http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html
Darwin from Lyell. The issue was a matter of how one chose to
interpret natural laws - as self-acting or as expressions of the will
of God.
Darwin had similar correspondences with a large number of friendly
critics, each of whom seized on his language as a basis for arguing
that the course of evolution was, after all, designed. The topic is
one of the most recurrent ones in his correspondence. Again and again
Darwin asks what is so different about his case from similar ones in
the physicochemical sciences, and again and again his would-be
interpreters try to reconcile his theory with design by means of the
active role played by natural selection. Finally, in a letter to
Hooker, Darwin's exasperation begins to show.
Such men as you and Lyell thinking that I make too much of a Deus of
Natural Selection is a conclusive argument against me. Yet I hardly
know how I could have put in, in all parts of my book, stronger
sentences. The title, as you once pointed out, might have been better.
No one ever objects to agriculturists using the strongest language
about their selection, yet every breeder knows that he does not
produce the modification which he selects. My enormous difficulty for
years was to understand adaptation, and this made me, I cannot but
think, rightly insist so much on Natural Selection.
It is clear from this and from many of the foregoing remarks by Darwin
that the path by which he claimed to have come to his theory was
causing grave difficulties and that, although he understood many of
the objections, he was very unwilling to alter his mode of expression
about natural selection. Although none of his correspondents was
arguing for divine intervention in the crude form of catastrophist
miracles, they were convinced that the course of evolution was guided
by God's sustaining power and purposes. Darwin could grant this only
if the Deity was identified with the principle of the uniformity of
nature itself. At any lower level of abstraction he could not make any
concessions, no matter how much his correspondents thought they were
bringing about a diplomatic reconciliation between evolution and
theology. Darwin had gone as far as he could in the Origin in arguing
that the uniform operation of natural laws led to a grander view of
the Creator. He thought it a paltry view of God to claim that He
should tamper with the details of species. This point came out
105
clearly in a letter to Sir John Herschel, who had called for a law of
evolution in his correspondence with Lyell in 1837, and had criticized
Vestiges for failing to supply a vera causa. Yet when Darwin's book
appeared, he criticized natural selection as "the law of higgeldy-
piggeldy" and expressed a preference for a law of "Providential
Arrangement." Darwin wrote:
I am pleased with your note on my book on species, though apparently
you go but a little way with me. The point which you raise on
intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure; & has been ably
discussed by Prof. Asa Gray, with whom I have had much correspondence
on the subject. I am in a complete jumble on the point. One cannot
look at this Universe with all living productions & man without
believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to
each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this.
For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the
tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order
that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be
not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons) then I
cannot see design in the variations in structure of animals in a state
of nature, those which were useful to the animal being preserved &
those useless or injurious being destroyed. But I ought to apologise
for thus troubling you.
In the remainder of the letter Darwin implies that the real problem
for Herschel is that a new generation of scientists is coming along,
and its members see nature in terms of unalloyed uniformity.
You will think me very conceited when I say I feel quite easy about
the ultimate success of my views, (with much error, as yet unseen by
me, to be no doubt eliminated); & I feel this confidence because I
find so many young & middle-aged truly good workers in different
branches, either partially or wholly accepting my views, because they
find that they can thus group & understand many scattered facts. This
had occurred with those who have chiefly or almost exclusively studied
morphology, geographical distribution, systematic Botany, simple
geology & paleontology. Forgive me boasting, if you can; I do so,
because I should value your partial acquies[c]ence in my views, more
than that of almost any other human being.
Darwin could not expect acquiescence from the elder statesman of
science, a man whose view of nature had been formulated in a period
which assumed a perfect harmony between natural theology and natural
science. Darwin and the members of his generation
106
could accept theism only if its claims were so abstract as not to
interfere with the operations of nature at all.