The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw

Elements in the Philosophy of Biology

by Michael Ruse

Originally published in 1979, The Darwinian Revolution was the first comprehensive and readable synthesis of the history of evolutionary thought. Though the years since have seen an enormous flowering of research on Darwin and other nineteenth-century scientists concerned with evolution, as well as the larger social and cultural responses to their work, The Darwinian Revolution remains remarkably current and stimulating.

For this edition Michael Ruse has written a new afterword that takes into account the research published since his book's first appearance.

"It is difficult to believe that yet another book on Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution could add anything new or contain any surprises. Ruse's book is an exception on all counts. Darwin scholars and the general reader alike can learn from it."—David L. Hull, Nature

"No other account of the Darwinian Revolution provides so detailed and sympathetic an account of the framework within which the scientific debates took place."—Peter J. Bowler, Canadian Journal of History

"A useful and highly readable synthesis. . .skillfully organized and written with verve, imagination, and welcome touches of humor."—John C. Greene, Science

Genres: Science, Biology, Evolution, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, History Of Science

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1979

About the author

Michael Escott Ruse was a British-born Canadian philosopher of science who specialised in the philosophy of biology and worked on the relationship between science and religion, the creation–evolution controversy, and the demarcation problem within science. Ruse began his career teaching at The University of Guelph and spent many years at Florida State University.

Reviews

[Mark Bowles · Rating 5 out of 5]

In response to the question of the mystery of mysteries, the origin of organisms, came Charles Darwin with his evolutionism and the mechanism of natural selection. In The Darwinian Revolu¬tion: Science Red in Tooth and Claw, Michael Ruse discussed the scientific, religious, and philosophical themes that surrounded the Darwinian affair from 1830 to 1875. According to Ruse, the Darwinian revolution included the man himself, his work, and the events before and after his Origin of Species. These events were shaped by what Ruse called the "scientific network," which were those individuals who were the key players in the origin debate at that time.
The book was structured chronologically and treated the scientific facts from a diacronistic viewpoint. The first three chapters presented a general intellectual background. This in¬cluded the scientific community and their geological, philosophi¬cal, and religious beliefs. The fourth chapter dealt with the debate over a law based or a divine miracle origin of organisms. The fifth chapter introduced Owen's theory of archetypes and Chambers' evolutionary Vestiges of the Natural History of Crea¬tion. Chapters six through nine discussed the before, during, and after of Darwin's Origin of Species. The final chapter presented a review of the book, an analysis of the key themes, and Ruse's conclusion to the state of affairs as he left them in 1875.
In applying Cohen's stages of a revolution to the informa¬tion provided in Ruse's book, Darwin categorically met the neces¬sary requirements. The intellectual revolution was achieved after his Beagle voyage. The commitment to the new method occurred with his 230 page essay in 1844. There was a long wait for the public dissemination of his findings. Wallace forced his hand in 1858 when he sent Darwin his own paper on evolution and natural selec¬tion. Other scientists became convinced of it, specifically Hooker and Huxley who championed Darwin's cause. Most scientists were convinced of the concept of evolution, but the mechanism of natural selection took more time for a consensus agreement.
Cohen's tests for an occurrence of a revolution also are successfully met. Not only was there testimonial of witnesses to the fact that a revolution had occurred but Darwin himself pre-dicted a revolution. After the Origin, there was much correspond¬ence and discussion; so, the documentary history of the period is complete. Based on the information from Cohen and Ruse, histori¬ans agree that a revolution did occur. The scientific tradition and general mythology of Darwin's accomplishments exists today as common knowledge within most every grade school science class.
The final comparison I will make with Cohen's book is how Ruse used the term "conversion" in describing the scientists who began to agree with Darwin. Cohen saw conversion as another feature to all scientific revolutions. Kuhn described it as a switch in paradigms which was also similar to a religious conver¬sion. Darwin also used the term in reference, for example, to converting Lyell to his point of view. Ruse stated that between 1851 and 1873 a complete conversion towards the ideas of Darwin's evolution occurred.
I found an interesting example of the dual meaning of the word revolution in the classic Neptunist-Vulcanist debate. The Neptunists believed that large-scale events like the deluge shaped the earth. Cuvier was a proponent of this and was the founder of Catastrophism, or as he preferred "Revolution." This meaning of the word implied a break or radical change. The Vul¬canists believed that weathering and heat created the geological formations. Lyell was a Vulcanist's proponent and he called it "Uniformitarianism." This was the repeating cycle of weathering and erosion on land that deposited silt on the ocean bed which, through heat and pressure formed the silt into rock, whereby volcanic action pushed it up to become land. This constantly re¬peating cycle through long periods of time is another definition of revolution. So, although these two beliefs were diametrically opposed to each other, the word revolution could be used to describe them both.
My only criticisms of Ruse's book was that he did not pro¬vide information on what he considered to be a revolution and his brief treatment of Darwin and the Origin. He said that the Dar¬winian revolution was Darwin's work, his life, and the events surrounding his Origin; but this does not tell the reader what a revolution is or is not. I referred to Cohen's book to convince myself that a revolution did occur. Also, I would have preferred a more in-depth treatment of Darwin's book and his life. It seemed as if Ruse gave as much space to Chambers' Vestiges as he did to the Origin. Concerning Darwin's life I would have pre¬ferred more information on his voyages and his character.
I obtained two reviews on Ruse's book, each with a very different viewpoint. The first, Social Science Quarterly (Vol.61, Spring 80, p. 358) began with "Reading this book causes one to wonder why it was written and published." It went on to say that the book presented nothing new, in fact or interpretation, and was written by an author who did not posses the "gift of lan¬guage." The second review was found in Choice (Vol. 16, Feb 80, p. 1603) and was much more positive. It said that Ruse created a synthesis of other historians of science and also contained Ruse's own valuable insights. These insights were the importance he placed on the philosophical aspect of the revolution.
Finally, I must confess a lack of understanding of the subtitle Science Red in Tooth and Claw. It is from a Tennyson poem, In Memoriam which gave his reactions to scientific works. He considered Lyellian geology to be without direction, but felt that evolution was progress. Ruse gave the quote "red in tooth and claw" as meaning "going nowhere, all seems pointless." So, I must assume that Ruse placed the word "science" in front of it for the subtitle. This seems to me to say "The Darwinian Revolu¬tion: Science Without Direction," which is obviously not what he intended. What he did intend though, I do not know.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND AND LATER INFLUENCE OF DARWINISM

Historian and philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote in the Prologue to this 1979 book, “In 1859 the eminent British naturalist Charles Robert Darwin published his best-known book: ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection’… In this work he put forward his solution to one of the burning scientific question of the day: What precisely are the causal origins of the world’s organisms, past and present---a category to which we humans belong?... The arrival of the ‘Origin’ changed man’s world. Darwin was not the first to present a theory of ‘evolution’; but never before had such a theory had such convincing impact. At once, it was seen to have implications far beyond biology. It struck at beliefs and behaviors from the most trivial to the most profound… I have been led to write this book as a synthesis of the Darwinian Revolution, using the most recent findings and interpretations, for readers like myself who have a serious interest in the history of science and want to dig beneath glib generalizations and stark dramatizations, but who do not have the specialized knowledge and aims of the professional scholar.” (Pg. ix-x)

He explains, “in Britain, particularly in England, no formal system existed for training or employing scientists though this began to develop as our story progresses and plays a pertinent role. Take [Adam] Sedgwick. He was certainly not paid much for his geology… Most of his income came from his college and the church. However, he did teach geology; he helped administer geology as a discipline through societies and the like, he cared passionately about geology over a long period, he published in journals for fellow geologists; and most important, he was recognized as a leading geologist. All these things contribute toward making Sedgwick a professional geologist. If the opposite of ‘professional’ is ‘amateur,’ he was certainly not an amateur.” (Pg. 30)

He reports, “We know that, despite their differences, there was considerable overlap between the philosophies of [John F.W.] Herschel and [William] Whewell… since we know Darwin was close to Whewell and respected him… we might wonder if other philosophical elements, less obvious in [Charles] Lyell, can be found in Darwin’s work---elements held jointly by Herschel and Whewell. For example, did Darwin pay due attention to hypothetico-deductive systems and consiliences? There does seem to be evidence that, independent of his Lyellianism, as a geologist Darwin strove to fit the canons of the philosophers. When we consider Darwin as a biologist, I shall offer detailed evidence to substantiate my claim that these elements are essential.” (Pg. 62)

He summarizes, “On one thing everyone agreed. By the end of the decade, thanks to [Robert Chambers’] ‘Vestiges’ [of the Natural History of Creation’] nothing was quite the same. The organic origins debate was no longer a private scientific controversy but a burning question that had been thrust upon the public eye. There are thus two final questions we must ask… First, judged in the long run, did ‘Vestiges’ have any significant part in effecting a resolution of the organic origins problem? Second, just why was there so much opposition, particularly from the professional scientific community?... In answer to the first question… there are two aspects. On the negative side, ‘Vestiges’ acted as something of a lightning rod---a terrific amount of spleen and argumentation was poured out against it, to some extent exhausting the batteries of the opposing troops… Our second question deals with the opposition to ‘Vestiges.’ … One gets the feeling that professional scientists took ‘Vestiges’ very personally and that their reactions were in part a function of this personal element---though of course it is always easier to be nasty when one’s opponent is anonymous.” (Pg. 127-128)

He continues, “It is tempting to dismiss these outbursts as 19th century bigotry. But it may be more profitable to suggest that ‘Vestiges’ was taken as a threat to the sentimental, idealized role of wife and mother into which Victorians were casting women… women’s liking for ‘Vestiges’ augured the end of Christianity and morality in the home, and it meant having to argue at home about whether men are descended from monkeys… this was all most frustrating because women were [perceived as] constitutionally incapable of telling right from wrong in these matters… let us qualified male scientists go after ‘Vestiges’ with renewed vigor for having so poisoned the temple of the hearth. Little wonder that ‘Vestiges’ was not merely opposed. It was hated.” (Pg. 131)

He suggests, “One suspects that Darwin was eased toward evolutionism by the ideas of his grandfather [Erasmus] and of [Jean Baptiste] Lamarck. Darwin shared causal speculations with them and with later evolutionists Chambers and [Herbert] Spencer, specifically about the inheritance of acquired characteristics: there may well have been a direct link between Darwin and the first two on this. Generally speaking, all the evolutionists including Darwin were united by a burning urge to bring organic origins under normal, unbroken law. But after this there is almost total difference between Darwin (and [Alfred R.] Wallace) and those who publicly accepted evolution before them. In no sense can Darwin be seen as the natural climax of a chain of evolutionists, even if we consider his seminal work as coming in the late 1850s rather than fifteen to twenty years earlier.” (Pg. 199)

He concludes, “The Darwinian Revolution cannot be considered a single thing. It had different sides, different causes, and different effects. Often it is portrayed as a triumph of science over religion; but, though there is some truth to this idea, as a total assessment of the Darwinian Revolution it is far from adequate. The supposed triumph of science over religion was questionable; more was involved than science and religion, and in some respects religion helped the cause of science. It probably is a mistake to say that in the coming of evolutionism certain things were essential, whereas others were not. It makes little sense to compare the relative merits of, say, [Henry Walter] Bates’s work on mimicry with Huxley’s writing of supportive referee’s reports for all who favored evolutionism. I would feel very uncomfortable with an analysis of the Darwinian Revolution that belittled these points to concentrate solely on the ‘real’ issues, such as man’s place in the natural scheme of things. In its way the Darwinian Revolution was one of the most significant movements in man’s history. That it had many sides, intellectual and otherwise, should be no surprise. Indeed, we should have expected this.” (Pg. 273)

This book will interest those seeking a ‘historical’ overview of the impact of Darwinism on the world.

[Fernando Pestana da Costa · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very interesting book about the history of the British natural science community in the period 1830-1875, centered on the problem of the organic evolution of species, the ideas being proposed, the introduction of the Natural Selection mechanism by Darwin and Wallace in their papers read at the Linnean Society in 1858, and, mainly, by the publication of Darwin’s masterpiece one year later, and its reception by naturalists, scientists, and the general public. Starting by covering cognate subjects that occupied the naturalistic community at the time, foremost among them Geology and the geological evolution of landscape, as well as Philosophical and Religious beliefs sustained by Victorian society, and its consequences for the answers to the organic evolution problem, the book also briefly describes the sore state of English higher education at the time, with Cambridge and Oxford (the only two universities in England and Wales) dominated by Church of England clergy and the pitiful state of Science education and research in them. It ends with two chapters analysing the effect of the Origin of Species in Science, Philosophy, Religion, and Politics. I found it a very engaging book about a crucial era in the evolution of biological sciences.

[Gerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

In one way this is essential reading for the beginning of a better understanding

[Abrandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is written in Ontario of Canada, published by University of Chicago Press. The subject matter is paraphrased by establishing a scientific field of geology followed by biological science, of which science an investigation of organic origins tended to emerge. After scientifically social interactions and publications had become familiar with the subject of evolutionism, Charles Darwin and less prominent but equally prolific, T H Huxley popularized and depoliticized the facticity of an evolutionary origin of species guided in large part by natural selection, with significant reservations on the part of several large alternatives.

[Salvatore Familia]

Originally published in 1979, The Darwinian Revolution was the first comprehensive and readable synthesis of the history of evolutionary thought. Though the years since have seen an enormous flowering of research on Darwin and other nineteenth-century scientists concerned with evolution, as well as the larger social and cultural responses to their work, The Darwinian Revolution remains remarkably current and stimulating.

For this edition Michael Ruse has written a new afterword that takes into account the research published since his book's first appearance.

"It is difficult to believe that yet another book on Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution could add anything new or contain any surprises. Ruse's book is an exception on all counts. Darwin scholars and the general reader alike can learn from it."—David L. Hull, Nature

"No other account of the Darwinian Revolution provides so detailed and sympathetic an account of the framework within which the scientific debates took place."—Peter J. Bowler, Canadian Journal of History

"A useful and highly readable synthesis. . .skillfully organized and written with verve, imagination, and welcome touches of humor."—John C. Greene, Science