Ellegard - Darwin and the General Reader

 

Foreword by Hull

• Três picos nos jornais e revistas: 1860 devido ao OS, 1863 devido ao Man's place in nature e 1871 devido ao Descent. 1
• Unitarians e Broad church deram suporte a teoria, ao contrário d eoutros grupos religiosos. 1

• Tanto o publico especializado quanto o leigo tinha problemas com a Seleção natural, bem mais do que com a ideia de evolução. 2
• Quatro frentes: política [aparece bem pouco na verdade], religião, filo da cc e cc. 2
• O principal problema na filo da cc era a falta de "indução". 2

• Cientistas deram menos bola do que os leigos no começo pois entendiam melhor as implicações da teoria para o restante da ciência. 3
• Hull dá bastante ênfase ao aspecto empírico do trabalho de Ellegard. 3

Preface

• História social 5
• Perguntas a serem feitas nesse contexto de circulação e recepção: corte de classe; importância para as pessoas; atitudes; infuencia de crenças prévias; quais pontos foram mais criticados; quais os argumentos e quais os mais utilizados; 5
• Press: [...] reflect, more accurately than any other source material, the climate of opinion within the various social and ideological groups of the community. 5

• Timespan 59-72 6
• Reforço das posições extracientíficas dos cientistas em sua recepção das ideias de Darwin. Ideologia era importante. 6

• To the general public Darwinism was at least as much a religious as a scientific question. 7

1 - The Background

• "transmutation" era associado ao Vestiges de Chambers. Ele era visto como um livro popular, amador e sem relevância científica. 11
• A ideia contudo era discutida. 11
• Lamarck had not solved the species problem, but neither had his critics: they had simply by-passed it as insoluble. 11

• Busca pela origem das espécies estava fora do reino científico. 12

• Criação independente era mais aceita, especialmente nos círculos mais religiosos. 13
• EDS - Further at the very brginning pf the Origin he printed quotations from Whewell and Bacon, and later from Bucjland as well, to the effect that  religion had nothing to fear from the substitution of a natural for a supernatural or miraculous explanation of the origin of species. Darwin no doubt primarily aimed at reconciling his non-scientific readers with the main result of his book 13

• William Whewell escreveu muito contra Chambers. Ele via evidências de fixismo nas sps. 14-5

• Muitos assumiram o "evolucionismo" sem assumir o darwinismo. 17

2 - The Climate of Opinion

• Artigo de 1858 não é notado na imprensa. 18
• Jornais não são um espelho total, na verdade mudam para se adequar ao publico as vezes 19
• "Representativeness at one remove" como ter certeza do que se afirma sobre a opinião geral? 23
• Evolution era mais abordada, NS quase nada e o homem só a partir de 1871 na imprensa 24
• Jornais mais populares discutem a ideia sem o livro 25-7
• mkt da origem, custo 27
• Três períodos 1859-1863 (queda de interesse pós origin renovada com Lyell e Huxley); 1864-1869 (ponto alto com Variation); 1870-1872 (Descent, Mivart e Wallace) 27-8
• Posições científicas quanto a teoria: absolute creation > progressive creation > derivation > directed selection > natural selection. E quanto ao homem: Separete creation > mental creation > development  30-2
• When this classification is applied to the actual material, an undramatic but distinct change in the climate of opinion can be dissiminaed during the year covered by our survey. What happended may be descirbed by saying that the majority of the genral public were in the end prepared to accept the Eovlution part of Darwin's doctrine , at east for the rganiz world below man, while they recjetced Darwins explantion of it, namely , the theorry of Natural selection. In our firt period, upt to 1863, most people seem to have clung to the lowest two positionss Absolute Creation or Profgressive Creation. In the last period, on the other hand, the most popular positions were the fourth and third: Directed Sleection and Derivation. They were both middle-of-the-road positions, paying homage both to sicena dn to religion. MOreover, they could be easily assimalted with the old Vestiges views, for hich thew ground ad been long prepared among the broad public. Position five, Natural Selection, implying full acceptance of the Darwinian theory, was all the time granted by a small minority only. It evidently met with strong resistance. But it took time for the resistnac eto become organised asnd aritculate, and during our second period, 1864-1869, Natural Selction clearly gained ground among the sicentificaslly informed, who tended to give at least a providsional assent to it. IN the lasrt period, hoever, the  numebr of adherents to position 5 seem have declined. This was probably due tot he influence of Mivart's Genesis of Specie...
• In regard to man resistance to Evolutionn had also decreased considerably from 1859 to 1871, though naturally not as much as in regard to the lower organic world. Nor did the development follow quite the same pattern. Among the broad public, espcially, complete rejection of the theory of man's descent remained by far the most common position ultil the very end of our preiod of survey, in spite of the advance towards general evoltionary views going on all the time. Enven saat the end, only a small minority were prepared to accept the graudla development of man's soul. 32-3
• Relação direta entre educação e aceitação da teoria 33, mas a resitencia dos especalizados foi maior no inicio 34
• Politicamente foi mais associada a esquerda. Usada como arma ideológica nos periódicos mais gerais 35
• Recepções distintas em cada grupo religioso. Unitários e Broad church mais receptivos e metodistas os mais contra. Outras ficam no meio do caminho entre eles.

3 - The Press on the Progress of Darwinism

• "The darwinian theory would lose half its interest with the public if it did not culminate in a doctrine on the origin of human species" 43
• Game of claiming support 44 change of climate no fim dos 1860s 47
• It was the bare fact that Owen controverted Darwin that was essential 49 Owen nos jornais 50
• Lyell aceita a evo só com 10 ed do Principles em 1868 53
• Mudança de opinião geral a partir de 1861, só fora do circulo cc se dizia que Darwin tinha sido rejeitado 54-7
• No segundo periodo:
• Writers in the non-scientific press seldom made any clear distinction between Evolution pure and simple, and the peculiarly Darwinian doctrine of Natural Selection. Darwinism and Development were more or less synonymous to the general reader. But when the two concepts were distinguished, it was generally in order to point out that most experts did not go as far as Darwin, especially as regards Natural Selection.»s B) Inevitably some anti-Darwinians would interpret this resistance against Natural Selection as a hopeful sign that the whole of Darwin's doctrine was losing favour in the scientific world. 58
• "Everywhere Darwinism has become a byword, which has gone far to replace materialism" 59
• No terceiro periodo. ainda mais apoio ao evolucionismo. 59 Mivart continua alimentando os antidarwnistas com o descredito da SN. 60
• Recrudescmento da oposiçaõ religiosa 61

4 - Darwinism at the British Association

• BAAS sinonimo do crescimento do interesse pela cc 65
• em 1863
• This mode of treating the Darwinian theory was becoming increasingly common among the informed public. Evolution was granted, at least to a large extent, but the necessity of supplementing Natural Selection was stressed. 74
• Ainda teve a questão de Hunt e a separação das espécies 75
• A partir de 1864 há uma alternância entre Darwinistas e não darwinistas 77
• Wallace e a questão do homem em 1869 84
• Questões Darwinistas chamavam atenção da imprensa para a BAAS 94

5 - Science and Religion: a Mid-Victorian Conflict

• Darwin went out of his way in his book to reconcile the feelings of the religious, and his sup- porters were often at pains to explain that his views harmonized with Christianity. 99
• Teologia natural fortemente
• The impact of Darwinism on religion would not have been so strong if British theologians had not been so strongly attached to the tenets of Natural Theology. The very success of Natural Theology in Britain - explicable in view of the powerful empiricist tradition of British thought — had led to that close interdependence of science and religion which was going to give rise to serious conflict when science advanced into fields where formerly theology had held exclusive sway.
•  There is abundant direct evidence that both theologians and scientists in Mid-Victorian Britain did look upon science and religion as closely connected with each other, and dependent on each other. The depend- ence was logically necessary as long as both science and religion claimed to offer information on matters of fact. Their domains were, so to speak, dovetailed into each other: the limits of each were determined by the other. It is clear that the Darwinian theory acted as a powerful catalyst in exhibiting the dangers of this dependence, and in arousing the latent conflict. 
• A very marked change in the attitude of theologians towards science, and of scientists towards religion, was taking place in the sixties, concurrently with the spread of Darwinian doctrines. The time when Natural History was almost looked upon as a branch of Natural Theology, when every other Church of England clergyman was an amateur natural- ist, was passing away. One religious periodical greeted Darwin's Origin with the words: "Its publication is a mistake ... at this time of day, when science has walked in calm majesty out from mists of prejudice and been accepted as a sister by sound theology, "17) and expressed the hope and belief that it would soon be forgotten. Instead, it came to mark a decisive stage in the ematicipation of science from theology. A few years later one religious writer had to admit that, "taken on the whole, scientifie studies have not a religious but a sceptical ten- dency,"*) and another, in a searching analysis, concluded that physical science must be held "the present great enemy of religion." 102-3
• Relig mais próxima da cc que o contrário. 107
• Litaralistas em desvantagem 109
• The most effective solution of the whole problem was to reserve for religion nothing but the world of morality and ethics. 112

6 - The Argument of Design

• Epicureanos, Hume e Darwin
• Now Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was directly relevant to the Epicurean hypothesis,") as elaborated by Hume. His critics of course recognized this: "The theory is the theory of Epicurus, with the atheism removed."*) By declaring that the sorting out of the viable from the non-viable was made on the basis of innumerable minute variations as between parents and offspring, and not on the basis of organisms arising complete out of the chance collocation of elemental atoms, Darwin turned the epicurean hypothesis from a nearly absurd into an eminently plausible one. Moreover, the deficiencies which Hume had pointed out in the Epicurean hypothesis, namely, that it could not account for the high degree of perfection of many organic structures. disappeared in Darwin's theory. Given a constant supply of random variations between parents and offspring, the adaptation of the organisms to their environment followed logically from the Malthusian struggle for life. 116
• Darwin desprezava esses sofismas 120
• Problema da indução fazia do design superior a SN 121
• Design contra NS, não necesseriamente contra evo. 123
• Problema do mal e recep
• Moreover, in the case of biology, the "law" of Natural Selection appeared as not only cruel, but also as wasteful and indeed wholly devoid of intelligence, and therefore, as it seemed, directly antagonistic to the assumption of Design. Canon Mozley gave expression to these views in his Times review of Argyll. "Natural Selection ... is adaptation by chance, and therefore, not by design, for a result obtained by chance is one emptied of design. If chance means anything, it is the negation of purpose. Natural Selection is adaptation without purpose. It is, moreover, a theory of waste ... and in that it does violence to nature, of which economy is a fundamental law."54)
• ...
• Though Darwin, in the Origin, insistently argued against such a law of necessary development,se) which would indeed have shattered the foundations of his Natural Selection theory, his Whewell quotation, and several other references to "laws impressed on matter by the Creator"67) led many readers to persuade themselves that Darwin regarder development as designed in this way. 132-3

• The chief stumbling block in the Natural Selection theory, from the point of view of Design, was its assumption of trial and error varia- tion. While many anti-Darwinians, as we have seen, avoided facing this difficulty, Asa Gray, among others, recognized it, and tried to meet it by insisting that it was not new: the world had known instances of waste in the economy of nature before Darwin pointed them out.87) As one writer put it, "Why [Nature] is obviously benevolent in a thousand directions, and apparently harsh in a thousand others, we do not know, any more from Darwin than we did from Paley, but we certainly are not left in a denser mist."*8)
•  It is debatable, however, whether the Natural Selection theory did not in fact imply a greater revolution than appears from these words. Before Darwin, beneficial adjustment of means to ends was seen as a fundamental and all-pervading property of the organic world. There might indeed be instances of maladjustment and waste, which were difficulties on the Design theory, but it was not unreasonable to pass them by, leaving them to be explained later, when a fuller in- sight had been gained into the constitution of the universe. The general conclusion that the instances of adjustment prevailed, remained unshak- en: lack of adjustment was the exception. Darwin's theory completely changed this balance. Thousands and millions were born, out of which only a few were destined to live to a mature age. True, the maladjust- ment was in general only very small - but so was the adjustment. Above all, the process of development worked no more efficiently than if it had been left altogether to chance. There was no evidence that the adaptive modifications were any more numerous than could be expected in a series of purely random variations. Therefore it could hardly be said that the process was, in the above-quoted writer's words, "indicative of intelligence""') It is not surprising that this writer was forced to conclude that it did not "coincide with anthropomorphic conceptions of a Divine plan."**) But this was, as we said above,"') to erode the foundation of the Design argument, which was based on that analogy. Darwin's own attitude to the Design problem is not quite clear. In a letter to Gray he confessed that "I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world ... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that every- thing is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance... But the more I think the more bewildered I become."**) On the other hand, Darwin flatly repudiated the idea that his theory needed the assumption of Design. He would have nothing of Gray's development along beneficial lines, 88) 138-9
• Creator
• Darwin had in fact made matters rather easy for his critics by using such expressions as "life ... having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one," which he expanded further in the later editions of his book by saying, "breathed by the Creator."63) Now the argument of his critics was that if the first form had to be created, then the design involved in that creation included the whole of the subsequent development. This argument was expressed very clearly by a writer in the Quarterly Review. Design, he said, "would be no more than a legitimate consequence of an admission which [Darwin] makes upon the very threshold of his theory. He admits that the first life-germ was a creation. ... the universal result must be included in that act. "64) And again: "There is the original fact of collocation, and design cleaves to that fact ... if a systematic production is the result, [we must] infer systematic forces in the cause."68) This reference to the wonderful qualities of the original form was very popular. The Edinburgh Review, in its review of Descent, declared that "Evolution pure and simple does not touch in the least degree the province of religion. It leaves the origin of life as great a mystery and wonder as ever, and presents a nobler view of the Creator, who endowed living forms with such wondrous capacities ... it cannot explain the phenomena without the will of a directing Intelligence."66) Others spoke of "one original germ which was vitalised by Creative Power. "67) Darwin did not think much of this criticism. "It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter, "68) he wrote in a letter to his friend Hooker where he expressed regret at having used expressions in the Origin which seemed to imply that he regarded the origin of life as supernatural. He further pointed to Newton's saying that "it is philosophy to make out the movements of a clock, though you do not know why the weight descends to the ground') 134-5

7 - Miracles

• Pelo menos o milagre da vida 141
• Sobre SN
• "The assignment of the law of 'natural selection' to a subordinate position is virtually an abandonment of the Darwinian theory, for the one distinguishing feature of that theory was the all-sufficiency of 'natural selection'"4) There was truth in this contention. Darwin could not tolerate any teleological - including miraculous - explanation beside Natural Selection. As he wrote to Lyell, "If .. I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish. "50) But he never ad- mitted the necessity of any such additions. 150
• some things were in principle inexplicable by scientific means 152 The aim of the religious defenders of mystery was clearly to ward off scientific incursions into what they considered to be their own exclusive domain. 154

8 - The Bible

• Alguns viam darwin como apenas um ataque a religião. 159, 163. 167
• Lyell e cronologia biblica 161
• Kelvin e a idade da terra 166
• Incerteza da cc motivava a certeza do texto biblico 169
• Harmonizadores 170-1
• Darwin é de fato um fulcro de laicidade. 173

9 - Mid-Victorian Philosophy of Science

• Tudo muito hipotético 174
• Correntes
• Darwin's critics did not always, nor even commonly, discuss these assumptions on their merits or demerits. They did not assert that they were improbable. Instead, many critics attacked the assumptions as such, insisting that a scientist had no right to make assumptions at all, but should only base his theories on ascertained facts. Others recognized that hypothetical concepts, which had to be assumed or postulated, but could not be directly proved, were indispensable in science. These people criticized instead the way Darwin derived and employed his assumptions. Either view inevitably led to considerations of scientific method and the nature of scientific explanation. The Darwinian controversy thus brought into view some fundamental problems of the philosophy of science. What was a scientific explanation of an event? What was a natural law? What was a cause? What was induction, and inductive proof? Such questions as these were implicit, and sometimes explicit, in much of the discussion around the Darwinian doctrines. 
• Broadly speaking these questions were answered in two different ways. One was an empiricist answer, the other an idealist one, and in the Darwinian controversy Darwin's supporters quite consistently sided with the empiricists, while his opponents almost equally con- sistently took the idealist line.]) The Darwinians found philosophical support in the writings of J. S. Mill,*) and the long British empiricist tradition, while the anti-Darwinians found theirs in the idealistic philosophical tradition from Plato onwards, and in the writings of the foremost philosopher of science of the age, William Whewell.*) If the periodical press can be taken as evidence, the idealistic, anti- Darwinian view of scientific philosophy was favoured by the majority of the educated public in the 186o's. The explanation is probably not far to seek. Idealistic philosophy was traditionally the philosophy of the Church, which had always been suspicious of thoroughgoing empiri- cism. 
• The conflict between idealism and empiricism as regards the philo- sophy of science turned on the concept of causation. To the empiricist a cause was nothing but the name given to any event or phenomenon that invariably preceded another under certain specified circumstances.*) Now it was sometimes possible to explain the occurrence of particular sequences of phenomena by showing that they were special instances of more general sequences. This, said the empiricists, was fundamentally what was meant by scientific explanation. But it is obvious that such an explanation never touches the question why there are any uniformities at all: this has to be accepted as an ultimate datum. .... On the idealistic view, a cause was something else than merely an event or phenomenon. If one class of events was invariably, under specified conditions, followed by events of another class, then, idealists argued, this proved that the first events contained within themselves some unobservable entity, some force or power which produced the result. 175-6
• Empiricistas eram sensualistas, idealistas admitiam outras formas de conhecimento 177 outras diferenças
• Empiricists and idealists therefore held different views regarding the ontological status of hypothetical, non-experiential concepts. Empiricists denied their substantial existence, idealists affirmed it. And this difference had important practical consequences, notably in the Darwinian controversy. For from the postulate that any temporal chain of causation originated in the First Cause it followed that at whatever point scientists were unable to explain a sequence of events in terms of secondary causation - whenever there was, as it was expressed, a break in the chain - then they had to recognize the possi- bility that this was a point where a chain originated, where the cause antecedent to the ultimate ascertained secondary cause was the First Cause. This was the doctrine of miraculous intervention in idealistic philosophical jargon,14 3) 
• Furthermore, the conceptual realism of the idealistic school also had the important consequence of leading them to regard such concepts as Vital Force and Final Cause as substantial entities or agencies, instead of as logical constructions. These concepts were of supreme importance in pre-Darwinian biological discussion. 179-80
• The main function of hypotheses, on the empiricist view, was to serve as guides to scientific enquiry. Laws of causation were hypothetic- ally postulated, their consequences deductively calculated, and the deductions in their turn confronted with the observed facts. No other restriction was placed on the framing of hypotheses than that they should be capable of being tested by experience in this way. But strict conditions had to be satisfied before any hypothesis could be accepted as proved. 
• ...
• It is significant that Whewell used the word hypothesis very spa- ringly, and tended to equate it with, and indeed to replace it by, "con- ception superinduced upon the facts" which loomed so large in his theory of induction: which was, he said, "the peculiar import of the term Induction."*) Mill called attention to this terminological peculiarity when he remarked that "Dr. Whewell's doctrine of conceptions might be fully expressed by the more familiar term Hypothesis."45) Whewell's choice of terms, however, was not accidental. At the time when he wrote, hypotheses were regarded by the general public as something suspect. It was a negatively loaded term. Induction, on the other hand, was positively loaded: it gave certain and firm knowledge. By making the hypothetical "conception" a constituent of the inductive, and not of the deductive part of scientific inquiry, it was natural for him to place on them the restrictions which he did: but it also enabled him to confer on those hypotheses which he did allow the reliability which everybody recognized as belonging to inductive knowledge. 184-5
• Deus como primeira causa 178 Darwin repudia realismo conceitual 181
• Darwin did not flatly reject the current metaphysics of the First Cause, though he avoided the phrase. He contented himself with declaring that any discussion of such matters would take the whole case "out of the range of science."*) Nor did he mean by this phrase to subscribe to the current "two spheres" view: he made it sufficiently clear that he would not entertain a reference to the First Cause as a valid alternative to a scientific explanation. To accept it as such, he said, would be "to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science. "27) The main thing, for Darwin as for any empiricist, was to put the observable phenomena in definite relations to each other. A theory involving a miracle, if it could be conceived, would infringe this empiricist rule.181
• Darwin não passava nos critérios de Whewell. 184
• Método indutivo ligado a nacionalidade 185
• "Thus induction became one of the key words in the early criticism of Darwinism" . Darwin tinha consciência disso 186 E Hypothesis também 189
• Mostrar que hipóteses eram necessárias 187
• Defesa
• The Darwinian defence against the charge of using hypotheses was the simple empiricist one. Commenting on the maxim that scientists should "observe and not theorize," Darwin said, "About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!"101) Again, on the criteria for judging hypotheses he agreed with Mill. His hypothesis took into account only natural phenomena, and he wished it to be judged solely on its power of accounting for as many facts as possible. "I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, but that I believe that this view is in the main correct, because so many phenomena can be thus grouped together and explained ... I generally throw in their teeth the universally admitted theory of the undulations of light... admitted because the view explains so much."102) Huxley also emphatically declared that "All science starts with hypo- theses"108), and that "there cannot be a doubt that the method of inquiry which Mr. Darwin has adopted is not only rigorously in accord- ance with the canons of scientific logic, but that it is the only adequate method... what Mr. Darwin has attempted to do is in exact accordance with the rule laid down by Mr. Mill; he has endeavoured to determine great facts inductively, by observation and experiment; he has then reasoned from the data thus furnished; and lastly, he has tested the validity of his ratiocination by comparing his deductions with the observed facts of nature."104) On this basis Huxley could not but conclude, as he did, that Darwin's hypothesis was the only one that had any scientific existence, 105) Lesser Darwinians in the press had little else to do than to reaffirm these empiricist views, 106) 194-5
• Conclusão
• It is quite obvious that the public discussion of the philosophical and methodological foundations of the Darwinian theory was largely motivated by its religious implications. It was impossible to accept the theory without effecting changes in a whole system of religious and metaphysical beliefs sanctioned by tradition, or, conversely, to preserve that body of beliefs intact without rejecting the theory. To the religious, the theory was an incubus which had to be cast out, or at any rate isolated and neutralized. To attack the theoretical foundations of the theory was one of the ways, and an important one, of achieving this result: thereby the theory could be, if not directly refuted, at any rate represented as no more than a loose speculation, scientifically unjustifiable, and without any foundation in fact. The Darwinians, and first among the Darwin himself and Huxley, justified the theory on frankly empiricist grounds. They recognized only observable phenomena as evidence, they refused to regard hypo- thetical concepts as anything more than abstractions serving to com- prehend observable facts, and they judged their value solely according to their power of thus comprehending a large number of observable facts. In order to accept an explanation as a causal one, they required that one set of observable phenomena - the effect - should be connect- ed with another set of independently observable phenomena - the cause. This ruled out explanations in terms of hypostatized tendencies and forces, which were, in conformity with empiricist views, no more than abstractions from the actual facts to be explained. It also ruled out final causes and miracles.
• ...
• The better informed critics, who admitted the right of scientists to argue hypothetically, adopted another procedure. They rejected the empiricist view that a hypothesis should be judged solely according to its power of comprehending a large number of facts: the further requirement was added that it should contain, in Whewell's phrase, a "clear and appropriate" conception. It was never quite clear what that phrase meant exactly, and it was therefore easy to declare arbitrarily that such hypotheses as one wished to reject were inappropriate or lacking in clarity.
• The Mid-Victorian discussion between empiricists and idealists as regards the philosophy of science may be said to have been only super- ficially concerned with theoretical problems. Its motives lay deeper. The parties disagreed about the fundamental scale of values, symbolized by their different religious beliefs and disbeliefs. One of the results of the appearance of Darwin's theory was to bring that underlying disagreement into full view. 195-7

10 - The Immutable Essence of Species

• Espécies divinas, variedades não. Sujeitas a esterilidade e reversão. Contudo isso era dificl de testar devido a lmitações práticas experimetais e impossível para casos apelontológicos. Semelhanças, sistemática e taxonomia era o que deveria ser seguido. 198-9
• Arbitrariedade para separar um do outro. Dependia de um realismo conceitual. 200-1
• Idealismo tipológico contra Darwin. Darwin e os empiristas vao para o nominalismo 204-5
• Esterelidade apenas não basta, vem junto o ideliamos conceitual. 207
• Darwin's hypothesis of unlimited variation was at any rate totally unacceptable n the light of the positive evidence 211

11 - Missing links

• Questão dos limites de espécie e deus 218
• Para os ideliastas, variação dompéstica e selvagem prejudicam a teoria, contudo ninguém conseguia distinguir um do outro 222-3
• Archeopterix podia ser uum contraarugmento se colocado como um passaro pois mostraria a perfeição das formas atuais. 230
• Questão do tempo geológico e das eds envolvendo Kelvin e Mivart 236-8
• Baleia urso 239 Mal entendimento do argumento 240-1
• was not provided, since, as we pointed out in Chapter 2, the more anti- Darwinian an organ was, the less information on the theory could be expected from it. This was a guarantee that attitudes would not change too quickly. Anti-Darwinianism led to the Darwinian theory being caricatured, and the caricature perpetuated the anti-Darwinianisin

12 - The Battle against Natural Selection

• Capitulo bem parecido com o que é desenvolvido em Vorzimmer 1972.
• Problemas: Swaming; Inutilidade das formas transicionais (persistência das formas transicionais); inultilidade de certos órgãos; variações individuais. 242-3
• Jenkin 244-6
• Spencer contra teleologia
• In fact, of course, Darwin's theory said nothing about "better" in Martineau's sense; Darwin's terms moved wholly in the naturalistic sphere. Herbert Spencer replied to Martineau: "Under its rigorously-scientific form, the doctrine is expressible in purely physical terms, which neither imply competition nor imply better and worse. "19) Darwin himself would have agreed with part of this assertion; Spencer's denial of the necessity of competition, however, was peculiarly his own. Spencer had formulated a law of evolution according to which every- thing must develop from incoherent homogeneity to coherent heter- ogeneity — a "law" which to some extent came into the "predetermined evolution" class, though Spencer substituted the Unknowable for God — and regarded Darwin's Malthusian Natural Selection theory as a partial explanation only.so) 254-5
• not a theory of necessary or pre-determined evolution ... Natural Selection had to be seen in relation t te environment and conditions of each species. 255
• SN não explica variações 257
• Eds
• In spite of Darwin's frequent references to the "laws of variation," he expressly repudiated the view that there were any laws of necessary development.) Indeed, the whole bearing of his argument was that the variations that occurred were both progressive and unprogressive, both adaptive and non-adaptive. But he never clearly brought out the fact that on his theory the non-adaptive variations must be assumed to be at least as frequent as the adaptive ones. Nor was the pro-Dar- winian press any more explicit on this point.**) 
• In the first edition of the Origin Darwin usually employed the neutral term variability; only in the later ones did he elaborate this expression, e. g. "fluctuating" variability.*) Likewise, it is only in the later editions that the following passage occurs, where the distinction is made between explaining the individual variations, and explaining the course of evolution: "When man is the selecting agent, we clearly see that the two elements of change are distinct; variability is in some manner excited, but it is the will of man which accumulates the variations in certain directions; and it is this latter agency which answers to the survival of the fittest under nature."64) 
• Darwin never made any consistent attempt to bring out the random- ness of the variations by actually recording and counting the variations in different directions and of different extent which occurred in a specific population. He did not prove experimentally, i. e. statistically, that the variations were really indefinite in direction in the sense of neutral from the point of view of adaptation. Moreover, he even ad- mitted that they were probably definite in some instances: he was prepared to accept, and increasingly as time went on, that external conditions, and also use and disuse, had direct effects. 
• It is therefore small wonder that many readers of the Origin did not at first grasp the essential feature of his argument: the randomness of the variations which were the building stones of Evolution. And when Darwin wrote about our profound ignorance of the laws of varia- tion,*) his opponents naturally insisted that in such a case he had no right to exclude the possibility that the variations might be in fact directed by some Intelligence. They therefore thought themselves fully justified in asking the old question, what causes the adaptive variations to occur? instead of the new one to which Darwin provided an answer, what causes any variation that happens to be adaptive to be preserved? 259-260
• Tradição idealista e cadeia causal 263
• Aleatoriedade era um problema 265-8
• Muito adhoc 268
• Havia um ataque generalizado ao materialismo e não a darwin em si. 270
• Vitalistas 279

13 - The Case for Darwin

• Respostas darwinianas às críticas

14 - The Descent of Man

• Diplomatic reserve planned 293-4
• Muita SS, pouca coisa nova 296
• Questão da degeneração das raças para circundar a origem comum 302-3 Outro ponto
• The view that the brain of the savage was too large for his needs led up to the idea that it had been intended for some future use, or else it was interpreted as evidence of a former more highly developed stage of existence. The latter tallied most satisfactorily with the deterioration theory, while the former supported the idea that savages, though they were definitely men, could not qualify as equal with the civilized races. They had a latent power of receiving the gift of civilisation, but they had not yet received it. It is necessary to keep in mind that civilization, according to the traditionalist view, was not a natural development. The accepted dogma was that no race has ever progressed by its own unaided efforts,77) a doctrine which was a natural outgrowth of the Biblical story of God's covenant with his chosen people. 310
• Missing link
• Darwinians did not attach very much weight to the missing link argument in its specific application to man. The general homology of the human body with that of the lower animals was too obvious to require much discussion, the variability of just those parts in man and the apes where they differed most from each other, 63) the incompleteness of the fossil record, the brevity of the time of observation - all these points held for man as they did for the lower animals. Usually, there- fore, Darwin and the Darwinians relied on the general acceptance of the Descent theory for the lower creation to lead to its acceptance for man as well. They therefore tended to prefer to concentrate their efforts on the former object, since it did not so directly bring prejudices and emotion into play.®*) And as a matter of fact, opposition to the idea of man's bodily descent from ape-like ancestors was notably weaker at the end of our period. Attention was concentrated on the origin of his mental constitution instead - a development which coincided with the increasing attention given to Natural Selection rather than Evolution as such as regards the general theory. 307
• Separação de alma e corpo 312, 315
• Idioma
• But the anti-Darwinians also claimed that it was impossible for articulate language to arise by a natural development of the faculties possessed by the brutes, since man's language was based on a perception of exactly those universals to which no merely sensory experience could lead. 319
• Moralidade e religião 321
• Diferenciação entre homem e outros animais era realismo conceitual 330

15 - Summary and Conclusion

• established prejudices ... rather tan a detached consideration of the factual evidence 332
• Though the actual arguments used in the Darwinian controversy ostensibly concerned scientific points, it is quite clear that the stand taken by the disputants was ultimately determined by ideological or religious considerations. One did not on the whole disagree about the facts; one disagreed about the interpretation of the facts, and preferred the interpretation which supported the ideological position one wished to maintain. Hence there is a clear correlation between the religious and ideological views of the debaters on one hand, and their attitudes towards Darwinism on the other. Nor has the importance of the ideo- logical factors for determining the stand on Darwinism to be inferred from this general correlation alone. There were very few reviewers indeed who refrained from offering at least some remarks on the religious implications of the theory. The importance of these implications was by no means played down: in some cases the stand was squarely based on them alne 335
• motivo de filo da cc 334

Varias considerações, graficos e tabelas interessantes no primeiro anexo.