The Essence of Darwinism and the Basis of Modern Orthodoxy 157
and so be preserved. How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how
short his time! and consequently how poor will his products be, compared
with those accumulated by nature during whole geological periods. Can we
wonder, then, that nature's productions should be far "truer" in character
than man's productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted to the
most complex conditions of life, and should plainly bear the stamp of far
higher workmanship? (pp. 83-84).But Darwin's world also differs strongly from Paley's, and the outcome of
natural selection, however great the power of Darwin's mechanism, cannot be
perfection, but only improvement to a point of competitive superiority in local
circumstances. Natural selection operates as a principle of "better than," not as a
doctrine of perfection: "Natural selection tends only to make each organic being as
perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country
with which it has to struggle for existence" (p. 201). Thus, the signs of history will
not be erased; creatures will retain signatures of their past as quirks, oddities and
imperfections (see pp. 111-116 on methodology). Natural selection will fashion the
organic world, while leaving enough signs of her previous handiwork to reveal a
forming presence.
I have called this section "the adaptationist program," rather than, simply,
"adaptation" because Darwin presents a protocol for actual research, not just an
abstract conceptual structure. The relevant arguments may be ordered in various
ways, but consider this sequence:
- Adaptation is the central phenomenon of evolution, and the key to any
understanding of mechanisms. - Natural selection crafts adaptation.
- Natural selection maintains an overwhelmingly predominant relative
frequency as a cause of adaptation. Variation only provides raw material, and
cannot do the work unaided.
Adaptation may be viewed as a problem of transforming environmental
(external) information into internal changes of form, physiology and behavior.
Two forces other than natural selection might play such a role—the creative
response of organisms to felt needs with inheritance of acquired characters
(Lamarck's system), or direct impress of environments upon organisms, also with
inheritance of traits thus acquired (a system often associated with Geoffroy Saint-
Hilaire). Darwin regards both alternatives as true causes, and he explicitly contrasts
them with natural selection in several passages within the Origin. But, in these
statements and elsewhere, he always grants natural selection the cardinal role by
virtue of relative frequency—"by far the predominant Power," he writes on page
43, in upper case for emphasis. "Over all other causes of change, I am convinced
that Natural Selection is paramount" (in Natural Selection, 1975 edition, p. 223).
In this light, how should evolutionists proceed if they wish to discover the
mechanisms of change? Should they study the causes of variation (a vitally
important issue, but unresolvable in Darwin's time, and not the cause of