In this blog post, we begin with the question, “Is evolution synonymous with progress?” and examine how Darwin’s theory of evolution has been misused.
Darwin’s theory of evolution invariably appears as the ideological foundation of late 19th-century imperialism. The concept of “survival of the fittest,” as advocated by Darwin, justified the domination of the weak by the strong, or of weaker nations by stronger ones. In particular, this “fittest” was perceived as “better” or “more advanced,” giving rise to concepts such as the Nazis’ “ethnic cleansing.” Is this a misuse of the concept of evolution, or does evolution truly imply progress?
To discuss whether evolution implies progress, we must first examine the concept of progress itself. Dictionary definitions of progress can be summarized simply as “becoming better than before,” but the criteria for this “improvement” become highly ambiguous. In the natural world, there are countless potential criteria for improvement, and establishing a single standard inevitably requires the intervention of human values. Once values are introduced, the discussion moves beyond the realm of science.
However, if we use the term “progress” in a broader sense, we can engage in a meaningful discussion. Specifically, we can redefine progress as “directionality.” Since the evolution of living organisms is occurring, if this evolution has taken place in a consistent direction, we could define it as progress. The teams of Dawkins and Gould are in sharp conflict over the question of whether directionality exists in the evolution of living organisms.
Dawkins’ team argues that all life evolves toward increasing complexity, while Gould’s team counters with the “drunkard model.” In this model, a drunkard staggers along a path with a wall on the left and a ditch on the right; no matter which way the drunkard moves, he is bound to fall into the ditch on the right. Of course, this is not incorrect. However, the process of evolution involves not only the direction in which the drunkard is moving but also the effect of the wall. In other words, if we consider the drunkard’s movement to be a mutation, the wall can be viewed as natural selection. Therefore, in a complete model of evolution that includes the wall (selection), the original direction in which the drunkard was moving (the direction of the mutation) is ultimately irrelevant.
Gould’s team also argues that evolution lacks directionality by citing the concept of mode. They claim that, when viewed in terms of mode, bacteria still dominate as the most common life forms, while highly complex organisms are fewer in number and struggle to survive in extreme environments—thus asserting that evolution has no direction. However, this argument is based on a flawed sample. When discussing whether evolution has a direction, the scope must be limited to the period before and after the evolution in question. In other words, it must be considered conditionally. We must examine whether the organism that underwent evolution exhibited a directional trend before and after that event. In this case, the current modal value of life forms is meaningless. In the evolutionary process that “actually occurred,” a consistent directional trend toward increased complexity can clearly be identified.
In response to this, Gould’s team again cites “degeneration” as an example. That is, there are forms of degeneration in which complexity decreases. This is clearly a very significant counterexample regarding directionality. However, it is insufficient to refute the claim that evolution is directional based on the following two points. First, as mentioned by the Dawkins team, while reversible evolution may occur in microevolution, it is never found in macroevolution. This ultimately implies that, in the grand scheme of things, evolution is directional. Second, when discussing living organisms, a statistical approach is essential. Given the complexity of life and the physical limitations of natural selection in the evolutionary process, there is not a single proposition that holds true 100% of the time. Everything is discussed in terms of probability. After all, doesn’t modern medicine also rely on a statistical approach? Let’s take diffusion as an example.
Individual molecules certainly move in the opposite direction of diffusion. However, this does not make the statement “molecules are spreading out” a false proposition. This is because, ultimately, from a macroscopic perspective, all molecules clearly do spread out, and eventually, they become uniformly distributed throughout the system. Similarly, the fact that a single organism has undergone reverse evolution (or degeneration) cannot be used as grounds to refute this proposition.
As we have seen, it is true that evolution possesses a certain directionality toward increasing complexity. Of course, when we say “true” here, we mean true as a statistical proposition. Since living organisms, due to their complexity, can only be understood statistically, it is safe to say that directionality exists in this debate.
In this way, the debate over evolution and progress extends beyond mere scientific facts into philosophical questions. Humans not only understand themselves as part of nature through scientific facts but also form social and ethical values based on that understanding. Therefore, while remaining vigilant about how interpretations of evolutionary theory may be extended into social and political ideologies, it is important not to distort its original scientific meaning. This is the path to preserving the purity of scientific inquiry while fulfilling our social responsibilities.
