Thinking of Biology
The persuasive Mr, Darwin
C
harles Darwin's (1809-1882)
speculative and marvelously
persuasive On the Origin oi
Species (Darwin [1872] 1972) is the
most controversial and arguably the
most important scientific book ever
wrirren (e.g., see discussion in
Dennett 1995): It replaced the Victorian view of nature as a benevolent, nearly perfecr, and harmonious
world (in which beauty was given a
purpose) with a violent and amoral
world lacking a divine purpose. Not
surprisingly, mosr people rejected
Darwin's ideas, declaring hirn [0 be
the most dangerous man in England
and the antichrist; orhers elevated
hirn 10 sainthood (Bowler 1990, Gouid
1980, 1993, Miller and Van Loou
1982). No scientist sinee Galileo has
been so honored or vilified. Similarly,
00 one has had more influence on Dur
modern scientific view of the world
(Dennerr 1995, Korey 1984, Locke
1992, Mayr 1991).
Despite its tremendous impact and
popularity, Darwin's Originremains
a much-discussed but seldorn-read
book (Korey 1984). Indeed, not one
of the more than 500 students in my
biology dasses during the past four
years has read ir. Moreover, my survey-albeit unscientific-c-suggests
that DO more than approximate1y
one in ren biologists has read the
book. This situation presents two
major problems. First, it often perpetuates misconceptions about Darwin and his ideas; people cannot
evaluate Darwin's ideas critically or
appreciate his tremendous (and lingering) impact if they have not read
his work. Second, we cannot understand the reasons for many scientific
triumphs unless we acknowledge the
role of rhe scientists' verbal skillsspecifically, their ability to develop
arguments and to find appropriate
by Randy Moore
February 1997
analogies and metaphors for rheir
claims (Gould 1987). Although much
has been written about Darwin's
monumental ideas, relatively little
has been written about his strategies
for presenting those ideas. Halloran's
(1984) complaint that little attention has been paid to individual cases
of scientific rhetoric remains true
today.
In this article I analyze the rhetorical strategies Darwin used to create his masterpiece, On the Origin
ofSpecies. My hope is that this analysis, along with a reading of Origin,
will help readers better understand
Darwin and his brilliant ideas. I argue that because Darwin understood
that truth in science is the product of
argument, the "one long argument"
that he presented in Origin resulted
from a variety of rhetorical choices
that emphasized persuasive impact
over scientific clarity. To make his
argument, Darwin even exploited
ideas that he hirnself rejected, especially those involving religion (see
below).
A context for Drigin
Undersranding the persuasive power
of Origin requires an understanding
of the scientific and social climate at
the time it was written. For example,
one needs to appreciate the following issues:
Fate of previous theories of evolution, Previous evolution-based rheories to explain the diversity of life
had been received with hostility. The
most famous was Lamarck's (17441829) notion of the inheritability of
acquired characteristics (see discussion in White and Gribbin 1995);
this theory, which was espoused earlier by Erasmus Darwin (1759-1799;
Charles Darwin's grandfather), could
not explain adaptation and was
quickly refuted by Darwin's friend
and confidant, the geologist Charles
Lyell (1797-1875). All of the other
theories (e.g., Chambers's [1844]
popular Vestiges of the Natural History ofthe Creation) were teleological and relied on metaphysical events
to attain predetermined conclusions.
Entrenched ideas. When Darwin was
alive, mosr people agreed that seience and religion were different aspects of the one plan of the one God.
Until the end of the eighteenth century, educated Christians accepted
the claim of the Irish prelate and
scholar James Ussher (1581-1656)
that alllife on Earth resulted from a
special creation that occurred as recently as 4004 BC (Mayr 1991).
Similarly, English science during
Darwin's time was morally grounded
in Hebrew and Christian scriptures,
and the purpose of the Royal Society
of London was to glorify God and
improve man's estate (Sprat 1959).
Thus, even before Darwin published
Origin in late 1859, the special creation of life and belief in the divinely
ordered harmony of nature were
widely accepted tenets of sectarian
religion as weIl as science.
Scientific expectations. Darwin's
contemporaries viewed Francis Bacon (1561-1626) as synonymous not
only with scientific inquiry [i.e., that
the proper method, not genius, was
the guarantor of a valid scientific
discovery), but also with the unity
between science and religion
(Camp bell 1986). Darwin knew that
if his ideas were to be accepted, he
had to address natural theology and
Baconian science, the paradigms of
Darwin's day. Darwin wanted desperately to meet the accepted standards of his time (Bowler 1990).
The limits of evidence. To modern
biologists, natural selection is a statistical concept whose precise ex107
pression requires the accuracy of
statistical language. Darwin faced
the same problem: the best proof he
could offer was only probable. Given
the probable nature of Darwin's arguments (i.e., as eompared to the
mathematical proofs in Isaac
Newton's Principia), his choice of
language and construction of arguments were especially important.
Although Darwin warned that
"analogy may be a deceitful guide"
(Darwin [1872]1972), Origin uses
analogy and imagery to argue for
conclusions that are ar best only
probable. Because Darwin knew that
probable arguments are the hallmark
of rhetoric, it is not surprising that
he used a variety of rhetorical strategies to enhance the arguments and
impact of Origin.
An overview of Darwin's
rhetorical strategies
Because Darwin no longer required
a deity as an explanarory factor for
evolution, he knew his book would
threaten the accord between science
and religion and would ccntradict
the most sacred beliefs of Victorian
Christianity. Specifically, Darwin
knew that his ideas would:
• challenge rhe Providentially
supervised creation ofeach speeies wirh the notion rhat alllife
descended from a common ancestor;
• be theologically divisive, not
because of what they implied
about animal ancestry, but because they allowed for no purpose for humanity other than
the production of fertile offspring;
• argue that humans are not ehe
special products of creation,
but of evolution acting according to principles operating on
all other species;
• replace the norion of a perfectly designed and benign
world with one based on a brutal and amoral struggle for existence; and
• challenge prevailing Victorian ideas about progress and
perfectibility wirh the notion
that evolution causes change
and adaptation, but not neces108
sarily progress and never perfection.
Darwin presented "one lang argument" (see box pages 110-111)
against these entrenched ideologies
and for a new scientific paradigm. In
doing so, he challenged the moral
and social aims of science itself.
Given the inevitable firestorm of
controversy that awaited publication of Origin, Darwin knew that he
could not rely on Facts alone; rather,
he had to use a variety of rhetorical
strategies to produce a persuasive
argument. And he did. Origin is
anything but routine scientific rhetoric; Darwin writes nothing in Origin
that does not have the reader in
mind (Locke 1992).
Deference to Baconian science. Darwin claims that he worked according to "the true Baconian method"
[i.e., straight induction; Mayr 1991,
Pera 1994). Consider ehe opening
paragraph of Origin:
When on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,'
as a naruralist, I was much struck
wirh certain facts in the disrribution of the inhabitanrs of South
America, and in the geoJogical
relations of the present to the past
inhabitants of that conrinent.
These facts seem to me to throw
some light on the origin of species, that mystery of mysteries, as
ir has been called by one of our
greatesr philosophers. On my return horne, it occurred to me, in
1837, that something mighr perhaps be made out of this question
by patiently accumularing and
reflecting on all sorts of facts
which could possibly have any
bearing on it. After five years'
work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, end drew up
some short notes; rbese I enlarged
in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which ehen seemed to
me probable: from that period to
rhe present day I have sreadily
pursued the same object. I hope
that I may be excused for entering
on those personal details, as I give
them to show rhat I have not been
hasry in coming to adecision.
Darwin downplays creative intelleer and defers to the Baconian dietum of minimizing the role of human
action and thought in science by
trying to convince readers that the
discovery was not "made" but instead "happened." Readers are led
to believe that Darwin's ideas came
from revelation by outside forces:
the facts "struck" him and "threw
light." Only when Darwin got home
did it "occur" to hirn that "somerhing rnight perhaps be made out of
thisquestion" (Darwin [1872J 1972,
p. 1; Camp bell 1975). The appearanee of a unifying concept prompted
Darwin to begin "patiently accumulanng and reflecting on all sorrs of
facts which possibly could have any
bearingon it" (Darwin [1872]1972).
Only afrer those ideas "struck" hirn
(i.e., were revealed to hirn by exrernal forces) did Darwin claim to "allow" himse1f to "speculate" about
the idea. Even Darwin's admission
of active thought (l.e., "it occurred
to me thar something rnight perhaps
be made"; Darwin [1872] 1972) is
hidden hy one of his few uses of
passive voice. When Darwin finally
allows hirnself to become actively
involved, it is as though he is making
an error in judgment; hence, his apology at rhe end 01 the paragraph.
Presentarion of his argument as a
classical oration. Darwin patterns
Origin after a classical oration
(Locke 1992) and uses traditional
rhetorical techniques of argumentation to convince his readers. For
example, his initial presentation of
his argument as "not impossible"
encourages readers to consider his
arguments, even if their first response
is to reject them. Having accomplished this goal, Darwin then progressively describes his argument as
"probable," "almost certain," and
"undouhtedly [certain]" (Darwin
[1872] 1972; also see Pera 1994).
Amount of information. Darwin
understood that acceptance of his
theory would depend on the numher of observations that it could
explain. Therefore, just as Newton did in Principia and Opticks,
Darwirt includes an enormous nUIDher of detailed ohservations"facts" as he called them, long
after readers conceded his pointto support his ideas.
Use of analogy and metaphors. AIthough Darwin coneedes that analogy had been criticized as "an unsafe
BioScience Vol. 47 No. 2
method of arguing," he also acknowledges thar "it ls a method used in
judging of rhe common events of
Iife... " (firsr edition; Darwin [1872]
1959,p. 748). Notsurprisingly, then,
a central feature of Darwin's argument is an analogy between artificial breeding and natural selecrlon.
Although Darwin teIls readers that
facts rhat "struck" hirn came from
observations made in Sourh America,
the facts surrounding Darwin's key
metaphor are nearly all domestic.
Darwin claims that although the
term natural selection is metaphorical, there is a rea l process like it that
we can trust; that is, that nature
operates on itself the way a breeder
does on nature. Thus, the root metaphor of Origin is selection, not
struggle; Darwin persuades readers
ro accept the parallel between the
selection by domestic breeders and
the process of nature. Once readers
accept this metaphor, evolution becomes socially intelligible as an alternative to creation.
Darwin was rebuked by his fellow scientists for his use of metaphors, especially those in chapter 4
(e.g., "Natural selection is daily and
hourly scrutinizing..."). Crirics claimed
thar Darwin was personifying nature.
In the third edition of Origin, Darwin
acknowledges that criticism and defends his rhetorical srrategy ("Everyone knows what is meant and is
implied by such metaphorical
expressions;.. .it Is difficult to avoid
personifying the ward Nature"; Darwin [1872] 1972, pp. 91-92). In
addition to using prior tradition to
strengthen his argument (Darwin
would use this strategy tO address
natural theology; see below), in the
third edition Darwin also acknowledges some of his crirics' concerns
by changing "Ir may be said that
natural selection is d a il y and
hourly " to "Ir may metaphorically
be said "
Shaping readers' ideas
Darwin uses a variety of rhetorical
strategies to ende ar hirnself to readers and shape their ideas. For example, he forces readers to participate in his thinking by demanding
trust and encouraging them to conrribure ro his arguments. The "I" of
the introducnon is quickly replaced
February 1997
by the "we" of the first page of the
opening chapter ("When we look... ,"
"When we reflect... ." "I think we
are driven to conclude... "]. Similarly, in the space of a few pages of
chapter 14, Darwin uses phrases such
as "we see," "we can see," "we can
understand, " and "we need not marve)" 37 times (Pera 1994). These
rherorical choices transform readers
from spectators to participants.
Darwin ofren tries to manipulate
his readers' ernotions. For example,
he writes about ants that tried to
"conquer" and "rurhlessly kill" other
ants. Only in the second edition of
Origin did Darwin add the rhetorically persuasive "an image of despair" to this passage. This phrase,
clearly teleological and unrelated to
the "facts," makes Darwin's rhetorical purpose clear: Darwin rhe
writer uses persuasion to help Darwin the scientist convince readers of
the validity of his argumenr.
Darwin also uses familiar and traditional ideas to guide readers' interpretations of the unfamiliar. In
the excessively humble opening paragraph of Origin (see previous page),
Darwin soothes readers' misgivings
by showing his dedication to his
werk and offering statements of his
own good intentions and methods.
This paragraph is important not for
its faetual content, but for how it
prepares readers for what is to come.
As is true throughout Origin, Darwin is less concerned with the order
of discovery than with the order of
presentation. Indeed, he makes no
attempt to explain the steps by which
he made the discoveries; rather, he
presents the steps, thereby allowing
readers to make the discovery themselves. Consequently, the opening
chapters of Origin do not present
natural selection as abstract concepts or even as hypotherical pos sibiliries, but as concrete experiences
meant to strike the reader with rhe
same impacr with which Darwin himself was struck with his initial idea
(Campbell 1975).
Just as authors such as Charles
Dickens and George Eliot had intervened in their novels to make a point,
so too does Darwin (Meadows 1992).
Forexample, Darwin uses statements
such as "What now are we to say to
these several facts?" to force his
readers to make a commitment to
his ideas. At this point, readers want
rc share Darwin's victory, having
played a direct role in making it
possible.
Although Darwin refers to Origin
as a "long argument," it is written as
a casual conversarion. Darwin summarizes and announces ideas by referringto "these remarks," as though
he had been talking-not arguingwith a friend. His use of phrases
such as "I am tempted to give one
more instance" add to the casual,
conversational feel of Origin. Taken
togerher, these techniques involve
his readers, they change readers'
doubrs to involvement and, in the
process, make Darwin's conclusions
his readers' conclusions.
Darwin's credibility
Although Origin was inherently Iogical, its success was also influenced
by Darwin's portrayal of hirnself as
a credible scientisr. Darwin uses a
variety of rhetorical techniques to
do this. For example, Darwin humanizes his ideas by presenting them
as being objective and intensely personal, thereby creating a bond between hirnself and his readers and
solleiring their trust.
Unlike other books of the day,
Origin cires objections ro and candidly admits the weaknesses of his
arguments (Kahn 1989). Darwin also
appreciates his readers' concerns. For
example, in the third paragraph of
Origin and e1sewhere, Darwin apologizes for what he fears are unreasonable demands on readers' patience
("This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I
cannot here give references and authorities for several of my statements;
and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy"; firsr edition, Darwin [1872]
1959, p. 2). These admissions, while
strengthening his argument and softening any potential criticism, invite
readers' trust by confessing the very
problems that might orherwise prevent them from granting it.
Darwin, theism, and
natural philosophy
Although Darwin held traditional
Christian bellefs when he was young,
by 1838 he wrote agnostic com-
109
Darwin's "one long argument"
D espite it s tirl e, O rigin says littl e
a bo ut th e origin of spec ies ; moreo ver, it does not docum ent the
o r igin of a sing le s pe c ies, a sing le
ca se o f n atural se lec rio n, or the
preser va t ion of one favo re d ra ce
in rhe st r uggle fo r lif e . In stead,
Darwin presents " o ne lon g a rgu rnent" (a phra se he uses in chapter
14 ) fo r ho w natural se lec rio n could
p rodu ce life ' s di ver sity. Darwin ' s
a rg ume nt co ns is ts of rhr ee major
parts: hi s th eory fo r natural se lecti on (cha pters l - 5) , obj ecti on s thar
he anticipates fr om his readers
(c ha pte rs 6-9) , and th e wide range
o f oth erwi se inex p lica bJe ph enorn e na th ar ca n be und er stood with
hi s t hco ry (c ha p te rs 10-14 ).
The c ha p te rs lisr ed here refe r
to th e fir st ed itio n o fOrigin , which
was publi sh ed in 185 9. Later ed ition s of Origin (p u b lis he d in 1860
Is e c ond],1 8 61 [rh i r d ], 1866
Ifourth 1,18 6 9 [fi fth I; all publi sh ed
by Mu r ra y) differ co ns ide ra b ly
fr o m th e firsr, a nd the la st ed it io n
(i.e., th e s ixth, publi sh ed in 18 72 )
co n ra ins a n a d d it io na l chapte r
(ch a p ter 7 : " Misce lla ne o us Ob jecti on s t o rh e Th eo r y of arural
Se lcct io n "). Alrhough mosr ref ere nces in th e sc ie nt if ic lit erature
are to th e s ix t h ed iti o n, t he fir st
e d i t ion m o s t c le a r l y s ta t e s
D ar win ' s a r g u me n t . Howev er,
eac h ed it io n sho ws Darwin 's rh etor ical m a sr er y a nd pe rs uas ive in tent.
Introduction. Da rwin lead s read e rs directl y to ad apra rion , whi ch
D a rwin views as rh e central t enet
o f evo lu t io n . D ar win disrnisscs
oth e r th eories o f evo luti o n (e .g .,
those of Larn ar ck a nd C ha rn be rs)
and m ak es it c lea r t ha t he will
offe r a new mechani sm to ex p la in
th e origi n of spec ies by a da pra t io n (Bo w ler 19 9 0 ).
Chaptcr 1: "Variation U n d er Do mestication. " D a rwi n kn ew t ha r
110
ea r lie r theories of e vo lut io n had
been rejected becau se rhc y did not
have a cred ible appea l to human
ex pe r ience ; people were forced to
c h o ose berwee n organi sms miraculou sly becomin g alive or one
kind of organism miraculou sl y becoming another. Darwin overca me thi s prob lern by using this
ch apter to int roduce a farniliar
analogy from agriculture; narnely,
that breeders have used the extrem es of nature to produce dra maric changes in dornesticared a n imal s and planrs . D arwin goes to
g rea t lengths to show thar wc can not di stin gui sh between the hum an-c au sed produetion of n ew
breeds and th e natural appeara nce of new spe c ies in nature .
Darwin use s hi s personal experie nce s (e.g. , as an arna reur pigeon
breed er ) to argu e that diverse
form s ha ve a cornmon ancesrry
a nd rhat diversiry re sults from seIcct io n . Darwin even plays on hi s
readers' parriotism by c1aiming
thar se lect ive breeding made Engli sh catrle the wo rld's be st and
rh at " .. .the whole bod y of the
Eng lis h racehorses have come to
su r pass in f1eetness and size the
parent Arab stock .. .. "
Chapter 2: "Variation Under Nature." Da rwi n shows tha t the
va r ia n o n rhar se rv es a s th e raw
materi al for breed ers ex ists in wi ld
popu lar ion s (h is ex arnplcs inc1ud e
duck bones, cow udders, cats with
blue eyes, a nd hair lcss dogs ). In
doing so, Darwin begin s to s u bm it ci rcurn sra nria I e vidence for
evo lut io n in nature b y arguing
that in he r ite d variability is as ubiquitous in nature as in rhe dornesticated plants and anirnal s di scu s s ed in chapter I . Having
c o nv ince d read ers of t he imporr a n c c of s l ig h t v a r i a t i o n s ,
D arwiri ' s co nc lusio n thar va r ieties and spe c ies " b le nd into on e
anoth er in an in sen sib le se r ies ;
and aseries impre sses rhe rnind
with the idea of an act ua l passage " becomes irresi stib le.
C ha pter 3: "St ruggle for Existence." This lyrica l chapter, wh ich
sers the srage for Da rwin 's most
irnportant point (natural selection,
prosenred in c haprer 4 ), adrnits
rhat behind " rhe face of nature
bright with g ladness" is a re lentless and brutal st r ugg le for existence that results from the ten denc y of species r o overreproduce. If more offspring are
born than can s u r vive, rhen rhere
must be a cornpetirion to derermine whic h will get enough reso u rces to remain alive. Darwin is
explicit in his d ebt to Ma lthu s
and uses numerica l calculations
to show that rhe growth of a popula t io n m ust be checked by a shorta ge of resourccs . A lthough Darwin emphasizes cornpetition, he
rea lizes t hat his argument could
be too harsh for his audience .
This realization prornprs him to
add thar the st r ugg le for exi stence
is all for rh e be st ( " ... the vigorou s,
rhe hea lrhy, and the happy su rvive and m ultiply " ).
C ha p ter 4 : "Natural Sclcction ."
Th is chapter represents th e proxi mate c1imax of Darwiri's argu menr . After reminding readers of
the power of a rrificial se leet io n
and of the depe ndenee of undome sticatcd organi sm s on their environrnent, Darwin a n no unc es hi s
new idea : natural s election.
Darwin's argument paralleis that
made by Lyell in hi s monumental
Principles ofGeolagy, only tran slared from geology to biology:
srna ll phenomena a ct "s ile nt " and
"in sen sibl y" over long period s to
produc e large changes . Again,
Darwin a ssures readers that wharever rhe apparent harshness of
natural sc lcc t io n , it is a force rhar
will irnpr ove liv ing organism s.
BioScience Val. 47 N(). 2
This chapter also presents the
"Tree of Life" diagram, a elassic
example of an evolutionary tree.
This diagram is the only illustration in Origin .
Chapter 5: "Laws of Variation."
In rhis chaprer Darwin presents
five different sources of inherited
variability thar could drive evolution . These views were largely
erroneous (e.g., Darwin insists
thar all structural changes are
"caused," even though he did not
specify the cause).
C hapter 6: "Difficulties on
Theory." Here Darwin raises and
dispatches potential concerns
a bout his theory (e .g., rhe lack of
transitiona l forms between known
species). Darwin prescnrs a variety of exarnples (e.g ., f1ying squirreis and woodpeckers) that are
inexplicable if one assumes rhat
God creates every species perfectly
adapted to its way of life, but are
to be expected if species are consrantly searching for new ecological n iches and if evolution takes
so me time to adjusr a species to a
new lifestylc.
Chapter 7: "Instinct." Darwin was
interested in instinct because he
was convinced that evolution must
be able to explain animal bchavior. This chapter, wh ich anticipared rhe kin-selection theory,
aims Darwin's theory ar inherited
behavior (e.g., wo r k er castes
among ants). Darwin cites neuter
insecrs to reject Lamarck's (see
discussion in White and Gribbin
1995) claim that instinct is a
learned habit rhat had been built
inro the species' heredirary constitution .
Chapter 8: "Hybridization." This
chapter addresses whar many crirics believed was a flaw in Darwin 's
theory: the failure of distinet species, when crossed, to produce
fertile offspring. Darwin argues
rhar a elose study of hybridization
confirms rhat rhere is no elear
February 1997
disrincrion between varieties and
species.
Chapter 9: "On the Imperfection
of the Geological Record." Darwin uses the geological rccord to
support his rheory, noting the long
history of the earth and thar fossils do not show continuous sequences of transition al species
(c.g ., we should not expcct to find
all rhe steps of evolution preserved
in rocks). Darwin blames the fossil record and incomplete sampling for apparent gaps; there must
have been long periods bcfore the
Cambrian from which no fossils
had becn found. Darwin hopes
that fossils from pre-Cambrian
rocks would bc found to fill the
gaps .
Chapter 10: "On the Geological
Succession of Organic Beings."
Darwin presents his "succession
of typcs" by invoking whar was
known about paleontology:
narnely, rhar fossils undergo different rates of change. Darwin
elaims thar new species appear,
flourish, and vanish as they are
replaced by other species. Darwin
likens fossilized and contemporary species ro dead and living
branches of his Tree of Life.
Chaptcr 11: "Geographic Distribution." Darwin complement his
use of paleontology in chapter 10
by using biogeography to bolster
his argument. Darwin claims rhat
if we allow for thc imperfection of
the fossil record, rhe known fossils are distributed as one would
expect based on Darwin's theory.
Darwin also speculates on the implications of global topology differing from thar of the past; he
suggests that rising and falling
masses of land creared routes for
thc dispersa I of species.
Chaprer 12: "Geographic Distribution (Continucd)." This chapter enlarges rhe thcme presented
in chapter 11, using island life for
evidence (e.g., his observations
from the Galapagos). Thi chaprer, wh ich presents so me of the
evidence rhat convinced Darwin
of the validity of natural selection, conrains Origin's most powerful prose.
Chapter 13: "Mutual Affinities of
Organic Beings; Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs."
Despite its title, this penultimate
chapter is not a hodgepodge of
miscellaneous observations.
Rather, Darwin uses a variery of
observations (e.g., rudimentary or
atrophied srrucrures as relics of
once-useful organs) to develop rhe
explanatory power of his theory.
Darwin insists rhar assuming the
existence of a divine plan adds
nothing to our understanding of
natural relationships; his theory
alone explains why species are
grouped regether. He also suggests a rherne of systernarics: j usr
as Linnaeus's elassification system was an act of religious devotion meant ro reveal God's plan,
Darwin's argument was meant to
reveal evolution.
Chapter 14: "Recapitulation and
Conclusions." Darwin surnrnarizes the implications of his argumerit, confidently adding thar
"young and rising na ruralists" will
share his vision and reject the
prejudices thar bind many workcrs to creationism. This chapter
contains his only unequivocal reference to human evolution from a
lower form; it is the undcrsrarernent of the ninerecnth century:
"Light will be rhrown on the origin of man and his history" (Darwin 118721 1972). Darwin concludes by trying to convince
readers thar the theory can be
reconciled wirh traditional beliefs
about rhe relationship berween
God and nature (i.e., by thinking
of a Creator governing the world
hy law rather rhan by random
miracles). atural sclection is an
inevitable result of reproduction
and is therefore the besr wa y for
God to ensure progress.
111
ments in his notebooks; ehe dearh of of his first book following Origin,
his lO-year-old daughter Annie in On the Various Contrivance by
1851 removed the last traees of which British and Foreign Orchids
Darwin's theism (Bowler 1990, are Fertilised By Insects and on the
Korey 1984, Mayr 1991, Meadows good effects of intercrossing. Dar1992, Moore 1989). Darwin did not win notes in that book-his most
believe in revelation, doubted the obscure-c-rhat although orchids are
existenee of an afterlife, and rejecred complex srrucrurally and ecologithe notion of a God who personally cally, they are jury-rigged with comguided every event in the material mon parts (Gould 1980). Darwin,
universe. Darwin also rejeeted Chris- who believed thar such odd structianity; he helieved that any religion tures were proof of evolution, uses
that embraced eternal damnanon (a this example to show that the study
"damnable docrrine''} was immoral. of nature is as interesting and deAeeording to Darwin, religious be- lightful when one understands the
lief was merely a natural property of contrivances as having been evolved
humanity [i.e., "belief allied to in- as when one sees them as having
stinct"; see discussion in Browne heen specially created. Knowing rhe
1995). Although Darwin could not rhetorical power of historical tradisee how anyone "ought to wisb thar tion, Darwirr associates conventional
Christianity be rrue," he kept up a terms with his new evolutionary
public front of tradirion al belief meanings: he takes what had been
(Miller and Van Loon 1992) and understood as contrivances made for
went to great lengths to convince special purposes and redescribes
readers that his views were not un- them as adaptations-that is, the
unintended consequences of vatiagodly (Locke 1992).
Like any good revolutionary, Dar- tion and selection.
Also consider Darwin's use of the
win did not simply toppie an outdated system; rather, he adapted as word adapt, Darwin uses adapt and
mueh of it as possible to his own its variations 86 times in Origin
purposes (Dennett 1995). This (Barrett et al. 1981). In chapter 4,
started with his rhetorie: he consis- Darwin acknowledges with awe the
tently uses theistic language to build works of God, but uses adapted to
his arguments. Indeed, his language mean something that can be seienis identieal with that of conventional tifically understood, not an ultima te
natural theology; some parts of Ori- fact before which we must give
gin could have been taken directly thanks to God. Then, instead of quesfrom ehe lare-eighteenth-century tioning God, Darwin relies on God
theologian William Paley's (1851) to make his arguments (firsr edition,
bestseller Natural Theology, or Evi- Darwin [1872]1972, p. 167):
den ces of the Existence and Attributes o( the Deity Collected [rorn
the Appearances of Nature (which
gave us the analogy of the watehmaker and the wateh while arguing
for divine creation from design) or
from comparable books written in
the first half of rhe nineteenth century.
To appreciate the persuasive
power of Darwin's rhetorie, consider Darwin's use of the word contrivance. In Darwin's time, contrivance meant that when one finds in
nature a means fitted to an end, one
has evidence of a eontriver, as in the
way humans would use something
such as aspring to make a watch.
Darwin uses the word contrivance
or its variants (e.g.,contrivances) 15
times in the first edition of Origin
(Barrett et al. 1981) and in the tide
112
He who believes that each equine
specieswas independently created,
will, I presume, assert rhar each
species has been created wirh a
tendency to vary, both under nature and domestieation...so as oiten to become srriped like other
species of rbe genus.... Ta admit
this view is, as it seems to me, to
reject areal for an unreal, or at
least for an unknown cause. It
makes the works of God a mere
moekery and deeeption; I would
almost as soon believe with the
old and ignorant cosmogonists,
that fossil she11s had never lived,
but had been ereated in stone so
as to mock the shells now living
on the seashore.
This passage is one of many in which
Darwin ahsorbs his opponents' ideas,
language, and arguments. Just as his
opponents relied on God to guarantee rhe intelligibility of the natural
world, Darwin relies on God and
realism to argue for evolution; with
the breeder argument fresh in mind,
Darwin uses common "natural
signs"-in this example, stripes-to
force his readers to either admit that
deseent with modificarion is the normal divine tactic, or deny ehe evidence that God has written in
nature's book, Darwin believed that
nature was God's grammar-that is,
that nature was an inherently expressive system of natural signs that
represent the true relations of things.
Thus, Origin presents irself as a continuarion of and owes its cultural
inrelligibility to the prior traditions
of natural theology; Darwin repearedly uses theological premises to
wring an evolutionary confession of
faith from his religious audience
(Campbell 1986).
If Darwin was agnostic when he
wrore Origin , why did he repeatedly
use tbeistic language in his arguments? Although the ambiguous
God-ealk of Origin cannot be taken
at Face value (Kohn 1989), I believe
that Darwin induded theistic language for its rhetorical effect. Indeed, his use of words, phrases, and
images whose theological connotations could not have escaped hirn is
clear evidence of his concern for
popular comprehension, even at ehe
price of scientific precision. Specifically, Darwirr used the rhetorical
persuasiveness of historical continuity to convince readers that Origin
belonged under the aegis of traditional religion. He did this so that he
could use the language of natural
philosophy to undermine natural
philosophy. He accomplished this
goal in several ways. For example,
some of his writing is patterned after
biblical verse: "How fleeting are the
wishes... of man" dosely resembles
the Psalms. His other uses of the
language of natural phHosophy to
undermine natural philosophy are
more explieit:
• Opposite the tide page of the first
edition of Origin, Darwin indudes
two quotations from conventional
works of natural theology. The first
is from Reverend William Whewell's
Bridgewater Treatise. This series of
BioScience Vol. 47 No. 2
eight books included contributions
by prominent British scientists and
was the standard reference on natural theology. It had been commissioned to show "the Power, Wisdem, and Goodness of God, as
manifested in ehe Creation.' The
second quotation eomes from Aduancement of Learning, by Bacon
hirnself.
• In the second edition of Origin,
lest there be any question about the
intelleemal audience Darwin meant
to attract, Darwin adds a third citation from Analogy of Revealed Religion by Bishop joseph Butler (16921752; the leading critic of skepticism]
to encourage readers ro interpret his
ideas in the context of eonventional
natural theology.
• Beginning with the third edition of
Origin and continuing through the
sixth edition, Darwin continues to
try to convince readers thar his ideas
are orthodox natural theology by
placing this adverrisement just after
rhe table of contents: "An admirable, and, ro a certain extent,
favourable Review of this work, including an able discussion on the
Theologieal bearing of the belief in
the descent of species, has now been
separately published by professor Asa
Gray as a pamphlet, about 60 pages
in length. Ir is entitled, 'Natural
Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology. A Free Examination
of Darwin's Treatise on the Origin
of Species, and of its American Reviewers.' By Asa Gray, M.D., Fisher
Professor of Natural History in
Harvard Univeraity." Darwin was
already agnostic when Gray-a devout Christian from Harvard who
led Darwin's campaign in the United
Stares and who believed that evolution was divinely guided-published
his pamphlet. Although Darwin rejected Gray's argument of intelligent design, he ineluded the adverti seme nt because he saw the
usefulness of Gray's citation to the
advancement oE his argument. Indeed, it was also Darwin who bought
Gray's articles from Atlantie
Monthly, helped Gray to publish his
pamphlet, suggested its tirle, paid
for half of its printing eosts, and
distributed it to various scientific
and religious leaders (DuPree 1959).
Darwin strengthens his argument
even more by changing the last sen-
February 1997
tence of Origin from " ... with irs
several powers having been originally brearhed into a few forms or
into one... " to (rhird edition, Darwin [1872]1959)" ... with its several
powers having been originally
breathed by the Creator into a few
forms or inro one .c.."
Taken rogether, this lineage of
citations evokes traditional natural
theology and helps Darwin soorhe
readers' fears by positioning Origin
as merely the latest in an apostolic
succession of works of English natural theology stretching from Bacon
in the seventeenth century, to Butler
in the eighteenrh, to Whewell in the
early nineteenth (Campbell 1986).
In doing so, Darwin uses theological
tradition for persuasive advanrage
rather than fighting it to affirm his
own convicrions.
Instead of asking readers how God
could have created the diversity of
life, Darwin argues that humans
should think of animals formed by
nature in a manner essentially analogous to that by wh ich man hirnself
forms them-that ls, as a domestic
breeder. Although Darwin portrays
breeders as supreme arehitects, he
also acknowledges that the same
results could result from necessity
rarher than from art (even savages,
Darwin observed, are careful to
preserve useful animals from famine). Thus, Darwin's Origin can
sustain eieher an agnosuc or theisric reading , One may conclude
from reading it that God is wise
enough to make all things ro themselves or claim that natural selection ends conventional rheology
(Campbell 1975).
Having convinced readers that his
ideas are an exrension of natural
theology, Darwin uses the closing
paragraphs of Origin to pressure
readers to accept his analogies and
metaphors. Having challenged fixed
species in favor of evolution, Darwin repeatedly states that "facrs are
stränge," "inexplicable," and "utcerly inexplicable" to show that if
one accepts natural selecnon, then
many facts are 00 longer inexplicable, whereas if one accepts that
species are fixed, then many things
remain mysterious (Pera 1994). He
then places readers at a moral eross~
roads (first edition, Darwin [1872]
1972, p. 167):
When we no langer look at an
organic being as a savage looks at
a ship, as at something wholly
beyond his comprehension; when
we regard every producrion of
nature as one which has had a
history; when we contemplate
every complex structure and instinet as rhe summing up of many
contrivances, each useful to the
possessor, nearly in the same way
as when we look at any great
mechanical invenrion as the summing up of rhe Iabour, the experience, the reason, and even the
blunders of numerous workmen;
when we thus view each organic
being, how far more interesting, I
speak from experience, will the
study of natural history become!
just as Lyell had positioned his ideas
on the right and righteous side of a
diehotomy between va in speculation
and empirical trurh, Darwin forces
readers to choose between natural
selecrion and its alternative as a referendum on Western industrial civilization. Belief in evolution through
natural seleetion endorses intellectual progress; to reject natural seleetion limits human achievement and
relegates us to savages (Campbell
1975).
The impact of Darwin's
rhetoric and ideas
Darwin was able to make his ideas
widely aud rapidly intelligible, despite a variery of disputes and tremendous resistance; wirhin ten years,
and before the 1871 publieation of
Descent of Man (in which Darwirr
applied his rheory to human beings),
his theory had prevailed (Bowler
1984). Indeed, Darwin's burial beside Newton in Westminster Abbey
as anational hero of scienrific discovery showed his impact on Victorian culture; evolution had become a
symbol of the Victorians' faith in
their ability to participate in the
inevirable aseent of rhe universe toward perfecrion (Bowler 1990). just
as Copernicus had removed Earth
from the center of the uni verse 300
years earlier, Darwin removed humans from the center of the worJd.
Darwin's ideas joined life as firmly
as gravity had joined the stars and
planets (Korey 1984). Seienee after
Darwin no longer relied on miracles.
113
Many readers of Origin embraced
evolution as evidence of God's role
in the progress of nature, and therefore as proof of man's superiority.
Many misused his ideas (e.g., to
justify a stratified society), prompting Darwin to write in the last (i.e.,
sixth) edition of Ortgin rhat ..As my
conclusions have lately been much
misrepresented, and it has been stated
that I attribute the modification of
species exdusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark
that in the first edition of this work,
and subsequently, I placed in a most
conspicuous position-namely, at
the close of the Introduction-the
foLLowing words: 'I am convinced
that natural seLection has been rhe
rnain but not the excLusive means of
rnodification.' This has been of no
avail. Great is the power of steady
misrepresentarion" (Darwin [1872]
1972). Darwin never intended to
suggest inevirable progress, only inevitable change.
Darwin's ideas and rhetoric forever changed our perceptions of ourselves and our place in nature and
completed the secularization of nature started by Copernicus, Galileo,
and Newton. Darwin also stressed
the importance of observation and
hypothesis as important to advancing knowledge as much as experimentation, and produced a new philosophy of science based not on rnath
and physicallaws (as was the rhetoric of Galileo and Newton) but instead on probability and chance,
Today's discussions of the population explosion, the struggle for existence, the purpose of life, and humans' place in nature are overwhelmingly influenced by Darwin's
rhetoric and ideas.
_ _ . 1986. Scienrific revolution and rhe
gramrnar of culture: rhe case of Darwin's
Origin, Quarterly Journal of Speech 72:
351-376.
Chambers R. 1844. Vestiges of the natural
history o f ereation. London (UK):
Churchill.
Darwin C. 1862. On the various eontrivance
by whieh British and foreign orehids are
fertilised by insects, and on the good effeets of Inrercrossing, Loridon (UK) :
Murray.
_ _. 1871. The descent of man. London
(UK): Murray.
_ _ . [1872]1959. The origin of species by
rneans of natural selection: a variorum
text, Peckham M, ed. Philadelphia (PA):
University of Pennsylvania.
_ _. [1872] 1972. On the origin of species,
6th ed. London (UKl: Dent & Sons,
Dennett DC . 1995. Darwin's dangerous idea .
The Seiences 35: 34-40.
DuPree AH. 1959. Asa Gray 1810-1888.
Cambridge (MA): Harvard University
Press.
Gould 5J. 1980. The panda's thumb: more
reflections in natural history. New York:
W. W. Norton .
~ 1987. Time'sarrow,time'seyde. Cam bridge (MA): Harvard University Press .
_ _. 1993 . Fulfilling the spandreIs of warld
and mind. Pages 310-336 in Selzer J, ed.
Understanding scienrific prose. Madison
(WI): University of Wisconsin Press .
Halloran SM. 1984. The birrh of molecular
biology: an essay in the rherorical criticism of scientific discourse, Rhetoric Review 3: 70-83.
Korey K. 1984. The essential Darwin . Boston
(MA): Little, Brown, and Co.
Kohn D. 1989. Darwin's ambiguity: the secularization of biologieal meaning, BritishJournal of rhe History of Science 22: 215-239.
Locke D. 1992. Science as writing, New Ha ven (CT): Yale University Press .
Mayr E. 1991. One long argument: Charles
Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Cambridge (MA):
Harvard Universiry Press.
Meadows J. 1992. The great scientists. Oxford (UK): Oxford Universiry Press.
Miller J,Van Loon B. 1982. Darwirr for beginners, New York: Pantheon Books.
Moore JR. 1989. Of love and death: why
Darwin gave up Christianity. Pages 195229 in Moore JR, ed. History. humanity,
and evolurion, Cambridge IUK): Cambridge Universiry Press.
Paley W. 1851 . Natural rheology. Boston
(MA): Gould and Lineoln .
Pera M. 1994. The discourses of science,
Chicago (IL): Universiry of Chicago
Press.
Sprat T. 1959. History of the Royal Society,
Cope JI, Jones HW, eds , St. Louis (MO):
Washington Universiry Press.
White M, Gribbin J. 1995. Darwin: a life in
science, New York: Pengu in Books.
Randy Moore is interim senior uice
president and provost and professor in
the Department of Biology, The University ofAkron, Akron, OH 44325. © 1997
American Institute ofBiologicaI Seiences.
References cited
Barrett PH, Weinshank DJ, Gottleber TI.
1981. A eoneordance to Darwin's Origin
of Species, First Edition. Ithaea (NY):
Cornell University Press.
Bowler PJ. 1984. Evolution: the history of an
idea , Los Angeles (CA): University of Ca lifornia Press.
_ _. 1990. CharIes Darwin: the man and
his influenees . London (UK): Butler and
Tanner, Ltd.
Browne J. 1995. Charles Darwin: voyaging.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Campbell JA. 1975. The polemical Mr. Darwin. Quarterly Journal of Speeeh 61: 377390.
114
\'S n'~Cf:. 1PA1 'foUNG\ 1)~WItJ
fE. LLOW wAS 11E.12.E:J
Tr\E:.\~ ?ftt\~S Cf:RTAINLt' MAG -E-VOLVE.D.'\
l-
---J IQ)
BiaScience Val. 47 No. 2