In the title chapter of Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards?, Sober argues for an asymmetry between facts about genealogy and facts about natural selection, which has the result that evidentially (but not causally) Darwin's book is the wrong way round. Here I make three points about Sober's argument in that chapter. First, it is not clear that Darwin employs what Sober calls 'tree thinking' as frequently as Sober himself suggests. Second, I argue that Darwin's reason for structuring the Origin as he did can be understood if we think of the Origin's argument as an inference to the best explanation. Third, I show circumstances where, even if selection is the only important evolutionary force, we would still be able to infer common ancestry.
KeywordsDarwin Inference to the best explanation Natural selection Sober
For valuable discussion of these ideas I am grateful to Elliott Sober, Samir Okasha, Jean Gayon, Jim Moore, Greg Radick and Jon Hodge. This work has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC Grant agreement no 284123.
- Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s black box. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Bowler, P. (1983). The eclipse of Darwinism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
- Darwin, C. (1988). Charles Darwin’s Beagle diary (R. Keynes, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewens, T. (2007). Darwin. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1998). Six sayings about adaptationism. In D. Hull & M. Ruse (Eds.), Philosophy of biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Waters, K. (2003). The arguments in the Origin of species. In J. Hodge & G. Radick (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar