We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 June 2010
The doctrine of emergent evolutionism has been before the philosophical world for over fifty years, but there are several reasons why another look at it may be opportune. In the first place, the concept of emergence has been analysed with considerable precision during recent decades so that its meaning is more evident now than when it was first introduced. Secondly, new versions of evolutionary theory have made their appearance in this period, and the extent to which they support or undermine the notion of emergence needs to be investigated. Thirdly, the semi-popular writings of Teilhard de Chardin have shown how much vitality evolutionary ideas have in the present intellectual climate. Yet these writings also show how much confusion will be engendered if the treatment is not philosophically adequate, and especially if it fails to grapple with the concept of emergence. Hence it may be useful to look afresh at this whole subject.
1 Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, Reprint of the 6th edition in The World's Classics. (London, 1951), p. 98Google Scholar.
2 J. B. S. Haldane, “Science and Ethics,” Conway Memorial Lecture, 1928. Reprinted in The Inequality of Man, (London, 1932), p. 113.
3 Whitehead, A. N., The Concept of Nature, (Cambridge, Eng., 1920), p. 178Google Scholar.
4 See Bunge, M., “Levels: A Semantic Preliminary,” The Review of Meta-physics, Vol. XIII, 03, 1960, pp. 396–406. For a discussion of “level” as a methodological notion, seeGoogle ScholarBeckner, M., The Biological Way of Thought (New York, 1959), pp. 44–45; and for an ontological discussion of the notion, seeGoogle ScholarHartmann, N., Neue Wege der Ontologie, 3rd ed., (Stuttgart, 1949), ch. vGoogle Scholar.
5 Morgan, C. Lloyd, Emergent Evolution, (London, 1923), p. 15ffGoogle Scholar.
6 Oppenheim, P. and Putnam, H., “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, edited by Feigl, H., Scriven, M. and Maxwell, G.. (Minneapolis, 1958), p. 9Google Scholar.
7 Wheeler, W. M., Emergent Evolution and the Development of Societies, (New York, 1938), p. 20Google Scholar.
8 Pepper, S. C., “Emergence,” Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XXIII, 1926, pp. 241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Lovejoy, A. O., “The Meanings of ‘Emergence’ and its Modes,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Philosophy, (London, 1927), p. 30Google Scholar.
10 Bunge, M., Causality (Cambridge, Mass. 1959), p. 211Google Scholar.
11 N. Hartmann, Op. cit., p. 56.
12 Nagel, See E., The Structure of Science, (New York, 1961), p. 366ffGoogle Scholar.
13 Pap, A., “The Concept of Absolute Emergence,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, 1951, p. 304. For a related discussion, seeGoogle ScholarHenle, P., “The Status of Emergence,” Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XXXIX, 1942, 486–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 To this contention a Darwinian would object that apart from the mutations which presumably marked the beginning of the evolution of various kinds of photo-receptors, such items as retinal cones, processes of colour vision, etc., appeared gradually over long stretches of time under the pressure of natural selection. The vertebrate eye, for instance, did not suddenly “emerge” as a novelty with all its characteristics fully developed. See the discussion by Simpson, G. G. in The Meaning of Evolution, (New Haven, 1949), p. I74ff. A more detailed account is given inGoogle ScholarWalls, G. L., The Vertebrate Eye and Adaptive Radiation, (Bloomfield Hills, Mich., 1942)Google Scholar.
15 See Broad, C. D., The Mind and Its Place in Nature, (London, 1925), pp. 77–81; and M. Bunge, Causality, p. 211 ffGoogle Scholar.
16 What happened during these phases of rapid change has been called “quantum evolution” by Simpson, G. G. in his Tempo and Mode in Evolution, (New York, 1944)Google Scholar.
17 Schindewolf, O. H., Grundfragen der Palaeontologie, Stuttgart, 1950). seeGoogle ScholarHooykaas, R., The Principle of Uniformity in Geology, Biology and Theology, (Leiden, 1963), p. 123ffGoogle Scholar.
18 Goldschmidt, R., The Material Basis of Evolution, (New Haven, 1940). Goldschmidt also speaks of systemic mutationsGoogle Scholar.
19 Morgan, C. Lloyd, Op. cit., p. 37, and Life, Mind and Spirit, (London, 1926), p. 125Google Scholar.
20 de Chardin, P. Teilhard, The Phenomenon of Man, (New York, 1959), pp. 73–86, and passim.Google Scholar
