Abstract
Historians of Biology have divided nineteenth century naturalists into two basic camps, Functionalists and Structuralists. This division is supposed to demarcate the alternative causal presuppositions working beneath research programs. If one is functionally oriented, then organic form will be contingent upon the causal powers of the environment. If structurally oriented, one argues for nonfunctional mechanisms (e.g., internal laws of growth) to account for organic form.
Traditionally, Darwin has been grouped with the functionalists because natural selection (an adaptational mechanism) plays the prominent role in shaping organic form. In this paper, I sketch the dichotomy of functionalism versus structuralism and then argue that Darwin cannot be characterized adequately with this dichotomy. I argue that Darwin can incorporate both causal stories because he makes two important modifications to the traditional metaphysical presuppositions. I then offer some brief reflections on the import of Darwin's causal pluralism for the Philosophy of Science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agassiz, L.: 1874, “Evolution and Permanence of Type”, The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. XXXIII.
Appel, T.: 1987, The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades before Darwin, Oxford University Press.
Barrett, P.: 1977, The Collected Papers of Charles Darwin, Vol. I and II. P. Barrett (ed.), University of Chicago Press.
Bowler, P.: 1983, The Eclipse of Darwinism, Johns Hopkins University Press, Cassirer, E.: (1950), The Problem of Knowledge: Philosophy, Science and History since Hegel, Yale University Press.
Darwin, C.: 1859, On the Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition (1964), Harvard University Press.
Darwin, C.: 1958, Autobiography, N. Barlow (ed.), Collins.
Darwin, F. & A. C. Seward: 1903, More Letters of Charles Darwin, London, Murray, 2 Vols.
Desmond, A.: 1982, Archetypes and Ancestors, University of Chicago Press.
Desmond, A.: 1989, The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London, University of Chicago Press.
Gould, S. J.: 1980, The Panda's Thumb, W.W. Norton and Company.
Gould, S. J.: 1983, Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes, W.W. Norton and Company, New York.
Gould, S. J. & E. Vrba: 1982, “Exaptation—A Missing Term in the Science of Form”, Paleobiology 8.
Hume, D.: 1779, 1990, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, M. Bell (ed.), Penguin Books.
Huxley, T. H.: 1853, “On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca”, in M. Foster & E. Lankester's, The Scientific Memoirs of Thomas Henry Huxley, 1892–1902, London, Macmillan, 4 vols.
Mayr, E.: 1963, Animal Species and Evolution, Cambridge, Mass, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Naegeli, C.: 1865, Entstehung und Begriff der naturhistorischen Art, Munchen, Konigl. Academie.
Ospovat, D.: 1978, “Perfect Adaptation and Teleological Explanation: Approaches to the Problem of the History of Life in the Mid-nineteenth Century”, in W. Coleman and C. Limoges (eds.), Studies in History of Biology, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Owen, R.: 1849, On the Nature of Limbs, London, Van Voorst.
Richards, R.: 1992, The Meaning of Evolution, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rieppel, O.: 1990, “Structuralism, Functionalism and the Four Aristotelian Causes”, Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 23, No. 2, (Summer).
Rupke, N.: 1993, “Richard Owen's Vertebrate Archetype”, in Isis, Vol. 84 pp. 231–251.
Ruse, M.: 1989, The Darwinian Paradigm, Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Asma, S.T. Darwin's causal pluralism. Biol Philos 11, 1–20 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127469
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127469