Science Friction_ Where the Known Meets the Unknown - Michael Shermer [144]
These thematic pairs also help illuminate what is really going on in the so-called evolution wars.38 When Gould, Lewontin, and Eldredge are pitted against Dawkins, Maynard Smith, and Dennett, it is almost always along a spectrum of one of these five themata. Maynard Smith s claim that Gould’s ideas are confused and that he is giving nonprofessionals the wrong ideas about evolution is an indictment of Gouldian theory against others’ data. Wright envisions a cyclical metaphor of time with directionality generating purpose, and thus is critical of Gould’s emphasis on the directionless arrow in a purposeless cosmos. Ruse says that evolutionary biologists reject or ignore Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium, but this is because he prefers phyletic gradualism. Dennett argues for a necessitating interpretation of the evolution of life whereas Gould emphasizes the contingent nature of history. Dawkins is a vocal defender of the adaptationist program in evolutionary theory, whereas Gould prefers to focus on the nonadaptive qualities of organisms. One wonders, in fact, if both sides in these various debates do not lean too close to the termini of each thematic pair as a corrective to the perceived exaggerated emphasis of the opponent on the other end of the spectrum. On the Adaptationism—Nonadaptationism theme, for example, Gould does not deny that natural selection creates well-adapted organisms. His point is that not everything in nature can be explained through the adaptationist paradigm.
Darwinian theory is fundamentally about natural selection. I do not challenge this emphasis but believe that we have become overzealous about the power and range of selection by trying to attribute every significant form and behavior to its direct action. In this Darwinian game, no prize is sweeter than a successful selectionist interpretation for phenomena that strike our intuition as senseless.39
Grandeur in This View of Life
This view of life is distinctly Gouldian in its struggle to find meaning in a contingently meaningless universe, to draw generalities out of the countless minutiae of the world, and to express it all in a literary style that balances professional scholarship with popular exposition. By deconstructing a single essay—“Modified Grandeur”—we see all of these elements neatly wrapped in one package, including biblical and literary references, history and philosophy of science and science studies, evolutionary theory, and several thematic pairs. Characteristically, Gould begins with an anecdote from his favorite pop-culture icon.
In an old theatrical story, W. S. Gilbert was leading a rehearsal for the premiere of his most famous collaboration with A. S. Sullivan, The Mikado. At one point, Nanki-Poo learns that his beloved Yum-Yum is about to marry her guardian, Ko-Ko. Searching for a straw of light, he asks: “But you do not love him?” “Alas, no!” she replies. On hearing this sliver of mitigation, Nanki-Poo exclaims, “Rapture!”—or so Gilbert originally wrote. But at the rehearsal, Nanki-Poo stated his line too forcefully, given the limited comfort provided by Yum-Yum, and Gilbert shouted down from the balcony: “Modified rapture.” The poor tenor, not grasping that Gilbert had only meant to correct his tone, and thinking instead that he had flubbed his line, exclaimed, “Modified rapture” at the reprise. This unintended correction elicited a good laugh, and so the line has remained ever since. If something so unvarnished as rapture must often be modified, let me pose a question in a similar vein: how shall we modify grandeur?40
The reference is to Darwin’s final line from the Origin of Species: “There