Great Course - Darwinian Revolution

My latest Great Course was Darwinian Revolution, with lectures by Professor Frederick Gregory (Ph.D. Harvard) from the University of Florida.

This was an excellent course, but it's important to understand that it is not a science course -- it is a history course. I had initially thought I would be learning the scientific details which have convinced scientists of the foundational position of evolution. Well, while I did learn some of the core facts, I also learned that my initial understanding was wrong.

Darwin was certainly instrumental in getting evolution to be accepted as the means by which species developed, but it was not his central novel idea. Evolution, as a concept, had been around for a long time before Darwin. It is natural selection of small variations that was Darwin's seminal idea. Now, while I had understood that natural selection was Darwin's, I hadn't realized how much evolutionary theory existed before Darwin, nor how the "small variations" part of the theory was so controversial.

Before Darwin, Jean-Baptise Lamarck had a theory of evolution by use and disuse, which was far more acceptable to the populace of the time, which wanted to see evolution as a process towards progress, and wanted evolution to fit the ideals of work being able to overcome nature. The idea that chance was integral to evolution rubbed the Victorians the wrong way, and large variations seemed to fit the science of the time which had the Earth being much younger than current science does (though still much older than the biblical 10,000 years.)

I enjoyed hearing the history of the Origin of Species: how Darwin was pushed to publish earlier than he wanted by having someone come up with a similar idea; how he counted on his understanding of the physics of the day to set the age of the earth to allow him time for his natural selection, but was told he was wrong by the physics expert of the age; how the physics of the age was so wrong because radioactivity had not been discovered yet; how Darwin was a strong defender of his work, but was congenial and respectful of his critics, and didn't even go as far as current Darwinians in upholding the sufficiency of natural selection of small variations. He was willing to consider Lamarck's theories as a contributing factor, and it's interesting that recent cellular evolutionary theory has brought some support for a version of "use/disuse" in its ideas of symbiotic evolution.

I also finally got a good description of Intelligent Design, along with its history, and the differences between I.D. and creationism. Perhaps the most unexpected message, though, was the clear discussion of nature of the "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" debate as a metaphysical debate -- that is, that each of these propositions is based on a belief system about how truth is to be discovered. It is metaphysical naturalism vs. metaphysical supernaturalism. I can appreciate the philosophical assertions of I.D. though I still believe it is not ultimately the basis for "science."

I appreciated how up front Dr. Gregory was about stating that he was giving his own slant, especially in the wrap-up lecture. He gave me plenty of information, pointed me to good references, and let me draw my own conclusions. This is a great educator.