This blog post examines why evolution does not always lead to progress, focusing on Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of evolution, and explores the surrounding debate.

Introduction

‘Evolution is not progress’. This succinctly summarizes the argument from Stephen Jay Gould’s book ‘Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin’. The author contends that evolution is not progress toward something positive, but merely a collection of differences arising from various variables. Many laypeople, and even evolutionary biologists, mistakenly believe evolution is a phenomenon that always progresses toward higher traits and body structures. However, the author explains that only a tiny fraction of the many changes occurring in this process lead to positive progress. He identifies the root of this misunderstanding as the fallacy of generalizing the average trait change across an entire species or lineage to the trait changes of every individual within that group.
While reading the book, I found the author’s arguments compelling as he clearly refuted potential counterarguments with evidence. However, after examining representative rebuttals from other evolutionary biologists and scientists, I concluded that Dawkins’ analysis is the most logical and valid. This essay aims to explain why.

Main Argument

According to the author, evolution is not progress toward a positive goal but merely the accumulation of changes driven by various variables. Many evolutionary biologists counter this by asserting that evolution is fundamentally a process of progress toward a positive goal. Richard Dawkins, a leading figure in evolutionary biology, agrees with the author’s argument regarding different species and lineages. However, he contends that within the same species and lineage, traits acquired as organisms adapt to their environment accumulate, exhibiting characteristics of progress toward improvement.
Dawkins and various evolutionary biologists’ counterarguments stem from differing perspectives on the evolutionary process. Paradoxically, both the author and Dawkins make valid points about evolution. The difference arises because the author interprets evolution as a phenomenon occurring within the vast collective of all life on Earth, adopting a macro-level perspective, while Dawkins adds the dimension of evolution at the species and lineage level to his explanation.
When considering evolution at the level of all life, bacteria and protists currently dominate the total biomass and population size, while humans and primates constitute an extremely small proportion. This supports the author’s argument that, from the macro-level perspective of the evolution of all life, the emergence of higher life forms is not an inevitable progression. However, when considering evolution at the species and lineage level, it can be argued that positive, progressive evolution occurs through the accumulation of additional advanced traits acquired through various differentiation processes upon pre-existing advanced traits.
I find Dawkins’ argument more valid in explaining the evolutionary process. While the author might view Dawkins’ explanation as biased, focusing solely on organisms observable to the naked eye, examining human evolution reveals a consistent pattern: higher traits are continually added to and developed from existing higher traits. For instance, physical characteristics and tool-using abilities absent in early humans were added and strengthened through tens of thousands of years of natural selection and environmental change. Consequently, while generally agreeing with the author’s position, I find Dawkins’ argument—that progressive evolution occurs through the accumulation of traits at the species and phylogenetic levels—more valid and detailed in explaining evolution.
While reading this book, I applied the author’s perspective on evolutionary theory to our society. Of course, the author’s claims in this book concern biological evolution, but since social evolution theory is an example of applying biological evolutionary theory to society, I considered applying the author’s perspective to our society.
The majority of evolutionary biologists argue that evolution is progress toward the positive, a phenomenon arising from the accumulation of higher-level traits. Applying this to society, phenomena occurring across various social fields accumulate, driving development and progress in each field, ultimately leading to the advancement of society as a whole. However, applying the author’s argument to society suggests that phenomena occurring across various social fields are merely changes influenced by variables such as interactions among members, and only a fraction of these numerous changes lead to positive progress and development.
Regarding the application of biological evolution to society, the author states “The father of evolutionary theory insisted that biological change is guided toward increased adaptability between organisms and their environment, not by an abstract notion of progress defined by increasing structural complexity or heterogeneity. He earnestly argued against using terms like ‘higher’ or ‘lower’.” He contends that the notion of evolution equating to positive progress is incorrectly applied to society. He further emphasizes his point by stating, “This error of equating biological evolution with progress continues to produce unfortunate consequences. Historically, it has been a cause for the abuse of social Darwinism.”
Of course, while the author’s argument may seem illogical and invalid when applied to society, it holds some validity in certain contexts. For example, in the 1900s, the world experienced the upheavals of World War I and World War II. Compared to World War I, World War II produced far more casualties and tragedies due to vastly more powerful weapons and tactics. Applying the claims of existing evolutionary biologists to this phenomenon creates a logical contradiction. After experiencing World War I, many people likely came to believe that large-scale wars should not occur. However, certain powers, including Germany and Japan, leveraged their economic development to produce military supplies and weapons, mobilizing their entire populations to prepare for war. This led to the outbreak of World War II, the most intense conflict in human history.
Applying the author’s argument to World War II, it represents merely one part of various changes. Society progresses through positive advancement driven by changes other than war. While war did spur some development in defense and healthcare, the destruction of much social infrastructure caused regression during this period. Most progress occurred due to other factors.
Conversely, applying the author’s argument to society often leads to significant illogicalities. For instance, in the medical field, the claims of traditional evolutionists are more valid and logical. Since humanity’s inception, medicine has advanced, reaching a level where it now treats many diseases and saves patients. The process of medical advancement has centered on accumulation: building upon existing medical knowledge and treatment techniques to discover new facts and develop new therapies.
I believe the difference in perspective regarding the development of society is similar to the difference in perspective on evolution between Dawkins and the author. The interpretation that views the development of society and its members from the perspective of the entire group, and that events occurring in society are merely one of many changes, is similar to the author’s interpretation of evolution as the change of the entire group of living organisms. Conversely, interpreting the development of specific areas of society over time is similar to Dawkins’ microscopic interpretation of evolution at the species and phylogenetic unit levels.

Conclusion

Since the emergence of evolutionary biology, there has been significant controversy surrounding the theory itself, and the process of applying evolutionary biology to society has faced even more diverse debates. While the author corrects the misconception that evolution equates to progress and points out the process by which this notion is applied to society, his argument is flawed by excluding the micro-level perspective. In response, rebuttals from various evolutionary scholars, including Dawkins, supplement the discussion with microevolution occurring at the species and phylogenetic levels. They also facilitate the interpretation of events that are difficult to explain solely through the author’s arguments when applying evolutionary theory to society.
Ultimately, evolution is not a fixed theory but a complex process whose interpretation can vary depending on context and perspective. Through this, we can see that society, too, is formed by the accumulation of diverse changes that cannot be defined by absolute progress or regression.