[In part 4, the author explains the meaning of random variables that forms one of the pillars of Mathematics. He went on to show that Charles Darwin was the first natural philosopher to effectively apply it in the field of natural sciences.]
Let us now go to the basics of the theory. How did the idea of random variation occur to the mind of Darwin? And, wherefrom?
The theoretical edifice of evolution as viewed by Darwin stands on four legs:
1) Struggle for existence
2) Random variation
3) Adaptation
4) Natural selection.
What is the meaning of struggle for existence in the organic world? Is it a war among the plants, or the animals with weapons? One species entering the territory of another? Aggression? Occupation? Or, does it mean a war between cows and the grasses? Is it something akin to what we see in human society?
No, none of this. It is not such a simple thing. There are, it is true, some popular science authors who like to depict a general portrait of a war of all against all in the plant and animal kingdoms following the oft quoted observation of Thomas Hobbes, namely, bellum omnium contra omnes. Some critics think this to be genuine Darwinism and try to falsify the theory with various facts of cooperation among the flora and fauna.
Struggle for existence in the organic realm implies efforts of the plants and animals to gather means of subsistence, suitable habitats, and live till several cycles of procreation. Had there been enough provisions for all the offsprings born to a species at a time, had there been no feeder-feed relations between the species of plants as well as animals (as is thought of in the Eden Garden of the paradise), one might eliminate the scope of struggle among species. But alas! He that had been able to create all these species failed to solve these “minor” problems. Hence with the limited provision of food and security, the members of the species are compelled to struggle against nature and against one another to collect the means of subsistence and insure security.
Although water has become an increasingly scarce resource and gone under the trade regime of the Corporate Tycoons, light and wind are still available unlimited. Why then do the plants have to struggle for them? What is their problem?
Considered in the backdrop of the entire globe, water, light and air are quite sufficient, even today, for the sustenance of life on this planet. But suppose some smaller plants grow in the land below a big pipul tree. Obviously, they will have trouble getting a fair share of sunlight, wind, heat, and also subsurface water. Or, in the deserts and the polar Regions, where there is no big tree, birds cannot have the niches to live. And without birds, dispersion of the seeds afar is a problem. Moreover, water, air, and sunlight are not uniformly available everywhere in the globe. Marine water, strongly saline, which constitutes 97% of the total global water reserve, is not suitable for the land animals and plants. In the deserts and plateaus of the world, almost one third of the land surface, water and fertile soil are least available. The highly fluctuating temperature of these regions make air and light partly unusable for normal plant life. Similarly in the polar surfaces covered by glaciers, water, and light are rarer and the temperature of the air makes it a hardest problem for sustenance of life. All these factors together make struggles for existence inevitable among the species, among the members of a species and of the entire life forms with the environment—in various forms in different places.
On the other hand, when there is a major geo-climatic change in an extended region—like, a river changing its course, a large scale earthquake, a big volcanic eruption, and so on—that causes a tremendous problem for the survival of the extant flora and fauna of the region. Most of them go extinct. Even then a small number survives and thrives, however, in a new mode of adaptation and, if successful, thereby results in new speciation.
There are still other aspects to see. If the goats, sheep, and deer may run too fast for the predators to be able to catch them, then the tigers and lions will have to starve. On the contrary, if all the herbivores fall easy prey to the predators, it would be difficult for these species to survive on the evolutionary canvas. Thus there is a struggle between these two groups. It means, in the struggle for existence some members of the plants and animals may survive and procure food; some may not. What enables those who survive to be successful?
They possess certain physical features that yield some selective advantage. Some sheep may have hooves better adapted for running than others. There are birds which are so little in size that they can easily build nests in smaller plants. Fruits of some plants are such that the birds prefer to feed on them and thereby disperse the seeds in open land. And so forth.
It is here that Darwin noticed the fact of random variation and introduced it as the starting point of his theory. How do these preferable or disadvantageous features appear? Till then people could easily refer to God’s omniscience for the successful cases without any difficulty. Now it was the turn of the unsuccessful cases to be accounted for, which were much more in number. Darwin probably wanted to absolve God of the responsibility for this larger scale failure and proposed random variation as the true phenomenon. This was entwined with the theory of probability. Some features were more probable to help survival than others. Accordingly some members of a species will be successful in the struggle for existence whereas some will not.
I hope now it is clear why the theologians of whatever sect and creed are so much wary of Darwin. They are not so displeased with Lamarck; even Alfred Russell Wallace who is mentioned as a co-author (though late by fifteen years) of the theory of natural selection is immune to their ire and fire. For one thing Wallace did not like to extend his theory of transmutation of species up to man and held man to be a special creation by Providence. The God lovers had therefore very little to set against him. As per the theological belief, evolution of earthworms or centipede from the worms matters little, but emergence of man from the great apes evokes an allergic reaction! For another, Wallace was life long involved in the unscientific practices like spiritism, planchet, etc., which quite comfortably converge with religious beliefs. Charles Darwin shied away from all such obnoxious practices from 1836 till his death in 1882. This atheism of his mindset was hardly ever apparent in his academic papers, but popped up in many of the correspondence with friends and contacts in the form of critical as well as witty questions.
We have already mentioned that his autobiography was also a case in evidence. His wife Emma had got their son Francis sworn to a commitment that segments of the autobiography and the correspondence related to criticism of religion and spiritualism would not go to press for publication (how tolerant religion is!). She commented on the margin of a copy of the autobiography prepared by the son in connection with Charles’ reference to the infernal fire: “I should dislike the passage in brackets to be published. It seems to me raw. Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief—but very few now wd. call that ‘Christianity,’ (tho’ the words are there.) There is the question of verbal inspiration comes in too. E. D.” [Cited, Barlow (ed.) 1993, p. 87f]
As a result, when the autobiography together with a part of the available correspondence had been published by Francis Darwin in 1887, much of the materials related to Darwin’s atheism were dropped. Compared to the quantum of magnanimity Charles showed to his wife out of love, Emma failed to reciprocate. After a long time, when their granddaughter Nora Barlow edited and brought out a complete (uncensored) version of these materials in 1958, the world public saw a fresh image of Charles Darwin, the bold emblem of scientific spirit. [Ibid]
It is in view of this fact-sheet that the theologians of all shades have concurred on the question of consigning Darwin to an eternal infernal fire—in Latin chants, or Sanskrit mantras, or Arabic ayats. They oppose Darwin not so much for the scientific reasoning in his theory, as for highlighting the issue of extinction of species, invalidating the argument of design with the idea of randomness and thereby effectively ridiculing the omnipotence of God. They dislike science, but they disdain Darwin as much as possible. It is a feeling similar to the Dalitophobia of the RSS. They can neither express it nor suppress it in the mind. Science will not drop Darwin; so let us try to drop him from the curriculum wherever possible.
Bear in mind, when the previous BJP government had introduced astrology in different universities of India, the Sun or the Moon did not acquiescently turn into planets but remained as they were—a star and a satellite. Similarly, while idiotic members of the NCERT dropped Darwinism from the school curriculum at the dictates of the bigoted rulers, the scientific theory of evolution will not vanish from the portals of science. On the contrary the evolution of the NCERT experts into servile apes of the rulers will add a new chapter to the intellectual history of the country.
And also to global history.
Sarcasm is an important component of intellectual exercise—for all time!
The author is a science writer. He is the General Secretary for Centre for Studies in Science and Society [CESTUSS], Kolkata.
Sources:
Pietro Corsi (2009), “Evolution pioneers: Lamarck’s reputation saved by his zoology”; Nature 461, 167 (2009).
J. B. Lamarck (1914), Zoological Philosophy: An exposition with regard to the Natural History of Animals; Macmillan & Co., London.
Georgi Plekhanov (1976), “On the So- called Religious Seekings in Russia”; Selected Philosophical Works, Vol. III; Progress Publishers, Moscow.
Jacques Roger (1986). “The Mechanist Conception of Life”. In David C. Lindberg, and Ronald L. Numbers (1986 eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science. University of California Press.
