A world without Darwin? Who knows what would have evolved?
Peter Bowler, in his book Darwin deleted: imagining a world without Darwin[1], provides an interesting and scholarly re-presentation of scientific history; one in which a young Charles Darwin perishes during the voyage of the HMS. Beagle. Bowler presents a reasonable example of counterfactual history; one however that I think is flawed. Many historians, in particular Richard Evans, assert that counterfactual histories do not contribute to historical understanding[2]. Much of my dissatisfaction with Darwin deleted rests on the “unpredictable circumstances” that arise in counterfactual histories. For example, which I will draw out below, in the case of the neo-Lamarckian evolution in France at the end of the 19th century changing ones aspect of history, the absence of Darwin, results in a high degree of unpredictability; and assuming as Bowler does, that the rest of history continues on is not tenable. In addition I find that Bowler fails to satisfy his primary aim of the book: to use counterfactual history to undermine the claim that the theory of natural selection inspired the various forms of social Darwinism[3]. I agree with his premise; “Science simply cannot bear the burden imposed on by those who think it can inspire whole social movements”[4], however I find his counterfactual presentation logically ‘muddy’ and unconvincing.
Bowler begins his book with a chapter explaining why he is employing counterfactual as a method to develop his arguments. He does this to establish the various contingencies at play and to demonstrate how timing and interpretation affect how a scientific theory is established. One of his premises[5], developed in Chapter 2[6], is that only Charles Darwin was positioned to expound a theory of evolution by natural selection in the 19th century. Bowler maintains that Darwin “had a unique combination of interests that allowed him to see links not obvious to others at the time”[7], furthermore “the components of the theory may have been available, but no one else was in a position to put them all together”[8]. With Darwin deleted evolution still emerges, dominated now by Lamarckian theories and structuralist themes. It would not be until the early 20th century that natural selection would appear in the course of normal science with the discovery of Mendel’s work and the collaboration of Karl Pearson and W.F.R. Weldon, rather than the disruptive discovery by Darwin.[9] This comes as a quite logical and valid argument, however as in many large-scale counterfactuals it has many flaws.
Counterfactual thinking is part of human reasoning. It is close to impossible to understand a complex world without imagining alternative causal paths, contingencies and different outcomes. We, as humans, continually assess our choices and weigh our decisions based on counterfactual thinking. In some disciplines, politics and security studies for example, the counterfactual, providing it is well structured, forms a key part of historical analysis and scenario planning.[10] In addition it has been argued that counterfactuals, by virtue of their rhetorical nature, are noteworthy for the pragmatic aspects of historical narratives.[11] Even noting these arguments some critics, Richard Evans in particular, argue that counterfactuals fail to add to our understanding of history.[12] I can imagine Evans acknowledging that Bowler has presented a valid example of a counterfactual scenario, as Darwin Deleted involves “drawing historical consequences, often far-reaching in nature, from altered historical causes.”[13] Furthermore Darwin deleted works, in my initial reading of it, because as Evans demands of counterfactuals, “individual decision makers have to be presented, implausibly, as free-floating agents.” The specific weakness of Darwin deleted is what Evans finds for all counterfactuals “Causation is thrown out the window, and there is no attempt to consider how one change in the pattern of events might have affected others.”[14] It is sometimes possible to examine a specific historical point successfully, as Brown has done, for example, in examining the building of the Eads Bridge[15], but not for the grand sweep of history as Bowler attempts for Darwin deleted.
Of course not all historians would agree with Evans. Nolan mounts a well-argued case, based on eight reasons, for counterfactuals to be of interest to historians[16], including the case where the counterfactual is not intended to be true. Based on Nolan’s approach Darwin deleted is a valid attempt to inform a value judgement, assesses information relevant to the assessment of responsibility and relevant praise or blame.[17] It is also successful in “mitigating hindsight bias and increasing appreciation of historical contingency.”[18] In a review of Darwin deleted Alan Love found this aspect of Bowler’s book insightful, but then adds that the arguments really flow on from Bowler’s earlier work, without adding anything of novelty.[19]
Unpredictable consequences
In the complex interplay of events, the addition or elimination of a significant cause must have unpredictable consequences.[20] This is a serious objection to Bowler’s work, one that Evans and other historians may apply to all counterfactual reconstructions. This argument is expounded by Robert Richards in an essay length book review of Darwin deleted, that also contains a rather ineffectual response by Bowler. Richards attacks Bowler’s argument from a number of directions. Richards questions, “who knows”[21], whether without Darwin, Alfred Russell Wallace might have played a more major role. Russell argues that Wallace’ view on evolution by natural selection was never clear whether he was talking about groups or individuals. Whereas Darwin was quite clear that he was talking about individual fitness and selection, not group selection. Russell uses this to demonstrate the haziness of counterfactual presentation. Without Darwin’s clarity of argument would Russell’s argument had any impact – But who knows? Responds Richards. I agree he is defeating the example by sowing doubt, rather than constructing a full argument against Bowler’s use of counterfactual history. Nonetheless it is sufficient to begin to think of the many alternatives that are not posed by Bowler.
In addition to Russell’s point I would question, for example, whether Wallace’ argument would have even seen the light of day. Wallace sent his essay on natural selection to Darwin, as he knew that Darwin was “interested in the topic”.[22] Without Darwin, who would Wallace have sent his paper to? He may have sent it directly to Charles Lyell, in his note accompanying the essay; it was Lyell who Wallace requested Darwin to pass the essay onto, if he deemed it sufficiently interesting.[23] Browne, in her biography of Darwin, writes:[24]
The essay in short had been composed for Lyell, not for Darwin. Yet it would have been near-impossible at that period for Wallace to write directly to Lyell. A favourable word from Darwin would help him along.
Without Darwin would Wallace’s ideas have surfaced? Or would he have continued exploring and collecting on the Malay Peninsula in relative obscurity?
In Darwin deleted Bowler assumes that without Darwin there would be a progressive development of Lamarckism throughout the latter part of the 19th century.[25] This progressive teleology would, according to Bowler, have been friendlier to religion than the evolution by natural selection with its non-directional, environment-driven, combative struggle. Richard’s convincingly questions this assertion that this counterfactual alternative would have more apparent appeal to religious thinkers. It is not apparent how Adam Sedgewick would have received any more robust Lamarckian evolutionary theory – would he have fulminated against it with equal vigour as he did against the progressive teleology in Vestiges of the natural history of Creation? Richards argues that it is not possible to conceive of the behaviours of such prominent and diversely influential players in the development of evolution as Asa Gray, T. H. Huxley, Sedgewick, Charles Lyell, Herbert Spencer, and Ernst Haekel, without Darwin, but with a Lamarckian alternative.
In addition to these unpredictable consequences I would argue that the history of Lamarckian evolution might be quite different, in a world without Darwin, to what Bowler proposes. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory of natural selection stimulated neo-Lamarckian thought in France in the late 19th century.[26],[27],[28] This calls into question how reliably one can extrapolate how a Lamarckian theory would look without Darwin. In addition our modern view of Lamarck is heavily influenced by retrospective views influenced through the lens of science in late 19th century society. This is not an attempt to elevate Lamarck at the expense of Darwin, rather to point out that coalescing Lamarck’s ideas down to “the inheritance of acquired characteristics” is misleading. Burkhardt argues that this was an idea that Lamarck “endorsed, but did not claim as his own nor did he give in much thought.”[29] His ideas on organic change included arguing for environmentally induced behavioural changes that lead the way to species change.[30] Without Darwin then it is difficult to predict how Lamarck’s ideas would have been developed – certainly it is not enough to extend what did occur, as Bowler does, to develop a counterfactual claim to what might have been for Lamarckian theories.
An unbearable burden on science
So how does my argument for the “importance of unpredictable consequences”, relate to the success or otherwise of Bowler’s main reason for writing Darwin deleted? I felt that this last chapter was more an add-on that the principal reason for the book. Such is the time period, and so many the paths that counterfactually you could take that the argument was not convincing. Along with Richards I agree with Bowler’s contention; that is it unlikely for a scientific theory to bear the burden of Nazi atrocities. However Bowler’s logic is muddy. At one point he sidesteps the issue that other authors raise; Weikart[31] putting responsibility at Darwin’s feet and Gasman[32] laying responsibility at Ernst Haeckel’s, by claiming that “I am no expert on German culture and will pass no judgement on this topic”[33]. Then on the same page[34] Bowler argues that with Darwin deleted, Haeckel’s directed evolutionism would have been more influential.[35] Richards follows this up with the historical record that the Nazis banned Haeckel’s work[36], so in a counterfactual world Haeckel was hardly to become a Nazi poster child. I think this highlights why authors such as Evans dismiss with prejudice counterfactual reconstructions – real history with real evidence is hard enough.[37]
Bowler’s Darwin deleted is a well-researched and well-written counterfactual argument demonstrating the impact of Darwin on the development of the theory of evolution, by natural selection. However, when viewed in the light of general criticism against the use of counterfactual arguments it did not fare as well. In particular I argue that the unpredictable consequences that arise by the elimination of a significant cause – Charles Darwin and the writing of Origin of species and his other subsequent works – result in a future history with too many possible outcomes to be convincing. I found that specific criticism by Richards on this to be unanswered by Bowler and present some ideas of my own that I believe demonstrate the “who knows?” factor in Bowler’s argument to be quite large. Sufficiently large to negate his main purpose of the book to show that Social Darwinism and Nazi atrocities could not be laid at the feet of Darwin or his theory of natural selection.
Peter J. Bowler | Darwin deleted: Imagining a world without Darwin | The University of Chicago Press | 2013 | AUS$29.99 | ISBN: 978-0-226-0687-1 | 318 pages | 10 black & white illustrations | Hardback
A version of this review was first submitted to the University of Melbourne on November 19, 2015 as a fulfillment (partial) requirement for HPSC20001 Darwin: history of a very big idea.
Bowler, Peter J. Darwin deleted: Imagining a world without Darwin. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Brown, John K. “Not the Eads bridge: an exploration of counterfactual history of technology.” Technology and Culture 55 (2014): 521-559.
Browne, Janet. Charles Darwin The power of place: Volume 2 of a biography. London: Pimlico, 2003.
Burkhardt, Richard W. “Lamarck, evolution and the inheritance of acquired characters.” Genetics 194 (2013): 793-805.
Evans, Richard J. Altered pasts: Counterfactuals in history. Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2015.
Gasman, Daniel. The scientific origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the Monist League. New York: American Elsevier, 1971.
Gavin, Francis J. “What if? The historian and the counterfactual.” Security Studies 24 (2015): 425-430.
Kożuchowski, Adam. “More than true: the rhetorical function of counterfactuals in historiography.” Rethinking History 19 (2014): 337-356.
Loison, Laurent. “George Teissier (1900-72) and the modern synthesis in France.” Genetics 195 (2013) 295-302.
Love, Alan C., Robert J. Richards and Peter J. Bowler. “What-if history of science.” Metascience 24 (2015): 5-24.
Moore, J. R. “Review: Could Darwinism be introduced in France?” The British Journal for the History of Science 10 (1977) 246-251.
Morange, Michel. “What history tells us XXII. The French neo-Lamarckians.” Journal of Bioscience 35 (2010): 515-517.
Nolan, Daniel. “Why historians (and everyone else) should care about counterfactuals.” Philosophical Studies 163 (2013): 317-335.
Weikart, Richard. From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in Germany. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
[1] Peter J. Bowler, Darwin deleted: imagining a world without Darwin (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013).
[2] Richard J. Evans, Altered pasts: counterfactuals in history (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2014).
[3] Bowler, Darwin deleted, 3.
[9] Bowler, Darwin deleted, 195-197.
[10] Francis J. Gavin, “What if? The historian and the counterfactual.” Security Studies 24 (2015) p426.
[11] Adam Kożuchowski, “More than true: the rhetorical function of counterfactuals in historiography.” Rethinking History 19 (2014) 337-356.
[12] Evans, Altered pasts, 125.
[15] John K. Brown, “Not the Eads bridge: an exploration of counterfactual history of technology.” Technology and Culture 55 (2014) 521-559.
[16] Daniel Nolan, “Why historians (and everyone else) should care about counterfactuals.” Philosophical Studies 163 (2013) 317-335.
[19] Alan C. Love, in Alan C. Love, Robert J. Richards and Peter J. Bowler. “What-if history of science.” Metascience 24 (2015) p7.
[20] Robert J. Richards, in Alan C. Love, Robert J. Richards and Peter J. Bowler. “What-if history of science.” Metascience 24 (2015) pp12-17.
[22] Bowler, Darwin deleted, 60.
[23] Bowler, Darwin deleted, 60.
[24] Janet Browne, “Charles Darwin The power of place: Volume 2 of a biography” (London: Pimlico, 2003) 14.
[25] Bowler, Darwin deleted, 21-24.
[26] Michel Morange. “What history tells us XXII. The French neo-Lamarckians.” Journal of Bioscience 35 (2010): 515-517.
[27] J. R. Moore. “Review: Could Darwinism be introduced in France?” The British Journal for the History of Science 10 (1977) 246-251.
[28] Laurent Loison. “George Teissier (1900-72) and the modern synthesis in France.” Genetics 195 (2013) 295-302.
[29] Richard W. Burkhardt. “Lamarck, evolution and the inheritance of acquired characters.” Genetics 194 (2013) p793.
[31] Richard Weikart, “From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in Germany” (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004).
[32] Daniel Gasman, “The scientific origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the Monist League” (New York: American Elsevier, 1971).
[33] Bowler, Darwin deleted, 261.
[34] Bowler, Darwin deleted, 261.
[35] Robert J. Richards, What-if history of science 17.
