Attacks on Darwinian evolutionary theory have come from within the scientific community as well as from creationists. Much of this is the normal process of scientific scrutiny, but some bear all the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
Lamarckian evolution is a term commonly used to denote the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This is in contrast to Darwinian evolution, in which such inheritance is thought impossible. But neither Lamarck nor Darwin had any idea of how inheritance works.
Lamarck was the first to classify the invertebrate animals (he coined the term ‘invertebrate’). He realised that species were not fixed, but did not set a single common ancestor for all living things. His theory of evolution involved groups of organisms each moving up a predetermined ladder and it clearly stated that the ‘lower’ organisms were the ancestors of the ‘higher’ organisms on each ladder. This type of theory is called ‘orthogenesis’ (sometimes ‘teleology’) or directed evolution. Lamarck’s scheme differed in that the directing agency lay within the individual. Earlier theories had used ‘God’ or ‘Nature’ to control the direction. In Lamarck’s scheme all organisms had an inner tendency to strive for a higher level and they were able to somehow choose which characteristics they passed on to their descendants (except perhaps for humans, who were already at the top). This is rather mystical so Lamarck suggested that use or disuse of various organs was an important factor for selecting what should be passed to the next generation. Clearly this is unsatisfactory (as was pointed out at the time). A caterpillar may ‘use’ legs to crawl away, but in what sense does it ‘use’ its protective colour or unpleasant taste? In what way would a brilliantly coloured insect with pleasant flavour ‘disuse’ these characteristics? For a caterpillar these factors are more important than legs for escaping predators.
Several terms (translated into English) originate with Lamarck; invertebrate is one and biology another but also higher and lower organisms, and missing link. These latter terms are inappropriate in Darwinian Theory.
It is commonly believed that Darwin started a new theory showing that acquired characteristics were not inherited. Not so; The Origin of Species first produces overwhelming evidence that organic evolution has occurred and then suggests a new theory, Natural Selection, as its mechanism. Knowing nothing about heredity, Darwin produced a theory that was independent of how inheritance was achieved; it made orthogenesis unnecessary. In recent times natural selection has been used as an explanation outside biology where genetic inheritance does not apply (a clear indication that it is not dependent on a single type of inheritance). Daniel Dennet calls it Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.
However, natural selection must be the most strongly resisted theory in science. The implications of the theory are so horrifying that many (including biologists) have felt it must not be true. It implies, as Dawkins put it, “Nature is not cruel, not kind; merely indifferent.” Natural selection does not rule out the possibility of a creative supreme being, but it does rule out a Christian style god that takes a benign interest in the living organisms it has created.
We all know that people have challenged the facts of evolution for religious or political reasons, but for a century or more these challenges have come from outside science. Most opposition to natural selection has come from within science, even though religious belief may have been the motive. A very large number of eminent biologists have opposed natural selection and some of these had no religious faith. Even TH Huxley was unhappy with the theory and concentrated on the facts of evolution. Nearly all the challenges to natural selection have involved some form of orthogenesis.
Many of the attacks on Darwinism in the past 50 years or so have come from Marxist biologists who let their politics overrule their science. Some of these biologists were outraged when natural selection was applied to humans, particularly to human behaviour in the discipline originally called sociobiology. For a really excellent overview of this controversy read Defenders of the Truth by sociologist Ullica Segerstråle. Attacks on natural selection still occur. Unfortunately any challenge to Darwin, however ill-informed, still generates publicity even among those who should know better. For example, in January 2004 New Scientist headlined yet again Why Darwin Was Wrong About Sex. The article reveals another author who does not really understand Darwinian Theory. My wife (who many years ago taught biology) used to say: “Few people claim to fully understand relativity or quantum theory because these seem to be written in mathematics. But natural selection seems to be written in English so few realise that a deep understanding of biology is necessary for its appreciation.”
I sometimes feel that people who write essays claiming that Darwin was wrong should demonstrate that they have read the collection of essays by John Maynard Smith titled Did Darwin Get It Right? before any editor puts their effort into a publication with claims to be scientific.
The Croizat Affair
There was a disgraceful episode in the biology departments of some New Zealand universities around 20 years ago when a few zealots discovered the ideas of a fringe scientist called Leon Croizat and promoted a ‘new’ theory of evolution. “Croizat believed that evolution had an internal direction that was independent of selection by environmental factors” (Gordon Hewitt 1984). There was actually nothing new about this at all; it was a form of orthogenesis. In fact it closely resembled Lamarckism because the directing agency lay within the organism. The proponents confused the issue by concentrating on Croizat’s insistence that vicariance was more important than dispersal in explaining the geographical distribution of living organisms.
This is pretty academic; probably few biologists were interested. But Croizat’s claim that orthogenesis rather than natural selection was the guiding principle of evolution would have been extremely important if true. It would have overthrown Darwin’s ideas and produced a true revolution in science.
Plenty of wacky ideas have gained support in universities and controversy is healthy. However, within science it is essential that work is published in peer reviewed journals — and discussed at international science congresses. Scientists generally ignore their fellows who espouse nutty ideas without attempting publication in the professional literature. And this works well, as many daft ideas simply disappear. Fair-minded people generally believe that every story has two sides. Combating pseudoscience in the ordinary media gives the public a false impression, as most people find it difficult to see that on some issues only one side constitutes science. Unfortunately there are cases, especially in medicine and education, where it is necessary to engage pseudoscience in the general media. Outrageous claims made by somebody with scientific qualifications cannot be safely ignored if they have an effect on society.
In the Croizat case his New Zealand supporters, unable to make any headway with their peers, bombarded the poor biology teachers with (mis)information urging them to teach the ‘new theory of evolution’ that was bound to supplant Darwinism. An attempt in this manner to short-circuit the normal processes of science is a sure sign of charlatanry. It is worth noting that the ‘new’ theory (bound to supplant Darwinism!) seems to have sunk without trace.
For anybody with interest there is some debate in NZ Science Teacher from the 1980s with Keith Lockett (the first editor of this publication) and myself on the side of Darwin, and JR Grehan on the side of Croizat. Gordon Hewitt tried to remain neutral.
My letter to the NZ Science Teacher suggested there were some signals that would identify an article as probably pseudoscience:
- Its title is inappropriately grandiose.
- Its style is emotional.
- It has a touch of paranoia.
- It contains an enormous reference list – sufficient to daunt the most determined reader.
- On analysis the list contains a high percentage of references to the author’s own works, or to the works of the ‘group’.
- The majority of references are to relatively obscure publications that are difficult to track down.
- Those few references to well known authors or publications are generally ancient.
- Readers are urged to get their ideas up to date – indeed to get ahead of the crowd.
The article by Grehan fitted all these criteria (his reference list was extraordinary), and should have been rejected by the editor.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect of this affair is that when it started, evolutionary theory had just had its most productive period since Darwin. Far from being a theory in crisis, or due to be supplanted, natural selection had triumphed over all its rivals. In the previous two decades George Williams and Maynard Smith had used game theory to show that group selection was impossible in the long run. Then Hamilton put selection on firm mathematical grounds (he should have got a Nobel). Richard Dawkins popularised these ideas.
All this occurred nearly a decade after Dawkins’ first book so the new ideas were not buried in obscurity. Yet they were ignored by the group. In nearly a century and a half of existence, natural selection has seen off more rivals than any other theory, while the last quarter century or so must represent the final triumph for Darwin, with his theory being extended much further than he could have imagined.
The Croizat group in New Zealand claimed that he had made remarkable progress in Biogeography. The Secular Ark by Janet Browne is a history of Biogeography and worth consulting to see the falsity (and absurdity) of this claim.
I would like to thank Peter Joyce for his comments on an early draft of this article and pay tribute to the memory of Keith Lockett. He and I were involved in several struggles against pseudoscience in education before NZ Skeptics was formed.
