This blog post examines the debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould on evolution and discusses how their theories define the boundaries between progressivism and conservatism.
In the evolutionary theory debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, it is often said that Richard Dawkins, a staunch believer in science, is progressive, while Stephen Jay Gould, who raises the possibility that theories are just that—theories and not necessarily facts—is conservative. However, this raises the question: can unconditional blind faith in science truly be considered progressive? Perhaps the entire scientific domain possesses a conservative nature. Established scientific theories, having already gained broad acceptance, tend to prioritize maintaining and preserving existing frameworks rather than encouraging new endeavors. Therefore, whether a particular line of thought is conservative or progressive can vary depending on the perspective of the interpreter. For instance, from the standpoint of evolutionary biology, Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ would be considered a ‘set stone’. Conversely, Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘multilevel selection theory’ and similar ideas act as ‘rolling stones’ attempting to dislodge the embedded stone, yet the embedded stone shows no sign of budging. No major crisis has befallen Richard Dawkins; rather, it seems the rolling stones often shatter upon colliding with the embedded stone.
However, Stephen Jay Gould is uncovering a crucial topic from a different angle than Richard Dawkins. It concerns the question of the origin of the ‘higher levels’ that exerted the most evident influence throughout the long evolutionary history of biological species. According to evolutionary theory, life began with the first replicator, which became DNA, then evolved into single-celled organisms, and later into multicellular ones. Why did single-celled organisms cooperate with other single-celled organisms to form larger single-celled entities? This process must have required solving the problem of betrayal. For example, cancer cells can be seen as betrayers that replicate themselves infinitely without cooperating with other cells. Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of multilevel selection focuses on this perspective of transition, greatly aiding our understanding of biological evolution.
The core of the neo-synthesis in evolutionary theory is that ‘evolution is directional and progressive.’ This implies that inferior beings eliminated by survival of the fittest face extinction. Humans living on Earth today consider themselves the most advanced species. However, Stephen Jay Gould criticizes the neo-synthesis, arguing that the mindset deriving inevitable superiority from the evolution of apes into modern humans stems from human arrogance. The current world is merely one possibility among countless others that has been realized, not something predetermined. Humans possess the habit of exploring their own existence, leading to anthropocentric thinking. Stephen Jay Gould emphasizes that the history of life is not one of ‘progress’ but a process of diversification.
Professor Jang Dae-ik, author of the book ‘Darwin’s Table’ and a Korean scholar, argues that within a given geological timeframe, evolution proceeds gradually over tens or hundreds of millions of generations, aligning with Richard Dawkins’ view. This perspective resonates with Dawkins’ rebuttal of punctuated equilibrium, as the pace of evolution can vary depending on the scale or timeframe observed. Richard Dawkins argues that the goal of evolutionary theory must be found in cumulative natural selection when explaining biological adaptation. Cumulative natural selection alone holds the key to explaining ‘adaptation,’ and since adaptation does not evolve through sudden leaps, it differs from the constant selection criticized by Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins even criticizes Stephen Jay Gould, accusing him of undermining Darwin’s gradualism to deny evolutionary theory and revive Christian authority through punctuated equilibrium. ‘Darwin’s Table’ unfolds as a debate between two groups holding opposing views. The content’s bias toward a specific position revealed Professor Jang Dae-ik’s support for Richard Dawkins. I, too, tend to side with Richard Dawkins over Stephen Jay Gould. However, questions remain about Richard Dawkins’ arguments.
Richard Dawkins illustrates his arguments using examples of various organisms and the dynamics of their genes. Yet, it remains questionable whether these observations can be generalized to all species and individuals not mentioned. The lifestyles of individuals vary immensely depending on their environment. Can all this truly be neatly summarized according to Richard Dawkins’ thinking? While Richard Dawkins’ logic is clear, several questions remain: the criteria for defining the scope of what constitutes a single gene, behaviors like nurturing offspring of other individuals or species, and the non-competitive existence of symbiotic genes. Furthermore, it leads to an existential question: if the human body is merely a shell and a means for genes to survive, does that render an individual’s happiness or life meaningless?
Richard Dawkins made no mention of the starting point for genes. How did the history of genes, as we know it, begin? There is no explanation of whether genes were born with a selfish nature from the start, or if they acquired this trait through some process, or what circumstances necessitated genes to possess a selfish nature. The genes Richard Dawkins describes are likely only a very small part of the whole. Richard Dawkins states that even altruistic behavior is ultimately the intention of selfish genes. Conversely, however, looking at the life of a gene, selfish behavior could also be the result of altruistic intentions.
Richard Dawkins’ thinking is groundbreaking and logical. Yet, we cannot be certain this is the correct answer, and I hope it isn’t. Perhaps someone later will prove Richard Dawkins’ thinking to be wrong. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould both claim to be Darwin’s true heirs and express their differing views without reservation. Yet, they hold differing views on the scientific status of Darwinian evolution. Richard Dawkins strongly trusts science as truth, while Stephen Jay Gould cautions against the possibility that social ideology can contaminate science. Their positions may not be polar opposites regarding science. Richard Dawkins argues that science possesses superiority over other disciplines. Stephen Jay Gould also does not completely deny the truth of science.
When Stephen Jay Gould died in 2002, Richard Dawkins remembered him as someone who had a positive influence. They likely understood that their arguments gained strength through the process of criticizing each other and generating new evidence. It is unreasonable to label either of them as progressive or conservative. Ultimately, both were conservative in maintaining and developing Darwin’s theory of evolution, and progressive in rejecting creationism while introducing new logic and arguments to the scientific community. Just as the debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould tempered Darwinian evolution, scientific debate is inevitable for humanity to pursue better truth.
