Darwin, Paley, and Natural Theology

Scholar-theologian-bishop William Paley (1743–1802) was already a frequent tenant on the best-seller list when he published his Natural Theology in 1802, three years before his death. The book, which starts with the famous watch argument (“ … suppose I had found a watch upon the ground … when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive … that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose…”, p.1), remained on the best-seller lists for decades, albeit with modifications. Evidences of Christianity, another one of Paley’s books (1794), was a required reading in Cambridge, his Alma Mater, into the twentieth century.

Natural Theology is part of a flow of discussions related to science and religion that accelerated after the scientific revolution. In many respects, Paley follows the path of Isaac Newton’s own natural theology and claims that the scientific study of nature only strenghtens the belief that nature points to an Intelligent Being. Furthermore, when Paley wrote, David Hume’s Dialogues concerning Natural Religion had only recently been published (1779). The basic point of Paley was that science and religion go hand in hand and that the study of the “Book of Nature” only reveals an intelligent and good Creator, hence the full title Natural Theology or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearance of nature.

Since Darwin went to Cambridge, he had to read Paley. The irony is that not only did Darwin read Paley, but he also lived in his former room in Christ’s College. This would be interesting trivia material, except that this is not where the parallels stop and it shows that you just can’t read Darwin without locating him in his century. Well, you can, but you shouldn’t.

Darwin read Paley and had mixed comments about his works, though he did recognize the convincing character of his cumulative argumentation.

Darwin may not have troubled himself with Paley’s premises, but their works do evidence points of contact.

Parallels between Paley and Darwin

Let me just give a couple of examples of how interesting reading Paley is when you deal with Natural Theology and Darwin.

Beneficial Teleology

Both Paley and Darwin see the world as beneficial for species, especially humans. Things don’t just happen, a beneficial result and goal is the engine that drives them.

According to Paley “in a vast plurality of instances in which contrivance is perceived, the design of the contrivance is beneficial” (237) so that, echoing Leibniz, he can say that “It’s a happy world after all.” (238). In other words, the way the world is made and designed is beneficial, even if evil exists.

Similarly, according to Darwin, evolution is beneficial for the surviving species.

Earlier on, Darwin had recognized that in the Origin of Species his theory was influenced by a teleogical vision of the world.

But, as is apparent from his autobiography, he never totally shed off his teleology. This, of course, is a major philosophical issue and problem and has been recognized as such (1).

More Good than Evil

Related to this issue is the idea that there is more good than evil in the world. This idea predated Paley of course, but is defended by both Paley and Darwin.

Similarly, for Darwin

Should this not be the case, in Darwin’s eyes, it would be a major problem since evolution would not function as it is supposed to. This is obvious from the context of the previous sentence.

Debates about Evolution

Students of evolution know full well that Darwin was not the first one to deal with the evolution of species. What is interesting is that Paley already tried to refute morphological evolution. He used the arguments of the hunch of the camel, the pouch of the pelikan, ligament, valves, etc. (NT, 225–229).

Reading Malthus

It is well-know that the key that allowed Darwin to put his observations into a coherent theory was his reading of Malthus’s Essay on the Principle of Population (as was the case for Wallace). One of Malthus’s key point was that God created the world and humankind in such a fashion that poverty and hunger would lead to a less savage place, a better and more moral world. That is, at heart, Malthus’s theory is a defense of God's goodness despite the presense of suffering by using the perspective of the end result, it is basically a teleological theodicy.

Darwin narrates the effect reading Malthus had for his theory.

Interestingly, Paley, which Darwin had read, also positively refers to Malthus’s theory (thought Paley read Malthus’s first edition, which differs in some respects from the following editions that Darwin read).

That he refers to Malthus is clear from his footnote “See this subject in a late treatise upon population.”

Other similarities between Darwin and Paley include the extensive use of analogies and metaphors, a cumulatively built argument, etc.

Of course, there is a difference. Paley wrote his Natural Theology at the end of his life. When Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he was still basically convinced that Nature evidenced the design of a Creator, as is clear form the last two pages of the Origin of Species and other remarks sprinkled through it. But by the end of his life, Darwin was not so sure anymore, even if he never considered himself an atheist.

These parallels do not mean dependence or plagiarism, but they do place Darwin in a line of debates and in a cultural and historical setting. All in all, these comments show that Darwin’s explanation was not just a scientific philosophically neutral theory. It was, as in oftentimes the case in science, a combination of scientific observations enmeshed with and articulated on a philosophical-religious stance, in Darwin’s case the idea of progress through the struggle occasioned by the scarcity of ressources (Malthus’s theory). It was influenced by a vision of the world and of the problem of evil and an attempt to explain it. In other words, Darwin’s theory is also a philosophical stance on the place of man in the world and on epistemology, of what can and cannot be known, of man’s origin and … future.

Note and Bibliography

(1) See Ernst Cassirer, “Darwinism as a Dogma and as a Principle of Knowledge.” Pages 160–75 in The Problem of Knowledge: Philosophy, Science, and History since Hegel. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950; Robert J. Richards, “Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose.” Pages 47–66 in The Cambridge Companion to the “Origin of Species” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

The texts used are

• Autobiography: Charles Darwin and Nora Barlow. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: with Original Omissions Restored. New York: Norton, 1993.
• DM: Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin, 2004.
• NT: William Paley, Natural Theology or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearance of nature. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
• OE: Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Species in the Struggle for Life. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin Books, 1968.