Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From Ends to Causes (and Back Again) by Metaphor: The Paradox of Natural Selection

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Natural selection is one of the most famous metaphors in the history of science. Charles Darwin used the metaphor and the underlying analogy to frame his ideas about evolution and its main driving mechanism into a full-fledged theory. Because the metaphor turned out to be such a powerful epistemic tool, Darwin naturally assumed that he could also employ it as an educational tool to inform his contemporaries about his findings. Moreover, by using the metaphor Darwin was able to bring his theory in accordance with both the dominant philosophy of science in his time and the respected tradition of natural theology. However, as he introduced his theory of evolution by natural selection in On the origin of species in 1859, the metaphor also turned out to have a serious downside. Because of its intentional overtones, his contemporaries systematically misunderstood his metaphor not as a natural mechanism causing evolution to occur but as an agent who works towards particular ends. The difference in success between natural selection as an epistemic tool and its failure as an educational tool is labelled as a paradox. We explain the paradox from a cognitive perspective and discuss the implications for teaching evolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For those readers who are unfamiliar with how Darwin’s notebooks are referenced, the letter B refers to notebook B (which is the first of four notebooks on the transmutation of species). The adjoined number refers to the page of the notebook. All notebooks can be consulted online at http://darwin-online.org.uk.

  2. For a cognitive approach to the wedge simile, see De Cruz and De Smedt (2010).

  3. In fact, Paley stood as one of the last in a long line of natural theologians. He relied heavily on the works of his predecessors (e.g., Bernard Nieuwentyt, William Derham, John Ray), copying their arguments and most of their examples.

  4. Interestingly, for these reasons, creationists will accept natural selection but reject common descent (E. M. Evans et al. 2010).

References

  • Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56(10), 1891–1901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. J. (2009). Darwin and the scientific method. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(Supplement 1), 10033–10039. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901404106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blancke, S., & De Smedt, J. (2013). Evolved to be irrational? Evolutionary and cognitive foundations of pseudosciences. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), The philosophy of pseudoscience (pp. 361–379). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, P., & Weisberg, D. S. (2007). Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science, 316(5827), 996–997. doi:10.1126/science.1133398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, P. J. (2009). Darwin’s originality. Science, 323(5911), 223–226. doi:10.1126/science.1160332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, P., & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Domain specificity and intuitive ontology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 96–118). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. L. (2003). Making truth: Metaphor in science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, J. (2002). Charles Darwin. The power of place (Vol. 2). London: Pimlico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1984). Attitudes toward history (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. A. (1986). Scientific revolution and the grammar of culture: The case of Darwin’s Origin. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72(4), 351–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. A. (2003). Why was Darwin believed? Darwin’s origin and the problem of intellectual revolution. Configurations, 11(2), 203–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2008). Developmental continuity in teleo-functional explanation: Reasoning about nature among Romanian Romani adults. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9(3), 340–362. doi:10.1080/15248370802248556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coley, J. D., & Muratore, T. M. (2012). Tree, fish, and other fictions. Folk biological thought and its implications for understanding evolutionary biology. In S. K. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges. Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 22–46). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1837–1838). Notebook B [transmutation of species] http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR121.-&pageseq=1.

  • Darwin, C. (1838a). Notebook C [transmutation of species]: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR122.-&pageseq=1.

  • Darwin, C. (1838b). Notebook D [transmutation of species]: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR123.-&pageseq=1.

  • Darwin, C. (1838–1839). Notebook E [transmutation of species]: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR124.-&pageseq=1.

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1861). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (3rd ed.). London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1958). The autobiography of Charles Darwin and selected letters. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C., & Wallace, A. R. (1858). On the tendency of species to form varieties, and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 3, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on earth. The evidence for evolution. London: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cruz, H., Boudry, M., De Smedt, J., & Blancke, S. (2011). Evolutionary approaches to epistemic justification. Dialectica, 65(4), 517–535. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.2011.01283.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cruz, H., & De Smedt, J. (2010). Science as structured imagination. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depew, D. J. (2009). The rhetoric of the Origin of species. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the “Origin of species” (pp. 237–255). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesendruck, G., & Haber, L. (2009). God’s categories: The effect of religiosity on children’s teleological and essentialist beliefs about categories. Cognition, 110(1), 100–114. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, L. T. (1984). Darwin’s use of the analogy between artificial and natural selection. Journal of the History of Biology, 17(1), 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42(3), 217–266. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S., Lane, J. D., & Price, K. L. S. (2012). Encountering counterintuitive ideas. Constructing developmental learning progression for evolution understanding. In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges. Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 174–199). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Evans, E. M., Spiegel, A. N., Gram, W., Frazier, B. N., Tare, M., Thompson, S., et al. (2010). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 326–353. doi:10.1002/tea.20337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9), 404–409. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A., & Rhodes, M. (2012). “Two-thousand years of stasis”: How psychological essentialism impedes evolutionary understanding. In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. Brem, M. E. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges. Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 3–21). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • González Galli, L., & Meinardi, E. (2011). The role of teleological thinking in learning the Darwinian model of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(1), 145–152. doi:10.1007/s12052-010-0272-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, T. R. (2009a). Artificial selection and domestication modern lessons from Darwin’s enduring analogy. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(1), 5–27. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0114-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, T. R. (2009b). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(2), 156–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, S. (1971). Darwin, Malthus, and selection. Journal of the History of Biology, 4(1), 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, J. (2009). The notebook programmes and projects of Darwin’s London years. In J. Hodge & G. Radick (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Darwin (2nd ed., pp. 44–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, M. J. S., & Kohn, D. (1985). The immediate origins of natural selection. In D. Kohn (Ed.), The Darwinian heritage (pp. 185–206). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (2009). Darwin’s science and Victorian philosophy of science. In J. Hodge & G. Radick (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Darwin (2nd ed., pp. 173–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2007). Students’ preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Science & Education, 16(3–5), 393–422. doi:10.1007/s11191-006-9019-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: A basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340. doi:10.1007/s11191-008-9171-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. (1999a). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70(3), 241–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. (1999b). Why are rocks pointy? Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1440–1452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. (2003). British and American children’s preferences for teleo-functional explanations of the natural world. Cognition, 88(2), 201–221. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00024-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. (2012). Teleological minds. How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In K. S. Rosengren, & E. M. Evans (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolutionary theory (pp. 66–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kelemen, D., & Di Yanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6(1), 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111(1), 138–143. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, D. (1989). Darwin’s ambiguity: The secularization of biological meaning. British Journal for the History of Science, 22(73), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1979). Metaphor in science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 409–419). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Largent, M. A. (2009). Darwin’s analogy between artificial and natural selection in the Origin of species. In M. Ruse, & R. J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the “Origin of species” (pp. 14–29). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Legare, C. H., Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S., & Harris, P. L. (2012). The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development. Child Development, 83(3), 779–793. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legare, C. H., Lane, J. D., & Evans, E. M. (2013). Anthropomorphizing science: How does it affect the development of evolutionary concepts? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 59(2), 168–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombrozo, T., Kelemen, D., & Zaitchik, D. (2007). Inferring design—evidence of a preference for teleological explanations in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Psychological Science, 18(11), 999–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCalla, A. (2006). The creationist debate. The encounter between the bible and the historical world. London: T & T Clark International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millman, A. B., & Smith, C. L. (1997). Darwin’s use of analogical reasoning in theory construction. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(3), 159–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. (1997). The persuasive Mr. Darwin. BioScience, 47(2), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R., Mitchell, G., Bally, R., Inglis, M., Day, J., & Jacobs, D. (2002). Undergraduates’ understanding of evolution: Ascriptions of agency as a problem for student learning. Journal of Biological Education, 36(2), 65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science & Education, 4(3), 267–285. doi:10.1007/bf00486624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and cosmos. Why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57(3), 263–272. doi:10.1641/b570311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ospovat, D. (1980). God and natural selection: The Darwinian idea of design. Journal of the History of Biology, 13(2), 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ospovat, D. (1981). The development of Darwin’s theory: Natural history, natural theology, and natural selection, 1838–1859. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology: Or, evidence of the existence and attributes of the deity. London.

  • Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (2011). Why machine-information metaphors are bad for science and science education. Science & Education, 20(5–6), 453–471. doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9267-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reif, W. E. (2006). Darwin on picking, sorting, separating, isolating, etc.: The development of his theory of natural selection. Neues Jahrbuch Fur Geologie Und Palaontologie-Abhandlungen, 240(2), 153–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R. J. (2009). Darwin’s theory of natural selection and its moral purpose. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the “Origin of species” (pp. 47–66). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Rosengren, K. S., Brem, S. K., Evans, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2012). Evolution challenges. Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1975). Charles Darwin and artificial selection. Journal of the History of Ideas, 36(2), 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (2003). Darwin and design. Does evolution have a purpose?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 137–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naive and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 170–194. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shtulman, A., & Calabi, P. (2012). Cognitive constraints on the understanding and acceptance of evolution. In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges. Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 47–65). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Shtulman, A., & Schulz, L. (2008). The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1049–1062. doi:10.1080/03640210801897864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Brem, S., & Evans, M. E. (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(2), 189–195. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0037-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 29–56. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture. A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel, A., Evans, E. M., Frazier, B., Hazel, A., Tare, M., & Gram, W., et al. (2012). Changing museum visitors’ conceptions of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(1), 43–61. doi:10.1007/s12052-012-0399-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P., & Findlay, S. (2010). Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to accepting evolution by natural selection. Science & Education, 19(6), 625–636. doi:10.1007/s11191-009-9204-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, A. (2009). Myth, metaphor and science. Chester: Chester Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. M. (1971). Darwin’s metaphor: Does nature select? Monist, 55(3), 442–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Helen De Cruz, Johan De Smedt, Deborah Kelemen, Michael Ruse and seven anonymous reviewers of Science & Education for their helpful suggestions and remarks. The research for this paper was funded by Ghent University (BOF08/24J/041 and BOF13/24J/089).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Unit ‘The Moral Brain’, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 49, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Stefaan Blancke & Johan Braeckman

  2. Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Tammy Schellens, Ronald Soetaert & Hilde Van Keer

Authors
  1. Stefaan Blancke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tammy Schellens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald Soetaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hilde Van Keer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Johan Braeckman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefaan Blancke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blancke, S., Schellens, T., Soetaert, R. et al. From Ends to Causes (and Back Again) by Metaphor: The Paradox of Natural Selection. Sci & Educ 23, 793–808 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9648-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9648-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation