THE PHILOSOPHY OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION: HISTORICAL CONSTITUTION, CONTINGENCY, AND BIOLOGICAL INTELLIGIBILITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65009/021d0144Keywords:
natural selection; biological form; historical constitution; contingencyAbstract
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection transformed the scientific understanding of life, but its philosophical significance extends beyond explaining biological change. This article argues that Darwin historicizes biological form: living forms become intelligible through descent, variation, selection, environmental relations, and contingent historical processes. The central problem is whether the history through which a biological form emerges is merely relevant to its explanation or is constitutive of its intelligibility. Through philosophical and hermeneutical analysis of Darwin’s principal works, together with critical engagement with major interpretations in the philosophy and history of biology, the article examines common descent, natural selection, adaptation, teleology, contingency, genealogy, and human evolution. It argues that Darwin’s historicization entails a corresponding naturalization, relationalization, and temporalization of biological intelligibility. Contingency is treated not merely as an event within evolutionary history but as a condition for understanding why particular biological forms emerged rather than others. The article’s original contribution is to synthesise these dimensions under the concept of historical constitution, understood not as a new evolutionary mechanism but as a philosophical thesis about intelligibility: biological forms do not merely possess histories; their histories are indispensable to understanding what they are.
References
Beatty, J. (1995). The evolutionary contingency thesis. In G. Wolters & J. G. Lennox (Eds.), Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences (pp. 45–81). University of Pittsburgh Press.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray.
Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. W. W. Norton.
Lennox, J. G. (1993). Darwin was a teleologist. Biology and Philosophy, 8(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00857687
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reydon, T. A. C. (2023). The proper role of history in evolutionary explanations. Noûs, 57(1), 162–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12402
Santis, M. D. de. (2024). On the nature of evolutionary explanations: A critical appraisal of Walter Bock’s approach with a new revised proposal. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 46, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-023-00601-7
Sober, E. (1993). Philosophy of biology. Westview Press.
Wong, T. Y. W. (2020). Sources of evolutionary contingency: Chance variation and genetic drift. Biology & Philosophy, 35, Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09752-4