466 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
evolutionary theory—did not disrupt the discussion, but only reclothed an old
antithesis in new language and causality).
In the post-Darwinian debates, I feel that only four evolutionists in my study
fully plumbed the depth of this dichotomy (Galton specified all the themes, and
even developed the canonical metaphor of the polyhedron, but he was only
dipping): C. O. Whitman, Hugo de Vries, William Bateson, and Richard
Goldschmidt. The views of these four men embody important differences, and
Goldschmidt emerges as the best standard bearer for the full version of formalism.
Two of the four embraced one aspect of Galton's polyhedron, but rejected the other
for interesting reasons: Whitman as an orthogeneticist and gradualist; and de Vries
as a saltationist who accepted the isotropy of species-level variation (and therefore
constructed a higher-level Darwinism for trends among species). Bateson
understood the connection and brought the themes together, but his generation
hadn't gained enough knowledge about potential mechanisms to suggest more than
an abstract and speculative synthesis. (Interestingly, Goldschmidt begins his 1933
article, his best presentation of the full critique, with a reference to Bateson's
famous 1914 address to the British Association.)
Richard Goldschmidt understood all the connections and, however flawed the
result, developed a coherent theory for a full internalist alternative to gradualist and
Darwinian functionalism, a view that integrated both themes—facet-flipping and
channeling—of Galton's polyhedron. Goldschmidt became the chief focus for
vocal opposition by the synthesists, a symbol for all the bad old ways of outdated,
typological thinking. I do not write to defend his specific ideas. The particulars of
his genetic theory were deeply wrong, and disproved even in his lifetime, though
he would not change his commitments. But I do maintain that his fully articulated
critique remains as powerful as ever, and must be integrated with Darwinian
orthodoxy to form a true and higher synthesis. In choosing Goldschmidt as the
focus of their derision, the synthesists selected the right person for the best reason
of all: Goldschmidt developed and fully understood all pieces of the critique, and
he knew how the arguments cohered. Does the best fit always survive?
We need iconoclasts, if only to keep us thinking and probing. At the end of
the Two Minutes Hate in 1984, Emmanuel Goldstein's "hostile figure melted into
the face of Big Brother,... full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that it
almost filled up the screen. Nobody heard what Big Brother was saying. It was
merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din
of a battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence by the fact of
being spoken." Ignorance is not strength.