Lions and Dinos and Science. Oh, My! (Part 4 - Pre-Darwinian Evolution and Conclusion)

Much like dinosaurs, our knowledge of evolution was not the result of a simple ‘Eureka!’ moment. The knowledge that informs our modern understanding of evolution was built upon for years, with numerous theories attempting to explain the observations made in the field. Some relied upon divine creation while others sought more secular interpretations. For decades, European naturalists sought to reconcile biblical interpretations with physical evidence, to quote one of my favorite books 'Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory,' written by Edward J. Larson: “To account for so many extinct species, as early as 1796 (Georges) Cuvier announced “the existence of a world previous to ours, destroyed by some kind of catastrophe.”” (Larson, pg 7)

Prior to Cuvier, European naturalists believed species were created perfect by god and as such never went extinct due to a literalist interpretation of Genesis. This view was reinforced by Aristotle’s animal architypes, which held that species were fixed and eternal.

Georges-Louis Leclerc’s “Natural History” treatise suggested limited evolution from as few as 38 (Larson, pg 14) common ancestral types that changed based upon their local climate, as well as spontaneous generation. Cuvier rejected evolution due to irreducible complexity (his concept of “correlation of parts”). He instead advocated catastrophism, the idea that the geologic history of the Earth consists of a series of epochs punctuated by extinction inducing disasters that allow the repopulation of the land via natural or divine means.

The discovery of dinosaurs led Mantell and Buckland to increasingly abandon Cuvier’s version of catastrophism in favor of biological progression of species over time. Mantell theorized an age of fish, followed by an age of lizards, finally followed by an age of mammals. Buckland, a devout Christian, instead envisioned a god creating a new set of animals, each perfectly designed for its age, eventually leading to the creation of man in said god’s image at the start of the current age.

In fairness to Buckland, his views were considered progressive for the time and subjected him to severe criticisms from the conservative biblical literalists around the country who took issue with his liberal interpretation of the Genesis account, which allowed for time gaps for geological epochs and diminished the role of the biblical flood.

Progressive succession of species with multiple divine creations between catastrophically-ended epochs would remain the prevailing thought for decades, overshadowing pre-Darwinian evolutionists, particularly the adherents of a branch of evolution called Lamarckism.

Despite being discredited by Cuvier shortly after its proposal in 1802, Lamarckism experienced a bit of a revival in the 1820s and 1830s due to the large amount of new fossils being found, though it largely remained a fringe theory. Lamarckism was the first complete theory of organic evolution and held that new species were constantly being spontaneously generated while existing species were constantly being driven towards increased specialization through the activity of the animals themselves. For example, the Lamarckian explanation of why giraffes evolved long necks would be due to generations of giraffes stretching their necks to reach higher leaves resulting in their offspring having successively longer necks in each generation.

The dominance of catastrophism as the prevailing theory of natural history would be upended when Charles Lyell presented his updated version of James Hutton’s theory of uniformitarian geology, which disputed the idea that the Earth was periodically beset by great disasters as catastrophism held. Instead, Uniformitarianism, posited that the world was constantly experiencing slow changing by forces that continue to govern the Earth to this day and that the dominant species were dependent upon the environmental conditions at the time.

Lyell was staunchly opposed to Cuvier’s use of unobserved catastrophes to explain the pattern of species in the fossil record. As far as Lyell was concerned, Cuvier could have just stated that miracles separated each and given the lack of empirical evidence, it would have been just as valid an assertion (Larson pg 51). Lyell was a methodological naturalist believing that science should concern itself with natural, instead of supernatural, explanations for the natural world. Anything else should be left to the social sciences, philosophy, and theology. In the 1830s, the term ‘scientist’ would arise to distinguish the adherents of methodological naturalism from other scholars (Larson pg 51).

Ironically, Lyell, initially a firm opponent of the idea that the fossil record showed progress among species, had unwittingly helped to lay the groundwork for Darwinian evolution by supplying the longer period of time necessary for gradual changes in species over time to accumulate into evolutionary progress. He would eventually come to accept Darwin’s theory and continued to push for science to focus on explaining natural phenomena via materialistic evidence.

Science, regardless of the field, is utilized to give us the best understanding of a subject possible with the current knowledge of the time. The trap that many fall into is thinking that science is simply a body of knowledge. Science is a method, a tool through which we can view the world more accurately and consistently than by any other means. Science doesn’t necessarily give us perfect answers, it simply gives us the best answers based upon the evidence available at the time. While a bad preservation of a lion or the completely inaccurate early reconstructions of dinosaurs or the, at times, fantastic early theories of the history of the Earth may give us a bit of a chuckle today due to how far off they are (I know the lion certainly still puts a smile on my face), there’s more to appreciate and learn from them than just the initial goofiness.

They serve as reminders that knowledge builds upon itself, accurate information generally leads to more accurate information while inaccurate information tends to lead to further inaccuracies until it is discovered and replaced.

Though I’d say it’s best not to let all laughably inaccurate information be completely discarded from our collective consciousness, they can stand as a testament to the fact that we rarely simply arrive at the correct answer without struggle. Often times we learn more through our mistakes than our successes and learning the reasons why we believed in falsities not only allows us to dissect and understand the thoughts that lead our predecessors astray but can inform us of how to better seek out and correct our own misconceptions today that may look just as silly to those that follow as that smiling lion from Sweden. Thank you for reading, if you enjoyed this blog, please feel free to follow for more. I hope you have a wonderful day my friends.

References (All images courtesy of Wikimedia)