394 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Darwinism. I know no other orthogeneticist who remained so open to the prospect
of a pluralistic consensus (for, in contrast with Whitman, most scientists of this
school entered the fray with strong anti-Darwinian inclinations). As one indication
of his more conciliatory stance, Whitman followed the usual attitude of naturalists
in accepting adaptation as a central phenomenon. He speaks of the most
remarkable phenomenon of the organic world, namely adaptation" (1919, p. 40).
He also recognized that orthogenesis cannot be construed as inherently adaptive,
whereas Darwin's force actively creates utility. He admits the conundrum that
orthogenesis, while true by observation, does not explain the progressive and
adaptive character of life—and he realizes that evolutionary biology needs an
account, as yet unavailable, for a probable bias towards adaptation in the stages of
orthogenetic channels: "But how comes it to pass that these advances are, on the
whole, adaptive and progressively so? Recapitulation can only conserve what is
given. If it moves on within a progressive way, there must be some way of limiting
germinal variations to lines of accumulative improvement. Here we find ourselves
confronted with the difficulty which has long led investigation and theory, and the
solution is yet a long way ahead" (1919, p. 180).
Beyond this central acknowledgment, two features of Whitman's thinking
open his particular version of orthogenesis to a broad synthesis with Darwinism.
- Like Eimer, Whitman developed an interpretation of orthogenesis that
could fuse external pushes with internal channels. Eimer also sought a fusion with
functionalist views (see pp. 360-365), but he opted for a Lamarckian push as his
external source, and explicitly relegated Darwin to an insignificant periphery
among sources of adaptation. But Whitman rejected Lamarckism and located his
external push in natural selection.
Whitman directly criticized Eimer for his negative view of Darwinism, and
for subjecting the entire theory of orthogenesis to undeserved derision thereby:
Among the rival theories of natural selection two are especially noteworthy.
One of these is now generally known as orthogenesis. Theodor Eimer was
one of the early champions of this theory... Eimer's intemperate ferocity
toward the views of Darwin and Weismann, coupled with an equally
intemperate advocacy of the notion that organic evolution depends upon the
inheritance of acquired characters, was enough to prejudice the whole case
of orthogenesis. Moreover, the controversial setting given to the idea of
definitely directed variation, without the aid of utility and natural selection,
made it difficult to escape the conclusion that orthogenesis was only a new
form of the old teleology, from the paralyzing domination of which Darwin
and Lyell and their followers had rescued science. Thus, handicapped, the
theory of orthogenesis has found little favor (1919, p. 9).- Eimer was a polemicist by dint of personality. Whitman, as a great
administrator, displayed an opposite temperament in his inclination to seek
compromise among good ideas. Whitman believed that major systems, as