Darwin Correspondence Project

Contents:

1. 1.
   Introduction
   

   Dr White:
   This is part of a series of interviews that the Darwin Correspondence
   Project at the University of Cambridge is holding with leading
   scientists and scholars in a wide range of fields, and our aim is to
   discuss the importance of Darwin, historically and today, and to focus
   on some of the conversations that he had with his correspondents about
   the nature of religious belief and the moral and theological
   implications of evolution. We’re joined today by Tim Lewens. Tim is a
   philosopher of biology. He teaches in the Department of History and
   Philosophy of Science at Cambridge, and he’s written two books that are
   directly relevant to our concerns: Organisms and artifacts,
   which examines the language and arguments for design in biology, and -
   just out – a wonderful book on Darwin and philosophy. Thanks very much,
   Tim.

   Dr Lewens:
   Well, thank you for the flattering introduction.

2. 2. The
   unusual role Darwin plays today
   

   Dr White:
   In your most recent book, you remark on the extremely unusual role
   Darwin plays today. Darwin’s works, though written a hundred and fifty
   years ago, continue to be read, not just by historians of science but by
   modern scientists. Why do you think this is the case?

   Dr Lewens:
   It’s a good question. Part of the reason, I think, is just that the
   works, by and large, are extraordinarily accessible. Or at least, the
   ones that we know best now, one of the things they probably have in
   common is precisely their accessibility. The origin of
   species is an extremely easy read, certainly by the standards of
   most scientific books; the same’s true of The descent of
   man; the same’s true of The expression of the emotions in
   man and animals. The books which aren’t read so much these
   days are probably the books which, frankly, are a bit of a harder read.
   So, Darwin’s study of variation, for example, in plants and animals
   [The variation of animals and plants under
   domestication], is, I guess, not one that’s widely read. So, part
   of the reason is the accessibility of the books.

   Another reason, I
   suppose, is basically the thought that, basically, Darwin got it right:
   in some sense or another, Darwin’s view of evolution is, at least many
   scientists think, basically the same view we have now. And I think,
   again, in broad terms, that’s about right, although I have a few little
   adjustments I’d like to make.

   And another reason is that Darwin puzzles over so many of the conceptual issues that face modern evolutionary biologists now: issues about progress, issues about ethics, issues about morality, the mind, knowledge, and so forth. So, he’s a repository for debate about debates that we have right
   now.

3. 3.
   Darwin’s reputation among scientists
   

   Dr White:
   Let me just take this one step further. Modern scientists not only read
   his work, but some identify with him to an exceptional degree, to the
   point of calling themselves Darwinians or proponents of
   Darwinism. We don’t find this strong identification of a
   particular theory with a person anywhere else in science. Do you think
   this has something to do with how Darwin’s reputation was forged in the
   19th century: the ways in which both his name and work were linked to
   the progress of knowledge?

   Dr Lewens:
   Yes.

   I think it’s an
   interesting question about why it is that people call themselves
   Darwinians now. One thing I’ve remarked on in the book is that you don’t
   find this kind of analagous phrase Einsteinians bandied around,
   even though, certainly, Einstein is as important for physics, I would
   say, as Darwin is for biology.

   There’s a
   perception which I think probably started towards the end of the 19th
   century but which has in some ways taken over again at perhaps an even
   stronger level than before, and that’s the idea that Darwinism is a
   theory that has massive implications for all kinds of different areas:
   areas that range, as I’ve said, from not just the origin of plant
   species and animal species but issues about the nature of morality,
   issues about God, issues that go to the very heart of what people have
   tended to think of as deep philosophical questions. And so, if you think
   that Darwin’s basic views really do have implications in such a broad
   array of areas then it’s hardly surprising, I think, that some people
   are going to want to call themselves Darwinians: they’re going to want
   to make a philosophical ism – a philosophical position – out of
   this view, in a way that may not happen for other influential scientists
   whose views, to be sure, are very important for physics but maybe don’t
   have that kind of all-encompassing aspect that, as I say, some people
   have viewed as certainly inherent in Darwin’s work.

4. 4. The
   expanding scope of biology
   

   Dr White:
   So this has something to do with the current status of biology, which
   has expanded into the other domains, like psychology, like even
   religion, and also the kinds of claims and promises that are often made
   with regard to genetics, so that Darwinism, for some, has become a kind
   of total world view: a vision of how the future ought to be and, for
   some, a weapon in a battle that’s ongoing?

   Dr Lewens:
   I think that’s right. One other thing I’d add to that, if I can, is:
   what’s usually stripped out from Darwin’s own work now as in some ways
   being the most important idea, is the idea of natural
   selection. One of the things that many people claim for the idea of
   natural selection is that it’s a very simple idea, and a very simple
   idea with extremely general application. And many people think that
   natural selection is nothing more than differential survival of one kind
   of thing over another kind of thing. If you characterise natural
   selection in such a general way, then people begin to apply it to all
   kinds of areas. They don’t just apply it to plants and animals, they
   apply it to changing ideas; they apply it to changing neural patterns;
   they apply it in economics’; they apply it all over the place – and
   that’s another reason, I think, why Darwinism has been viewed to have
   such an enormous significance and why, for some people, it is a kind of
   world view. It’s because what, for many people these days, is certainly
   the essence of Darwinism, is also an extremely simple and extremely
   abstract idea which in turn allows it to be applied and reapplied in
   slightly different ways in all kinds of domains: not just, even, within
   biology.

5. 5. Does
   historical accuracy about Darwin matter?
   

   Dr White:
   Part of what we’re seeing today is a struggle over Darwin’s name and
   legacy. You’re careful, in your book, to distinguish between Darwin and
   Darwinism: between what Darwin himself wrote and what others have
   claimed in his name. Given how much has changed in the natural sciences
   - and in biology in particular – why should the historical Darwin matter
   at all?

   Dr Lewens:
   Well, in a funny way, I think your preamble to that question contains
   the answer within it. I mean, the very fact that Darwin himself is used
   today by prominent biologists, the very fact that there are disputes
   over what the real nature of Darwinism is, and the fact that Darwin is
   always invoked to try to boost one kind of reading of a good Darwinism
   compared with a bad Darwinism, partly shows the importance of looking at
   what Darwin himself really said. You need to look at whether or not
   these invocations of Darwin for one side or another really are
   legitimate. And I think you might add to that that as well as simply
   seeing whether or not the invocations of Darwin which real biologists
   these days make quite regularly are historically accurate.

   There are also, I
   think, some interesting things to learn about how one might go about
   constructing a view of the world – a general view of life; a general
   philosophy – by looking at Darwin’s own claims more directly, as
   well.