascertain them (Darwin 1876, S. 66).
This understanding of nature and its laws constitutes a rejection of the widely held
physico-theological understanding of nature as entertained, for one, by the famous philosopher
of science, natural scientist and theologian William Whewell in his work On
Astronomy and General Physics considered with Reference to Natural Theology (1833).
In this investigation, one of the Bridgewater Treatises entitled “On the Power Wisdom
and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Creation”, Whewell’s intention is not only to
prove that God is the creator, preserver and regent of the world and the laws of nature,
but also the author of all moral laws. “The Creator of the Physical World is the Governor
of the Moral World … the Author of the Laws of Nature is also the Author of the
Law of Duty;…” Whewell writes. (Whewell 1834, pg. 254f)
Although Darwin critically distances himself from natural theology, he has an appreciation
for the meticulousness and detailed knowledge evidenced by its representatives.
Numerous friends and mentors of Darwin were natural scientists and men of religion at
the same time. “Science, in a sense, was religion,” Browne observes (Browne 1996, pg.
129). From the 17th century on, there were any number of excellent scientists and philosophers
of science who defended natural theology, among them Francis Bacon (1561-
1626), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), William Whewell (1794-
1866) and others. After all, the painstaking observations and research of natural scientists
was not impaired, but rather promoted by the interests of natural theology, it guiding
their insights. Thus in his Descent of Man as well as his Expression, Darwin cites the
works of Charles Bell even though he does not share the metaphysical framework of his
research.
This also holds true for Darwin’s relationship to the national economist and clergyman
Thomas Robert Malthus. As we can read in Darwin’s correspondence, his autobiography
and his Notebooks, he was influenced to a substantial degree by his reading of
Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population in 1838. This principle says that the increase
in means of subsistence (food) cannot keep up with the increase in the propagation
of the population if it is not inhibited in some way. Whereas the increase in means
of subsistence follows an arithmetic series (1,2,3,4,5,6 etc.), the rate of propagation increases
geometrically (1,2,4,8,16,32 etc.) when unchecked, Malthus posits. According to