Abstract
Scholars have often considered evolutionary social theories a product of Positivist scientism and the naturalization of ethics. Yet the theistic foundations of many evolutionary theories proposed between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries bolstered the belief that following natural laws was morally desirable, if not vital, to guaranteeing social and moral progress. In the early twentieth century, American paleontologist and leading evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn represented one of the most authoritative advocates of this interpretation of natural normativity. Particularly during the last years of his career, Osborn used theological arguments to reinforce his advocacy of evolutionary ethics and social control policies, which led him to challenge his “old master” Thomas Huxley regarding the separation between evolution and moral conduct. This article examines the development of Osborn’s evolutionary ethics, with particular regard to its bearing on the American debate on euthenics. I argue that theistic topics played a major rhetorical role in the attempt to justify normative conclusions drawn from ostensible laws of evolution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The term “evolutionary social theories” used here is to be understood as a general historiographic category to indicate the many forms of social evolutionism that materialized between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries (see Olson 2008, p 207). Although the interpretation of societal dynamics in evolutionary terms would become known as “social Darwinism,” such term does not capture the historical complexity of evolutionary social theories, which relied on manifold theories of species transformation and were used to advocate the most various socio-political views (Bowler 1995; La Vergata 1985, 2009; Lightman 2010; Livingstone 1985).
On Hume’s philosophical influence see Hallhoff (2003) and Ruse (2019). In the famous entry “Evolution” published on the Encyclopedia Britannica, Huxley reported Sidgwick’s critique of evolutionary ethics, according to which the doctrine of evolution could not contribute toward the determination of the end or standard of morals ‘merely by proving how the moral sense had arisen’ (Huxley 1878, p. 766).
As noted by Gregory (1938, pp. 57–58), Osborn and his Princeton collogues Francis Speir (1856–1925) and William Berryman Scott (1858–1947) entered the field of paleontological expeditions in the thick of the famous “Bone War” between Cope and the Yale paleontologist Charles Othniel Marsh (1831–1899) ‘determined not to let Yale University have a monopoly in fossil-hunting expeditions in the West.’ The three neophytes met Cope in Philadelphia hoping to get some advice in planning the expeditions. However, as Scott wrote, ‘we could extract no information from him; he was polite and pleasant enough, but absolutely noncommittal and he showed no interest in one undertaking. When I asked him whether the country around Fort Wallace was good collecting ground, he answered “It was before I went there” and declined to say whether it was, or not. Such an attitude toward enthusiastic neophytes seems incredibly unscientific, not to say churlish, but it was chiefly due to the rivalry and hatred that existed between Cope and Marsh which extended to everything that either one of them did. I cannot doubt that Cope refused to give us any information because of the off-chance that we might be emissaries of the foe’ (1939, p. 58).
To Packard (1901, p. 373), Lamarck’s far-reaching meditations on the relationship between science and religion should have received much more attention: ‘Had his way of looking at this subject prevailed, how much misunderstanding and ill-feeling between theologians and savants would have been avoided! Had his spirit and breadth of view animated both parties, there would not have been the constant and needless opposition on the part of the Church to the grand results of scientific discovery and philosophy, or too hasty dogmatism and scepticism on the part of some scientists. In Lamarck, at the opening of the past century, we behold the spectacle of a man devoting over fifty years of his life to scientific research in biology, and insisting on the doctrine of spontaneous generation; of the immense length of geological time, so opposed to the views held by the Church; the evolution of plants and animals from a single germ, and even the origin of man from the apes, yet as earnestly claiming that nature has its Author who in the beginning established the order of things, giving the initial impulse to the laws of the universe.’.
Osborn-Muir, 6/18/1913, John Muir Correspondence, www.oac.cdlib.org
Osborn-Muir 6/18/1913, John Muir Correspondence, www.oac.cdlib.org
Osborn stated that it was Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) who called his attention to Whitman’s poetry: ‘It was in 1879, in the rooms of Francis Balfour, younger brother of Arthur, at Cambridge University, where there were weekly dinners at which one met wits and celebrities from London and Oxford, as well as from Cambridge. One evening I was approached by a tall youth with a handsome face, long hair, flowing collar, and sensuous mouth, who began immediately to offer an opinion of American literature. He said: “You have no real poets in America. To me Longfellow, Whittier, and the others are mere echoes of English singers. You Americans have only one sweet and true songster, whom you do not appreciate, and that is Walt Whitman.” These words and young Oscar Wilde’s appearance are indelibly impressed upon my memory because they first brought home to me the idea that the all-essential quality in a writer of eminence is that he must be of his country, of his soil’ (Osborn 1924, pp. 192–193).
Osborn (1917, p. XIII) used this term to identify the evolutionary theories held by Buffon, Lamarck, Cope, and Spencer. Conversely, Neo-Darwinism and Mendelism fell into the category of ‘centrifugal’ theories of evolution, since they posited that the causes of evolutionary change began in the germplasm and then extended outward.
According to Ellen Richards’ classical definition, ‘euthenics deals with race improvement through environment’ (Richards, 1910).
Notably, both Davenport and Osborn maintained that eugenic measures had to take priority over euthenics. ‘A child born an imbecile’ Osborn wrote ‘cannot be changed, neither by the best nutrition, the most scrupulous cleanliness, the purest air and sunshine, nor the best of physical and mental training’ (1927, p. 308). As Davenport clearly stated (1911, p. 20), the success of euthenics closely depended on the previous practice of the principles of eugenics. Thus understood, euthenics was seen as a way to improve the fittest rather than to smooth out the inequalities among individuals.
References
Abbot, L. (1924). The use and misuse of the Bible. In W. M. Goldsmith (Ed.), Evolution or christianity, God or Darwin? (pp. 117–121). The Anderson Press.
Anonymous. (1893). The Romanes lecture. Oxford Magazine, XI(1893), 376–380
Baker, G. J. (2014). Christianity and eugenics: The place of religion in the British eugenics education society and the American eugenics society, c. 1907–1940. Social History of Medicine, 27(2), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hku008
Bannister, R. C. (1979). Science and myth in Anglo-American social thought. Temple University Press.
Boller, P. F. (1981). American thought in transition. University Press of America.
Bowler, P. J. (1979). Theodor Eimer and orthogenesis. Evolution by “definitely directed variation.” Journal History Medicine Allied Science, 34(1), 40–73.
Bowler, P. J. (1983). The eclipse of Darwinism. Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bowler, P. J. (1995) Social metaphors in evolutionary biology, 1870–1930: The wider dimension of Social Darwinism. In Maasen, S., Mendelsohn, E., Weingart, P. (Eds.), Biology as society, society as biology: Metaphors. sociology of the sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0673-3_6, (pp. 107–126).
Bowler, P. J. (2009). Monkey trial and gorilla sermons: Evolution and christianity from Darwin to intelligent design. Harvard University Press.
Ceccarelli, D. (2021). Recasting natural selection: Osborn and the pluralistic view of life. In Delisle, R. G. (Ed.), Natural selection: Revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology (pp 171–191). Springer.
Ceri, L. (2013). Etica ed evoluzione. La filosofia di Herbert Spencer e le origini dell’eugenetica. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.
Chapin, H. D. (1923). Heredity and child culture. E. P. Dutton Company.
Clark, C. A. (2008). God or gorilla: Images of evolution in the jazz age. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Comfort, N. (2008). Cultural Darwinism. The European Legacy, 13(5), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/10848770802268816
Cope, E. D. (1887). Theology of evolution. Arnold and Company.
Cope, E. D. (1889). Ethical evolution, reprint from The Open Court, March (Academy of Natural Sciences Library).
Cope, E. D. (1896). The primary factors of organic evolution. The Open Court Publishing Company.
Cope, E. D., & Kingsley, J. S. (1887). Editor’s table. The American Naturalist, 21(4), 356–357.
Crossley, J. P., Jr. (1978). Theological ethics and the naturalistic fallacy. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 6(1), 121–134.
Davenport, C. (1911). Euthenics and eugenics. Popular Science Monthly, 78, 16–20.
De Waal, F. (2006). Macedo, S., Josiah, O. (Eds.), Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. Princeton University Press.
Dewey, J. (1898). Evolution and ethics. The Monist, 8(3), 321–341.
Farber, P. L. (1994). The temptations of evolutionary ethics. University of California Press.
Fosdick, H. E. (1924). Mr. Bryan and evolution. In Goldsmith W. M. (Ed.), Evolution or christianity, God or Darwin? (pp. 137–144). The Anderson Press.
Fowler, D. D. (2003). A natural history of man: Reflections on anthropology, museum, and science. In: Nash E. S., Feinman G. M. (Eds.) Fieldiana. Anthropology. Curators, collections, and contexts: Anthropology at the field museum, 1893–2002, vol. 36. (pp 11–22). Field Museum of Natural History.
Fox, S. (1981). The American conservation movement. John Muir and his legacy. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Freeden, M. (1979). Eugenics and progressive thought: A study in ideological affinity. The Historical Journal, 22(3), 645–671.
Goldsmith, W. M. (1924a). In biology all roads lead to evolution. In W. M. Goldsmith (Ed.), Evolution or christianity, God or Darwin? (pp. 21–31). The Anderson Press.
Goldsmith, W. M. (1924b). Claims of the anti-evolutionists. In W. M. Goldsmith (Ed.), Evolution or christianity, God or Darwin? (pp. 15–20). The Anderson Press.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Gregory, W. K. (1938). Biographical memoir of Henry Fairfield Osborn. 1857-1935. In National academy of sciences biographical memoir, XIX. (pp. 53–119). National Academy of Sciences.
Grehan, J. R., & Ainsworth, R. (1985). Orthogenesis and evolution. Systematic Zoology, 34, 174–192.
Gundlach, B. J. (2013). Process and providence. The evolution question at Princeton, 1845–1929. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Hallhoff, F. (2003). Evolutionary ethics from Darwin to Moore. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 25(1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03919710312331272945
Hatch, S. K. (2012). The contemplative John Muir. Spiritual quotations from the great American naturalist. Lulu Press.
Hofstadter, R. (1992). Social Darwinism in American thought. Beacon Press.
Homchick, J. (2010). Objects and objectivity: The evolution controversy at the American museum of natural history, 1915–1928. Science & Education, 19, 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9208-4
Huxley, T. H. (1878). Evolution. In Encyclopedia Britannic, VIII. (pp. 744–772). Adam and Charles Black.
Huxley, T. H. (1894). Evolution and ethics. Macmillan & Co.
Hyatt, A. (1884). Evolution of the Cephalopoda. Science, 3, 122–127.
La Vergata, A. (1985). Images of Darwin: A historiographical overview. In D. Kohn (Ed.), The Darwinian heritage (pp. 901–972). Princeton University Press.
La Vergata, A. (1995). Introduzione. In La Vergata, A. (Ed.), Evoluzione ed etica (VII–LXIV). Bollati Boringhieri.
La Vergata, A. (2009). Darwinism and the social sciences, 1859–1914. Rendiconti Lincei. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-009-0056-6
Laats, A. (2010). Fundamentalism and education in the scopes era. God, Darwin, and the roots of America’s culture wars. Palgrave Macmillan.
Laats, A. (2021). Creationism USA: Bridging the impasse on teaching evolution. Oxford University Press.
Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer for the gods: The Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. Harvard University Press.
Le Conte, J. (1888). Evolution and its relation to religious thought. D. Appleton and Company.
Leonard, T. C. (2017). Illiberal reformers. Race, eugenic & American economics in the progressive era. Princeton University Press.
Levit, G. S., & Olsson, L. (2006). “Evolution on rails”: Mechanisms and levels of orthogenesis. Annals for the History and Philosophy of Biology, 11, 97–136.
Lightman, B. (2010). The international scientific series and the communication of Darwinism. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 5(4), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.1367
Livingstone, D. N. (1985). Evolution, science and society: Historical reflections on the geographical experiment. Geoforum, 16(2), 119–130.
Lyons, S. L. (2010). Evolution and education: Lessons from Thomas Huxley. Science & Education, 19, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11191-009-9188-4
Miller, C. B. (2019). The naturalistic fallacy and theological ethics. In N. Sinclair (Ed.), The naturalistic fallacy (pp. 206–225). Cambridge University Press.
Millikan, R. A. (1923). Science and religion. Science, LVII(1483), 630–631.
Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia ethica. Cambridge University Press.
Moore, J. R. (1979). The post-Darwinian controversies. A study of the protestant struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America. Cambridge University Press.
Numbers, R. L. (1998). Darwinism comes to America. Harvard University Press.
Ochoa, C. (2021). Inertia, trend, and momentum reconsidered: G. G. Simpson, an orthogeneticist? In Delisle, R. G. (Ed.), Natural selection: Revisiting its explanatory role in evolutionary biology (pp 261–290). Springer.
Olson, R. G. (2008). Science and scientism in nineteenth-century Europe. University of Illinois Press.
Ordover, N. (2003). American eugenics. Race, queer anatomy, and the science of nationalism. University of Minnesota Press.
Osborn, H. F. (1889). The paleontological evidence for the transmission of acquired characters. The American Naturalist, 23(271), 561–566.
Osborn, H. F. (1891). The present problem of heredity. The Atlantic Monthly, 67(401), 353–364.
Osborn, H. F. (1904). Preservation of the wild animals of North America. Boone And Crocket Club.
Osborn, H. F. (1910). Huxley and education. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, H. F. (1912). Tetraplasy: The law of the four inseparable factors of evolution. The Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 15, 275–309.
Osborn, H. F. (1917). The origin and evolution of life. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, H. F. (1923a). Evolution and religion. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, H. F. (1923b). Address of welcome. In Eugenics, genetics and the family. vol. I: Williams & Wilkins Company.
Osborn, H. F. (1902a). Homoplasy as a law of latent or potential homology. The American Naturalist, 36, 259–271.
Osborn, H. F. (1902b). The law of adaptive radiation. The American Naturalist, 36, 353–363.
Osborn, H. F. (1924). Impressions of great naturalists. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, H. F. (1925a). Evolution and daily living. The Forum, 169–177.
Osborn, H. F. (1925b). Credo of a naturalist. The Forum, 486–494.
Osborn, H. F. (1925c). The earth speaks to Bryan. The Forum, 796–803.
Osborn, H. F. (1925d). The earth speaks to Bryan. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, H. F. (1927). Creative education in school, college, university, and museum. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, H. F. (1930). Fifty-two years of research, observation and publication 1877–1929. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, H. F. (1931). Cope: Master naturalist. Life and letters of Edward Drinker Cope, with a bibliography of his writings classified by subject. Princeton University.
Osborn, H. F. (1934). Aristogenesis, the creative principle in the origin of species. The American Naturalist, 68(716), 193–235.
Packard, A. (1901). Lamarck, the founder of evolution. Longmans, Green, and Co.
Rainger, R. (1985). Paleontology and philosophy: A critique. Journal of the History of Biology, 18(2), 267–287.
Rainger, R. (1991). An agenda for antiquity: Henry Fairfield Osborn and vertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1890–1935. University Alabama Press.
Rainger, R. (1988). Vertebrate paleontology as biology: Henry Fairfield Osborn and the American museum of natural history. In R. Rainger, K. R. Benson, & J. Maienschein (Eds.), The American development of biology (pp. 219–256). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Regal, B. (2002). Henry Fairfield Osborn. Race and the search for the origins of man. Ashgate.
Richards, E. (1910). Euthenics, the science of controllable environment. Whitcomb & Barrows.
Richards, R. J. (1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior. The University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, J. H. (1988). Darwinism and the divine: Protestant intellectuals and organic evolution, 1859–1900. University of Wisconsin Press.
Rosen, C. (2004). Preaching eugenics. Religious leaders and the American eugenics movement. Oxford University Press.
Ruse, M. (2005). The evolution-creation struggle. Harvard University Press.
Ruse, M. (2019). Evolution and the naturalistic fallacy. In N. Sinclair (Ed.), The naturalistic fallacy (pp. 96–116). Cambridge University Press.
Russett, C. E. (1976). Darwin in America: The intellectual response, 1865–1912. W. H. Freeman.
Schneider, H. W. (1946). A history of American philosophy. Columbia University Press.
Scott, W. B. (1939). Some memories of a paleontologist. Princeton University Press.
Sharlin, H. I. (1976). Herbert Spencer and scientism. Annals of Science, 33(5), 457–465.
Sidgwick, H. (1902). Lectures on the ethics of T.H. Green, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and J. Martineau. Macmillan and Co.
Spencer, H. (1878). Principles of ethics, II. Liberty Classics.
Spencer, H. (1879). Data of ethics. Williams and Norgate.
Spiro, J. P. (2009). Defending the master race: Conservation, eugenics, and the legacy of Madison Grant. UPNE.
Stack, D. A. (2000). The first Darwinian left: Radical and socialist responses to Darwin, 1859–1914. History of Political Thought, XXI(4), 682–710.
Strother, F. (1909). Three days with John Muir. The World’s Work. A History of Our Time, 17, 11355–11358.
Teehan, J. (2002). Evolution and ethics: The Huxley/Dewey exchange. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 16(3), 225–228.
Teller, J. D. (1943). Huxley’s “evil” influence. The Scientific Monthly, 56(2), 173–178.
Webb, G. E. (1994). The evolution controversy in America. University Press of Kentucky.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Professor Massimo Stanzione for the early feedback on this paper. Remarks and comments from the reviewers were especially stimulating. I am also grateful to James Tierney (Yale University) and Max Gueli for their their careful proofreading.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ceccarelli, D. Theistic evolution and evolutionary ethics: Henry Fairfield Osborn and Huxley’s legacy. HPLS 43, 114 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-021-00467-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-021-00467-7