Evolutionary Progress: Stephen Jay Gould’s Rejection and Its Critique
Jianhui Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5313/2019.06.001
2019-01-01
Philosophy Study
Abstract:After Darwin, from Ernst Haeckel down to Julian Huxley, J. M. Thoday, M. D. Sahlins, E. R. Service, C. J. Herrick, G. G. Simpson, F. J. Ayala, E. O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins, ideas of evolutionary progress have ridden high. However, in contemporary academic circles, some biologists and philosophers, such as J. Haldane, George C. Williams, Stephan Jay Gould, T. A. Goudge, David Hull, and Michael Ruse, challenge this idea. They either believe that Darwin himself rejected evolutionary progress, for he opposed to use of such words as “lower” and “higher”, or contend that the idea of progress is anthropocentric and subjective because in nature In evolutionary theory, we generally believe that the evolution of life is from simple to complex, from single to diverse, and from lower to higher. Thus, the idea of evolutionary progress appears obvious. However, in contemporary academic circles, some biologists and philosophers challenge this idea. Among them, Gould is the most influential. This paper first describes Gould’s seven arguments against evolutionary progress, i.e., the human arrogance argument, anthropocentric argument, no inner thrust argument, no biological base argument, extreme contingency argument, statistical error argument, and bacteria (other than human beings) ruling the earth argument. Gould’s arguments against evolutionary progress have great influence in contemporary evolutionary theory. Thus, it is necessary to conduct a careful philosophical analysis of each of Gould’s arguments to reveal his philosophical mistakes. This research contends that Gould’s arguments against evolutionary progress are invalid. This positive spin rests upon the fallacy that evolution embodies a fundamental trend or thrust leading to a primary and defining result, one feature that stands out above all else as an epitome of life’s history. That crucial feature, of course, is progress—operationally defined in many different ways as a tendency for life to increase in anatomical complexity, or neurological elaboration, or size and flexibility of behavioral repertoire, or any criterion obviously concocted (if we would only be honest and introspective enough about our motives) to place Homo sapiens atop a supposed heap. (Gould, 2011, pp. 19-20) history if we are but a tiny twig on the floridly arborescent bush of life, and if our twig branched off just a geological moment ago, then perhaps we are not a predictable result of an inherently progressive process (the vaunted trend to progress in life’s history); perhaps we are, whatever our glories and accomplishments, a momentary cosmic accident that would never arise again if the tree of life could be replanted from seed and regrown under similar conditions. 2011, defines the history of life or even exists as a general trend at all. Within such a view of life-as-a-whole, humans can occupy no preferred status as a pinnacle or culmination. Life has always been dominated by its bacterial mode. We recognize a hierarchy of biological values which are in an organic relationship with enlargement and diversification of bodily structure, social organization, and ability to learn by personal experience. There is a similar progressive enhancement of values achieved in the human growth of every human child. In the lower ranks of animals and in the early infancy of a man most of these values are built into the hereditary structure and are biologically defined in behavioristic terms. In the higher animals and in the growing child there is an increasing proportion of learned skills and consciously recognized satisfactions which can be evaluated both biologically and psychologically.