Reply to comment

What remained with me from Thursday's class with Professor Grobstein was the question of whether or not Darwin was a foundationalist.  I had been having trouble understanding what it meant to read "On the Origin of Species" as a novel until we were presented with that question.   I began to read Darwin with that question in mind and I think it has helped me pull back from focusing simply on the science of the book and pay closer attention to certain questions that may arise when someone is reading any novel-how is the author trying to get his main idea across to his readers and what does this tell us about the author himself?  Before I attempt to read between the lines and answer these questions regarding Darwin, I am still struggling to reach a final conclusion regarding the question of whether or not Darwin was a foundationalist.  When first learning about evolution, I was told that evolution was not predetermined-it was a random process and if we were to go back in Earth's history, things would most definitely have occured very differently.  Consequently, I assumed that Darwin wrote the Origin of Species with the same idea in mind-that there was no predetermined "goal" of evolution.  However, is there a real clear cut difference between randomness and a predetermined goal? We considered this question in biology lab today and the conclusion that was reached was that natural selection can be considered a random process that is not approaching a predetermined goal.  However, if natural selection was approaching a predetermined ideas, would it still not be a random process? I am not sure that randomness implies no predetermined goal because something can be random with a predetermined ideal.  It is true that Darwin refers to the process of natural selection as random at points throughout his description; however, if it is established that random does not mean nonpredetermined, than how can we make the conclusive decision that Darwin was not a foundationalist?  There are also other points in the book where I begin to question if Darwin was really a foundationalist.  For example, at the bottom of the first paragraph on page 127, he states, "...I attribute the variety, from a state in which it differs very slightly from its parent to one in which it differs more, to the action of natural selection in accumulating differences of structure in certain definite directions ".  To me, "certain definite directions" implies foundationalist thinking, but I may also be unclear as to what Darwin means by this phrase.   . 

 Lastly, going a few lectures back to when we discussed the difference between science and literature, I came across a quote given to us by our Organic Chemistry lab instructor in our lab manual that I thought was relevant to our discussion:

Do the poet and scientist not work analogously?  Both are willing to waste effort.  To be hard on himself is one of the main strengths of each.  Each is attentive to clues, each must narrow the choice, must strive for precision.

--Marriane Craig Moore, Bryn Mawr College Class of 1909