Chapter 21 Chapter 19 Darwin's Revolution

Darwin's revolution was the major revolution in 19th century science.It destroyed the anthropocentric view of the universe and "caused a greater change in the mind of man than any other scientific advance since science was reborn in the Renaissance" (Meyer 1972, 987).Darwin's revolution is the only biological revolution mentioned in the usual list of great revolutions in science.The great revolutions in science that are commonly cited are generally associated with the names of natural scientists: Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Lavoisier, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg.As Sigmund Freud (1953, 16:285) astutely noted, the Darwinian revolution was one of three that dealt a severe blow to man's self-absorbed self-image—the other two were Copernican revolutions. and the revolution started by Freud himself.Moreover, the Darwinian revolution was different from all other revolutions in science because, so far as I know, it was the only one that included a formal declaration that it would produce a revolution in the first full formulation of its theory.

The great revolutionary impact of Darwin's theory of evolution arose in some ways beyond science, out of what one might call a concurrent intellectual revolution.This is true even of the reactions of scientists, whose views, like everyone else's, are strongly influenced by their philosophical ambiguity and other preconceptions.So, insisted one critic of Darwin, there was a "great shock" to his "moral interest".He said that Darwin started from the point of view that "the cause is the will of God".The critic said he was able to "prove that "God" represents the interests of his creation," and he feared that Darwin's alternative view would ultimately subject humanity "to a condition that would make it barbaric and cruel s damage".He also feared that Darwin would bring "mankind down to a more degenerate and degraded state than it has ever fallen into, because its written records show us its history".These concerns emerged in a letter to Darwin (Darwin, 1887, 2:247-50), the Woodward Chair of Geology at the University of Cambridge.The last signature of the letter is "your old and faithful friend" Adam Sedgwick.This sentimental statement underscores the fact of the prophecy in Huxley's admonition to Darwin.Huxley warned Darwin (ibid., 231): "Unless I make a great mistake, you will be insulted quite a lot".

Darwin's view on revolution Darwin published his book in 1859, 11 years after the revolutions of 1848 swept across Europe.When he wrote the last draft, it was 10 years after the publication of the "Communist Manifesto". The Communist Manifesto not only announced an imminent revolution, but also institutionalized actions to bring about a political and social revolution.The magazines that Darwin read during the 1840s and 1850s were full of articles or texts talking about political revolutions, revolutionary activities, and even revolutions in science.Despite some signs of industrial instability in England, the British did not feel threatened by revolution; , the Glorious Revolution can be said to be a fairly peaceful revolution.Therefore, British scientists and philosophers can seriously think about revolution, at least revolution in science, with a detached and peaceful mind.Darwin may have been familiar with the image of revolutionary change decades before publication (see &19.1 for details), and several times in his book he speaks explicitly of revolutions in science.

One of these is in Chapter 10, where Darwin praises Ryle's "revolution in natural history."Furthermore, in Chapter 9 (1859, 3O6), discussing the "incompleteness of the geological record", Darwin wrote that "a revolution has taken place in our paleontological thinking".In the last chapter of , in which he makes a full and formal statement of his own theory, Darwin states bluntly: "The views which I have set forth in this book, or similar views concerning the origin of species, once generally accepted adopted, then we can vaguely foresee a great revolution in natural history".There is a peculiarly Darwinian flavor to this expression.It is embodied and contained in the words "we can vaguely foresee" with a well-known Darwinian modesty, but then goes on to proclaim boldly and emphatically "a greater revolution".

The claim of a revolution in a formal scientific publication seems to be without precedent in the history of science.Many scientists have written in correspondence or manuscripts, in notes or personal research journals, that their own work was either revolutionary, or caused or produced revolutions.Lavoisier read a later published paper at the Paris Academy of Sciences, which referred to a new chemistry and the necessity to create a new chemistry in terms peculiar to a revolution (a revolution in the foundations of chemistry, thus affecting education) Nomenclature, however, like Darwin, he did not use the term "revolution" when fully describing the new theory.

We have no direct evidence of the development of Darwin's ideas about revolutions or about revolutions in science.He must have been familiar with the concept of revolution in the geological sense used by Cuvier.Ryle's writings continue this tradition.Ryle's Geological Evidence for Paleoman (1914) includes a chapter on "many and great geological revolutions" of past epochs.We also know from Darwin's autobiography that he associated the French Revolution with violence.Describing a horrific event he witnessed during his association with Professor Henslow at Cambridge, Darwin wrote that it was a "horrible spectacle almost like what one might experience during the French Revolution" (1958, 65 ).Two criminals, he said, were caught stealing corpses; walking on the muddy gravel road with their legs."The two criminals (victims) were "covered from head to toe in mud and bleeding from their faces: they were kicked by the gang and smashed with stones", so "they looked like dead bodies".This violent experience, long buried in Darwin's memory, further convinces us that, for Darwin, the notion of revolution in science was not a useless metaphor implying change, but a violation of fundamental principles of established systems of scientific knowledge. A complete change of belief.

Ten and a half years before his publication on January 11, Iw, Darwin wrote to the English naturalist Sir Joseph Hooker (1887, 2:23) that "at last the light has appeared". "I'm almost convinced (contrary to what I originally held) that species are not (it's like confessing a murder) immutable".We may perhaps agree with the late Walter Fay Cannon (1961): Darwin was indeed thinking seriously about murder, thinking about "what Ryle espoused on the basis of his uniformitarian principles of eternal stability." The killing of things". Over the next fifteen years, Darwin moved from the pre-1848 idea of ​​rebellious violence in science as "murder" (destruction) to the idea that in 1859 he proudly proclaimed "a momentous revolution" .The twelve-year period between the presentation of the two views of murder (sabotage) and revolution includes the revolutionary activities of 1848 and their consequences.These events are prominent in the journals Darwin read during those years (see &19.1).

We have direct evidence that by 1859, just as Darwin was finishing his book, the idea of ​​revolution in science was still in the air.Thomas Bell, president of the Linnean Society (London), discussed the revolution in science in his May 1859 inaugural address as part of a review of the society's activities over the past year.He said (Gage 1938, 56), "Only after a long interval of time can we reasonably expect any sudden and brilliant innovations which will stamp a distinct and permanent imprint".He went on to say that the appearance of men like "Bacon, Newton, Oster, Wheatstone, David and Daguerre" was "an accident" and "their lives and experiences are blessed by God, The purpose is to bring about some significant change in man's surroundings and pursuits".These remarks on the scientific revolution and its revolutionaries (four of the six mentioned above were living contemporaries) are a commentary on his main point: "The year that has passed was indeed not marked by any of those amazing distinguished by their discoveries - which at the same time revolutionized the part of science in which they were related".These comments or notes are of extra importance because during that year Darwin's Preliminary Report on the Theory of Evolution and Alfred Russell Wallace's treatise "On Varieties Infinite Deviation from Its archetypal tendencies".

Bell had been chairing the meeting while the papers were being read.Historians of the Linnean Society note that "Bell apparently knew little or nothing of the beginning of a revolution in thinking about life in general and human life in particular" (Gage 1938, 56).This statement is very true!But more importantly at the moment, Bell realizes that there is a revolution in science, and that the life sciences are preparing for it.Darwin's account of an impending revolution in natural history can be seen as a direct answer to Bell's summary in his chairmanship. Early Stages of the Darwinian Revolution

Darwin's theory of evolution clearly shows the stages of development from revolutions in the foundations of early thought to revolutions in treatises.Darwin's experience during his round-the-world voyage (1831-1836) with the naval survey ship Beagle is extremely important, especially his study of fossils and his observation that "existing animals are closely related in form to extinct species Confirmation of this natural law"; but, as Ernst Mayer (1982, 395) insists, "Darwin, who sailed around the world on the Beagle in 1831, was already an experienced naturalist ".We have solid evidence (ibid., 408-409; Sulloway, 1983) that Darwin did not become an evolutionist when he began his circumnavigation.His transformation came in 1837, when he published his first notes on "The Evolution of Species."

Darwin came to conclusions about his ideas slowly. In 1844, he wrote a 230-page manuscript treatise (Darwin, 1958), which contained the basic content of later writing.So it is difficult to say that Darwin became an evolutionist in 1837, considering the theory of natural selection in September of the following year, and not making his ideas public in any form at the end of about 20 years.In short, the intellectual revolution was completed in 1836-1837; the second phase of the plunge into the revolution, that is to say, the private revolution, took shape in 1844.But the overt phase of the revolution in treatises was another 15 years later, when (1858) Darwin received Wallace's papers in which he presented an independent insight into natural selection. One aspect of the transition from a private revolution to an overt theoretical revolution that should be noted is that Darwin was engaged in this transition at the very time when he was writing his 1844 treatise. On July 5, 1844, he wrote a letter to his wife in which he said he had "just finished" his "draft" of his "Theory of Species."He asked that in the event of his "sudden death" she would "get it published for £400", specifying that Ryle would be the best editor to have it published ("if he was willing to undertake it") ), and, if Ryle fails to do so, Forbes, Henslow, Hooker, and Strickland can all fulfill the entrustment.Darwin even told his wife that if "none of them would accept" the commission, she would try to find an editor and tell her what to do with the manuscript "if there was any difficulty in finding one." As is well known, Darwin's theory of evolution was originally published as a joint paper by Darwin and Wallace.After Wallace sent Darwin a paper requesting that it be forwarded to the geologist Charles Ryle, Darwin found it "extraordinarily beautiful and interesting".In fact, the paper that astounded Darwin contained what Sir Gavin de Beer (1965, 148) called "a succinct but perfect formulation of Darwin's own theory of the evolution of species by natural selection" .Darwin's first honorable instinct was to conceal his own writings and publish Wallace's essays.But at last, after some persuasion by Ryle and the botanist Joseph Hooker, both friends of Darwin and, even more importantly, friends of science and truth, he agreed to take the paper written by Wallace , published at the same time as an abstract of Darwin's unpublished 1844 paper, together with an excerpt from Darwin's 1857 letter to Edsa Gray of Harvard University.It contains a "short outline" of the work Darwin had been writing.These letters, together with Wallace's paper, were read at the meeting of the Linnean Society in London, July 1, 1858, and published in the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, August 20 of the same year, under the title As: "On the propensity of species to form varieties, and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural selection." Speaking of people's acknowledgment of these new ideas, Darwin later wrote: "Our joint paper published this time has attracted little attention; I remember that only Professor Horton of Dublin made the only public opinion at that time; he Concludes that all new views in this joint treatise are false, and all true views are old" (1887, 1; 85). (Darwin himself was not present at the famous meeting of the Linnean Society.) Hooke later told Francis Darwin (in 1886) that both he and Ryle had "emphasized (as far as naturalists are concerned) that due attention should be paid to these treatises and to Their influence on the future of naturalists, historians, etc." (1887, 2:125-126)."There was a lot of interest in the paper," but "there wasn't any corresponding discussion," he said.After that meeting, people spoke "quietly" of the new doctrine: "Ryle was in favor, and perhaps I was in some way too . may object to this doctrine".But George Bentham, who would later become president of the Linnean Society, was so "disturbed" by reading Darwin-Wallace's paper that he withdrew a speech he would later put on the agenda for that meeting.In that speech he drew upon his studies of the flora of England in support of ideas concerning the stability of species" (Darwin, 1887, 2:294). This episode illustrates an oft-discussed question, namely, how much credit and credit should be given to Alfred Russell Wallace for his contribution to Darwin's theory of evolution. Down?Is it fair to attribute the "Darwinian Revolution" to Darwin alone?Wallace's paper, as the immediate cause of Darwin's rapid completion of a readable version for publication, must have been of paramount importance.Moreover, I also think that this point alone is also a major contribution to the theory of evolution!But, judging by the cautious reaction to the 1858 paper published by the Linnean Society, it is clear that the mere publication of Darwin and Wallace's idea of ​​the evolution of species by natural selection did not cause that revolution.As stated in Darwin's book, this revolution is still to be debated, to be proved by a large number of facts.For what is on display here is a new way of thinking and a whole new science in biology (see Scriven, 1959).It was published on November 24, 1859, and the whole book is about to be published.The much-anticipated second edition came to readers about a month and a half later, on January 7, 1860.Soon after, the third edition came out.Within two years, 25,000 copies had been sold. One scientist did use in a scientific bulletin a paper presented at the Linnean Society.The scientist was Cannon Henry Baker Tristram.He is an Anglican priest and ornithologist who has been studying skylarks and songbirds of the Sahara Desert.He was particularly struck by the "gradual" mutation or evolution seen in the coloration of these larks and songbirds, as well as in their size and shape. In 1858, he presented the results of his research to a friend of his, Alfred Newton.Alfred Newton, who later became Cambridge's first professor of zoology, had just returned from an expedition to Iceland's birds.When A. Newton returned home, he found an August issue of the "Proceedings of the Linnean Society", which contained the papers jointly published by Darwin and Wallace.On seeing these papers he immediately changed his views, and immediately realized that the new theory of evolution by natural selection would support Tristram's conclusions and some of the other variants he had encountered.He relayed the news to Tristram.Tristram's research, published in the October 1859 issue of the Osprey, talks about Darwin's and Wallace's briefings to the Society of Forest Parents, and explains how natural selection has shown that birds have a sand and soil of their environment, thus protecting themselves from animals that prey on them and giving them an advantage in the process of natural selection; and, as far as the different sizes and shapes of beaks are concerned, the In this way, they can therefore make it more advantageous for the birds to gather food in different kinds of soil in which they are going to feed on the worms. Tristram, in his later historical work, makes a very interesting comment on the famous Huxenley-Wilberforce debate at the meeting of the "British Association for the Advancement of Science" held in Oxford in 1861.In this polemic, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce ("Glib Sam") is generally held to have been humiliated and defeated by Huxley, and forced to withdraw from his intellectual embarrassment.The truth, however, was that Wilberforce made a deep impression on many of the scientists who were there.These scientists included Tristram, who was the first to publicly change his position in a publication to a new theory of evolution based on natural selection.Wilberforce's arguments convinced him that he became an anti-Darwinist then, and remained so for the rest of his life, despite the fact that his friend A.Newton tried several times to redirect him back to this theory.Furthermore, we might add that Wilberforce not only was completely unashamed of his conduct, but published an expanded and revised version of his Quarterly Review talk.This essay was later proudly reprinted in the two-volume Collected Works of Wilberforce. (For the case of Tristram and Wilberforce see Cohen 1984). I recently had the opportunity to re-read Wilberforce's article, and I found that while Wilberforce attacked Darwin fiercely, he also praised Darwin's important contribution to science in a book.According to Wilberforce, the major innovation in biological thought that should be attributed to Darwin was—whether one believed it or not—the idea of ​​natural selection.Of course, Wilberforce did not believe in evolution, and he therefore interpreted natural selection as God's process of removing the unhealthy.This seems all the more remarkable to me because Thomas Henry Huxley—one of the leading defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution—sometimes referred to as "Darwin's fighting dog" never fully embraced it. This particular part of the theory (see Bolton, 1896, chap. 18). We have ample evidence that scientists and other thinkers in Darwin's own day considered his theory of evolution and natural selection to be revolutionary.On November 21, the eve of publication, British botanist Hewitt C.Natural selection, Watson wrote to Darwin, "is characteristic of all the great truths of nature, which clears up obscurities, simplifies intricacies, and greatly enriches previous knowledge".And, though he reminded Darwin that "to some extent, your present application of the principle of natural selection needs to be limited or modified and, if possible, also to some extent extended".Finally he told Darwin, "You are the greatest revolutionist in natural history of this century, if not all of them". Twentieth-century scientists, philosophers, and historians (such as Ernst Mayer, Michael Roos, D. R. Oldroyd, and Gertrude Himmel-Farber) have also now consistently argued that, The Darwinian revolution in science did occur, and Darwin's theories have had a profound long-term impact on the history of biology and paleontology since 1859.The history of biology since Darwin, and especially its development over the past 20 years, shows how profoundly Darwin's theory of evolution has influenced the discipline.The Darwinian revolution of which we are speaking here is thus a great revolution which passes all the tests of such revolutions very easily. The Nature of Darwin's Revolution But what were the revolutionary features of Darwin's theory?Everyone knows that Darwin was not the first person to believe in evolution.Indeed, historians seem reluctant to identify Darwinian precursors who embraced a general theory of evolution, or even those who had long considered the idea of ​​natural selection.We must note, however, that the formulation of these ideas before 1859 did not fundamentally change the nature of science in the way that Darwin did in .A major reason for this difference seems to me to lie in the fact that Darwin did not just submit another paper, or that he did not just present another statement of a hypothesis (regardless of its apparent Is there any reason), but after careful reasoning and based on a large amount of evidence obtained through observation or investigation, the theory that species evolve through natural selection is a logical and reliable theory.In it he brings together an extraordinary wealth of experience among breeders of animals and plants who, as he says, practice a kind of artificial selection—from which one can see that nature has produced a "natural selection."He also cites ample evidence from the geographical distribution of plants and animals, from the history of geology, and from other fields of natural history.Furthermore, Darwin stated in a compelling and convincing manner the fact of the almost infinite variation that is natural in the individuals of any single species.This fact is connected with the law of the natural increase of populations, with the corresponding increase in the lack of available food.The seemingly inescapable conclusion, both for him and for us, is that the struggle for existence has led to a process of "natural selection."Later, he also called this process "survival of the fittest".Here he adopts—in A. R．At Wallace's suggestion - starting with a regrettably poor formulation by Herbert Spencer. In other words, Darwin did not just restate some old general ideas about evolutionary development, but made new and challenging specific arguments for further discussion and scientific development.We find exemplification in the question of the evolution of different species which he finds in the fossil record of successive geological epochs.A number of explanations have been proposed to justify this phenomenon.Cuvier proposed a series of "revolutions" and life-destroying cataclysms, after which new life was born.Charles Ryle offered a seemingly obvious and logical explanation, namely that there was a struggle for existence among species, and in this struggle or competition some species disappeared and we know them only through the fossil or geological record.Ryle developed what Ernst Meyer (1972, 984) called "a microscopic catastrophe", a "concept of the smooth extinction of species and their replacement by newly produced species".The main difference between Ryle and Cuvier on this subject is that Ryle disperses "catastrophes as events related to individual species rather than whole fauna".Darwin transformed Lyle's concept of competition between species into a concept of competition between individuals. The individual members of a species differ from each other in accordance with the widely accepted fact of established variation.However, some varieties are more suitable for survival according to the nature of the environment.In the ensuing struggle for survival, some varieties are more advantageous than others; for example, a color that blends with the background may help protect a species from a particular predator's choice of food, and thus favor survival, And a color that is very different from the background makes it easy to spot and eat.Darwin saw in these phenomena that an individual's chances of survival depended on the particular varieties (variations) the individual possessed.He called this particular process of differential survival natural selection: it is the process by which ultimate success in reproduction occurs among those whose varieties (variants) are best suited to the environment and are therefore most likely to reproduce them. among individuals of their own species.Here the preoccupation with the single individual, and the "emphasis on the peculiarities of everything organic," according to Ernst Mayr (1982, 46), are the keys to a revolutionary new way of understanding and thinking about nature: "Population Thinking".Population thinkers "emphasize that every individual in a sexually reproducing species is fundamentally different from all other individuals".In this new way of studying biology or natural history, there is no "ideal type", nor any "rank" of substantially identical individuals.Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was based on the "recognition of the unique characteristics of each individual"; Ernst Mayer believed that this recognition was "revolutionary" for the development of Darwin's thought. The evolution from Ryle's concept of interspecific competition to Darwin's concept of intraspecific competition is a fundamental account of what I have called a shift in thought (1980, Chapter 4, especially Section 3 of that chapter).The cause of this momentous revolution was Darwin's chance reading of Malthus.We are very grateful to Sandra Herbert (1971; and especially Giseline, 1909) for pointing out that Malthus was drawing Darwin's attention to "the horrific pruning ... of individuals of a What is known about struggles at the species level is applied to struggles at the individual level"—a specific role played on the one hand.Darwin then recognized that "survival on the plane of the species is the record of evolution, while survival on the plane of the individual is its advancement".In short, Ryle's "preoccupation with competition at the level of species" apparently blinded Darwin to "the evolutionary potential of a struggle for existence at the level of individuals".therefore.Herbert asserts that Malthus "should be seen as a contributor rather than a catalyst for the "new understanding" that Darwin gained after September 28, 1838, of the possibility of explaining the ideas of struggle in nature. Movers".Since Darwin's natural selection was based on three elements—"individual variability, tendency to overpopulate, and selective genes at work in nature" (ibid., 214)—we can see that this transition How crucial it was as a stage of Darwin's creative mind.Moreover, we can now be more explicit about what Malthus really did, that is, not in adding another factor to the hypothesis that Darwin proposed, nor in giving Darwin a mathematical law of population growth, but in making Darwin " focus on the competing stimuli of nature—predation of the jungle, famine, natural disasters—as they appear in individual differences among members of the same group”, thus leading Darwin to translate Ryle’s conception of an individual internal struggle.This was the decisive factor in the "conceptual shift" towards the recognition of the "struggle for existence" (Mayer insists on this, 1977, 324) among individuals of a single species, towards what is known today as "population thinking". Of course, it is critical to fully understand the Malthusian sensibility of Darwin's ideas and to lead to population thinking (among them the principles of individualism and competition in Adam Smith's economic thought, Schwebel in 1977 and Gruber in 1974). Recognizing the importance of competition as revealed here), there are other factors that must be taken into account.On this point, too, we must give due attention to Darwin's own statement: the concept of natural selection producing the self may be termed artificial selection—the long-standing practice of animal and plant breeders who, for reproduction, may select individuals exhibiting desirable characteristics— — a transformation ofAlso, there is the fanciful notion that a divine process weeds out poor fits in a sort of "selection" fashion. Reactions to Darwin's Theory The revolutionary nature of Darwin's thought seems clear from the criticisms that Darwin did not follow the simple prescribed pattern of supposedly valid ways of doing science.In order to see how far Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection departs from conventional norms of scientific thought, such as one sees in Newton's philosophy of nature, one need only consider the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution was not assertive. , but still causal.That is to say, although Darwinian evolution, through natural selection and various other similar principles, ascribes a cause to the process by which present species have arisen by natural selection, the science cannot predict evolution with relative accuracy even if environmental conditions are present. future process.In other words, Darwin pointed out that a science can "explain the past satisfactorily" even when "prediction of the future is impossible" (Scrivin 1959, 477). In a public attack on Darwin, Adam Sedgwick said, "Darwin's theory is not inductive—not based on a series of accepted facts" (Darwin, 1903, note 1:149), and, Darwin's method "was not really Baconian's either" (Darwin, 1887, 2:299).He wrote to Darwin: "You have abandoned ... true induction".Darwin, however, stated in his Autobiography (1887, 1:83) that he "applied the true Baconian principle, and made an extremely extensive search for facts, without any reference to any existing theory".Darwin took great pleasure in recognizing that "the method of inquiry adopted was in every respect philosophically correct" (1903, 1:189).Henry Fawcett told him that, according to John Stuart Mill, Darwin's "reasoning, from the first to the last, was quite strictly in accordance with the strict principles of logic".Moreover, Mill said, Darwin followed a "method of research that is unique to the discipline."We can understand why Huxley was particularly offended by the criticism of Darwin in the Quarterly Review of July 1860 (Darwin, 1887, 2:183).In that critique in the Quarterly Review, "a superficial phony M.Sc." has the audacity to mock Darwin as "a fool who struggles to shore up his utterly unreliable conjectures and fanciful constructions. , and his manner of dealing with nature is to be condemned and rejected as an utter disgrace to natural science".Huxley disqualified the critic by exposing the critic's ignorance of paleontology, and utter lack of knowledge of comparative anatomy; The critic was his old enemy at Oxford——Bishop Wilberforce (Darwin, 1887, 2:183). Admirers of Darwin, on the other hand, compared him to Newton and Copernicus - the acknowledged originators of the great revolutions of the past.In stark contrast to Harvey's case, the German physiologist Emil Duboisdenmont stated that Darwin was extremely fortunate to have lived to see his ideas generally accepted and recognized (1912, 2, 29).Harvey died before the scientists of his day readily acknowledged the circulation of the blood. T． H．Huxley had no doubts that "Charles Darwin was as famous as Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday" and, like them, "raised the lofty ideal of a seeker of truth and interpreter of nature" ( Darwin, 1887, 2:179).He also said that just as Newton's name was "inseparable from the theory of universal gravitation," Darwin's name was inseparable from "the theory of the origin of the living things that inhabit our planet."而且，一书是扩展自"牛顿的《自然科学的数学原理》发表"以来产生的"自然知识领域"的"最有效的手段"（p．557）。 AR．华莱士（189，142）坚持认为，"不仅把达尔文的名字放在与牛顿同一个平面上，而且他的著作将永远被视为19世纪科学成就的伟大（即使不是极其伟大的）著作之一"。 甚至达尔文本人也在许多谈到接受或反对"牛顿万有引力理论"的场合，把自己与牛顿相比（1903，2：305）。他极其谨慎和谦虚地坚持认为，他并不想说，自然选择无论如何都是与万有引力相当的。而且，他在自己的辩护中确实援引了这样一个事实："牛顿不能揭示引力到底是什么"。达尔文（1887，2：290）还补充说，牛顿反对莱布尼茨并且说："正是哲学领悟了一个钟表的运动，虽然你并不知道为什么重力往地面倾斜"。 达尔文革命的后期阶段 在出版之后的20年中，英国以及其他许多地方（在这些地方有许多著名的杰出人物，但在法国普遍缺少支持者），大多数生物学家都逐渐改变原来的立场，转信物种进化学说。达尔文在1878年写道："现在，在生物学家中间，对于进化论几乎取得了完全一致的意见"（1887，3：236）。但是，人们对自然选择、达尔文关于人类的性选择和共同由来的思想，似乎并无多大兴趣（见迈尔，1982，第501及以下各页；鲁斯1979，8；尤其是鲍勒1983）。在我们刚引证过的那封信中，达尔文承认，"关于方法，诸如自然选择发挥了多大作用，外部条件起多大作用，或者是否存在某种神秘的、先天的完美趋向，仍然存在相当大的分歧"。如R． W．布尔克哈特说的（《科学》，N83，222：156），"达尔文在其所处时代的最热烈的拥护者——英国的T．H赫肯黎和德国的恩斯特·海克尔——对于进化的作用有着与达尔文不同的而巨彼此也互不相同的）理解"。 争论的主要问题是，进化是否是通过一代又一代的繁殖过程中的小的变异的渐渐积累起来的影响而进行的，或者是否大的变异起着决定性作用。另外一个主要的问题产生于对遗传性的争论，这个问题在两个方面使选择复杂化了：是什么机制引起自然选择对其起作用的变异，而且变异又是如何传给后代的？到20世纪，孟德尔的遗传学把注意力从自然选择和小的变异转向大的变异、突变和不连续变异（参见爱伦，1978；普罗文，1971；鲁斯，1979）。此后，自然选择和达尔文学说开始衰落，这是朱利安·赫胥黎所说的"达尔文学说的黑暗"时期（1974，22ff．）。20世纪30年代，当我开始做研究生的时候，历史的评价是明确的。有一本我们都曾读过的权威著作，即埃里克·诺登舍尔德的《生物学史》（英文第二版，1935））说，"正如人们通常所做的那样"，把自然选择理论"抬高到与牛顿确立的引力定律同样重要的自然规律的地位"是"极其不合理的"，"时间已经证明了这一点"（p．476）。实际上，诺登舍尔德告诫他的读者，"达尔文的物种起源理论在很久以前就被放弃了。达尔文所确定的其他事实也都仅仅具有次要的价值"。那么，我们以什么为根据才能"充分证明"在伦敦威斯敏斯特大教堂墓地中达尔文的坟墓紧邻牛顿的坟墓呢？诺登舍尔德的答案是，假若我们不考虑他在科学中的地位而是"依照他对整个人类文化发展的影响"——即他对语文学、哲学、历史观和人的一般生命观的影响——来"评判他"，那么，他可以享有这样一种荣誉。 但是，近几十年，自然选择又重新得到认可，并且出现了一种"进化论的综合"（关于这一点请参看迈尔和普罗文1980年的论述，尤其是迈尔的序言）。换言之，最初的达尔文革命衰弱了，因此出现了一场反对达尔文的反革命，这场反革命不是反对整个的进化论，只是反对达尔文的进化论及其自然选择的首要概念。恩斯特·迈尔根据"遗传学家与生物学家之间的概念差别"探讨了达尔文主义者或新达尔文主义者与他们的论敌之间的这个分歧，并且指出，这两个派别分别"属于两种不同的生物学，我把它们叫做近因生物学和终因生物学"（迈尔和普罗文1980，9；迈尔，1961）。对于一个局外人来说。构成近来进化论生物学——这是遗传学家和生物学家共同活动的结果-一特点的"进化论的综合"，很可能就是第二次达尔文革命或者说是达尔文革命的第二阶段，或许也可以说是一场变化了的达尔文革命。但是，人们不应当认为这场革命已经结束。入、们提出了一个重要的修正，它又一次对简单的自然选择提出了挑战，并且根据"不时间断的平衡"作了说明（见爱尔德雷季和古尔德，1972；古尔德和爱尔德雷季，1977）。 达尔文革命在科学之外的影响 达尔文的思想在科学领域之外产生了革命性的影响，这一影响远远超出了它们对于生物学或自然史的重要性。通过对小说的"进化"一直到社会的进化的研究，"进化"已扩展到人类思想或努力的各个方面，还有谁不熟识这～点呢？伍德罗·威尔逊在对《美国宪法》的卓越研究中指出，把牛顿的自然哲学原理运用于这一学科是一个错误。他说，相反，应当通过进化来理解《宪法》："政府不是一台机器，而是一个活生生的东西。对于达尔文来说，它是可以解释的，而对于牛顿就不是这样"（1917，56）。人们都清楚地知道，在19世纪末，出现了一种被称之为"社会达尔文主义"的特殊社会思想，它试图把社会学与进化论联系在一起，而达尔文在一封著名的信中曾经说这个联结是"愚蠢而荒谬的"（1887，3：237）。 当然，在达尔文所处的时代，就进化论而言，真正使人们产生震动的是这一理论对《圣经》的字面解释所提出的挑战和怀疑。我并不认为，如果问题只是一个动植物的问题，甚或地球的年代问题，那么会有人如此强烈地臣对达尔文。That is.如果没有必要把人本身也包括进进化的范围和进化的过程之中，或者没有必要断言人类是自然选择的结果，那么，宗教信仰者也就不会作出如此强烈的反应。当然，过去（现在仍然）有某些原教旨主义者如此相信基督教圣经的字面解释，以致他们可能奋起进行武装反抗，甚至对地球的年代要比圣经中所计算的年代长这样一个假设提出质疑。而且我们一定不能忘记，同一种原教旨主义信仰者，现正在美国的州议会和法院中进行努力，为将"神造论"与进化论相并列而确立教室中的"平等时间"原则。 达尔文在中，只是在一个句子中曾经暗示"人类的起源和历史，由此也将得到许多启示"，以图避开人的问题（1859，倒数第三段）。但是，达尔文的批评者自那时到现在一直强调进化论对我们自身的明显含义以及显然无法回避的结论：人类只是持久的进化过程的一个暂时的最终结果。的确，甚至阿尔弗雷德.拉塞尔·华莱士也不能使自己相信，自然选择可以解释或说明历史中人类的发展，并且认为有必要祈求某个造物主的积极参与（见科特勒，1974）。这个问题是有案可查的。它在1864年第一次出现于《人类学评论》中一篇论"人"的文章中，后又见于《每季评论》（1869）中的一篇书评之中，在这篇书评中，华莱士评述了赖尔的《地质学原理》第10版（1867－1868）和他的《地质学基础》第6版（1865）。他认为，仅仅自然选择永远也不可能产生出人的大脑，人类的语言器官和手等等。达尔文极度痛苦地在1869年3月给华莱士写信说，"但愿你还没有把你自己的和我的子孙如此斩尽杀绝"。在他自己的那一份《每季评论》中标出这段话时，在"不"字下面连画了三条线，并且用了一连串的感叹号。 达尔文革命大概是科学中曾经发生过的最重要的革命，因为它的效果和影响在许多不同的思想和信仰领域中都是相当深远的。这场革命的结果是对世界、人和人的制度的本质重新进行了系统的思考。达尔文革命对世界产生了新的看法，它把世界看作是一个动态的、进化的世界，而不是一个静态的、有系统的世界，并且认为人类社会是以一种进化的模式向前发展的。我们将会看到，卡尔·马克思甚至预见了技术和发明的进化史，在这个进化史中，达尔文用来说明动物器官的概念将被用来分析人类工具的发展。 新的达尔文主义的观点否认任何宇宙目的论，并且认为进化并不是通向一个"更好的"或"更完美的"型式的过程，而是这样一系列阶段：在这些阶段中，具有最适合于它们环境的特殊条件的特点的个体得以繁殖和延续——-对于社会来说也是如此。特殊的创造将不再有任何根据。任何"绝对的人类中心说"都将成为过去，因为"共同血统"的原则是对所有活着的生物（包括人）而提出来的。关于这些推断和结论，我们还必须补充说，达尔文的革命给任何关于宇宙或自然中的目的的论点敲响了丧钟，因为变异是一个偶然的和无定向的过程。在生命科学中，实现了从比较陈旧的生物学概念向新的人口思维的引人注目的重大转变。而且，除了这些新的方面外，达尔文还开始了方法的创新，引入了一种新的科学理论，在这理论中，预测的作用是与经典的牛顿的模式不同的。 所有这些含义并不是立刻展现出来的，但是，其中有相当部分是如此必然地展现在人们面前，以致引起了直接的激烈的争论。在历史上，从未有哪一种科学理论的预言和发表在世界上几乎所有国家中引起如此直接的激烈的争论——这是达尔文自然选择进化论的真正革命的特点的一个标志。对于这种理论的阐释、评论和抨击几乎是同时开始的，而且一直持续到今天我们所处的时代。在现时代其他科学创造者之中，只有一人是可以与达尔文相比的，他就是西格蒙德·弗洛伊德——这一事实向人们表明了弗洛伊德早期把他自己思想的未来影响与达尔文思想所曾产生的作用相比时表现出的远见卓识（见下面第24章）。关于进化论及其意义的历史的、哲学的甚至科学的争论，在达尔文去世一个世纪之后仍然影响着严肃的思想家们的思想，这一点使我们更进一涉确信达尔文学说的非凡的生命力以及他的进化论的深远意义。