28 Michael Ruse
or differentiated; and natural selection tends towards this end, inas-
much as the parts are thus enabled to perform their functions more
efficiently. (Darwin 1959, 241; from the sixth edition of 1872)TheDescent of Manis unambiguously progressive, both through the animal
kingdom and when we come to our own species. Although Darwin was strongly
against slavery — before and during the Civil War — there was no doubt in
his mind that white people are superior to all others, and little doubt that the
inhabitants of a small island off the northwest coast of Europe are the top among
whites. We have seen already Darwin’s endorsement of Greg on the Irish and the
Scots. So we can certainly say that the ingredients for a Social Darwinian attack
on foundations are there in Darwin’s writings. But as I have said, he was not
really a philosopher and we do not find explicit inferences being drawn. Nor do we
find any other attempt to make a philosophical picture from his science. Darwin
was an evolutionary psychologist, first and foremost.
THE DARWINIAN REVOLUTIONThis now brings to an end the direct examination of Darwin and his work. Let us
conclude by turning to broader issues. Darwin was not a man working in isolation.
He was influenced by people who came before him, and obviously he influenced
those who came after him. General opinion is that he was one of the great thinkers
of all time — indeed it has been said that there is no greater discovery than natural
selection. The Darwinian Revolution is one of those events in human history that
stands right up there, with the Scientific Revolution in thought and with the
American, French, and Russian Revolutions in politics. It is about this revolution
we must now turn our attention.
Let us not waste time asking if there was indeed a Darwinian Revolution. Some
nervous historians have started to worry whether such talk is ever appropriate,
so let the robust philosopher in us brush past this anxiety (see [Hodge, 2005]).
By any significance measure, the Darwinian Revolution was revolutionary. At
the beginning of the nineteenth century, by and large people did not believe in
evolution. At the end of the nineteenth century, by and large people did believe in
evolution. More than this, they accepted that it applies to our own species,Homo
sapiens. This was a terrific move. We can agree that it was not necessarily purely
a scientific revolution. Perhaps it was not even primarily a scientific revolution,
being more one to do with religion — Does God still exist and what does He
care about us? — or culture or whatever. But it was a revolution and moreover,
whether the most important overall factor or not, science was a very important
factor. We can go further and say that it was the prime causal factor, for without
the scientists I do not see how you could have had a shift to what is (after all) a
scientific claim: organisms, including humans, evolved.
What about a more serious worry, that Darwin gets too much credit for the
revolution? How much credit does Charles Robert Darwin merit for the revolution