Darwin's debt to William Paley?

[Alfred001]

I'm reading an article titled Malthus and the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory in which the author talks about a supposed influence of William Paley's Natural Theology on the development of Darwin's theory. He mentions Paley's observations about adaptations in nature, but he neither gives examples of these nor evidence that this influenced Darwin. He does quote a passage in which Darwin says he read the book as a student and was delighted by it, but he doesn't give concrete evidence that Paley's observations were significant in the development of Darwin's theory.

 

Does anyone know whether Paley was indeed influential for Darwin and where I might find evidence of this?

 

[overtone]

The article you linked was published in 1969. Several good and thorough biographical treatments of Darwin, his intellectual dvelopment, and the historical context of his big Theory, have been published since then. These would have been much readier to your hand than such a long obscure article: Which of them have you consulted?

Edited June 10, 2013 by overtone

[Alfred001]

Apparently, the only references to Paley in Darwin's autobiography are the following:

 

"In order to pass the B. A. examination,
it was, also, necessaryt o get up Paley'sE videnceso f Christianitya, nd his Moral
Philosophy . . . I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley'sp remises;a nd
taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentations"
(p. 59);

 

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which
formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection
has been discovered"( p. 87); and

 

"NaturalT heologyw as being preachedb y Paley
and others, who not only took into account the increasingk nowledgeo f adaptation
in biology, but made a pivot of this very knowledge" (pp. 149-150

 

It is unclear, though, from the third quote whether Darwin, when talking about Paley's argument of design, is saying htat he was made aware of adaptations in nature by Paley, or whether he simply believed in Paley's argument that adaptations are evidence of design (existance of God). In other words, whether the passage is saying that Darwin was introduced to the idea of adaptations by Paley or whether he is simply referring in the passage to an argument by Paley that adaptations are sign of a designer.

 

Does anyone know whether Paley was the first to point out adaptiations, I can't imagine that he was.

[overtone]

 

Does anyone know whether Paley was the first to point out adaptiations

No, and certainly not to Darwin. The subject was fairly common in Darwin's time, and theorists from Lamarck to Darwin's uncle would have been known to him.

 

This is all found in the ordinary biographies and so forth, the first places one would look to satisfy a sincere interest in the topic of Darwin's influences.

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393311503

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_of_Darwin%27s_theory

[Ophiolite]

My understanding is that Darwin was impressed by the logical structure and flow of Paley's argument in the work Natural Theology. He mirrored this structure when he came to right On the Origin of Species.

 

The subject was fairly common in Darwin's time, and theorists from Lamarck to Darwin's uncle would have been known to him.

Darwin's uncle! If you mean Erasmus Darwin, that was his grandfather. The only uncle I know of who played a significant role in regard to Darwin and evolutionary theory was Josiah Wedgewood. He helped persuade Darwin's father to allow him to travel on The Beagle, but contributed nothing in terms of ideas to Darwin's research.

[overtone]

 

The only uncle I know of who played a significant role in regard to
Darwin and evolutionary theory was Josiah Wedgewood. He helped persuade
Darwin's father to allow him to travel on The Beagle, but contributed nothing in terms of ideas to Darwin's research.

"Significant role", "contributed idea", or whatever, the subject was all around and had been for a generation at least - who "introduced" it to Darwin, the post query, is probably not answerable and probably not important.

 

The question becomes why it is being asked, and why on the basis of such an odd source.

[Alfred001]

If the idea of adaptation did not come from Paley, then I can't see what Darwin could have gotten from Paley (aside from at one point believing that adaptation is a sign of design), and yet, apparently, in the history of science, Malthus and Paley are commonly cited as influences of Darwin. I can't understand what the influence of Paley could have been, if Darwin didn't get the idea of adaptation from him.

[Ophiolite]

If the idea of adaptation did not come from Paley, then I can't see what Darwin could have gotten from Paley (aside from at one point believing that adaptation is a sign of design), and yet, apparently, in the history of science, Malthus and Paley are commonly cited as influences of Darwin. I can't understand what the influence of Paley could have been, if Darwin didn't get the idea of adaptation from him.

I've already provided an answer to that in post #5.

"My understanding is that Darwin was impressed by the logical structure and flow of Paley's argument in the work Natural Theology. He mirrored this structure when he came to right On the Origin of Species."

 

I'm British. We use understatement. When I say "my understanding is" I actually mean "this is pretty much as definitive as anything gets, and in this particular topic area I know my facts very thoroughly, but I'm too damned modest to assert it so definitely."

 

"Significant role", "contributed idea", or whatever, the subject was all around and had been for a generation at least - who "introduced" it to Darwin, the post query, is probably not answerable and probably not important.

 

The question becomes why it is being asked, and why on the basis of such an odd source.

Was that an acknowledgement that you were mistaken?

[overtone]

Was that an acknowledgement that you were mistaken?

About what?

 

Would the point have been clearer if I had used the minister at his college Church?

Edited June 12, 2013 by overtone

[Ophiolite]

About what?

 

Would the point have been clearer if I had used the minister at his college Church?

You stated that "The subject was fairly common in Darwin's time, and theorists from Lamarck to Darwin's uncle would have been known to him."

 

Darwin's uncle was not a theorist in this field. Do you accept that?

[overtone]

 

Darwin's uncle was not a theorist in this field. Do you accept that?

Oh yeah, apologies - I couldn't remember whether Darwin had ever spoken to his grandfather, couldn't remember anyone's name, and wanted a polar opposite from Lamarck , trivial example of dinner table conversation to illsutrate the status of the OP query. Without the trouble of looking anything up.

 

on the topic: I've kind of thought that uncle deserves a certain nod of respect and recognition in the whole story, anyway - he was obviously paying closer attention to things than is specifically recorded.

[Swedgen]

Oh yeah, apologies - I couldn't remember whether Darwin had ever spoken to his grandfather, couldn't remember anyone's name, and wanted a polar opposite from Lamarck , trivial example of dinner table conversation to illsutrate the status of the OP query. Without the trouble of looking anything up.

 

on the topic: I've kind of thought that uncle deserves a certain nod of respect and recognition in the whole story, anyway - he was obviously paying closer attention to things than is specifically recorded.

 

 

Well he persuaded his father to let him go. That's the main contribution he made.