Stephen Jay Gould describes evolution as a collection of changes caused by a variety of variables, rather than as positive progress, and argues that we should be wary of the fallacy of interpreting progress as progress alone when applying it to social evolution. Richard Dawkinson, on the other hand, emphasizes that the accumulation of traits at the micro-level of evolution leads to positive progress, and the differences between these perspectives demonstrate that social evolution requires multiple perspectives.

Introduction

‘Evolution is not progress’. This is how Stephen Jay Gould summarizes the argument in his book Full House. He argues that evolution is not a positive step forward, but rather a collection of differences caused by a variety of variables. Many laypeople, as well as evolutionists, have the misconception that evolution is a phenomenon that always leads to progress and higher traits and body structures, but Gould explains that only a small fraction of the many changes that occur lead to positive progress. He cites the fallacy of generalizing average trait changes across species and lineages to the trait changes of all individuals in a population as a reason for this misconception.
While reading the book, I found the author’s arguments to be well-reasoned, with clear evidence for each possible rebuttal, but after reviewing the most common rebuttals from other evolutionists and scientists, I found Dawkinson’s analysis to be the most logical and valid, and in this article, I’ll explain why.

The main argument

According to the author’s argument, evolution is not a positive progression, but rather an accumulation of changes caused by many variables. Many evolutionists counter with the premise that evolution is inherently a positive process. Richard Dawkinson, a leading evolutionary thinker, agrees with the author’s assertion for different species and lineages, but argues that for the same species and lineages, the accumulation of traits acquired as the organism adapts to its environment is a positive progression.
The rebuttal of Dawkins and other evolutionists stems from a difference in how they view the evolutionary process. Paradoxically, both the author and Dawkins have valid points about the evolutionary process. The difference is that the author interprets evolution from a macroscopic perspective, looking at it as a phenomenon that occurs within the larger population of all life on Earth, while Dawkins adds evolution at the species and lineage level.
When we think of evolution at the level of whole organisms, we see that bacteria and protozoa currently comprise the overwhelming majority of the biomass and population of all living things, with humans and primates making up a very small percentage. This supports the authors’ argument that the emergence of higher life forms is not an inevitable progression from a macro perspective of the evolution of life as a whole. However, at the species and phylum level, we can think of evolution as a positive progression, with higher traits acquired through multiple differentiation processes piled on top of other higher traits already present.
We believe that Dawkins’ argument is more plausible in explaining the evolutionary process. While Dawkins’s explanation may seem biased in favor of life forms that can be observed with the naked eye, human evolution has always been about adding higher traits to higher traits. For example, physical features or tool use abilities that early humans did not possess have been added and enhanced over tens of thousands of years of natural selection and environmental changes. From this, I generally agree with the author’s argument, but I think Dawkinson’s explanation of evolution as the accumulation of traits at the species and lineage level is more plausible and explains evolution in more detail.
While reading this book, I tried to apply the author’s view of evolution to our society. Of course, the author’s argument in this book is about biological evolution, but social evolutionary theory is an example of applying biological evolutionary theory to society, so I tried to apply the author’s perspective to our society.
Most evolutionists agree that evolution is a positive progression, a phenomenon caused by the accumulation of higher traits. If we apply this to society, the phenomena that occur in each field of society accumulate and lead to the development and progress of each field, leading to the development of the whole society. However, if we apply the author’s argument to society, the phenomena that occur in each field of society are merely changes caused by variables such as the interaction of social members, and only some of the many changes lead to positive progress and development.
Regarding the application of biological evolution to society, the author states that “the father of evolutionary theory recognized that changes in living things are guided by increasing adaptability between the organism and its environment, not by an abstract idea of progress defined by increasing structural complexity or heterogeneity, so he insists strenuously that he would never speak of a higher or lower level,” and argues that the idea of evolution as positive progress is incorrectly applied to society. “This error of equating biological evolution with progress continues to have unfortunate consequences. Historically, it has led to the abuse of social Darwinism,” he says, emphasizing his point.
While the author’s argument may seem illogical and unwarranted when applied to society, there are some valid points. For example, in the 1900s, the world went through the upheaval of World War I and World War II, with the latter being fought with much more powerful weapons and tactics than the former, resulting in countless casualties and tragedies. When we apply the conventional evolutionary theory to this phenomenon, a logical contradiction arises. After the experience of World War I, many people would have thought that large-scale wars should not happen. However, some powers, including Germany and Japan, used their economic development to produce munitions and weapons and mobilize their entire populations to prepare for war. This led to World War II, the bloodiest war in human history.
Applying the author’s argument to World War II, this is just one of many changes, and other changes, other than war, cause societies to develop through positive progress. Of course, the war did lead to some advances in defense and healthcare, but the destruction of much of the social infrastructure set society back during this time, and most of the progress was due to other factors.
Conversely, there are quite a few cases where the author’s argument is illogical when applied to society. For example, in the field of medicine, the arguments of traditional evolutionists are more valid and logical. Since the dawn of humanity, medicine has developed to the point where it cures many diseases and saves lives. The development of medicine has been centered on the accumulation of new discoveries and treatments that build on the medical knowledge and techniques already discovered.
The difference in views of how societies develop is similar to the difference in views of evolution between Dawkinson and the author. My interpretation of the development of society and its members as a whole, with events in society being just one of many changes, is similar to his interpretation of evolution as changes in the entire population of living things. Conversely, interpreting the development of specific sectors of society over time is similar to Dawkinson’s interpretation of evolution as microcosmic at the species and phylogenetic level.

Conclusion

Since the advent of evolution, there have been many controversies about the theory itself, and even more about its application to society. Although the author corrects the misconception that evolution is progress and points out the process by which it is applied to society, his argument is flawed because it excludes a micro-level perspective. Dawkinson’s rebuttals, and those of other evolutionists, explain the micro-level of evolution at the level of species and phyla, and the application of evolution to society, making it easier to interpret events that would otherwise be difficult to interpret.
In the end, evolution is not a fixed theory, but a complex process whose interpretation can change depending on the context and perspective. From this, we can see that society is also an accumulation of various changes that cannot be characterized as absolute progress or regression.