In this blog post, I compare the evolutionary perspectives of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins through ‘Full House’.
Are evolution and progress the same thing? Many people are familiar with Charles Robert Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, it is common to unconsciously equate evolution with progress within evolutionary theory. Stephen Jay Gould, author of Full House, sought to correct this widespread misunderstanding of Darwin’s theory. On the other hand, another evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, opposes Gould and advocates for progressive evolution. Gould and Dawkins, two giants of modern evolutionary theory, share the broad framework of evolution while holding differing positions on progressive evolution. It is necessary to examine the arguments and reasoning of both scholars in detail and discuss the need for a clear distinction between evolution and progress.
Many people, myself included, assume evolution is synonymous with progress. However, Gould questions this perspective, asserting that evolution and progress are distinct. He explains that in situations where the majority perish and only a minority survive, the surviving species did not prevail because they had evolved into a superior form, but simply because they were fortunate. He uses the example of a drunken reveler’s behavior to illustrate how directionless, random actions can ultimately lead to a specific outcome. If the bar is a wall and the other side is a ditch, the reveler will eventually fall into the ditch. Similarly, evolution has no direction in each individual process, yet the outcome is directional. The formation of complex organisms like humans is not the direction of evolution. Gould argues that while bacteria have reached a wall where they can no longer evolve, complex genes are moving toward an open space with ample room for change. He views evolution as closer to an increase in diversity than progress.
In contrast, Dawkins asserts in The Selfish Gene that evolutionary progress occurs cumulatively in a direction that increases the adaptive fitness of organisms and their environment. He explains that evolution is a process toward progress, citing the competition and reinforcement between predators and prey as an example. According to Dawkins, evolution toward progress may not be a steadily ascending process but rather one of climbing discontinuous steps. He argues that genes are selected for their superiority, explaining that this superiority is determined against the backdrop of the current gene pool. Dawkins maintains that a directionality of evolution exists and equates evolution with progress.
However, the two scholars do not hold completely opposing positions on progressive evolution. Both agree that evolution lacks inherent directionality. Gould simply contends that the notion of surviving species being superior is mistaken, while Dawkins believes superior genes survive. Gould does not acknowledge the superiority of surviving species, but Dawkins does. From Dawkins’ perspective, evolved species can ultimately be seen as the result of progress.
Which of the two positions is valid has not yet been clearly established. However, personally, I find Dawkins’ argument more valid than Gould’s. This is because I judge Dawkins’ perspective aligns better with more common real-world examples. While Gould used bacteria as an example to argue for the need to distinguish evolution from progress, this is merely one counterexample. Beyond bacteria, numerous other organisms—such as Arctic foxes and desert foxes—adapted to their habitats, providing ample evidence that evolution is the result of progress.
Generally, organisms have survived through adaptation and evolution. Adaptation means changing to suit specific conditions or environments, and when this adaptation occurs over multiple generations, it leads to genetic changes and thus evolution. I agree that evolution does not proceed in a single direction with a fixed purpose, as Gould argued. However, it is clear that the species that survived ultimately possessed characteristics more advantageous for survival than those that did not survive. Can we not see this as the superior species surviving? From this perspective, I view Gould’s argument as merely an interpretation of one part of the evolutionary process. Therefore, I believe Dawkins’ argument is more valid than Gould’s.
In conclusion, we examined the perspectives of Gould and Dawkins, two giants of modern evolutionary theory, on whether evolution and progress are the same. Gould argued that evolution is not the result of progress, while Dawkins argued that species that ultimately survived possessed superior genes. Having examined the evolutionary process, I judged that Gould’s perspective, which views evolution as an increase in diversity, is merely a temporary interpretation of part of the evolutionary process. Using the example of common animals like foxes, I concluded that Dawkins’ argument, which asserts the existence of superior genes, is more valid. However, as Gould stated in Full House, when narrating the history of any entity, one must trace how all components change. One must not make the mistake of observing a part and mistakenly representing it as the whole. To explain using Darwin’s theory of evolution, while acknowledging that humans are a species possessing superior genes, one should not view early apes as having evolved into humans through a step-by-step process. Nor should we perceive humans as superior to present-day monkeys. Modern monkey species represent one of countless branches that evolved from early monkey species to gain survival advantages, and humans are simply another such branch. The notion of human superiority should be limited to acknowledging that humans are superior to extinct, pre-evolutionary species, and we must be careful not to overinterpret this point.
