278 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Moreover, in understanding taxonomy as an incarnation of divine thought, we also
sense our own importance in the cosmos. For if our taxonomy can mirror God's
order so well, then our minds must also resemble His in principle, however
infinitely poorer in capacity:
Do we not find in this adaptability of the human intellect to the fact of
creation, by which we become instinctively, and, as I have said,
unconsciously, the translators of the thoughts of God, the most conclusive
proof of our affinity with the Divine Mind? And is not this intellectual and
spiritual connection with the Almighty worthy of our deep consideration? If
there is any truth in the belief that man is made in the image of God, it is
surely not amiss for the philosopher to endeavor, by the study of his own
mental operation, to approximate the workings of the Divine Reason,
learning, from the nature of his own mind, better to understand the Infinite
Intellect from which it is derived. Such a suggestion may, at first sight,
appear irreverent. But, which is the truly humble? He who, penetrating into
the secrets of creation, arranges them under a formula which he proudly
calls his scientific system? Or he who, in the same pursuit, recognizes his
glorious affinity with the Creator, and, in deepest gratitude for so sublime a
birth right, strives to be the faithful interpreter of that Divine Intellect with
whom he is permitted, nay, with whom he is intended, according to the
laws of his being, to enter into communion? (p. 8).With so much at stake, from the basis of natural order to confidence in our
mental affinity with God himself, the primacy of broad taxonomic formalism over
local adaptationism (however exquisite) becomes an issue of highest moment and
passion. Darwin's added dimension of history would derail Agassiz's grand design
just three months after the Essay received its definitive printing, but we should
remember Agassiz's effort, and grasp his argument, as perhaps the noblest brief
ever presented for the centrality of systematics among the sciences.
An Epilog on the Dichotomy
While acknowledging some historical interest in the contrast, modern evolutionists
might question, on two grounds of supposed irrelevance to current issues, the time
I have taken to contrast Paley with Agassiz: (1) Paley and Agassiz struggled to find
the proper signature of God in nature, and such an effort no longer counts as part of
science; (2) Darwin added a third, historical dimension, thereby fracturing the old
dichotomy of form and function, and rendering its terms obsolete.
I would argue, in response, that Darwin's addition, though surely the most
important and revolutionary event in the history of biology scarcely rendered the
old dichotomy irrelevant (see pp. 251-260 for a fuller development of this point).
As Figure 4-3 shows, any morphology attributed to Darwin's historical dimension
must still, by recursion, be judged by the dichotomy at its time