The Fruitful Facets of Galton's Polyhedron 455
of ideas between the 'neo-Darwinism' and Darwin's original theory is evident."
Goldschmidt's book now "connotes an at least temporary end of the undivided
reign of neo-Darwinian theories" (loc. cit.).
Dobzhansky covered his review in a patina of judiciousness, even of
approbation. He also presents a fair and clear epitome of Goldschmidt's major
points. Dobzhansky refers to Goldschmidt's theory as "brilliantly developed and
masterfully presented" (p. 357), and he adds: "Goldschmidt's keenly critical
analysis has emphasized the weaknesses and deficiencies of the neo-Darwinian
conception of evolution, which are numerous, as even partisans ought to have the
courage to admit" (p. 358).
But, in the deeper theme and purpose of his review, Dobzhansky's rejection
could not have been more total or dismissive (much as he advocates a close
reading and study of Goldschmidt's book). First of all, he does not count
Goldschmidt's ideas as an evolutionary theory at all, as expressed in the title of
Dobzhansky's review: "Catastrophism versus evolutionism." The first sentence, as
quoted above, presents Goldschmidt's theory as the first new view of "organic
transformation," not of evolution—words that Dobzhansky chose very carefully
and purposefully. He then explains: "Goldschmidt not only relegates natural
selection to a place of relative unimportance, but in effect rejects evolution beyond
the narrow confines in which it has been admitted to exist by Linnaeus and many
creationists. His theory belongs to the realm of catastrophism, not to that of
evolutionism."
Recalling the stereotypical cry of the stadium vendor—"you can't tell the
players without a scorecard"—later scholars often need a historical primer of
definitions to identify certain claims properly. Dobzhansky refers here to Lyell's
rhetorical strategy for specifying the requirements of a scientific geology. A truly
scientific theory based on verae causae (true causes), Lyell tells us, must embrace
the uniformitarian postulate that small-scale changes, observable on our current
earth, can produce, by gradual accumulation through geological time, all the grand
events of our planet's history. Evolution, for Dobzhansky, defines all theories of
biological change set within this proper uniformitarian mode. The catastrophic
alternative—that occasional paroxysms sweep the earth to produce most important
change, whereas the daily accumulation of tiny, observable alterations can lead to
nothing substantial— represents a retreat to the bad old days of useless speculation
and theological influence. Goldschmidt's saltational theory of the "hopeful
monster" falls into this basically unscientific mode. As Lyell wrote in his
magisterial prose (1833, p. 6): "Never was there a dogma more calculated to foster
indolence, and to blunt the keen edge of curiosity ... We see the ancient spirit of
speculation revived, and a desire manifested to cut, rather than patiently to untie,
the Gordian knot." Therefore, by placing Goldschmidt's book within the
catastrophist tradition, Dobzhansky almost denies any scientific status to the theory
at all.
Dobzhansky then reinforces his dismissal by declining even to present any
counterarguments: "It is impossible to attempt here a critique of Goldschmidt's
theory, for this would require a book approximately the same size