Doubts about Darwin
Sir: , Christopher Booker's reflections on Darwinism, while interesting, have failed to point out the most serious defect of the theory of natural selection, Darwin's great 'discovery', upon which his reputation largely rests. Darwin himself agreed that 'the survival of the fittest' was an apt summary of his theory. It now turns out that there is a serious shortcoming: the fittest are merelY those that survive. Darwin proposed no independent criterion of fitness. Thus his theory turns out to be a tautology. It reduces to the bare assertion that sortie organisms leave more offspring than others. There is considerable question whether this 'explains' the complexity and variety of life in quite the way Darwin imagined. This simple linguistic observation (which has appeared in a number of learned philosophical journals in recent years) turns out to be a devastating criticism of Darwinism. It removes his theory from the realm of the scientific. This is because no organism could conceivably be discovered, and no ecological outcome observed, Which would falsify Darwin's theory. Unfalsifiable theories are useless in science. Hence Karl Popper has suggested recently that Darwinism should be regarded as a 'metaphysical research programme'.
Darwin seems to have unconsciously assumed an independent criterion of fit ness because of the mid-Victorian propen sity to believe in progress. Change and Progress were almost synonymous. Hardly anyone believes that any more. And for that reason, Darwinism could be in trouble.
Tom Bethel!
1830 24th St. NW, Washington DC
Previous page
