essay about charles darwin

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Charles darwin.

Charles Darwin and his observations while aboard the HMS Beagle , changed the understanding of evolution on Earth.

Biology, Earth Science, Geography, Physical Geography

Historic photograph of Charles Darwin in profile.

Photograph by Chronical/Alamy Stock Photo

Charles Darwin was born in 1809 in Shrewsbury, England. His father, a doctor, had high hopes that his son would earn a medical degree at Edinburgh University in Scotland, where he enrolled at the age of sixteen. It turned out that Darwin was more interested in natural history than medicine—it was said that the sight of blood made him sick to his stomach. While he continued his studies in theology at Cambridge, it was his focus on natural history that became his passion.

In 1831, Darwin embarked on a voyage aboard a ship of the British Royal Navy, the HMS Beagle, employed as a naturalist . The main purpose of the trip was to survey the coastline of South America and chart its harbors to make better maps of the region. The work that Darwin did was just an added bonus.

Darwin spent much of the trip on land collecting samples of plants, animals, rocks, and fossils . He explored regions in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and remote islands such as the Galápagos. He packed all of his specimens into crates and sent them back to England aboard other vessels.

Upon his return to England in 1836, Darwin’s work continued. Studies of his samples and notes from the trip led to groundbreaking scientific discoveries. Fossils he collected were shared with paleontologists and geologists, leading to advances in the understanding of the processes that shape the Earth’s surface. Darwin’s analysis of the plants and animals he gathered led him to question how species form and change over time. This work convinced him of the insight that he is most famous for— natural selection . The theory of natural selection says that individuals of a species are more likely to survive in their environment and pass on their genes to the next generation when they inherit traits from their parents that are best suited for that specific environment. In this way, such traits become more widespread in the species and can lead eventually to the development of a new species .

In 1859, Darwin published his thoughts about evolution and natural selection in On the Origin of Species . It was as popular as it was controversial. The book convinced many people that species change over time—a lot of time—suggesting that the planet was much older than what was commonly believed at the time: six thousand years.

Charles Darwin died in 1882 at the age of seventy-three. He is buried in Westminster Abbey in London, England.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Student blogs and videos
• Why Cambridge
• Qualifications directory
• How to apply
• Fees and funding
• Frequently asked questions
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Visiting the University
• Term dates and calendars
• Video and audio
• Find an expert
• Publications
• International Cambridge
• Public engagement
• Giving to Cambridge
• For current students
• For business
• Colleges & departments
• Libraries & facilities
• Museums & collections
• Email & phone search
• The Letters
• Darwin's life in letters

Darwin in letters, 1844–1846: Building a scientific network

Darwin correspondence project.

• About Darwin overview
• Family life overview
• Darwin on childhood
• Darwin on marriage
• Darwin’s observations on his children
• Darwin and fatherhood
• The death of Annie Darwin
• Visiting the Darwins
• Voyage of HMS Beagle
• What Darwin read overview
• Darwin’s student booklist
• Books on the Beagle
• Darwin’s reading notebooks
• On the Origin of Species overview
• The writing of "Origin"
• Abstract of Darwin’s theory
• Alfred Russel Wallace’s essay on varieties
• Charles Darwin and his publisher
• Review: The Origin of Species
• Darwin's notes for his physician, 1865
• Darwin’s photographic portraits
• Have you read the one about....
• Six things Darwin never said – and one he did overview
• The evolution of a misquotation
• Portraits of Charles Darwin: a catalogue overview
• 1.1 Ellen Sharples pastel
• 1.2 George Richmond, marriage portrait
• 1.3 Thomas Herbert Maguire, lithograph
• 1.4 Samuel Laurence drawing 1
• 1.5 Samuel Laurence drawing 2
• 1.6 Ouless oil portrait
• 1.7 Ouless replica
• 1.8 anonymous drawing, after Ouless
• 1.9 Rajon, etching after Ouless
• 1.10 Rajon etching, variant state
• 1.11 Laura Russell, oil
• 1.12 Marian Huxley, drawing
• 1.13 Louisa Nash, drawing
• 1.14 William Richmond, oil
• 1.15 Albert Goodwin, watercolour
• 1.16 Alphonse Legros, drypoint
• 1.17 Alphonse Legros drawing
• 1.18 John Collier, oil in Linnean
• 1.19 John Collier, oil in NPG
• 1.20 Leopold Flameng etching, after Collier
• 1.21 window at Christ's College Cambridge
• 2.1 Thomas Woolner bust
• 2.2 Thomas Woolner metal plaque
• 2.3 Wedgwood medallions
• 2.4 Wedgwood plaque
• 2.5 Wedgwood medallions, 2nd type
• 2.6 Adolf von Hildebrand bust
• 2.7 Joseph Moore, Midland Union medal
• 2.8 Alphonse Legros medallion
• 2.9 Legros medallion, plaster model
• 2.10 Moritz Klinkicht, print from Legros
• 2.11 Christian Lehr, plaster bust
• 2.12 Allan Wyon, Royal Society medal
• 2.13 Edgar Boehm, statue in the NHM
• 2.14 Boehm, Westminster Abbey roundel
• 2.15 Boehm terracotta bust (NPG)
• 2.16 Horace Montford statue, Shrewsbury
• 2.17 Montford, statuette
• 2.18 Montford, Carnegie bust
• 2.19 Montford, bust at the Royal Society
• 2.20 Montford, terracotta bust, NPG
• 2.21 Montford, relief at Christ's College
• 2.22 L.-J. Chavalliaud statue in Liverpool
• 2.23 Hope Pinker statue, Oxford Museum
• 2.24 Herbert Hampton statue, Lancaster
• 2.25 Henry Pegram statue, Birmingham
• 2.26 Linnean Society medal
• 2.27 William Couper bust, New York
• 2.28 Couper bust in Cambridge
• 3.1 Antoine Claudet, daguerreotype
• 3.2 Maull and Polyblank photo 1
• 3.3 Maull and Polyblank photo 2
• 3.4 William Darwin, photo 1
• 3.5 William Darwin, photo 2
• 3.6 William Darwin, photo 3
• 3.7 Leonard Darwin, photo on verandah
• 3.8 Leonard Darwin, interior photo
• 3.9 Leonard Darwin, photo on horseback
• 3.10 Ernest Edwards, 'Men of Eminence'
• 3.11 Edwards, in Illustrated London News
• 3.12 Edwards, second group of photos
• 3.13 Edwards 'Representative Men'
• 3.14 Julia Margaret Cameron, photos
• 3.15 George Charles Wallich, photo
• 3.16 Oscar Rejlander, photos
• 3.17 Lock and Whitfield, 'Men of Mark'
• 3.18 Elliott and Fry photos, c.1869-1871
• 3.19 Elliott and Fry photos c.1880-1
• 3.20 Elliott and Fry, c.1880-1, verandah
• 3.21 Herbert Rose Barraud, photos
• 4.1 Albert Way, comic drawings
• 4.2 Augustus Earle, caricature drawing
• 4.3 Alfred Crowquill, caricature
• 4.4 Thomas Huxley, caricature sketch
• 4.5 William Beard, comic painting
• 4.6 Thomas Nast, cartoon
• 4.7 'Vanity Fair', caricature
• 4.8 'Vanity Fair', preliminary study
• 4.9 'Graphic', cartoon
• 4.10 'Hornet' caricature of Darwin
• 4.11 'Fun' cartoon, 'A little lecture'
• 4.12 'Fun', Wedding procession
• 4.13 'Fun' cartoon by Griset, 'Emotional'
• 4.14 'Fun' cartoon, 'That troubles'
• 4.15 George Cruikshank, comic drawing
• 4.16 Joseph Simms, physiognomy
• 4.17 'Figaro', unidentifiable 1871
• 4.18 'Figaro' chromolithograph 1
• 4.19 George Montbard, caricature
• 4.20 Frederick Waddy, caricature
• 4.21 Gegeef, 'Our National Church', 1
• 4.22 Gegeef et al., 'Our National Church', 2
• 4.23 Gegeef, 'Battle Field of Science'
• 4.24 'Daily Graphic', Nast satire
• 4.25 'Punch' 1877 re. Cambridge doctorate
• 4.26 Christmas card caricature, monkeys
• 4.27 'Four founders of Darwinismus'
• 4.28 'English celebrities' montage
• 4.29 Richard Grant White, 'Fall of man'
• 4.30 'La Petite Lune', Gill cartoon
• 4.31 'La Lune Rousse', Gill cartoon
• 4.32 Anis liqueur label
• 4.33 'Harper's Weekly', Bellew caricature
• 4.34 'Punch', Sambourne cartoon 1
• 4.35 Frederick Sem, caricature
• 4.36 Sem, Chistmas card
• 4.37 'Mosquito' satire
• 4.38 Franz Goedecker, caricature
• 4.39 'Moonshine' magazine cartoon
• 4.40 'Phrenological Magazine'
• 4.41 'Punch', Sambourne cartoon 2
• 4.42 'Punch' Sambourne cartoon 3
• 4.43 'Illustrated London News' article
• 4.44 'Puck' cartoon 1
• 4.45 'Puck' cartoon 2
• 4.46 'Puck' cartoon 3
• 4.47 'Puck' cartoon 4
• 4.48 'Puck', cartoon 5
• 4.49 Alfred Bryan, caricature
• 4.50 Cigar box lid design
• 4.51 Frederick Holder 'Life and Work'
• 4.52 'Wasp' caricature
• 4.53 Claud Warren, 'Outlines of Hands'
• 4.54 jubilees of Queen Victoria
• 4.55 Harry Furniss caricature
• 4.56 'Larks' cartoon
• 4.57 silhouette cartoon
• 4.58 'Simian, savage' . . . drawings
• 4.59 'Simplicissimus' cartoon
• Darwin and the experimental life overview
• What is an experiment?
• From morphology to movement: observation and experiment
• Fool's experiments
• Experimenting with emotions
• Animals, ethics, and the progress of science
• Fake Darwin: myths and misconceptions
• Darwin's bad days
• Darwin’s first love
• The letters overview
• Darwin's life in letters overview
• 1821-1836: Childhood to the Beagle voyage
• 1837-43: The London years to 'natural selection'
• 1844-1846: Building a scientific network
• 1847-1850: Microscopes and barnacles
• 1851-1855: Death of a daughter
• 1856-1857: The 'Big Book'
• 1858-1859: Origin
• 1860: Answering critics
• 1861: Gaining allies
• 1862: A multiplicity of experiments
• 1863: Quarrels at home, honours abroad
• 1864: Failing health
• 1865: Delays and disappointments
• 1866: Survival of the fittest
• 1867: A civilised dispute
• 1868: Studying sex
• 1869: Forward on all fronts
• 1870: Human evolution
• 1871: An emptying nest
• 1872: Job done?
• 1873: Animal or vegetable?
• 1874: A turbulent year
• 1875: Pulling strings
• 1876: In the midst of life
• 1877: Flowers and honours
• 1878: Movement and sleep
• 1879: Tracing roots
• 1880: Sensitivity and worms
• 1881: Old friends and new admirers
• 1882: Nothing too great or too small
• Darwin's works in letters overview
• Journal of researches
• Living and fossil cirripedia
• Before Origin: the ‘big book’ overview
• Dates of composition of Darwin's manuscript on species
• Rewriting Origin - the later editions overview
• How old is the earth?
• The whale-bear
• Origin: the lost changes for the second German edition
• Climbing plants
• Insectivorous plants
• Forms of flowers
• Cross and self fertilisation
• Life of Erasmus Darwin
• Movement in Plants
• About the letters
• Lifecycle of a letter film overview
• Editing a Letter
• Working in the Darwin archive
• Capturing Darwin’s voice: audio of selected letters
• Correspondence with women
• The hunt for new letters
• Editorial policy and practice overview
• Full notes on editorial policy
• Symbols and abbreviations

Darwin's letters: a timeline

• Darwin's letters: World Map
• Have you read the one about...
• Charles Darwin: A Life in Letters
• Darwin in Conversation exhibition
• Diagrams and drawings in letters
• Favourite Letters overview
• Be envious of ripe oranges: To W. D. Fox, May 1832
• That monstrous stain: To J. M. Herbert, 2 June 1833
• My most solemn request: To Emma Darwin, 5 July 1844
• Our poor dear dear child: To Emma Darwin, [23 April 1851]
• I beg a million pardons: To John Lubbock, [3 September 1862]
• Prize possessions: To Henry Denny, 17 January [1865]
• How to manage it: To J. D. Hooker, [17 June 1865]
• A fly on the flower: From Hermann Müller, 23 October 1867
• Reading my roommate’s illustrious ancestor: To T. H. Huxley, 10 June 1868
• A beginning, & that is something: To J. D. Hooker, [22 January 1869]
• Perfect copper-plate hand: From Adolf Reuter, 30 May 1869
• Darwin’s favourite photographer: From O. G. Rejlander, 30 April 1871
• Your letter eternalized before us: From N. D. Doedes, 27 March 1873
• Lost in translation: From Auguste Forel, 12 November 1874
• I never trusted Drosera: From E. F. Lubbock, [after 2 July] 1875
• From Argus pheasant to Mivart: To A. R. Wallace, 17 June 1876
• Wearing his knowledge lightly: From Fritz Müller, 5 April 1878
• Terms of engagement: To Julius Wiesner, 25 October 1881
• Intellectual capacities: From Caroline Kennard, 26 December 1881
• Darwin plays overview
• 'Emma' audio play
• 'Frank' audio play
• 'Like confessing a murder' audio play
• 'Re: Design' dramatisation overview
• Dramatisation script
• Browse all Darwin letters in date order
• List of correspondents
• Commentary overview
• Evolution overview

Natural selection

• Sexual selection
• Inheritance
• Correlation of growth: deaf blue-eyed cats, pigs, and poison
• Natural Selection: the trouble with terminology Part I
• Survival of the fittest: the trouble with terminology Part II
• Darwin’s species notebooks: ‘I think . . .’
• Geology overview
• Darwin and geology
• Darwin’s introduction to geology
• The geology of the Beagle voyage
• Darwin and coral reefs
• Darwin’s earthquakes
• Darwin and the Geological Society
• Darwin and Glen Roy
• Bibliography of Darwin’s geological publications
• Life sciences overview
• Darwin and Down overview
• Darwin’s hothouse and lists of hothouse plants
• Species and varieties
• The evolution of honeycomb
• A tale of two bees
• Beauty and the seed overview
• Mauro Galetti: profile of an ecologist
• Casting about: Darwin on worms
• Was Darwin an ecologist?
• Dipsacus and Drosera
• Darwin and barnacles overview
• Darwin’s study of the Cirripedia
• Darwin and vivisection overview
• Vivisection: draft petition
• Vivisection: BAAS committee report
• Vivisection: first sketch of the bill
• Vivisection: Darwin's testimony
• 'An Appeal' against animal cruelty
• Biodiversity and its histories
• Human nature overview
• Darwin on human evolution
• The expression of emotions overview
• Emotion experiment overview
• Results of the Darwin Online Emotions Experiment
• Face of emotion
• Darwin’s queries on expression
• The origin of language overview
• Language: key letters
• Language: Interview with Gregory Radick
• Film series podcasts
• Religion overview
• Darwin and design
• What did Darwin believe?
• Darwin and the Church
• British Association meeting 1860
• Darwin and religion in America
• Essays and reviews by Asa Gray overview
• Darwiniana – Preface
• Essay: Design versus necessity
• Essay: Natural selection & natural theology
• Essay: Evolution and theology
• Essay: What is Darwinism?
• Essay: Evolutionary teleology
• Science and religion Interviews overview
• Interview with Emily Ballou
• Interview with Simon Conway Morris
• Interview with John Hedley Brooke
• Interview with Randal Keynes
• Interview with Tim Lewens
• Interview with Pietro Corsi
• For the curious... overview
• Cordillera Beagle expedition
• The Darwin family
• Darwin’s plant experiments
• Behind the scenes
• Darwin’s Networks
• Darwin and the Beagle voyage
• Darwin and working from home
• Darwin, cats and cat shows
• Darwin and dogs
• Darwin's illness
• Plant or animal? (Or: Don’t try this at home!)
• Strange things sent to Darwin in the post
• People overview
• Key correspondents
• Beagle voyage networks
• Family and friends
• Darwin's scientific network
• Readers and critics
• Publishers, artists and illustrators
• People pages in alphabetical order
• German and Dutch photograph albums overview
• Photograph album of German and Austrian scientists
• Photograph album of Dutch admirers
• German poems presented to Darwin
• List of all people mentioned in letters
• Learning overview
• Ages 7-11 overview
• Darwin The Collector
• Detecting Darwin
• Darwin And Evolution
• Darwin's Fantastical Voyage
• Home learning: 7-11 years
• Ages 11-14 overview
• Darwin and Religion
• Doing Darwin’s Experiments
• How dangerous was Darwin?
• Offer of a lifetime
• Darwin and slavery
• Beagle Voyage
• Darwin’s scientific women
• Schools Gallery: Using Darwin’s letters in the classroom
• Universities overview
• Letters as a primary source overview
• Scientific networks
• Scientific practice
• Controversy
• Discussion questions and essay questions
• Suggested reading
• Getting to know Darwin's science overview
• Biogeography
• Variation under domestication
• Instinct and the evolution of mind
• Floral dimorphism
• Power of movement in plants
• Dining at Down House
• Darwin and human nature overview
• Moral nature
• Race, civilization, and progress
• Women and science overview
• Women’s scientific participation
• Women as a scientific audience
• Referencing women’s work
• Darwin in public and private
• Darwin as mentor
• Discussion questions
• Darwin timeline
• Teacher training
• Resources overview
• Historical documents
• Interactive
• About us overview
• Publications overview
• The correspondence of Charles Darwin
• Charles Darwin: the Beagle letters
• Charles Darwin’s letters: a selection 1825-1859
• Evolution: Selected Letters of Charles Darwin 1860-1870
• The correspondence 1821-60: anniversary paperback set
• A voyage round the world
• Calendars to the correspondence of Charles Darwin
• Darwin and women: a selection of letters
• Research initiatives overview
• Darwin and ecological science
• Darwin and religion: a definitive web resource
• Evolutionary views of human nature
• The Darwin and gender project overview
• Darwin and gender projects by Harvard students
• Darwin’s Women: Short Film
• Epsilon: a collaborative digital framework
• Funding overview
• History overview
• Frederick Burkhardt (1912-2007)
• Anne Schlabach Burkhardt (1916–2012)

Privacy policy

Search form

Hooker-j-d-02-02357.jpg.

The scientific results of the  Beagle  voyage still dominated Darwin's working life, but throughout these years he broadened his continuing investigations into the nature and origin of species and varieties. In contrast to the received image of Darwin as a recluse in Down, the letters show him to be an established and confident naturalist at the heart of British scientific society, travelling often to London and elsewhere to attend meetings and confer with colleagues, and involved in the social and political activities of the community of savants as well as in its philosophical and scientific pursuits. At home, time was filled with copious natural history work, writing, and gathering information from an ever-expanding network of correspondents. Down House was altered and extended to accommodate Darwin’s growing family and the many relatives and friends who came to stay; and, with his father’s advice, Darwin began a series of judicious financial investments to ensure a comfortable future for all those under his care.

The geological publications

In these years, Darwin published two books on geology,  Volcanic islands  (1844) and  Geological observations on South America  (1846), which completed his trilogy on the geological results of the  Beagle  voyage, and extensively revised his  Journal of researches  for a second edition in 1845, having already provided corrections in 1844 for a German translation of the first edition. He continued as an officer of the Geological Society of London, acting as one of four vice-presidents in 1844 and remaining on the council from 1845 onwards; he was a conscientious member of the Royal Geographical Society and the Royal Society; he regularly attended meetings and refereed papers for all these organisations. Between 1844 and 1846 Darwin himself wrote ten papers, six of which related to the  Beagle  collections. Among these were some studies of invertebrates that at first had been intended for publication in  The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle  (1838–43) but were deferred when the Government grant was exhausted ( Correspondence  vol. 2, letter to A. Y. Spearman, 9 October 1843, n. 1).

Darwin's inner circle: first discussions of species change

In addition, Darwin threw himself into analysing the results emerging from the examination of  Beagle  plant specimens by the young botanist and traveller, Joseph Dalton Hooker. More than 1200 letters between the two men survive, fully documenting a life-long friendship.

species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable

Darwin’s earlier scientific friendships were not neglected either, as the correspondence with Charles Lyell, George Robert Waterhouse, John Stevens Henslow, Leonard Horner, Leonard Jenyns, Edward Forbes, and Richard Owen shows. These friends, with the addition of Hooker, were important to Darwin for—among other things—they were the first people he turned to when he wished to discuss the problems and various scientific issues that arose out of his work on species. Darwin discussed his ideas on species mutability with Hooker, Horner, Jenyns, Lyell, Owen, and Charles James Fox Bunbury; he may well have broached the subject with others. Only two months after their first exchange, early in 1844, Darwin told Hooker that he was engaged in a ‘very presumptuous work’ which had led to the conviction that ‘species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable’ ( letter to J. D. Hooker, [11 January 1844] ). Nine months later, in his letter of 12 October [1844], he explained to Jenyns: 'I have continued steadily reading & collecting facts on variation of domestic animals & plants & on the question of what are species; I have a grand body of facts & I think I can draw some sound conclusions. The general conclusion at which I have slowly been driven from a directly opposite conviction is that species are mutable & that allied species are co-descendants of common stocks. I know how much I open myself, to reproach, for such a conclusion, but I have at least honestly & deliberately come to it.'

It is clear from the correspondence that his close friends were not outraged by Darwin’s heterodox opinions and later in the year both Jenyns and Hooker were invited to read a manuscript essay on his species theory (DAR 113;  Foundations , pp. 57–255), an expanded version, completed on 5 July 1844, of a pencil sketch he had drawn up some two years earlier. But although eager for the views of informed colleagues, Darwin was naturally protective of his untried theory and seems to have shied away from the risk of pushing it too early into the open. In the event, it was not until the beginning of 1847 that Hooker was given a fair copy of the essay of 1844 to read (see  Correspondence  vol. 4, letter to J. D. Hooker, 8 [February 1847]). Darwin can be seen as a cautious strategist, sometimes confident, but often uneasy about his work, and always attempting to gauge the kind of response that his theory of transmutation would generate. In particular, he anxiously watched the controversy seething around an evolutionary book,  Vestiges of the natural history of creation , published anonymously in 1844. His old friend Adam Sedgwick attacked the work vehemently in the  Edinburgh Review  (1845), while other colleagues like Edward Forbes ridiculed the theories employed there, caring only to join in the popular guessing-game about the identity of the author. One candidate, known to be working on species and varieties, was Darwin himself: as he told his cousin William Darwin Fox in a letter of [24 April 1845] , he felt he ought to be both ‘flattered & unflattered’ to hear that other naturalists attributed the book to him. But, as his letters to Hooker show, Darwin carefully considered and then rejected almost all of the contents of  Vestiges , and he feared that the reaction to his own work would be prejudiced by the arguments aroused by its skilful but scientifically unsound reasoning.

Perhaps the most interesting letter relating to Darwin’s species theory, which also bears on his concern for the future, is that addressed to his wife Emma, dated 5 July 1844 , just after Darwin had completed the final draft of his essay on the subject. He asked her to ensure that the essay would be published in the event of his death and stipulated a sum of money to be bequeathed, together with his extensive library and portfolios of notes on species, to an editor who would undertake to see the work through the press. Darwin also listed possible editors: at first he proposed any one of Lyell, Henslow, Edward Forbes, William Lonsdale, Hugh Edwin Strickland, or Owen—the last with the caveat that he would probably not wish to take on the work. But the list was subsequently altered after Darwin’s second, and possibly third, thoughts on the choice of the right person. The names of Lonsdale, Forbes, and Owen were deleted, Henslow’s was queried, and J. D. Hooker’s was added. Much later, by the autumn of 1854 when Darwin began sorting out his notes in preparation for writing up his ‘big book’ on species ( Natural selection ), he had decided that Hooker was by far the best man for the task and added a note on the cover to that effect.

The full consideration that Darwin gave to the future editing and publication of his essay, and the way in which he wrote to colleagues and friends about his work, show clearly his intention to publish his theory. His instructions to Emma may, perhaps, as some scholars have thought, indicate a reluctance to take the responsibility for publishing upon himself, but, more plausibly, they portray a man faced with the task of establishing a theory and its consequences, and fearful lest both the energy and time necessary to achieve this end should be denied him. After prolonged illnesses in 1841 and 1842, years poorly represented in the  Correspondence  because he was for much of the time too ill even to write letters, Darwin felt that his life was only too likely to be cut short. Moreover, even when at his best, Darwin could never work as intensively as he felt he ought to, or needed to, for fear of inducing another breakdown in his health.

Volcanoes, rocks, and fossils

Darwin’s published work during this period secured his position as one of Britain’s foremost naturalists. His study of the volcanic islands visited during the  Beagle  voyage was based on a wide range of rock and mineral specimens, including his own, and considerable research into contemporary theories of volcanic activity, mountain formation, and the elevation of extensive tracts of land relative to the sea. Darwin put forward a new explanation of the origin of so-called ‘craters of elevation’, which formed the basis of discussions with Charles Lyell and Leonard Horner in letters in this volume. His observations on the lamination of volcanic rocks prompted an exchange with James David Forbes on the analogous structure of glacier-ice. In South America he proposed that the tension generated in molten rock before final consolidation, which he believed gave rise to this lamination, could also explain and link the widespread phenomena of cleavage and foliation, observable in some metamorphic rocks. His description and explanation of cleavage and foliation in the clay-slates and schists of South America benefitted from the mathematical expertise of William Hopkins and aroused the interest of Daniel Sharpe, whose subsequent work led to the general acceptance of Darwin’s views.  South America  drew together all the geological and palaeontological results of Darwin’s travels through that area and, like  Volcanic islands , demonstrated how the structure of the land could best be explained by elevation. Darwin presented a wholeheartedly Lyellian picture of the geology of this vast area, reflecting the influence of Lyell’s  Principles of geology  (1830–3) and a commitment to Lyell’s idea of gradual geological change taking place overimmensely long periods of time; a commitment that transcended Darwin’s purely geological thought and influenced his speculations in all fields of natural history. But despite this clear and acknowledged debt, Darwin’s independence of mind was never in doubt and is well evidenced by the skilled and determined defence of his theories he invariably made against rivals of whatever standing. Through the pages of South America Darwin pursued an argument against the French palaeontologist Alcide d’Orbigny, insisting that the vast pampas formation could not have been laid down at a single moment through the action of a great  débâcle , as Orbigny proposed. Darwin not only used his personal notes and records but, by letter, marshalled the resources of experts such as palaeontologists Edward Forbes and George Brettingham Sowerby, and the German naturalist Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg, to support his own opinion that the pampas formations had been deposited successively under mostly brackish or estuarine conditions.

Journal of researches : Darwin's story of the Beagle voyage

In addition to writing up his geology, Darwin undertook the revision of his  Journal of researches  for a second edition in 1845. At Lyell’s recommendation, arrangements were made for the rights of the work to be transferred from Henry Colburn, the original publisher, to John Murray, and throughout 1845 Darwin worked hard to provide manuscript copy to be published in three parts during the year. Though the text was reduced in volume, Darwin went to considerable trouble to add the latest descriptions of the  Beagle  collections, to alter and expand some of his previous suggestions about the causes of extinction, and to supplement the original account of the three Fuegians carried on board the Beagle  back to Tierra del Fuego. By 1845, Darwin was in full command of a sophisticated theory of species transmutation and there is much interplay between the information supplied in letters to Darwin, the contents of the new edition of the  Journal of researches , and his species work.

Joseph Hooker and the Beagle plant collections

The botany of the  Beagle  voyage was a topic still relatively unexplored by Darwin, even though he had collected plants extensively. Henslow, who had undertaken to describe the collection, was overwhelmed by ever-increasing parish and local concerns in Cambridge and Hitcham and apparently relieved to handover Darwin’s plants to Hooker, who had just returned from accompanying James Clark Ross’s Antarctic surveying expedition and who hoped to publish a detailed account of the flora of the Southern Hemisphere. Darwin was quick to spot in Hooker a man he judged could become the ‘first authority in Europe on that grand subject, that almost key-stone of the laws of creation, Geographical Distribution’ ( letter to J. D. Hooker, [10 February 1845] ) and quick to make use of the young man’s already large fund of botanical knowledge and his extensive connections with other British and European botanists. Darwin’s questions challenged Hooker to apply his particular knowledge to more general problems, always relating, directly or indirectly, to the question of the origin and nature of species. There is little in contemporary botany and botanical systematics that is not touched upon in their correspondence. Hooker’s observations on classification provided Darwin with a professional judgment on the plant world to place beside that of Waterhouse with respect to the animal kingdom. Hooker was also ready to discuss contemporary ideas on transformism in Britain and France and was a constant source of useful references and books. Some indication of the intellectual value that both men placed on their correspondence is found in the fact that they independently kept practically all the letters received from each other. The letters also document aspects of Hooker’s life: his search for a paid position, involving an unsuccessful campaign for the chair of botany at Edinburgh University and a period of half-hearted work with the Geological Survey of Great Britain. Like Darwin, he obtained Government aid to publish the results of his own four-year voyage and struggled to keep up to the time-table. And like Darwin, he was deeply committed to philosophical natural history.

Mr Arthrobalanus - Darwin's work on barnacles

It was also Hooker who helped Darwin in the first stages of his barnacle work, a study commenced towards the end of 1846. Hooker, ready with advice on microscopes and microscopic technique, assisted Darwin with drawings of his first dissection. The barnacle—‘M r  Arthrobalanus’ in Hooker’s and Darwin’s letters—was a minute, aberrant species collected by Darwin in the Chonos Archipelago, off southern Chile, which lived inside the shell of the mollusc,  Concholepas . Unusual sexual dimorphism, with the male virtually a parasite on the female, a complex life-cycle, and difficult taxonomic considerations, combined to intrigue Darwin, and he launched himself into a survey of related species to elucidate some of the problems presented by the animal. The cirripedes were to remain central to Darwin’s working life for the next eight years.

In this section:

• 1837-43: The London years to 'natural selection'
• 1856-1857: The 'Big Book'

Related people

Forbes, edward, forbes, j. d., henslow, j. s., hooker, j. d., horner, leonard, jenyns, leonardblomefield, leonard, lyell, charles, murray, john (b), owen, richard, waterhouse, g. r., about this article.

Based on the introduction to The correspondence of Charles Darwin , volume 3: 1844-1846

Edited by Frederick Burkhardt, Sydney Smith. (Cambridge University Press 1987)

Order this volume online from  Cambridge University Press

Explore the letters to and from Charles Darwin over time

Darwin Correspondence Project [email protected]

©  University of Cambridge  2022

Copyright declaration

Website by Surface Impression

• Historical sources
• Audio resources
• Video resources
• Letters data indexes

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• University A-Z
• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Terms and conditions
• Undergraduate
• Spotlight on...
• About research at Cambridge

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• Image & Use Policy
• Translations

UC MUSEUM OF PALEONTOLOGY

Understanding Evolution

Your one-stop source for information on evolution

The History of Evolutionary Thought

Natural selection: charles darwin & alfred russel wallace.

Pre-Darwinian ideas about evolution

It was Darwin’s genius both to show how all this evidence favored the evolution of species from a common ancestor and to offer a plausible mechanism by which life might evolve. Lamarck and others had promoted evolutionary theories, but in order to explain just how life changed, they depended on speculation. Typically, they claimed that evolution was guided by some long-term trend. Lamarck, for example, thought that life strove over time to rise from simple single-celled forms to complex ones. Many German biologists conceived of life evolving according to predetermined rules, in the same way an embryo develops in the womb. But in the mid-1800s, Darwin and the British biologist Alfred Russel Wallace independently conceived of a natural, even observable, way for life to change: a process Darwin called  natural selection.

The pressure of population growth

Interestingly, Darwin and Wallace found their inspiration in economics. An English parson named  Thomas Malthus  published a book in 1797 called  Essay on the Principle of Population  in which he warned his fellow Englishmen that most policies designed to help the poor were doomed because of the relentless pressure of population growth. A nation could easily double its population in a few decades, leading to famine and misery for all.

When Darwin and Wallace read Malthus, it occurred to both of them that animals and plants should also be experiencing the same population pressure. It should take very little time for the world to be knee-deep in beetles or earthworms. But the world is not overrun with them, or any other species, because they cannot reproduce to their full potential. Many die before they become adults. They are vulnerable to droughts and cold winters and other environmental assaults. And their food supply, like that of a nation, is not infinite. Individuals must compete, albeit unconsciously, for what little food there is.

Selection of traits

In this struggle for existence, survival and reproduction do not come down to pure chance. Darwin and Wallace both realized that if an animal has some trait that helps it to withstand the elements or to breed more successfully, it may leave more offspring behind than others. On average, the trait will become more common in the following generation, and the generation after that.

As Darwin wrestled with  natural selection  he spent a great deal of time with pigeon breeders, learning their methods. He found their work to be an analogy for evolution. A pigeon breeder selected individual birds to reproduce in order to produce a neck ruffle. Similarly, nature unconsciously “selects” individuals better suited to surviving their local conditions. Given enough time, Darwin and Wallace argued, natural selection might produce new types of body parts, from wings to eyes.

Darwin and Wallace develop similar theory

Darwin began formulating his theory of natural selection in the late 1830s but he went on working quietly on it for twenty years. He wanted to amass a wealth of evidence before publicly presenting his idea. During those years he corresponded briefly with Wallace (right), who was exploring the wildlife of South America and Asia. Wallace supplied Darwin with birds for his studies and decided to seek Darwin’s help in publishing his own ideas on evolution. He sent Darwin his theory in 1858, which, to Darwin’s shock, nearly replicated Darwin’s own.

Charles Lyell  and Joseph Dalton Hooker arranged for both Darwin’s and Wallace’s theories to be presented to a meeting of the Linnaean Society in 1858. Darwin had been working on a major book on evolution and used that to develop  On the Origins of Species , which was published in 1859. Wallace, on the other hand, continued his travels and focused his study on the importance of biogeography.

The book was not only a best seller but also one of the most influential scientific books of all time. Yet it took time for its full argument to take hold. Within a few decades, most scientists accepted that evolution and the descent of species from common ancestors were real. But natural selection had a harder time finding acceptance. In the late 1800s many scientists who called themselves Darwinists actually preferred a Lamarckian explanation for the way life changed over time. It would take the discovery of  genes  and  mutations  in the twentieth century to make natural selection not just attractive as an explanation, but unavoidable.

• More Details
• Read more about  the process of natural selection  in Evolution 101.
• Go right to the source and read Darwin's  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection .
• Explore the  American Museum of Natural History's Darwin exhibit  to learn more about his life and how his ideas transformed our understanding of the living world.

Discrete Genes Are Inherited: Gregor Mendel

Early Evolution and Development: Ernst Haeckel

Subscribe to our newsletter

• Teaching resource database
• Correcting misconceptions
• Conceptual framework and NGSS alignment
• Image and use policy
• Evo in the News
• The Tree Room
• Browse learning resources

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. Its original formulation is provided in the first edition of On the Origin of Species in 1859. This entry first formulates ‘Darwin’s Darwinism’ in terms of five philosophically distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. Both Darwin and his critics recognized that his approach to evolution was distinctive on each of these topics, and it remains true that, though Darwinism has developed in many ways unforeseen by Darwin, its proponents and critics continue to differentiate it from other approaches in evolutionary biology by focusing on these themes. This point is illustrated in the second half of the entry by looking at current debates in the philosophy of evolutionary biology on these five themes.

1. Introduction

2.1 darwin’s life, 2.2 darwin’s darwinism, 2.3 philosophical problems with darwin’s darwinism, 3.1 the roles of chance in evolutionary theory, 3.2 the nature, power and scope of selection, 3.3 selection, adaptation and teleology, 3.4 species and the concept of ‘species’, further reading, other internet resources, related entries.

Scientific theories are historical entities. Often you can identify key individuals and documents that are the sources of new theories—Einstein’s 1905 papers, Copernicus’ 1539 De Revolutionibus , Darwin’s On the Origin of Species . Sometimes, but not always, the theory tends in popular parlance to be named after the author of these seminal documents, as is the case with Darwinism.

But like every historical entity, theories undergo change through time. Indeed a scientific theory might undergo such significant changes that the only point of continuing to name it after its source is to identify its lineage and ancestry. This is decidedly not the case with Darwinism. As Jean Gayon has put it:

The Darwin-Darwinism relation is in certain respects a causal relation, in the sense that Darwin influenced the debates that followed him. But there is also something more: a kind of isomorphism between Darwin’s Darwinism and historical Darwinism. It is as though Darwin’s own contribution has constrained the conceptual and empirical development of evolutionary biology ever after. (Gayon 2003, 241)

Darwinism identifies a core set of concepts, principles and methodological maxims that were first articulated and defended by Charles Darwin and which continue to be identified with a certain approach to evolutionary questions. [ 1 ] We will thus need to begin with Darwin’s Darwinism as articulated in On the Origin of Species in 1859. We will then examine these same themes as they have been discussed by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of biology from the beginnings of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis to the present.

Charles Darwin was not, as we use the term today, a philosopher, though he was often so described during his lifetime. [ 2 ] Nevertheless, for an encyclopedia of philosophy what is needed is a discussion of the impact of philosophy on Darwin’s Darwinism, and the impact of Darwin’s Darwinism on topics that both he, and we, would consider philosophical. We focus here on the impact of philosophical discussions about the nature of science during Darwin’s lifetime on Darwin’s scientific research, thinking and writing; and on the impact of that research, thinking and writing on philosophy. Taking the time to do such philosophical archaeology stems from a conviction that if the concept of Darwinism has legitimate application today, it is due to a set of principles, both scientific and philosophical, that were articulated by Darwin and that are still widely shared by those who call themselves ‘Darwinians’ or ‘neo-Darwinians’.

2. Darwin and Darwinism

Charles Darwin was born February 12, 1809 and died April 18, 1882. It was a time of radical changes in British culture, and his family background put him in the midst of those changes. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a prosperous and highly respected physician living in Western England, south of Birmingham. He was also a philosophical radical, advocating Enlightenment ideas about human equality and liberty, including the liberty to think freely about the existence of God and about natural origins for the earth’s creatures. He wrote a number of very popular works of natural history, some in verse, in which he defended views about progress that included evolutionary speculations about the upward progress of living things from primordial beginnings.

Erasmus Darwin was an early member of an informal group of free thinkers self-styled the Lunar Society, [ 3 ] that met regularly in Birmingham to discuss everything from the latest philosophical and scientific ideas to the latest advances in technology and industry. The Society included James Watt, Joseph Priestly and Charles Darwin’s other grandfather, Josiah Wedgwood. Wedgwood, like Erasmus Darwin, lived in Staffordshire and was in the process of developing a family pottery works into a major industrial concern by applying new scientific and technological ideas to the production of ‘china’. The religious inclinations of the group were ‘non-conforming’ and included a number of Unitarians, a sect Erasmus Darwin referred to as ‘a featherbed to catch a falling Christian’. Looked upon with suspicion by High Church conservatives, they actively promoted in Great Britain the revolutionary philosophical, scientific and political ideas sweeping across Europe and the Americas. Most had spent considerable time absorbing Enlightenment ideas in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that Robert Darwin, Charles’ father, should follow in his father’s footsteps and become a doctor, nor that he should end up marrying Susannah Wedgwood, by all reports Josiah’s favorite offspring. Politically and philosophically engaged, Susannah worked to organize her children’s education in the town of Shrewsbury, where she and Robert took up residence. She sent her children to a day school operated by Unitarian minister Rev. George Case and this is where Charles began his education. Unfortunately, Susannah died in 1817 when Charles was only 8, and his father then transferred him to the Shrewsbury School, operated by Dr. Samuel Butler, grandfather of the novelist (and sometime satirist of Darwin’s work) of the same name. “Nothing could have been worse for the development of my mind than Dr. Butler’s school” Charles proclaimed in the autobiography he wrote for his family, and he escaped down the street to his home whenever he could.

His older siblings took good care of him, under the Doctor’s watchful eye. Early letters indicate that he and his brother Erasmus were enthusiastic amateur chemists, and after his brother went up to Cambridge their letters were often full of possible experiments, orders to purchase chemicals and equipment for their ‘laboratory’, and discussions of the latest discoveries. This was an obvious enough passion that his classmates nicknamed him ‘Gas’. During summers he helped his father on his rounds to his patients, and when only 16 his father sent him and his brother to Edinburgh for the best medical education Great Britain had to offer. Erasmus needed to move from Cambridge to a proper medical school to complete his medical education, and young Charles was taken out of Shrewsbury School early to accompany his brother to Edinburgh, apparently being prepared to follow in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps in medicine. The two brothers arrived in Edinburgh in October of 1825. Erasmus left after the first year, leaving his brother on his own during his second year at Edinburgh.

Privately, Darwin early on decided he could not practice medicine. But his already serious inclination toward science was considerably strengthened at Edinburgh both by some fine scientific lectures in chemistry, geology and anatomy and by the mentoring of Dr. Robert Grant. Grant certainly knew that young Charles was Erasmus Darwin’s grandson; Grant expounded evolutionary ideas derived from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles’ grandfather. But his primary gift to Charles was introducing him to marine invertebrate anatomy and the use of the microscope as a scientific tool and as an aid to dissecting extremely small creatures dredged out of the Firth of Forth. Darwin joined an Edinburgh scientific society, the Plinean society, of which Grant was a prominent member, and presented two lectures that reported discoveries he had made while working with Grant. This interest in marine invertebrates was to be a life long obsession, climaxing in his massive four-volume contribution to the comparative anatomy and systematics of fossil and living Cirripedia or ‘barnacles’ (Barrett & Freeman 1988, vols. 11–13).

When he finally broke the news of his distaste for medicine to his father, he enrolled to take a degree in Divinity at Christ College, Cambridge University, from which he graduated in January of 1831. As with the Shrewsbury School and Edinburgh, his official course of study had very little impact on him, but while in Cambridge he befriended two young men attempting to institute serious reforms in the natural science curriculum at Cambridge, Rev. John Henslow, trained in botany and mineralogy, and Rev. Adam Sedgwick, a leading member of the rapidly expanding community of geologists. Henslow and his wife treated Darwin almost as a son, and through Henslow Darwin was introduced to the men whose ideas were currently being debated in geology and natural history, as well as to men whom we look back on as among the very first to take up the historical and philosophical foundations of science as a distinct discipline, Sir John Herschel and Rev. William Whewell. As he wrote in his autobiography:

During my last year at Cambridge, I read with care and profound interest Humboldt’s Personal Narrative . This work, and Sir J. Herschel’s Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy , [ 4 ] stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two.

In the next section we will discuss the influence of the philosophical ideals of Herschel and Lyell on Darwin.

Furthering his scientific training, Adam Sedgwick on two occasions took Darwin on extended geological tours of England and Wales. In addition Darwin and a cousin, William Darwin Fox, a year ahead of him at Cambridge, developed what began as an amateur passion for bug collecting into serious entomology.

His Edinburgh and Cambridge mentors were to shape Darwin’s philosophical attitudes and scientific career decisively. It was Henslow who was the final link to Darwin in a chain connected to Captain Robert Fitzroy of H. M. S. Beagle. Fitzroy sought a gentleman companion who could also collect information on geology and natural history during a proposed circumnavigation of the globe. Henslow’s note to Darwin, asking if he would be interested in being recommended for this post, arrived at the Darwin home, ‘the Mount’, while Charles Darwin was on a geological survey of Northern Wales with Adam Sedgwick. After resistance from his father had been overcome, Darwin was offered the post and accepted it.

The combination of meticulous field observation, collection and experimentation, note taking, reading and thinking during what turned into the Beagle’s five year journey through a very wide cross-section of the earth’s environments was to set the course for the rest of his life. During the voyage he read and reread Charles Lyell’s newly published Principles of Geology , a three-volume work that articulated a philosophical vision of rigorously empirical historical science, oriented around five key ideas:

• The geologist investigates both the animate and inanimate changes that have taken place during the earth’s history.
• His principal tasks are to develop an accurate and comprehensive record of those changes, to encapsulate that knowledge in general laws, and to search for their causes.
• This search must be limited to causes that can be studied empirically—those ‘now in operation’, as Lyell puts it in the sub-title of his Principles .
• The records or ‘monuments’ of the earth’s past indicate a constant process of the ‘introduction’ and ‘extinction’ of species, and it is the geologist’s task to search for the causes of these introductions and extinctions, according to the strictures note in 3., above.
• The only serious attempt to do so according to the idea that species are capable of ‘indefinite modification’, that of Jean Baptiste Lamarck, is a failure on methodological grounds. All the evidence supports the view that species variability is limited, and that one species cannot be transformed into another.

This vision influenced Darwin profoundly, as he freely admitted. While he became convinced by his observations and reading that the fossil record and current distribution of species could only be due to the gradual transformation of one species into another, he was determined to articulate a theory that measured up to Lyell’s principles. The crucial event in convincing him that this was to be his life’s work was likely a visit to Cape Town, South Africa during the Beagle’s return trip to England. John F. W. Herschel was in Cape Town on a mission to do for the Southern Hemisphere what his father William had done for the Northern, namely to develop a comprehensive star map with the new powerful telescopes developed by his father and aunt. As noted earlier, Darwin had been deeply impressed by Herschel’s Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy when it first appeared a year before the Beagle set sail, and in his private journal he referred to his meetings with Herschel during a week long stop in Cape Town in June of 1836 as among the most profound events of the entire voyage. Just five months before meeting Darwin, Herschel had finished reading the 2 nd edition of Lyell’s Principles . He sent Lyell a long letter filled with detailed constructive commentary. The letter opens by praising Lyell for facing the issue of the ‘introduction of new species’—which Herschel calls ‘that mystery of mysteries’—scientifically, and for advocating that we search for ‘intermediate causes’ to explain these ‘introductions’—code for natural, as opposed to ‘miraculous’, causes. [ 5 ] This part of the letter was quoted in Charles Babbage’s Bridgewater Treatise , published in 1837 while Darwin was struggling to develop just such a theory. Upon reading the Herschel quotation in Babbage, Darwin wrote in his private ‘species’ notebooks:

Babbage 2d Edit, p. 226.—Herschel calls the appearance of new species. the mystery of mysteries. & has grand passage upon problem.! Hurrah.—“intermediate causes”. (Barrett et al., 1987, 413; original punctuation)

He clearly recognizes that Herschel is here providing a philosophical justification for the project upon which Darwin was secretly working. And, in the very first paragraph of On the Origin of Species , Darwin looks back to this ‘Hurrah’, attributing the idea that the origin of species is ‘that mystery of mysteries’ to ‘one of our greatest philosophers’, without mentioning Herschel by name. The first mention of the possibility of an evolutionary solution to this problem is in his Ornithological Notebooks , in a note written shortly after departing Cape Town. [ 6 ]

Darwin’s theoretical task was, by the time he opened his species notebooks, tolerably clear: the only process that could produce the systematic patterns in the fossil record and the otherwise strange biogeographic distribution of species he now understood so widely and deeply was a process of slow, gradual transformation of species. He needed to come up with a natural, causal theory that would account for such transformations, and every element of that theory had to identify ‘causes now in operation’, causes that could be investigated empirically. The problem, and the methodological constraints, had been advocated by his geological hero, and now close friend, Charles Lyell; and they had been defended philosophically by his philosophical hero, Sir John Herschel.

Darwin, of course, expected, and got, outraged reactions from religiously conservative colleagues, such as his old geology teacher Sedgwick, who in a review expressed his “deep aversion to the theory; because of its unflinching materialism;--because it has deserted the inductive track,--the only track that leads to physical truth;--because it utterly repudiates final causes, and therby [sic] indicates a demoralized understanding on the part of its advocates.” What he had not expected was Lyell’s refusal to openly endorse his theory and Herschel’s decisive (if polite) rejection of its key elements. After we set out the theory in its Darwinian form, we can consider these reactions from those who apparently shared Darwin’s philosophical norms about scientific theory, explanation and confirmation.

The theory can be set out as a series of causal elements that, working together, will produce the needed transformations.

• Species are comprised of individuals that vary ever so slightly from each other with respect to their many traits.
• Species have a tendency to increase in numbers over generations at a geometric rate.
• This tendency is checked, to use the language of Thomas Malthus’ On the Principle of Population , by limited resources, disease, predation, and so on, creating a struggle for survival among the members of a species.
• Some individuals will have variations that give them a slight advantage in this struggle, variations that allow more efficient or better access to resources, greater resistance to disease, greater success at avoiding predation, and so on.
• These individuals will tend to survive better and leave more offspring.
• Offspring tend to inherit the variations of their parents.
• Therefore favorable variations will tend to be passed on more frequently than others and thus be preserved, a tendency Darwin labeled ‘Natural Selection’.
• Over time, especially in a slowly changing environment, this process will cause the character of species to change.
• Given a long enough period of time, the descendant populations of an ancestor species will differ enough both from it and each other to be classified as different species, a process capable of indefinite iteration. There are, in addition, forces that encourage divergence among descendant populations, and the elimination of intermediate varieties.

It will be noticed that there is no element of this theory that is incapable of empirical investigation—indeed by now the published confirmatory studies of this process would fill a small library. [ 7 ] One can understand why devout and orthodox Christians would have problems; but why Darwin’s philosophical and scientific mentors? It would seem to be the model of Herschelian/Lyellian orthodoxy.

The answer lies in five philosophically problematic elements of the theory.

2.3.1 Probability and Chance

First, notice the use of the language of ‘tendencies’ and ‘frequencies’ in the above principles. Privately, Darwin learned, Herschel had referred to his theory as ‘the Law of higgledy-piggledy’, presumably a reference to the large element played in its key principles by chance and probability. Darwin’s theory is, as we would say today, a ‘statistical’ theory. One cannot say that every individual with favorable variation v will survive or will leave more offspring than individuals without it; one cannot say that no environment will ever support all of the offspring produced in a given generation, and thus that there must always be a competitive struggle. These are things that tend to happen due to clearly articulated causes, and this allows us to make accurate predictions about trends , at the level of populations, but not to make absolute claims about what must happen in each and every case. Only well after Herschel’s time did philosophers of science become comfortable with the idea of a theory of this sort, and the proper philosophical understanding of such explanations is still debated.

2.3.2 The Nature, Power and Scope of Selection

The core of Darwin’s theory is the concept of natural selection. Perhaps because of his use of the term selection, this core element of his theory apparently baffled nearly everyone. Could it be, as Lyell, Herschel and Darwin’s great American defender Asa Gray would ask, an ‘intermediate cause’, i.e. a causal principle instituted and sustained by God? Or is it, in its very nature, the antithesis of such a principle, as his old geology teacher Sedgwick believed? Could it possibly create species, or is it, by its nature, a negative force, eliminating what has already been created by other means? In one of his copies of On the Origin of Species , Alfred Russell Wallace crosses out ‘natural selection’ and writes ‘survival of the fittest’ next to it. Wallace always felt that ‘selection’ inappropriately imported anthropomorphic notions of Nature choosing purposefully between variants into natural history. And, in a devastating review, Fleeming Jenkin happily accepted the principle of natural selection but challenged its power to modify an ancestral species into descendent species, and thus limited its scope to the production of varieties. A number of reviewers, even some sympathetic ones, questioned the possibility of extending the theory to account for the evolution of those characteristics that differentiate humans from their nearest relatives.

2.3.3 Selection, Adaptation and Teleology

Moreover, because Darwin was very fond of describing natural selection as a process that worked for the good of each species, Darwin’s followers seemed to have diametrically opposed views as to whether his theory eliminated final causes from natural science or breathed new life into them. In either case, there was also serious disagreement on whether this was a good thing or a bad thing. [ 8 ]

2.3.4 Nominalism and Essentialism

There is a fundamental philosophical problem with the idea that a species can undergo a series of changes that will cause it to become one or more other species. To illustrate it, look carefully at the first question that Charles Lyell wishes to address in the second volume of the Principles of Geology :

…first, whether species have a real and permanent existence in nature; or whether they are capable, as some naturalists pretend, of being indefinitely modified in the course of a long series of generations. (Lyell 1831, II. 1)

Lyell pretty clearly assumes that to allow for evolution is to deny the reality of species. For a species to be ‘real’, it must have ‘permanent existence in nature’, or as he puts it elsewhere , “…fixed limits beyond which the descendants from common parents can never deviate from a certain type…”. (Lyell 1831, II. 23) To accept evolutionary change, on this view, you must become comfortable with a variety of nominalism about species. And Darwin seems to have become so. [ 9 ]

Hence I look at individual differences, though of small interest to the systematist, as of high importance for us, as being the first step towards such slight varieties as are barely thought worth recording in works on natural history. And I look at varieties which are in any degree more distinct and permanent, as steps leading to more strongly marked and more permanent varieties; and at these latter, as leading to sub-species, and to species. (Darwin 1859, 52)

Permanence, as applied to species, is for Darwin a relative concept, and there are no fixed limits to variability within a species. Given enough time the individual differences found in all populations can give rise to more permanent and stable varieties, these to sub-species, and these to populations that systematists will want to class as distinct species. Moreover, he concludes the Origin with very strong words on this topic, words bound to alarm his philosophical readers:

Systematists will be able to pursue their labours as at present; but they will not be incessantly haunted by the shadowy doubt whether this or that form be in essence a species. …In short, we will have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species. (Darwin 1859, 485)

Lyell, Herschel, Whewell, Sedgwick and many of Darwin’s contemporaries certainly would not find this a cheering prospect, since they were unrepentant essentialists about species. [ 10 ] Members of a species possess a ‘type’ established in the original parents, and this type provides ‘fixed limits’ to variability. Lyell clearly feels this is an empirically verifiable fact—most of chapters 2–4 of Principles Vol. II is devoted to presenting the evidence that such ‘fixed limits’ exist; and after the Origin’s publication this evidence was canvassed again in Fleeming Jenkin’s review. If this is so, then species extinction is easy to account for—there are fixed limits to a species’ ability to track environmental change. But a naturalistic account of species origination is more difficult, since there will need to be, in sexually reproducing species, a natural production of a new pair of parents with a new type. On the other hand, to adopt the sort of nominalism that Darwin seems to be advocating in the above quotations has undesirable consequences as well. How are we to formulate objective principles of classification? What sort of a science of animals and plants will be possible if there are no fixed laws relating their natures to their characteristics and behaviors? A good deal of chapter 2 of Darwin’s Origin is devoted to convincing the reader that current best practice among botanists and zoologists accepts a natural world organized as he is insisting rather than as his opponents claim:

It must be admitted that many forms, considered by highly competent judges as varieties, have so perfectly the character of species that they are ranked by other highly competent judges as good and true species. (Darwin 1859, 49)

From a Darwinian perspective, this is a predictable consequence of the fact that the organisms we today wish to classify as species are merely the most recent stage of a slow, gradual evolutionary process. Organisms within a genus have common ancestors, perhaps relatively recent common ancestors; some naturalists may see ten species with a few varieties in each; others may rank some of the varieties as species and divide the same genus into twenty species. Both classifications may be done with the utmost objectivity and care by skilled observers. As systematists like to say, some of us are ‘lumpers’, some of us are ‘splitters’. Reality is neither.

2.3.5 Tempo and Mode of Evolutionary Change

The question of nominalism versus realism regarding species points toward a final aspect of Darwin’s theory with which many of those otherwise sympathetic to him disagreed, his gradualism. For apart from the question of whether his views entailed ‘nominalism’ about natural kinds, they do seem to reflect a belief that the evolutionary process must be a slow and gradual one. It is perhaps here that we see the most lasting impact of Darwin’s careful study of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology while on H.M.S. Beagle. I stress slow and gradual, for it is clear that one could have a slow but non-gradual evolutionary process (perhaps the long periods of evolutionary stasis punctuated by geologically rapid periods of speciation postulated by Eldridge and Gould’s ‘punctuated equilibrium model’ is such); and one could have a rapid but gradual one (for example the process George Gaylord Simpson labeled ‘adaptive radiation’, where a population migrates to a location with a variety of unexploited niches, and rapidly evolves to exploit them). Darwin stresses over and over again that he conceives of natural selection ‘adding up infinitely small variations’, and that he imagines the process of speciation to take place over a very long period of time.

One of the strongest arguments for insisting that ‘Darwinism’ as it is used today is isomorphic to Darwin’s Darwinism, as Gayon puts it, is that each of these questions is still hotly debated, and has been throughout the theory’s history. With all of the amazing changes that have been wrought by the genetic, biochemical, and molecular revolutions, with the development of mathematical models of population genetics and ecology, of sophisticated techniques for both field and laboratory investigation of evolutionary processes, and of cladistic analysis in systematics, it nevertheless remains true that one can find evolutionary biologists who adhere to Darwin’s Darwinism, and are recognized as doing so by both themselves and their critics. In the next section of this article, I will develop a portrait of contemporary Darwinism around each of these contested features.

By the same token, however, Darwinism has evolved. As one example of this truth, think for a moment of contemporary debates about the nature of selection. The problems people had with natural selection in the 19 th century continue to be problematic, but there are a variety of problems that were either not discussed, or discussed very differently, in the 19 th century. Can, and does, natural selection work at levels other than the level of Darwin’s focus, individual organisms; is there a non-vacuous way to formulate the theory abstractly; how are we to understand the relationships between the concepts of fitness, selection and adaptation? How strong are the constraints on the selection process, and what sorts of constraints are there? Are there other motors of evolutionary change besides selection, and if so, how important are they? In particular, how important is ‘drift’, and how are we to differentiate it from selection?

3. The Five Core Philosophical Problems Today

Theories need both essences and histories. Stephen Jay Gould (2002, 1)

So reads the heading of the very first section of the first chapter of Gould’s monumental The Structure of Evolutionary Theory . Opening with a subtle reading of an exchange of letters in 1863 between paleontologist Hugh Falconer and Charles Darwin, Gould eventually explains what he has in mind by this section heading:

In short, “The structure of evolutionary theory” combines enough stability for coherence with enough change to keep any keen mind in a perpetual mode of search and challenge. (Gould 2002, 6)

Gould, of course, was both an unabashed admirer of Charles Darwin and one of the most outspoken critics of the ‘neo-Darwinian synthesis’. I will be using both his account of ‘the Essence of Darwinism’ in Part I of this magnum opus and his arguments for a ‘Revised and Expanded Evolutionary Theory’ in its Part II as touchstones and targets.

In the preceding section of this essay, I organized my discussion of the problems that Darwin’s allies had with Darwin’s Darwinism around five issues: [i] the role of chance as a factor in evolutionary theory and the theory’s apparently probabilistic nature; [ii] the nature of selection; [iii] the question of whether selection/adaptation explanations are teleological; [iv] the ontological status of species and the epistemological status of species concepts; and [v] the implications of Darwin’s insistence on the slow and gradual nature of evolutionary change. I claimed that one very good reason for continuing to characterize one dominant approach to evolutionary biology, that represented by the so-called ‘Neo-Darwinian Synthesis’, as ‘Darwinism’ is that its proponents side with Darwin on these issues (and on many less fundamental ones besides). That in itself is remarkable, but it is the more so because the Darwinian position on each of these issues is under as much pressure from non-Darwinian evolutionary biologists today as it was in the wake of the Origin . It is not surprising, given the situation as I have just characterized it, that historians and philosophers of biology have made significant contributions to the discussion, especially in pointing out the underlying philosophical issues and conceptual confusions and ambiguities that stand in the way of resolving the issues at hand, and their historical origins.

It is my conviction that a full understanding of the underlying philosophical disagreements on these questions will only come from a patient historical study of how the ‘Synthesis’ positions on these various issues, and those of their critics, arose. That I cannot do here. Rather, in what follows I will simply be presupposing certain answers to these questions of historical origins. The list of references at the end of this essay includes a number of excellent pieces of work on this subject for those who share my convictions about its importance.

The evolutionary process, as Darwin understood it, involves the generation of variation and a process producing a differential perpetuation of variation. One simple way to think about Darwinism in relation to a logical space of alternatives, then, is by means of the following variation grid :

The above grid might lead you to conclude that both non-fitness biased generation of variation and non-fitness biased perpetuation of variation would be properly labeled ‘chance.’ By seeing why that would be a misleading conclusion to draw, we get to the heart of the problem of the concept of ‘chance’ in contemporary Darwinism.

Let us begin with the language Darwin uses when he first sketches his theory at the beginning of the fourth chapter of the Origin :

Can it, then, be thought improbable , seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? (Darwin 1859, 80–81)

Unlike Darwin’s contemporaries, the founders of the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian selection theory, Sewall Wright, Ronald Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane, were entirely comfortable with a selection theory formulated in such terms. On this issue, contemporary Darwinism agrees whole-heartedly with Charles Darwin. Note one clear statement of the Principle of Natural Selection from the philosophical literature:

If a is better adapted than b to their mutual environment E , then (probably) a will have greater reproductive success than b in E . (Brandon1990, 11).

The theory trades pervasively in probabilities. To take a simple case: if there are three possible combinations of alleles at a given locus in a population, we can characterize the outcome of a reproductive cycle as ‘chance’ if each of the three possible combinations occurs at a frequency determined strictly by the laws of probability. In any given case of reproduction, we would say, which genotype emerged is a matter of chance. Given the fact that evolutionary biologists, especially in so far as they take their cues from population genetics, deal with large populations conceived as ‘gene pools’, and think of evolution as long run changes in the frequencies of different combinations of genes from generation to generation, it is clear that, in this sense, chance permeates contemporary Darwinism. The models of population biology provide a means of assigning probabilities to various outcomes, given information about population size, rates of mutation and migration (themselves given as averages and estimates). That is, as Darwin notes, being relatively better adapted increases an organism’s ‘chances’, i.e. increases its probability, of leaving viable offspring. It does not guarantee it. Since natural selection is a stochastic process, Darwinians from Darwin to the present rightly characterize it in terms of influencing the ‘chances’ of a given outcome, given variables such as selection pressure, population size or mutation rates.

Conceptual confusion arises, however, from the fact that ‘chance’ and ‘randomness’ are often contrasted, not with ‘deterministic’ outcomes but with ‘selected’ outcomes. For example, when John Beatty describes ‘random drift’ as ‘changes in frequencies of variations due to chance’ in the following passage, he presumably has something like a contrast with changes in frequencies due to selection in mind.

In Darwin’s scheme of things, recall, chance events and natural selection were consecutive rather than alternative stages of the evolutionary process. There was no question as to which was more important at a particular stage. But now that we have the concept of random drift taking over where random variation leaves off, we are faced with just such a question. That is, given chance variations, are further changes in the frequencies of those variations more a matter of chance or more a matter of natural selection? (Beatty 1984, 196)

Notice that in the above quote we first get a substitution of ‘random’ for ‘chance’ in the phrases ‘random variation’ and ‘chance variation’, and then at least the suggestion that the concept of ‘random drift’ can be characterized as ‘changes in frequencies of variations due to chance’, where the contrast class consists of similar changes due to natural selection.

With respect to the generation of variation, chapter 5 of On the Origin of Species opens with the following apology:

I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation. (Darwin 1859, 131)

Here Darwin is noting that, though to speak of ‘chance variations’ may seem to be citing chance as the cause of the variations, in fact it is simply acknowledging that they ‘appear to have no assignable cause’. But it is important to keep historical context in mind here. Whether Darwin himself ever flirted with the idea of ‘directed’ variation or not, he was acutely aware of two views from which his needed to be distinguished, very different from each other, but both holding to the view that variations arose for a purpose. [ 11 ] The most widely shared alternative was that found in natural theology. To quote the Reverend William Paley’s Natural Theology , regarding a beautiful instance of adaptation: “A conformation so happy was not the gift of chance”. Likewise, among Darwin’s followers, the American botanist Asa Gray, in an essay entitled ‘Natural Selection and Natural Theology’, uses the same contrast to advise Darwin against the notion of ‘chance variation’: “…we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume, in the philosophy of his hypothesis, that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines.”

Gray is here insisting that, since Darwin admits that using the term ‘chance’ merely signals ignorance of the true cause, and since the pervasive adaptations in nature suggest design, Darwin should avoid the suggestion that variations are due to chance in the sense of ‘absence of design’ . [ 12 ]

Darwin, in fact never refers to ‘chance variations’ in the Origin , though occasionally he will note that if a beneficial variation ‘chances [i.e. happens] to appear’, it will be favored by selection (see pp. 37, 82) What Darwin has in mind, however, is clear from his concluding remarks in his chapter on Laws of Variation :

Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference in the offspring from their parents—and a cause of each must exist—it is the steady accumulation, through natural selection, of such differences, when beneficial to the individual, that gives rise to all the more important modifications of structure…“ (Darwin 1859, 170)

Whatever the cause of the generation of a variation may be, the role of selection is to accumulate those already present variations that happen to be beneficial. As Beatty put it, the generation of variations and their selection are ‘consecutive’ processes. But to call the generation of variation a ‘chance’ process is to use ‘chance’ in this second sense, meaning not by design, not for some end.

Apart from those urging Darwin to give up chance in favor of design, he had pressure to abandon chance from another direction, the evolutionary philosophy of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck’s is a materialistic argument against the variation in nature being a matter of chance. On the Lamarckian view, variations arise in an organism as a direct response to environmental stress or demand, giving rise to a stimulus, which in turn elicits a physiological response, which finally can be passed on via reproduction to offspring. Variations are not chance or random, since they are an appropriate response to an environmental stress. Here ‘chance’ signals a lack of relation or connection to adaptive needs , an idea akin to, but ontologically quite distinct from, the contrast between ‘chance’ and ‘design’.

The concept of ‘random variation’ is today often used as a synonym for ‘chance variation’ in precisely this latter sense. Here are two examples of this notion of chance or randomness as used by contemporary Darwinians.

…mutation is a random process with respect to the adaptive needs of the species. Therefore, mutation alone, uncontrolled by natural selection, would result in the breakdown and eventual extinction of life, not in adaptive or progressive evolution. (Dobzhansky 1970, 65)

Thus the production of variations may be a ‘chance’ process in that there are a number of possible outcomes with assignable probabilities, but it is also a ‘chance’ process in the sense that the probability assignments are not biased by ‘adaptive needs’ or ‘fitness’.

My second example is intended to take us back to problems with our first sense of ‘random’ and ‘chance’. Here, a champion of the neutral theory of molecular evolution characterizes his position:

…the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular (DNA) level do not result from Darwinian natural selection acting on advantageous mutants but, rather, from random fixation of selectively neutral or very nearly neutral mutants through random genetic drift, which is caused by random sampling of gametes in finite populations. (Kimura 1992, 225)

Here, it will be noticed, the focus is not on the generation of variations but on the perpetuation of variations. The contrast is between a random sampling of gametes that leads to the fixation of selectively neutral alleles and natural selection favoring advantageous variations. That is, the contrast between ‘chance’ and ‘fitness biased’ processes is now being used to distinguish different means of perpetuating certain variations . We are contrasting two sampling processes. Drift samples without concern for adaptation; selection samples discriminately on the basis of differences in fitness. Both samplings are ‘probabilistic’, of course, but that in no way obviates the above contrast.

However, as Beatty has pointed out, it was quite common until fairly recently to characterize natural selection in such a way as to make it almost indistinguishable from random drift (cf. Lennox 1992, Lennox and Wilson 1994). Numerous accounts of fitness characterized the fitness of a genotype as defined by its relative contribution to the gene pool of future generations—the genotype contributing the larger percentage being the fitter. But of course that could easily be the result of a ‘random’—non-fitness biased—sampling process; which organisms would be declared ‘fitter’ by this method might have nothing to do with natural selection. In order to provide a proper characterization of the role of chance in evolutionary change, then, it is critical to provide a more robust and sophisticated account of fitness. (For further information, see the entry on fitness .) This, in turn, requires that we discuss the conceptual network that includes the notions of adaptation and natural selection, to which we will turn shortly.

For now, let us assume that there is a way of characterizing fitness such that there is a substantial empirical question of what role indiscriminate sampling of genotypes (or phenotypes) plays in evolutionary change. This issue was first placed squarely before evolutionary biologists by Sewall Wright in the early 1930s. As Wright pointed out, genes that are neutral with respect to fitness can, due to the stochastic nature of any process of sampling from a population, increase their representation from one generation to the next. The likelihood of this happening goes up as effective population size goes down. Since Wright imagined that a quite typical scenario in evolutionary change was for species to be broken up into relatively small, relatively isolated, populations (or ‘demes’), with significantly more breeding within than between demes, the likelihood that such ‘neutral genotypes’ could become fixed at relatively high levels was significant. Though he gradually toned down this aspect of his work, a significant school of mathematical population geneticists in the 1960s and 70s took these ideas and ran with them, developing a ‘Neutralist’ approach to evolutionary change. This is the position characterized by Kimura (one of its most eloquent defenders) in the passage quoted above. Whether or not such a process plays a significant role in evolution is not a philosophical issue, but it is highly relevant to whether evolutionary biology should be seen as predominantly Darwinian. For if any view is central to Darwinism, it is that the evolutionary process is predominantly guided by the fitness-biasing force of natural selection, acting on variations that arise by chance. It is to natural selection and related concepts that we now turn.

The greatest number of females will, of course, fall to the share of the most vigorous males; and the strongest individuals of both sexes, by driving away the weakest, will enjoy the best food, and the most favourable situations, for themselves and for their offspring. A severe winter, or a scarcity of food, by destroying the weak and the unhealthy, has had all the good effects of the most skilful selection.

The words of Charles Darwin? No; these are the words of John Sebright, penned in The Art of Improving the Breeds of Domestic Animals in 1809, the year of Charles Darwin’s birth and fifty years before On the Origin of Species was published. Darwin refers to this passage in Notebook C of his Species Notebooks. [ 13 ] It will be noticed that Sebright is not discussing domestic selection, but is quite clearly saying that processes leading to differential survival and reproduction in nature will have ‘all the good effects of the most skilful selection’. Darwin, then, did not need to read Malthus to see what is here so plainly and clearly stated—namely, that the struggle for survival in nature will have the same ‘selective’ effects as the actions of the domestic breeder of plants and animals.

As this passage, and the argument of the Origin , shows, ‘natural selection’ began life as the product of analogical reasoning. Sebright sees clearly that the natural processes he is describing will have the same effects as the breeder’s selection, but he is not about to describe those processes as selection processes. Darwin took that step, and Darwinism has followed.

Darwin himself consistently refers to natural selection as a power of preserving advantageous, and eliminating harmful, variations. As noted in the last section, whether a particular variation is advantageous or harmful is, in once sense of that term, a matter of chance; and whether an advantageous variation is actually preserved by selection is, in another sense of the term, also a matter of chance. For Darwinism, selection is the force or power that biases survival and reproduction in favor of advantageous variations, or to look ahead to the next section, of adaptations. It is this that distinguishes selection from drift.

In a recent monograph entitled Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges in the Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution , George C. Williams has vigorously defended Darwinian selection theory against a variety of challenges that have emerged over the last few decades. Those challenges can be placed into two broad categories: [i] proposed limitations on natural selection as an evolutionary force; and [ii] expansions of the scope of natural selection to include new ‘targets’ and ‘levels’. It will be noted that in neither case is it obvious that the theory itself requires modification in the face of such challenges—in principle these might be nothing more than challenges to the theory’s range of application . However, if it turned out that most evolutionary change could be explained without recourse to natural selection, this would be grounds for arguing that evolutionary biology was no longer Darwinian. And if it turned out that the theory of natural selection could only be integrated with our new understanding of the processes of inheritance and development by a wholesale modification of its foundations, it might be best to see the new theory as a modified descendent of Darwinism, rather than Darwinism itself. Theories may need essences, as Gould claims; but if what is fundamental to the theory has changed, then so has its essence. To borrow a phrase from Paul Griffiths, perhaps it is not that theories need histories and essences—perhaps what they need are historical essences .

Alfred Russell Wallace regularly urged Darwin to jettison the term ‘selection’ as misleadingly anthropomorphic, and substitute Herbert Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’. Darwin went half way—in later editions he added ‘or Survival of the Fittest’ to ‘Natural Selection’ in the title of chapter 4. As the theory developed in the mid-20 th century, the expression ‘survival of the fittest’ was gradually eliminated from any serious presentation of Darwinian selection theory. On the other hand, the concept of ‘fitness’ has played a prominent, and problematic, role. In the mathematical models used in population genetics, ‘fitness’ refers either to the abilities of the different genotypes in a population to leave descendants, or to the measures of those abilities, represented by the variable W . Here is a rather standard textbook presentation of the relevant concepts:

In the neo-Darwinian approach to natural selection that incorporates consideration of genetics, fitness is attributed to particular genotypes. The genotype that leaves the most descendants is ascribed the fitness value W =1, and all other genotypes have fitnesses, relative to this, that are less than 1. … Fitness measures the relative evolutionary advantage of one genotype over another, but it is often important also to measure the relative penalties incurred by different genotypes subject to natural selection. This relative penalty is the corollary of fitness and is referred to by the term selection coefficient . It is given the symbol s and is simply calculated by subtracting the fitness from 1, so that: s = 1 − W . (Skelton 1993 164)

The problem lies in the fact that the concept of fitness plays dual roles that are instructively conflated in this quotation. For when fitnesses are viewed as measures of differential abilities of organisms with different genotypes to leave different numbers of offspring, the language of fitness encourages us to suppose that ‘fitness’ refers to the relative selective advantages of genotypes. On the other hand, if ‘fitness’ simply refers to the measure of reproductive success, it is a quantitative representation of small scale evolutionary change in a population, and leaves entirely open the question of the causes of the change. But then the assumed connections among the concepts of fitness, adaptation and natural selection are severed. ‘Selection coefficients’ may have nothing to do with selection; what W represents may have nothing to do with selective advantage.

There is, however, a way of formulating the theory in its modern guise which maintains an essentially Darwinian character. Since there are a number of confirmed ways in which natural populations can evolve in the absence of natural selection, and since balancing selection, i.e. countervailing selection forces, may prevent a population from evolving in its presence, it is clear that establishing, by measuring different reproductive rates among its members, that the genetic make-up of a population has changed does not establish that natural selection was the source of that change; nor does the fact that no change has been measured establish that natural selection is not operative. Population genetics and its associated models should be treated as the ‘kinematics’, not the ‘dynamics’ of evolutionary processes. That is, it is a way of establishing that a population either is or is not in equilibrium, and it provides sophisticated tools for measuring rates of change in a population across generations. Moreover, like the kinematics of any physical theory, if it establishes cross-generational change, it also tells us that there are causes to be found—the detailed contours of those measures may even provide suggestions as to where to look for those causes. What it cannot do on its own is provide knowledge of the forces at work. To use language introduced by Elliott Sober, fitness, unlike natural selection, is causally inert . (For further information, see the entry on population genetics .)

That means that, as valuable as population genetics is, it should not be equated with the theory of natural selection. Too often in both biological presentations of the theory and philosophical discussions of it, this is forgotten. For example:

Most people are familiar with the basic theory of natural selection. Organisms vary in a heritable fashion. Some variants leave more offspring than others; their characteristics, therefore, are represented at a greater frequency in the next generation. (Wilson 1984, 273)

This is a presentation of ‘the basic theory of natural selection’ that makes no reference to natural selection at all!

Natural selection, if it is to resemble the Darwinian concept that bears that name, must be reserved for reference to an interaction between a variable, heritable feature of an organic system and the environment of that system . That interaction may or may not change the proportions of those features across generations, and those proportions may change for reasons other than those interactions. But a plausible natural selection hypothesis must posit some such interaction. On this issue I will give the last word to Stephen Jay Gould:

…when we consider natural selection as a causal process, we can only wonder why so many people confused a need for measuring the results of natural selection by counting the differential increase of some hereditary attribute (bookkeeping) with the mechanism that produces relative reproductive success (causality).” (Gould 2003, 619)

The concept of natural selection has to this point been presented broadly because of the other two critical questions surrounding the contemporary Darwinian concept of natural selection that I mentioned earlier—questions having to do with possible limiting constraints on natural selection and about the sorts of objects that can be viewed as appropriate organismic/environmental ‘interactors’ in the selection process.

If we suppose that for Darwin natural selection was almost exclusively thought of as an interaction between individual organisms and their organic and inorganic environments, then we can see two challenges to Darwinism today with respect to levels of selection. There are those, such as G. C. Williams and Richard Dawkins, who argue that selection is always and only of genes. Here is a clear statement:

These complications [those introduced by organism/environment interactions] are best handled by regarding individual [organismic] selection, not as a level of selection in addition to that of the gene, but as the primary mechanism of selection at the genic level. (Williams 1993, 16)

Dawkins’ preferred mode for making the same point is to refer to organisms—or interactors--as the vehicles of their genes, in fact vehicles constructed by the genome for its own perpetuation.

The original impulse for this approach, especially clear in Williams’ classic Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966) was philosophical—it was to use a sort of Ockham’s razor strategy against Group Selection hypotheses, showing that alleged group selection effects could be explained by explanations operating at the level of the genome. Throughout that book selection is always said to be of individual alleles, regardless of the role environments at various levels may play in the process.

This view has been extensively challenged by philosophers of biology on both methodological and conceptual grounds, though there are, among philosophers, enthusiastic supporters (cf. Dennett 1995). In all the give and take, it is seldom noticed that defenders of this view claim to be carrying the Darwinian flag (Gayon 1998 and Gould 2003 are exceptions). Yet it is certainly not a position that Darwin would recognize--and not merely because he lacked a coherent theory of the units of inheritance. It is not a Darwinian view because for Darwin it was differences in the abilities of organisms at various stages of development to respond to the challenges of life that had causal primacy in the explanation of evolutionary change. Among evolutionary biologists from the ‘neo-Darwinian synthesis’ on, it is those who stress the role of organisms in populations interacting differentially to ever-variable ecological conditions in causing changes in the gene pools of those populations who are the card-carrying Darwinians.

Darwinism also has challenges from the opposite direction. In the 1970s a number of biologists working in the fields of paleontology and systematics challenged the Neo-Darwinian dogma that you could account for ‘macro-evolution’ by means of long term extrapolation from micro-evolution. Gould, in particular, opens Part II of The Structure of Evolutionary Theory ( Towards a Revised and Expanded Evolutionary Theory ), with a chapter entitled ‘Species as Individuals in the Hierarchical Theory of Selection’. That chapter title combines two conceptually distinct theses: first, the thesis defended by Michael Ghiselin (Ghiselin 1997) and championed and refined by David Hull (Hull 2001), that species are, in a robust sense of the term, ‘individuals’; and second, that there may well be selection among groups of organisms, qua groups. Gould’s title exemplifies one approach to group selection—the unit of selection is always the individual, but there are individuals other than individual organisms that are subject to selection. A very different result emerges if one assumes that groups of organisms such as demes, kin-groups, or species, though not individuals, are nevertheless subject to selection. Adding to the conceptual complexity, some researchers propose that the term ‘group selection’ be restricted to the process whereby group-level traits provide advantages to one group over another, in which case there are strict conditions delimiting cases of group selection. Others define group selection primarily in terms of group level effects . Thus a debate analogous to that earlier discussed regarding the definitions of ‘fitness’ emerges here—by group selection do we mean a distinct type of causal process that needs to be conceptually distinguished from selection at the level of individual organism or gene, or do we merely mean a tendency within certain populations for some well defined groups to displace others over time? (For further discussion, see Sterelny and Griffiths 1999, 151–179; Hull 2001, 49–90; and see the entry on: levels and units of selection .)

Early in the Introduction to On the Origin of Species , Darwin observes that the conclusion that each species had descended from others “even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which most justly excites our admiration” (Darwin 1859, 3). One might say this was the central promise of Darwinism—to account for both phylogenic continuity and adaptive differentiation by means of the same principles; or as Darwin puts it, to integrate in one theory the supposed opposition between Unity of Type and Conditions of Existence.

But it is here that even the most sympathetic of Darwin’s theistic supporters were forced to qualify their support for the theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection. In Darwin’s day the reactions of Asa Gray and John Herschel are perhaps the most interesting in this respect. Both men saw in Darwin’s theory a way to account for ‘that mystery of mysteries,’ the regular appearance of new species by means of natural, or as they might say, ‘intermediate’ causes. However both instinctively recoiled from the irreducible and central role of ‘chance’ in the theory. They did not, but easily could have, said ‘God does not play dice with the universe.’ But as Darwin stated repeatedly, if gently, to Gray—if God ordained that variations should be along beneficial lines, natural selection would be redundant. Moreover, the evidence from the study of variation in domestic and natural populations put the lie to any claim that God directs all or most variation along beneficial lines. Darwinian selection theory is a two-step process—the production of variation unrelated to the adaptive requirements of the organism, and differential perpetuation of those variations that serve adaptive needs. Again, a theory of evolution that could not be so described would not be a Darwinian theory.

The nature of ‘selection explanations’ is a topic to which much philosophical attention has been devoted in recent years. Here I want to focus on only one important question—to what extent is the teleological appearance of such explanations simply that, an appearance masking a causal process in which goals play no role?

The appearance of teleology is certainly present in Darwinian explanations, and has been since Darwin spoke of natural selection working solely for the good of each being. The appearance of teleology stems from the ease with which both evolutionary biology and common sense take it for granted that animals and plants have the adaptations they do because of some benefit or advantage to the organism provided by those adaptations.

This is a hotly contested question, and I will here simply sketch a case that selective explanations of adaptations are robustly teleological. The interested reader may want to refer to the literature on this question referred to in the discussion and listed in the list of readings provided at the end of this entry. A question I think not worth discussing is whether the word ‘teleology’ should be replaced by ‘teleonomy’. Etymologically, they come to the same thing; and the philosophical arguments given in favor of the change all rest on an historically doubtful assumption—that philosophical defenses of teleology have always been either theistic or vitalistic. The serious philosophical issue can be put simply and directly: in selection explanations of adaptations, are the functions served by adaptations a central and irreducible feature of the explanans in such explanations? If the answer is yes, the explanations are teleological. [ 14 ]

A good place to begin is with a simple, yet realistic, example. In research carried out over many years and combining painstaking field work and laboratory experimentation, John Endler was able to demonstrate that the color patterns of males in the guppy populations he was studying in rivers feeding into the southern Caribbean were a consequence of a balance between mate selection and predator selection. To take one startling example, he was able to test and confirm a hypothesis that a group of males, with a color pattern that matched that of the pebbles on the bottoms of the streams and ponds they populated except for bright red spots, have that pattern because a common predator in those populations, a prawn, is color blind for red. Red spots did not put their possessors at a selective disadvantage, and were attractors for mates (Endler 1983, 173–190). We may refer to this pattern of coloration as a complex adaptation that serves the functions of predator avoidance and mate attraction. But what role do those functions play in explaining why it is that the males in this population have the coloration they do?

This color pattern is an adaptation, as that term is used in Darwinism, only if it is a production of natural selection (Williams 1966 261; Brandon 1985; Burian 1983). In order for it to be a product of natural selection, there must be an array of color variation available in the genetic/developmental resources of the species wider than this particular pattern but including this pattern. Which factors are critical, then, in producing differential survival and reproduction of guppies with this particular pattern? The answer would seem to be the value-consequences this pattern has compared to others available in promoting viability and reproduction. In popular parlance (and the parlance favored by Darwin), this color pattern is good for the male guppies that have it, and for their male offspring, and that is why they have it (Binswanger 1990; Brandon 1985; Lennox 2002). This answer strengthens the ‘selected effects’ or ‘consequence etiology’ accounts of selection explanations by stressing that selection ranges over value differences. The reason for one among a number of color patterns having a higher fitness value has to do with the value of that pattern relative to the survival and reproductive success of its possessors.

Selection explanations are, then, a particular kind of teleological explanation, an explanation in which that for the sake of which a trait is possessed, its valuable consequence , accounts for the trait’s differential perpetuation and maintenance in the population.

In listing the topics I would discuss under the heading of neo-Darwinism, I distinguished the question of the ontological status of species from the epistemological status of the species concept . Though they are closely related questions, it is important to keep them distinct. As will become clear as we proceed, this distinction is rarely honored. Moreover, it is equally important to distinguish the species concept from the categories of features that belong in a definition of species (Rheins 2011). Advances in our theoretical understanding may lead us to reconsider the sorts of attributes that are most important for determining whether a group of organisms is a species, and thus whether it deserves to be assigned a name at that taxonomic level. It should not be assumed that such changes constitute a change in the species concept, though at least some such changes may lead us to restrict or expand the range of taxa that are designated as species. In his contribution to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, Systematics and the Origin of Species , Ernst Mayr titled chapter five ‘The Systematic Categories and the New Species Concept’. Recall that Darwin made a point of treating the species category as continuous with ‘well-marked variety’ and ‘sub-species’, and made the radical suggestion that its boundaries would be just as fluid. Without explicitly acknowledging Darwin, Mayr takes the same tack, discussing ‘individual variants’ and ‘sub-species’ as a preliminary to discussing the species concept. Mayr notes that for someone studying the evolutionary process, speciation is a critical juncture; “…his interpretation of the speciation process depends largely on what he considers to be the final stage of this process, the species.” (Mayr 1942/1982, 113) With this in mind, he offers the following definition, the so-called ‘biological species concept’ (BSC):

Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups (Mayr 1942/1982, 120; 1976 518)

Mayr was well aware of the limitations of this definition, and treated it somewhat as a ‘regulative ideal’. Dobzhansky in 1937 gave what he claimed to be a definition of species, but which seems, as Mayr noted (Mayr 1976 481), much more a definition of speciation :

…that stage of evolutionary process, “at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated in two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding.” (312)

Simpson (1943) and others built even more historicity into the concept. These are all, of course, intended as definitions of the species category , and they attempt to provide a test (or a ‘yardstick’: Mayr 1976 479) that in principle will permit a researcher to decide whether a group of individuals should all be identified by a single species-level concept such as ‘homo sapiens’. The test for species membership is the capacity to interbreed; the test distinguishing two species is incapacity to interbreed. Dobzhansky makes the importance of this test transparent—the transition from a single interbreeding population to two reproductively isolated ones is the process of speciation.

Now in each of these definitions, little attention is paid to the actual methods used by taxonomists and systematists in differentiating between varieties of a species and distinct species, something to which Darwin gave a great deal of attention. Darwin’s apparent nominalism regarding the species concept likely stemmed from his close attention to his own taxonomic practices and those of other specialists. But nominalism typically combines a view about the ontology of species with one about the epistemological status of the species concept . On the first question, the nominalist insists that there are no species—there are more or less similar individuals. On the second question, the nominalist typically insists that the species concept is, at best, a useful or convenient grouping of similar individuals or, at worst, an arbitrary grouping of similar individuals. (An interesting alternative account of the species concept based on a sophisticated, multidimensional theory of similarity has recently been defended in Rheins 2011.)

In his work, Mayr relates different approaches to the species concept to the philosophical distinction between essentialism and nominalism. He associates essentialism with the view that a species concept refers to a universal or type. This view of the referent of the concept leads to the Typological Species Concept, which he traces from Linnaeus back to Plato and Aristotle, and which he claims ‘is now universally abandoned’ (1976 516). It is worth noting that serious doubt has been cast both on the historical and the philosophical credentials of Mayr’s ‘Typological Species Concept’ (see, e.g. Lennox, 1987; repr. in Lennox 2001b; Winsor 2001, 2006; Walsh 2006; Wilkins 2009). At the opposite extreme is nominalism, which combines the view that only individuals exist in nature and that species are concepts invented for the purpose of grouping these individuals collectively.

Mayr claims that his Biological Species Concept (BSC) is an advance on both; individual species members are objectively related to one another not by a shared relation to a type but by causal and historical relationships to one another. He can thus be understood as arguing for a new, objective way of understanding the epistemological grounds for grouping individuals into species. This new way of grouping stresses historical, genetic and various ecological relationships among the individuals as the grounds for determining species membership. His claim is that this is more reliable and objective than similarities of phenotypic characteristics. This makes sense of the importance he eventually places on the fact the BSC defines species relationally:

…species are relationally defined. The word species corresponds very closely to other relational terms such as, for instance, the word brother . … To be a different species is not a matter of degree of difference but of relational distinctness. (Mayr 1976, 518)

Mayr has in mind that brothers may or may not look alike; the question of whether two people are brothers is determined by their historical and genetic ties to a common ancestry. Notice, however, that this is a claim about which characteristics, among the many that they have, should be taken most seriously in determining the applicability to them of the concept ‘brother’. That is, it is a defense of a sort of essentialism.

A number of critics have pointed out that essentialism need not be committed to ‘types’ understood as universalia in re ; and on certain accounts of essences any species taxon that meets the standards of BSC does so in virtue of certain essential (though relational and historical) properties. At one extreme, Michael Ghiselin and David Hull have argued that this causal/historical structure of species provides grounds, at least within evolutionary biology, for considering species to be individuals. [ 15 ] Organisms are not members of a class or set, but ‘parts’ of a phylogenetic unit. Taking a very different tack, Denis Walsh has recently argued that a form of ‘evolutionary essentialism,’ bearing a striking resemblance to the essentialism of Aristotle’s zoological work, is implicit in the work of a number of evolutionary developmental theorists (Walsh, 2006).

A critical issue in this debate over the account of the species concept most appropriate for Darwinism is the extent to which the process of biological classification—taxonomy—should be informed by advances in biological theory. Besides those already discussed, the moderate pluralism associated with Robert Brandon and Brent Mischler or the more radical pluralism defended by Philip Kitcher, argues that different explanatory aims within the biological sciences will require different criteria for determining whether a group constitutes a species. Cladists, on the other hand, employ strictly defined phylogenetic tests to determine species rank (see Rheins 2011).

Unlike many of the other topics that define the history of Darwinism, there is no clear-cut position on this question that can be identified as ‘Darwinian’ or ‘neo-Darwinian’. In a recent collection of papers defending most of the alternatives currently being advanced (Ereshefsky 1992), my suspicion is that virtually every author in that collection would identify himself as Darwinian. This may be because, as different as they are, a number of positions currently being defended have their roots in Darwin’s own theory and practice (see Beatty 1985; reprinted in Ereshefsky 1992).

• Amundson, R., and Lauder, G. 1994, ‘Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology’, Biology and Philosophy , 9: 443–469.
• Babbage, C., 1837, The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise , London: Murray.
• Barrett, P. H., and Freeman R. B., (eds.), 1988, The Works of Charles Darwin , Vols. 1–29, New York: New York University Press.
• Barrett, P. H. et al., (eds.), 1987, Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, 1836–1844: Geology, Transmutation of Species, Metaphysical Enquiries , Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
• Beatty, J., 1984, ‘Chance and Natural Selection’, Philosophy of Science , 51: 183–211.
• –––, 1992, ‘Teleology and the Relationship Between Biology and the Physical Sciences in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’, in Durham and Purrington, 113–144.
• Binswanger H., 1990, The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts , Los Angeles : ARI Press.
• Brandon, Robert, 1981, ‘Biological Teleology: Questions and Explanations’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 12: 91–105.
• –––, 1985, ‘Adaptation Explanations: Are Adaptations for the Good of Replicators or Interactors?’, in Weber and Depew, 81–96.
• –––, 1990, Adaptation and Environment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Brandon, R. and Burian, R. (eds.), 1984, Genes, Organisms, Populations: Controversies over the Units of Selection , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
• Burian, R., 1983, ‘Adaptation’, in Grene, 287–314.
• Darwin, C., 1859 , On the Origin of Species , London: John Murray.
• Dennett, D., 1995, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life , New York: Simon and Shuster.
• Dobzhansky, T., 1937, Genetics and the Origin of Species , New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 1970, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Durham, F. and Purrington R. (eds.), 1992, Some Truer Method: Reflections on the Heritage of Newton , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Eble, G., 1999, ‘On the Dual Nature of Chance in Evolutionary Biology and Paleobiology’, Paleobiology , 25: 75–87.
• Endler, J. 1983, ‘Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes’, Environmental Biology of Fishes , 9: 173–190.
• Ereshefsky, M. (ed.), 1992, The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gayon, J., 1998, Darwinism’s Struggle for Survival: Heredity and the Hypothesis of Natural Selection , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2003, ‘From Darwin to Today in Evolutionary Biology’, in Hodge and Radick, 240–264.
• Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J. G., 1987, Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Grene, M. (ed.), 1983, Dimensions of Darwinism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
• Herbert, S., (ed.), 1980, The Red Notebook of Charles Darwin , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Herschel, J., 1830/1987, A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy , Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Hodge, J. and Radick, G. (eds.), 2003, The Cambridge Companion to Darwin , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Horowitz, T. and Massey, G., (eds.), 1991, Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy , Savage MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Hull, D., 2001, Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Huxley, L. (ed.), 1901, Life and Letters of Thomas H. Huxley, Vols. I-II , New York: D. Appleton & Co.
• Keller, E. Fox and Lloyd, E. (eds.), 1992, Keywords in Evolutionary Biology , Cambridge MA,: Harvard University Press.
• Kimura, M., 1992, ‘Neutralism’, in Fox Keller and Lloyd, 225–230.
• Kitcher, P., 1993, The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lamarck, J-B., 1809/1984, Zoological Philosophy , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Laudan, L., 1976, Progress and its Problems , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Lennox, James G. 1987, ‘Kinds, forms of kinds, and the more and the less in Aristotle’s biology,’ in Gotthelf and Lennox 1987, 339–359.
• Lennox, J., 1991, ‘Darwinian Thought Experiments: A Function for Just-so Stories’, in Horowitz and Massey, 223-246.
• –––, 1993, ‘Darwin was a Teleologist’, Biology and Philosophy 8: 409–422.
• –––, ‘Philosophy of Biology’, in Salmon et al. 1992, 269–309.
• –––, 2000, Aristotle’s Philosophy of Biology: Essays on the Origins of Life Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lennox, J. and Wilson, B., 1994, ‘Natural Selection and the Struggle for Existence’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 25: 65–80.
• Lyell, C., 1831–3/1991, Principles of Geology, First Edition, Vol. I-III , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Millstein, R., 2000, ‘Chance and Macroevolution’, Philosophy of Science , 67: 603–624.
• Ospovat, D., 1980, The Development of Darwin’s Theory: Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838–1859 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rheins, J., 2011, ‘Similarity and Species Concepts’, in Carving Nature at its Joints: Natural Kinds in Metaphysics and Science , in J. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, and M. Slater (eds.), Topics in Contemporary Philosophy (Volume 8), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 253–288..
• Robson, G. C. and Richards, O. W., 1936, The Variation of Animals in Natur e, London: Longmans.
• Salmon, M. et al., 1992, Introduction to Philosophy of Science , Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Shanahan, T., 1991, ‘Chance as an Explanatory Factor in Evolutionary Biology’, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences , 13: 249–269.
• Skelton, P. (ed.), 1993, Evolution: A Biological and Palaeontological Approach , London: Pearson.
• Sterelny, K. and Griffiths, P., 1999, Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology , Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Uglow, J., 2002, The Lunar Men: Five Friends Whose Curiosity Changed the World , New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
• Weber, B. and Depew, D. (eds.), 1985, Evolution at a Crossroads: The New Biology and the New Philosophy of Science , Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• George Williams, 1966, Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1992, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Walsh, D., 2006, ‘Evolutionary Essentialism’, British Journal for Philosophy of Science , 57: 425–448.
• Wilkins, J. S., 2009, Species: A History of the Idea , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Wilson, D. S., 1984, ‘Individual Selection and the Concept of Structured Demes’, in Brandon and Burian, 272–291.
• Winsor, M. P., 2001, ‘Cain on Linnaeus: The Scientist-Historian as Unanalysed Entity,’ Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences , 32 (2), 239–25.
• –––, 2006, ‘Linnaeus’s Biology was not Essentialist’, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens , 93: 2–7.

Charles Darwin’s Life

• Browne, E. J. 1995, Charles Darwin: A Biography. Vol. 1: Voyaging , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2000, Charles Darwin: A Biography. Vol. 2: The Power of Place , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Desmond, A. and Moore, J., 1992, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist , New York: Norton.
• Herbert, S. 2005, Charles Darwin, Geologist , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Charles Darwin: Primary Sources

• Barrett, P. H. (ed.), 1977, The Collected Papers of Charles Darwin , 2 Vols., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Burkhardt, F. (ed.), 1985–2015, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin , Volumes 1–21, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chancellor, G. and John van Wyhe (eds.), 2009, Charle’s Darwin’s Notebooks from the Voyage of the Beagle , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Keynes, R. (ed.), 2000, Charles Darwin’s Zoology Notes & Specimen Lists from H.M.S. Beagle , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Peckham, M. (ed.), 1959, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: A Variorum Text , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [1st Paperback edition, 2006]
• Weinshank, D. et al. (eds.), 1990, A Concordance to Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, 1836–1844 , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Charles Darwin’s Context

• Owen, R., 1837/1992, The Hunterian Lectures in Comparative Anatomy, 1837 , Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Rudwick, M., 1997, George Cuvier, Fossil Bones and Geological Catastrophes , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ruse, M., 1999, The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw (Revised edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ruse, M. and Richards, R. J. (eds.), 2009, The Cambridge Companion to the Origin of Species, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Snyder, L., 2010, The Philosophical Breakfast Club , New York: Broadway Books.

The Evolution of Darwinism

• Amundson, R., 2005, The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Roots of Evo-Devo , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Depew, D. and Weber, B., 1995, Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection , Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Kohn, D. (ed.), 1995, The Darwinian Heritage , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Mayr, E., 1976, Evolution and the Diversity of Life , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
• Ruse, M. (ed.), 2013, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolutionary Thought , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Philosophy and Evolutionary Theory

• Brandon, R. N., 1996, Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Burian, R. M., 2005, The Epistemology of Development, Evolution, and Genetics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ereshefsky, M. (ed.), 1992, The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Godfrey-Smith, P., 2014, The Philosophy of Biology , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Hull, D. and Ruse, M. (eds.), 1998, The Philosophy of Biology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lloyd, E., 1994, The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory , 2 nd edition Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Sober, E., 1984, The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus , Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• –––, (ed.), 1994, Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology , 2 nd edition, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2008, Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Walsh, D. M., 2015, Organisms, Agency, and Evolution , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Though there are an abundance of web sites on Darwinism, the three most useful sites meeting the highest of academic standards are listed below. The first is the official site for the publication of material in the extensive Darwin Archives at Cambridge University, but has grown to become the default site for Darwin texts and related literature as well. The second is the official site for on-line publication of Darwin’s extensive correspondence. The third site is a very good starting point amd links to sites related to Charles Darwin’s historical context.

• Complete World of Charles Darwin Online
• Darwin Correspondence Project
• Victorian Science: An Overview , The Victorian Web (funded by the University Scholars Program, National University of Singapore)

adaptationism | biology: philosophy of | creationism | developmental biology: evolution and development | essential vs. accidental properties | evolution | fitness | -->individuals and individuation --> | laws of nature | natural selection | natural selection: units and levels of | scientific explanation | Scottish Philosophy: in the 18th Century | Scottish Philosophy: in the 19th century | species | teleology: teleological notions in biology | Whewell, William

Copyright © 2019 by James Lennox < jglennox+ @ pitt . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• We guarantee 100% of confidentiality!
• Call us: +1(888)684-1320 +1(888)650-9161
• Contacts FAQ
• Natural Sciences

Charles Darwin

By essaysmasters

Introduction

Charles Darwin lived between 1809 and 1882. He was an English geologist and naturalist. He is recognized for the evolution theory that he has established. Darwin brought the idea that all organisms originated from a common ancestor. He believed that evolution came from natural selection as organism struggle to exist. Darwin believed that only the fittest organism is able to survive, and their genes are moved to the next generation. The theory of natural selection was formulated by Charles Darwin in the 19th century. Darwin was an English geologist, biologist and naturalist. Darwin started his investigation on species on the islands using vessel HMS Beagle. He spent time on the islands and came up with a theory that contradicted the creation theory. Darwin concluded that all species originated form a common ancestor, through natural selection process. Natural selection is the largest factor that resulted to the diversity of species as well as their genomes.

• Free bibliography page
• Free title page
• Free formatting (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago/Turabian)
• Free revision (within 2 days)
• Free from AI-written content
• 24/7 support
• Approx. 300 words/page
• Font: 12 point Times New Roman
• Double and single spacing
• 1 inch margin
• Up-to-date sources
• Any citation style

Darwins Theory of Natural Selection

Darwins theory is traced back to the time of Aristotle. Darwin pointed out that he borrowed some ideas from the works of Aristotle and other Greek Thinkers such as Empedocles. Darwin pointed out that he could not have discovered how evolution took place without the work of Robert Thomas Malthus who made him realize that organisms adjust as they try to fit in the competition for scarce resources.

Charles Darwin is regarded as the father of revolutionary biology as he introduced the evolution theory that describes the origin of species. Darwins scientific theory argues that populations develop over time through the natural selection process. His works proved that diversity of life arises through common descent evolution pattern. Darwin gathered information for his theory in the 1830s on the Beagle voyage. He also conducted subsequent experimentation, correspondence and research that proved his theory.

Explanation of Natural Selection

All species have an aim of reproducing to survive. They pass genetic information from one generation to another. Through reproduction, species produce more offspring such that the environment cannot handle it. As a result of increased reproduction, the population increases. The species living in a particular environment start competing for the scarce resources. Some of the offspring cannot survive because the competition becomes tougher and tougher as the amount of competitors increases.

Survival for the Fittest

As a result of the competition, some of the organisms die, leaving the tough ones to survive. Organisms that are best fitted for the environment mange to survive. When the environment provides such complicated conditions, some of the animals still manage to survive while some perish. Darwin believed that evolution came from natural selection as organisms struggle to exist. He pointed out that only the fittest organisms are able to survive, and their genes are moved to the next generation

Organisms that manage to survive the tough environment develop desirable characteristics that allow them survive in such environment. They have a suitable genome that makes them adjust to the environment by attaining suitable characteristics for the environment. The organisms pass the desirable characteristics to their offspring through their genes. A new species is created through evolution as organisms try to adjust to the environment.

According to Darwin, the evolved organisms start living in an ecological niche that favours their survival. These organisms continue passing adjusted features to their offspring in order to increase chance of survival. When the population of the organisms living in a particular ecological niche increases beyond what the environment can handle, the theory of natural selection continues acting. An organism that cannot survive in the harsh environment dies because of the competition for the scarce resources. This leaves the survivors with adjustment as the only option. They develop suitable characteristics that make them survive in the environment. They pass their adjusted features to their offspring, giving a rise to new species.

Impact of Natural Selection Theory

Most scientists are convinced that Darwin was the greatest scientist who had the revolutionised ideas. He managed to convince scientists that evolution originated form descent modification. His theory has been used to develop scientific drugs, genetically modified organisms and pesticides among other biological elements. His evolutionary synthesis has been incorporated with Madelia genetics, population genetics and natural selection ideas to evolve the world. It is Darwins ideas that reference modern scientific theories.

Darwin is the founder of evolution theory that shows how organism evolved. He explained how evolution occurred through natural selection. He did a lot of researches that resulted to a conclusion that all organisms originated from a similar ancestor. He believed that competition for the use of scarce resources such as food makes animals to adjust so that they can defeat the others. Only those that fit the best win the race. This adjustment is caused by natural selection, leading to evolution. New species arise from the adjusted parents with inheritable variations.

In case you have considered our essay sample a great piece of writing and you would like to get the similar one, you are welcome to order from our cheap essay writing service .

100% Confidentiality

24/7 Cusmer Support

Professional Writers

AI-Free Content

Cheap Prices

Deadline Meeting

Related articles

• Partner program

Charles Darwin's Papers Online

For decades available only to scholars at Cambridge University Library, the private papers of Charles Darwin, one of the most influential scientists in history, can now be seen by anyone online and free of charge. This is the largest ever publication of Darwin papers and manuscripts, totalling about 20,000 items in over 100,000 electronic images.

This vast and varied collection of papers includes the first draft of his theory of evolution, notes from the voyage of the Beagle and Emma Darwin's recipe book .

We are extremely grateful for the kind permission of Cambridge University Library to reproduce these online. (See the Cambridge University Library Order Form for Digital Images .) They are presented in the same sequence as the original catalogue, which was divided mostly into bound volumes, each with a library classmark.

History of the material: The Darwin family and the Pilgrim Trust presented a magnificent collection of Darwin's papers to Cambridge University Library in 1942; they were delivered after the war. As the 1960 Handlist describes:

They were in parcels each containing small packets of manuscript wrapped in tissue paper on which the subjects had been noted in Darwin's hand. They were presumably just as Darwin left them, and accordingly this arrangement was preserved when they were bound, the volumes now representing as closely as possible Charles Darwin's papers in the order in which he left them. Beside the original papers there were copies of a large number of letters to Darwin, collections of press-cuttings, etc.

The immense value of this vast collection of material far exceeds the disadvantages of the occasional unreadable image and the lack of full colour. Several million pounds and years of production would be needed to produce colour digital images of the Darwin Archive. Hopefully this will eventually be achieved. In the meantime, most of the world's finest collection of Darwin's original manuscripts is now available for all to read, study and explore online and free of charge.

For an overview of Darwin's papers click here .

Darwin Online cannot give permission to reproduce Darwin manuscripts; enquiries about this should be addressed to Adam Perkins, Curator of Scientific Manuscripts in the University Library ( [email protected] or [email protected] )

Many individuals and institutions have helped to make Darwin Online possible, for a complete list see Acknowledgements .

The papers can be found in two ways:

1. Browse through whole volumes of Darwin's papers . Click here . 2. Search the catalogue for specific items, people, dates etc . Click here .

Darwin's first recorded doubt in 'the stability of species', from his Galapagos bird notes from the voyage of the Beagle , 1836 First sketch of the theory of evolution, 1842     Theoretical notebooks.     Drafts of Descent of Man Review of Origin of Species , 1859 Emma Darwin's recipe book. Darwin family photos

Selections from the Darwin papers

•  The first drafts of Darwin's theory of evolution: the 1842 sketch and 1844 essay. •   Darwin's papers from the Beagle voyage. Click here . •   Darwin's religious views: Emma Darwin's 1839 memo , and an entire volume on the subject. Click here . •   Drafts of Darwin's unpublished 'big book', Natural selection. Click here . •   Notes & drafts for his book Descent of Man . Click here . •   Unpublished photos collected for Expression of the Emotions . Click here . •   Reviews of Darwin's works. Click here . •   Darwin and experimentation on animals. Click here . •   Caricatures, cartoons & sketches of Darwin. Click here and here . •   Darwin's accounts with his publisher John Murray for 1881. Click here . •   Obituaries of Charles Darwin, Click here , here and here . •   Items in French , German , Spanish or Italian .

See a list of all available online images of Darwin's papers. Click here .

See Darwin's handwriting beside a typed version:

[ Beagle animal notes (1832-33)]. Text & images 'Chiloe Jan r . 1835' [ Beagle notes]. Text & images 'The position of the bones of Mastodon (?) at Port St Julian is of interest'. Text & images [Darwin's personal 'Journal' (1809-1881)]. Text & images [An autobiographical fragment] (08.1838). Text & images 'Our poor child, Annie' [Darwin's reminiscence of Anne Elizabeth Darwin] (30.04.1851). Text & images Part of Darwin's 'autobiography', 1876

The collection is organized into categories:

•   Abstract — Darwin's reading notes. •   Draft — Darwin's rough drafts of his many publications. •   Figure — Drawings, diagrams and tables. •   Note — Includes most of Darwin's notes, usually organized into subject portfolios. •   Photo — Photographs. •   Printed — Published items such as reviews of Darwin's works or clippings he collected for his researches. •   Miscellaneous  

Read about the reception of the launch of Darwin's papers here .

John van Wyhe

File last up 10 November, 2022 e -->e -->

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Darwin's Finches A Case Study in Evolutionary Adaptation

• Anthropology

121 Charles Darwin Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best charles darwin topic ideas & essay examples, 💡 most interesting charles darwin topics to write about, ☝ good research topics about charles darwin, 🤔 interesting topics to write about charles darwin, ❓ questions about charles darwin.

• “A Biographical Sketch of an Infant” by Charles Darwin The child also “showed feelings of sensitivity when touched at the sole, by curling the toes and jerking away”. However, the child was amused by his image and that of his guardian in the mirror.
• “Natural Selection” by Charles Darwin The greatest achievement of the scientist is that he managed to explain his revolutionary theory in simple terms so that people could understand and accept it. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Controversies on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Although there are many theories which explain the origin of the earth, Darwin’s theory evokes strong responses due to the fact that it opposes religion and it does not meet all the requirements of a […]
• Charles Darwin: Evolution Theory The naturalist of the time believed that everything in the world had a key role in the economic of nature and the credit was given to an intelligent creator.
• Charles Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Although the given theory is often misinterpreted as the idea that only the species that are the most physically strong can survive through the changes in the environment, it is clear that Darwin had the […]
• Darwin’s Theory of Human Evolution Although Darwin seems to refute the religious claim on the origin of man, it is apparent that both religion and science share a common hypothesis that man has a distinct origin. Darwin is also concerned […]
• Variorum of Darwin’s Work: Origin of Species As the purpose and advantage of a variorum were addressed during a lecture, the purpose of this paper is to apply received knowledge on practice using the Online Variorum of Darwin’s work. In addition, a […]
• The Controversy of Darwin’s Theory The scientist knew that the concept of the existence of one common ancestor and the idea of natural selection was a striking contradiction to the aforementioned perspective, as it risked invalidating the role of God […]
• Spencer’s and Darwin’s Theories Comparison Darwin coined the phrase “natural selection” to describe the mechanism of evolution, and Spencer went on to derive a whole moral prescription for the future from it.
• Evolutionary Biology and Darwin The lack of knowledge about the laws of heredity, the genetic and ecological structure of species, and the lack of experimental evidence of natural selection served as the basis for the growth of critical attitudes […]
• Charles Darwin’s Scientific Works and Their Importance The fact that the biological world probably evolved according to Darwin’s way caused dissonance and denial in society, caused by contradictions with their usual picture of the world. It is a mistake to think that […]
• Evolution: Debunking Darwin’s and Lincoln’s Contributions Although this statement is intended to demonstrate how life has generally evolved owing to the immense contributions of Darwin in the sciences and Lincoln in politics and democracy, it lacks merit as there were other […]
• Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection One of the ideas is that the species living on the earth undergo changes with the course of time which implies that the species that live today differ from those that were in the past.
• Darwin’s Ideas of Natural Selection and Evolution The hierarchical classifications can also be applied to the tree, while phylum, classes, orders, and the other elements of the taxonomy are represented by various locations in the branches In addition to the described elements, […]
• Evolution of Mating by Charles Darwin Sexual reproduction has proven to be the best strategy that permits the combination of varied genes that allows the offspring to be more flexible and adaptable to changes in the environment. The large size of […]
• Natural Selection by Charles Darwin: Comparative Analysis However, in the editorial, Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin’s foremost dispute is that the poor should not be assisted.
• God and Darwin’s Evolution Theory: A Theological Approach The descent of God reiterates the theology of evolution in which Jesus postulates himself as a slave and not as God. Hence this makes the theology of nature and the essence of the entirety of […]
• Adam Smith’s The Invisible Hand, Trumped by Darwin? This paper will address the main issues regarding the theory on the invisible hand by Adam Smith as well as assess the applicability of issues of the theory in real-life experience.
• Scientist Charles Darwin & Evolution By the year 1846, Darwin had a number of publications relating to zoological and geological discoveries of his expedition works that catapulted him in the scientists front rank.
• God and Darwin in the Science Classroom: Whither Student Beliefs? In February this year, Moore and Cotner published in The American Biology Teacher the results of a college student survey that revealed the continuing chasm between evolution theory and creationism in the high school science […]
• Biological Anthropology, Lamarck’s and Darwin’s View of Evolution Darwin’s theory of evolution was largely influenced by the ideas of James Hutton and Charles Lyell. The subfield of linguistic anthropology is often considered a subfield within cultural anthropology, though its relation to biological anthropology […]
• Darwin’s Influence on John Dewey’s Reflex Arc Concept The interpretation of this argument is that the primary process is the movement of the head and the eyes before the candle is noticed while sensation of the candle is the secondary stimulus.
• Sexual Selection Theory by Charles Darwin The study was able to establish that accessory gland size exhibited positive allometry and males with larger accessory glands were more likely to copulate suggesting that larger size in this trait is favored by sexual […]
• Anaximander’s vs. Greek and Darwin’s Theories He was one of the first proponents of science as the positive and pragmatic knowledge needed for understanding the world and manipulating different things and processes.
• Darwin, Evolution, and Modern History As a topic, the moral sense is important to the understanding of the popular interpretations of Darwin’s concept of adaptation through natural selection.
• “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin However, an intense conflict over religious morality and the development of professionalism in science have led to the possibility of the evolvement of such revolutionary theories as the ones proposed by Darwin in On the […]
• Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory and Creationism Therefore, this idea can be used to prove the point that in their traditional form, the two philosophies oppose each other.
• Darwin’s Theory of Evolution The evolution of different beak sizes/types ensured that up to 15 different species of finches could coexist in the islands. In the experiment, we simulated natural selection in finches, where the ‘beak’ type determined the […]
• Darwin’s and Galton’s Scientific Racism Overall, it is possible to say that the ideas of these people were largely based on the misuse of scientific methods and lack of anthropological knowledge.
• John Stuart Mill and Charles Darwin: Philosophers Comparison To a great extent, they profoundly influenced people’s views on the origins of life, the transformation of society and the behavior of an individual within the community. This is one of the main details that […]
• Commoner, Darwin and Paley’ Theories on Humans Evolution When it comes to discussing the discursive significance of the Darwinian theory of evolution in general, and the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle in particular, it is always crucially important to understand that they are […]
• The Underpinnings of Genetic Diversity – Contribution of Darwin and Vavilov The aim of this essay is to understand the contribution of Darwin and Vavilov, along with the underpinnings of genetic diversity to bring about the organisms’ survival over time.
• Review on “Darwin’s Missing Evidence” by Joel Hagen and H. B. D. Kettlewell Thus, Hagen also pays attention to the peculiarities of the discussion of Kettlewell’s experiments presented in the literature of evolutionary biology and in the field of science education.
• Ecological economics in “The Origin of Species” by Sir. Charles Darwin Ecological economics sees the economy as a subsystem of the wider ecosystem and puts a lot of emphasis upon the preservation of the natural capital.
• Darwin on the Origin of Species This is due to the fact that this is a consequence of the diversity among species as well as the struggles.
• Charles Darwin’s Biography That is necessary to say that Darwin tried to show the role of Nature and the role of man in our world.
• How primary resources can debunk the misconception that Darwin proposed the first theory of evolution From the available sources, it is with no doubt that Darwin was not the founder of this evolution theory as generally believed by many people.
• Justice as the Advantage of the Stronger: Thrasymachus’s Ideas (plato’s the republic) vs. Charles Darwin’s Principle of Natural Selection: a Comparison However, despite the seeming similarity between Thrasymachus’s point of view and Darwin’s concept of the strongest as the most possible survivors and leaders, there is a mile of small differences that sets Darwin’s idea of […]
• Evaluation and Critical Analysis of Sexual Selection by Charles Darwin The author believes that to a certain extent, the development of animals is shaped in two ways: through their struggles against same-sex rivals, mostly males, and through their attempts to “charm or excite” the member […]
• Comparing Knauft’s Study on Violence and Sociality with Darwin’s Evolutionary Perspectives However, the study revealed that simple human societies pass various survival techniques to their offspring especially in resource sharing and general way of life.
• Natural Selection: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution It is commonly known by the phrase, “survival of the fittest”, which means that only the species that have well adapted to their environment, is well suited to survive in that habitat.
• Comparison of Karl Marx’s and Charles Darwin’s Philosophy
• How Charles Darwin Changed the World Forever?
• Comparison Between the Teachings of the Bible and the Two Books of Charles Darwin
• Analysis of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution
• Comparison of Passages by Herman Melville and Charles Darwin
• Justification of Imperialism by the British Empire Using Charles Darwin’s Theories
• Comparison of the Evolution Theories of Charles Darwin and Jean Baptiste Lamarck
• The Big Bang Theory by Charles Darwin
• Why Cannot Charles Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Explain Rationality?
• How Charles Darwin Contributed to Our Modern Science?
• Charles Darwin on the Evolution of Life and Human Nature
• How Does Charles Darwin’s Theory Challenge the Existing Beliefs?
• Who Had the Greater Impact on Western Civilization: Charles Darwin or Sigmund Freud?
• Argument Against Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
• Aristotle and Charles Darwin: Two of the Great Biologists of All Time
• Biblical Creation and Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
• Past and Present Perceptions of Charles Darwin
• Analysis of Two Important Concepts in Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”
• Rejection of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by the Catholic Church
• Charles Darwin on Humanity and Its Impact on the Planet
• Works of Charles Darwin in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters
• Charles Darwin: The Natural Way of Species Selection
• How Did Thomas Malthus Inspire Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution?
• Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought
• Comparison of the Extent of the Impact of the Studies of Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud
• Discussion on Charles Darwin’s and Jane Austen’s Visions of Success
• Biography and Life Work of Charles Darwin, a British Scientist, Naturalist and Geologist
• Charles Darwin and Blending Inheritance
• Literary Analysis of the “Theory of Evolution” by Charles Darwin and “Call of the Wild” by Jack London
• Charles Darwin as a Prospective Geological Author
• Importance of Charles Darwin’s Contribution to Science Using Examples from a Taxonomic Group
• Edward Lee Thorndike and Darwin on Behavioral Science
• How Would Charles Darwin Critique John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism?
• Lamarcks Influence Upon Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural
• Effect of Social Circle on the Life of Charles Darwin
• Accomplishments of Charles Darwin and Elements of Romanticism in His Works
• The Destructive Impact of Charles Darwin on Teleological Arguments in General
• Changing Representations of Charles Darwin
• Charles Darwin in London: The Integration of Public and Private Science
• Nature’s Fancy: Charles Darwin and the Breeding of Pigeons
• Charles Darwin: A Discussion of Feminism and Evolutionary Theory
• Charles Darwin’s Touching Letter of Appreciation to His Best Friend and Greatest Champion
• The Contacts Between Karl Marx and Charles Darwin
• Charles Darwin: The Christian Who Undermines Christianity
• The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin
• An Analysis of the Mentorship Between Charles Darwin and Professor John Henslow
• Charles Darwin on Mental Evolution in Animals
• Branches in the Lines of Descent: Charles Darwin and the Evolution of the Species Concept
• The Origin of Darwin’s Anxiety
• The Charles Darwin Controversy: Laboratory Science vs. Country-House Experiments
• What Happened in Charles Darwin’s Life That Inspired His Theory of Evolution?
• Did the Fossils Affect Darwin’s Understanding of Life’s Diversity?
• What Experiences Did Charles Darwin Have That Helped Him in Developing His Theory of Natural Selection?
• What Struggles Did Charles Darwin Have?
• How Does Darwin’s Theory Explain the Diversity of Life?
• What Evidence Convinced Darwin That Species Change Over Time?
• How Does Darwin’s Theory Relate to Humans?
• What Observation Made by Malthus Inspired Darwin?
• How Did Charles Darwin Challenge the Enlightenment?
• What Beliefs Did the Theories of Charles Darwin Contradict?
• How Did Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Affect Society?
• Why Was Darwin’s Theory Not Accepted?
• What Scientific Methods Did Charles Darwin Use?
• Did Darwin Believe All Species Are Related Through the Tree of Life?
• When Did People Accept Darwin’s Theory?
• Was Charles Darwin Against Religion?
• Is Darwin’s Theory Still Used Today?
• What Were the Main Achievements of Charles Darwin?
• Did Darwin Believe in Human Nature?
• What Was Charles Darwin Trying to Show With His Tree of Life?
• How Did Charles Darwin Help Society?
• What Famous Work Did Charles Darwin Publish?
• How Is the Work of Charles Darwin Still Used Today?
• What Are Darwin’s Contributions to Modern Science?
• How Did Charles Darwin Create His Theory?
• Was Charles Darwin a Respected Scientist?
• Did Charles Darwin Create Evolution?
• Who Is the First to Accept Darwin’s Theory?
• Is Charles Darwin’s Evolution Theory Proved?
• What Mental Disorder Did Darwin Have?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 26). 121 Charles Darwin Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/charles-darwin-essay-topics/

"121 Charles Darwin Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/charles-darwin-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '121 Charles Darwin Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "121 Charles Darwin Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/charles-darwin-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "121 Charles Darwin Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/charles-darwin-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "121 Charles Darwin Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/charles-darwin-essay-topics/.

• Scientist Paper Topics
• Evolution Topics
• Social Darwinism Questions
• Utilitarianism Research Ideas
• Sigmund Freud Essay Titles
• Eugenics Questions
• Genetics Research Ideas
• Scientific Revolution Titles
• Karl Marx Questions
• Pseudoscience Topics
• Aristotle Titles
• Metaphysics Questions
• Discovery Ideas
• Leonardo da Vinci Questions
• Invention Topics

Lionel Shriver pokes fun at woke culture, again

The controversial writer’s new novel, ‘mania,’ is a funny and occasionally offensive satire of groupthink.

Do we still need to talk about the sombrero?

Maybe so. As anyone versed in literary scandal will remember, at the 2016 Brisbane Writers Festival, Lionel Shriver gave the keynote address , in which she pushed back against identity politics in fiction and the attendant theory of “cultural appropriation”: “The ultimate endpoint of keeping our mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us, ” Shriver declared, “is that there is no fiction. All that’s left is memoir.”

To accessorize for the occasion, Shriver, a White woman, donned a sombrero. Like the Yippies in 1967 who deployed outrageous spectacle as a way of protesting the Vietnam War (gathering outside the Pentagon, they attempted to levitate it into space), Shriver knew that her ludicrous hat was an image that would linger.

The sombrero incident is key not only to understanding Shriver’s cultural politics but also to her method as a literary provocateur. The social satires that followed her 2003 breakout novel, “We Need to Talk About Kevin” — novels such as “So Much for That” (2010) and “The Mandibles” (2016) — stretched absurd situations past conventional limits in service of lampooning targets like the U.S. health-care system and the illusion of economic stability.

A contrarian, Shriver has also steadily pushed back against “woke” culture in interviews and essays. Though she voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and supports reproductive rights, in 2022 she endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in his failed presidential bid. Of late, her most controversial statements have addressed transgender people and the influx of immigrants — both legal and undocumented — into the United States and Britain. Shriver — who has lived in the U.K. on and off for three decades before recently setting up shop in Portugal — has advocated the preservation of what she’s called a “ coherent culture ” in Britain. As some commentators have pointed out, it’s hard not to read “coherent culture” as a code for “White culture.”

Were Shriver not such a superb satirical novelist, we “woke” types could just ignore her and be done with her offenses and contradictions. But alas her latest novel, “Mania,” is one of her best — in part because the subject is one of her queasiest.

The story takes place from 2011 to 2027 in an alternative America where, for most of that time, something called the Mental Parity movement holds sway. In the novel, the so-called last acceptable bias — discrimination against those considered, um, not so smart — is being stamped out. Words such as “intelligent” and “sharp” are forbidden, thus making problematic the question of how to refer to books like “My Brilliant Friend” and everyday devices such as “smartphones.”

When the novel opens, our main character, an adjunct professor of English named Pearson Converse, is sitting around the dinner table with her partner, Wade, her best friend, Emory, and her three young children, all of whom attend the Gertrude Stein Primary school in Voltaire, Penn. Darwin, the eldest at 11, has just gotten in trouble for calling another kid’s T-shirt “stupid.” Darwin complains that the Mental Parity movement is forcibly leveling the classroom so that no answers are considered wrong, only different . Emory, who hosts a local NPR arts program, summarizes some of the ways the Obama administration has just expanded the Clinton-era “Don’t ask, don’t tell” guidelines to cover any information related to a person’s intellectual profile:

“Don’t ask where anyone went to school. Don’t tell anyone where you went to school, even if you went to Yale — well, especially if you went to Yale! … Don’t ever mention, or fish for, IQ, obviously, but also SAT and ACT scores or grade point averages. You’re even meant to keep your trap shut about how well you did on newspaper quizzes on the major stories of the week. And forget asking or telling about a performance on Jeopardy!”

Barack Obama, in this alternative America, is doomed to be a one-term president because, by 2012, “the whole notion that one might want to look up to anyone in a position of authority had become preposterous.” Instead, the “impressively unimpressive” Joe Biden steps in, after which, in 2015, the Democratic Party seizes on Donald Trump as their “shoo-in” candidate for, among myriad other reasons, the fact that “he never reads.”

Pearson broke away as a teenager from her Jehovah’s Witness family and has little patience for dogma. Finding herself increasingly hemmed in during her international literature survey course, where students talk and stare at their phones throughout her lectures, Pearson (much as Shriver did) decides to introduce an incendiary object into the lecture room: She switches out Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” for a later novel of his — “The Idiot” (wink, wink). In the anti-brain-shaming era of Shriver’s creation — where “the fool” has been edited out of Shakespeare’s plays and fictional eggheads such as Sherlock Holmes and Victor Frankenstein have been banished from the curriculum — Pearson is put on probation and must abase herself before her class. Not to do so would endanger the already skimpy income that keeps her family afloat.

As with any good satire, “Mania” tethers itself to — and exaggerates — real-world trends, such as “completion grading” (giving students full credit for simply turning in assignments), the death of the expert and theories of different learning styles in the classroom. It also must be acknowledged that none of the characters here are intellectually challenged, thus allowing Shriver to avoid darker and even more sensitive implications of her mockery. The chief target of the novel is the bedrock tension in America between the unfulfilled promise of egalitarian democracy and the reverence for the profitable “practical” knowledge of, say, a Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs along with the kind of anti-intellectualism that historian Richard Hofstadter identified in his 1964 Pulitzer Prize winner “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.” In Shriver’s hectically escalating narrative, the Mental Parity movement is taken to its absurdist outer limits when Wade, an arborist, is injured on the job. Hospital surgeries have become more fraught since anyone can attend medical school where, presumably, they can graduate without taking any exams.

“Mania” is very funny, occasionally offensive and, yes, smart. But the famously iconoclastic Shriver’s most striking accomplishment here is more representative than she may want to acknowledge: namely, that its satire is as reflective of a reactionary fear about demography and post-1960s social movements as it is of a concern with the waning of meritocracy. Shriver’s vision of America is of a country degenerating into the stupid and standardless, and her fears about the many are often alchemized into laughs. But the many are many things, and the few, our great writers, might imagine their — our — humane possibilities, too.

Maureen Corrigan, who is the book critic for the NPR program “Fresh Air,” teaches literature at Georgetown University.

By Lionel Shriver

Harper. 288 pp. $30

More from Book World

Love everything about books? Make sure to subscribe to our Book Club newsletter , where Ron Charles guides you through the literary news of the week.

Best books of 2023: See our picks for the 10 best books of 2023 or dive into the staff picks that Book World writers and editors treasured in 2023. Check out the complete lists of 50 notable works for fiction and the top 50 nonfiction books of last year.

Find your favorite genre: Three new memoirs tell stories of struggle and resilience, while five recent historical novels offer a window into other times. Audiobooks more your thing? We’ve got you covered there, too . If you’re looking for what’s new, we have a list of our most anticipated books of 2024 . And here are 10 noteworthy new titles that you might want to consider picking up this April.

Still need more reading inspiration? Super readers share their tips on how to finish more books . Or let poet and essayist Hanif Abdurraqib explain why he stays in Ohio . You can also check out reviews of the latest in fiction and nonfiction .

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.