Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
In this paper I want to examine a view of the Darwinian theory of evolution which was put forward fairly recently by A. R. Manser. His approach is of interest not only in itself, but also because it may be expanded to raise some fundamental questions about the nature of the science of biology in general. I shall not consider these further implications here, but shall concentrate on an examination of his thesis in the context in which it is raised. My paper falls into two sections. In the first I shall state Manser's thesis and some of the arguments with which he supports it, and shall try to show how a series of objections raised by A. G. N. Flew and K. Connolly may be answered. In the second I shall offer on my own account a positive argument to provide a possible basis for his point of view, with the aim of indicating why the theory should be of the kind he suggests, and what form the study of evolution must take.
1 Manser, A. R., The Concept of Evolution, Philosophy, Vo. XL, No. 151, 01 1965, p. 18.Google Scholar
2 Flew, A. G. N., The Concept of Evolution, a Comment, Philosophy, Vol. XLI, No. 155, 01 1966, p. 70.Google Scholar
3 Connolly, K., The Concept of Evolution, a Comment on papers by Mr. Manser and Professor Flew, Philosophy, Vol. XLI, No. 158, 10 1966, p. 356.Google Scholar
4 Here V is variation, O organism, E environment, as qualified in the text, and S a measurement of proportional survival. But they could of course be treated simply as uninterpreted symbols.
5 Cf. Simpson, G. G., The Meaning of Evolution, pp. 269f.Google Scholar
6 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, Everyman edition, p. 443Google Scholar: cf. also especially pp. 454–5.
7 Huxley, J. S., Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, p. 14.Google Scholar
8 Op. cit., pp. 14–15.
9 Op. cit. pp. 14 and 54.
10 Op. cit. pp. 57 and 75.
11 Op. cit., p. 22.
12 Cf. e.g. Popper, K. R., Philosophy of Science: A Personal Report, in British Philosophy in the Mid-Century, ed. C. A. Mace, pp. 160ff.Google Scholar