Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us

Randomness Week


Charles Darwin. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

True Darwinism Is All About Chance

• August 29, 2014 • 10:00 AM

Charles Darwin. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Though the rich sometimes forget, Darwin knew that nature frequently rolls the dice.

Chance is an uncomfortable thing. So Curtis Johnson argues in Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin, and he makes a compelling case. The central controversy, and the central innovation, in Darwin’s work is not the theory of natural selection itself, according to Johnson, but Darwin’s more basic, and more innovative, turn to randomness as a way to explain natural phenomena. This application of randomness was so controversial, Johnson argues, that Darwin tried to cover it up, replacing words like “accident” and “chance” with terms like “spontaneous variation” in later editions of his work. Nonetheless, the terminological shift was cosmetic: Randomness remained, and still remains, the disturbing center of Darwin’s theories.

Johnson, a political theorist at Lewis & Clark College, explains that there are two basic kinds of chance in Darwin’s thought. The first—most familiar and least disconcerting—is chance as probability. According to the theory of natural selection, individuals with advantageous adaptations are most likely to survive. A giraffe with a longer neck has a better shot of reaching those lofty leaves and living to munch another day; a polar bear blessed with a warmer coat has a higher probability of surviving a frigid winter than one with less hair. The long-necked giraffe may not always win—it may, for example, be pulverized by a meteor before it can pass on its long-necked genes. But over time, the odds will go its way. There is randomness here, but it is controlled and predictable: It works in accordance with a rule. Natural selection makes sense.

Darwin can be used to tell the rich that they amassed their wealth by being the fittest, perhaps, but he can also be used to point out to the rich that they really could just as easily have been someone else. The person you’re stepping on—it’s only the roll of a dice that that person isn’t you.

The second kind of chance in Darwin’s work, though, is more mysterious. For natural selection to work, you need to have a range of traits to select among. That range is provided by individual variation, the fact that two different animals (whether giraffe or bear) are different from each other. Some giraffes have longer necks than others. Some bears have thicker fur than others. Why should this be? Darwin’s answer was chance.

Sometimes, Johnson writes, Darwin would argue that “chance” stood in for unknown laws—consistent rules which were not yet known, but which, when discovered, would explain exactly why individuals, both within and across species, were different. But “in his more private and less guarded moments,” Johnson explains, Darwin suggested that “the cause of at least some variations is unknowable, even in principle.” And, in fact, as Johnson suggests, this second interpretation—that the cause of variation is unknowable—has only become more persuasive over time. “The mechanisms of variation are better understood than ever,” Johnson writes, “but the ability to predict what variations will occur and what will not is not much better off than when Darwin wrote.” As biologist and feminist theorist Julia Serano argues in her recent book Excluded, we can’t currently predict whether someone will be homosexual or heterosexual, cis or trans, based on their genetic code, and there’s no reason to think we ever will be able to do so.

Thinkers in Darwin’s day had largely made their peace with Newton, and were therefore able to see God’s hand behind the operation of natural laws. But for Darwin, variation did not conform to laws. Instead, God appeared to be playing dice with creation—and as Einstein would later suggest, a dice-playing God begins to look like not a God at all. For Darwin, in particular, the fact that variations were as likely to be negative as positive created serious problems for his faith. As Johnson writes:

Some creatures are born so ill-adapted that they do not really have any chance at all to survive or at least to propagate. That did not seem to Darwin to reflect intelligence…. How could a good God plan a world destined to be filled with so much senseless death and evidence misery?

Attributing variation to chance leads inevitably to a particularly sticky version of the theodicy problem. If God is all powerful, how can he roll the dice with each infant, doling out disadvantages and, at worst, crippling, painful, terminal birth defects? Darwin had no answer, which is why he appears to have lost his faith in God, and why he hid his commitment to chance from his theistic colleagues and the public. Eventually, Johnson suggests, Darwin quietly adopted a full-blown materialist determinism, in which natural forces governed all aspects of life. Since unknown laws of chance were responsible for individual character and appetites, Darwin thought, there was no space left for free will.

Johnson does not take the story of Darwin and chance beyond the naturalist’s own lifetime. It seems clear, though, that even our more secular age is uncomfortable with this aspect of Darwin’s thought. Natural selection became popularized through Social Darwinism and eugenics, and still resonates in discussions around meritocracy. The argument that those who succeed are the most fit to succeed has a reassuring teleology; CEOs, venture capitalists, politicians, or, for that matter, freelance writers, can look to Darwin to assure themselves they have succeeded not by chance, but by skill and/or virtue.

Similarly, pop evolutionary psychology retails stories in the same vein, about how men are from Mars and women are from the savannah. They explain social interactions in terms of an all-purpose predictive rubric, one which rationalizes everything—from attitudes toward short skirts to the Oscars—in terms of mating probabilities. Darwin himself recognized that not all variations were necessarily beneficial—that some traits or behaviors might have no grand effect on survival, or might even be harmful but not harmful enough to be selected against. But in pop culture, the shadow of meaninglessness is dispersed, and, in some way, Darwin’s theories are used to make what could otherwise be seen as random seem predictable and meaningful.

Johnson’s book challenges us, at least implicitly, to rethink these comforting Darwinisms. In particular, acknowledging chance seems like it could be a way to think about the arbitrariness of success and power. Meritocracy is false for a lot of reasons, but Johnson’s Darwin points to a very basic flaw—namely, that individuals are not responsible for their own merits, whatever those merits may be. Whatever skills or talents or character traits you have, whatever self you were born with, is the product of random variation. Darwin can be used to tell the rich that they amassed their wealth by being the fittest, perhaps, but he can also be used to point out to the rich that they really could just as easily have been someone else. The person you’re stepping on—it’s only the roll of a dice that that person isn’t you.

Beyond that, chance opens materialism to something, or somewhere, else. Darwin rejected miracles adamantly, but surely if the creation of each individual is radically unpredictable, then each individual is (as Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons argue in Watchmen) a miracle in him-, her-, or zir-self. Natural selection is often used to argue that the individual is defined by the struggle for survival. But random variation seems to suggest instead that people (and not just people) are too random to be predicted or defined. We can’t predict why, or how, a new baby will vary from everyone before or since. Life after Darwin is still, and in some ways more than ever, a mystery. For Darwin, chance meant determinism, but it seems like it could just as easily mean possibility.

Noah Berlatsky

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

October 30 • 10:00 AM

Sky’s the Limit: The Case for Selling Air Rights

Lower taxes and debt, increased revenue for the city, and a much better use of space in already dense environments: Selling air rights and encouraging upward growth seem like no-brainers, but NIMBY resistance and philosophical barriers remain.

October 30 • 9:00 AM

Cycles of Fear and Bias in the Criminal Justice System

Exploring the psychological roots of racial disparity in U.S. prisons.

October 30 • 8:00 AM

How Do You Make a Living, Email Newsletter Writer?

Noah Davis talks to Wait But Why writer Tim Urban about the newsletter concept, the research process, and escaping “money-flushing toilet” status.

October 30 • 6:00 AM

Dreamers of the Carbon-Free Dream

Can California go full-renewable?

October 30 • 5:08 AM

We’re Not So Great at Rejecting Each Other

And it’s probably something we should work on.

October 30 • 4:00 AM

He’s Definitely a Liberal—Just Check Out His Brain Scan

New research finds political ideology can be easily determined by examining how one’s brain reacts to disgusting images.

October 29 • 4:00 PM

Should We Prosecute Climate Change Protesters Who Break the Law?

A conversation with Bristol County, Massachusetts, District Attorney Sam Sutter, who dropped steep charges against two climate change protesters.

October 29 • 2:23 PM

Innovation Geography: The Beginning of the End for Silicon Valley

Will a lack of affordable housing hinder the growth of creative start-ups?

October 29 • 2:00 PM

Trapped in the Tobacco Debt Trap

A refinance of Niagara County, New York’s tobacco bonds was good news—but for investors, not taxpayers.

October 29 • 12:00 PM

Purity and Self-Mutilation in Thailand

During the nine-day Phuket Vegetarian Festival, a group of chosen ones known as the mah song torture themselves in order to redirect bad luck and misfortune away from their communities and ensure a year of prosperity.

October 29 • 10:00 AM

Can Proposition 47 Solve California’s Problem With Mass Incarceration?

Reducing penalties for low-level felonies could be the next step in rolling back draconian sentencing laws and addressing the criminal justice system’s long legacy of racism.

October 29 • 9:00 AM

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Brain

Neuroscientists find less—but potentially stronger—white matter in the brains of patients with CFS.

October 29 • 8:00 AM

America’s Bathrooms Are a Total Failure

No matter which American bathroom is crowned in this year’s America’s Best Restroom contest, it will still have a host of terrible flaws.

October 29 • 6:00 AM

Tell Us What You Really Think

In politics, are we always just looking out for No. 1?

October 29 • 4:00 AM

Racial Resentment Drives Tea Party Membership

New research finds a strong link between tea party membership and anti-black feelings.

October 28 • 4:00 PM

The New Health App on Apple’s iOS 8 Is Literally Dangerous

Design isn’t neutral. Design is a picture of inequality, of systems of power, and domination both subtle and not. Apple should know that.

October 28 • 2:00 PM

And You Thought Your Credit Card Debt Was Bad

In Niagara County, New York, leaders took on 40-year debt to pay for short-term stuff, a case study in the perverse incentives tobacco bonds create.

October 28 • 10:00 AM

How Valuable Is It to Cure a Disease?

It depends on the disease—for some, breast cancer and AIDS for example, non-curative therapy that can extend life a little or a lot is considered invaluable. For hepatitis C, it seems that society and the insurance industry have decided that curative therapy simply costs too much.

October 28 • 8:00 AM

Can We Read Our Way Out of Sadness?

How books can help save lives.

October 28 • 6:15 AM

Incumbents, Pray for Rain

Come next Tuesday, rain could push voters toward safer, more predictable candidates.

October 28 • 6:00 AM

Why Women Are Such a Minority in Elected Office

The obvious answers aren’t necessarily the most accurate. Here, five studies help clear up the gender disparity in politics.

Follow us

We’re Not So Great at Rejecting Each Other

And it's probably something we should work on.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Brain

Neuroscientists find less—but potentially stronger—white matter in the brains of patients with CFS.

Incumbents, Pray for Rain

Come next Tuesday, rain could push voters toward safer, more predictable candidates.

Could Economics Benefit From Computer Science Thinking?

Computational complexity could offer new insight into old ideas in biology and, yes, even the dismal science.

Politicians Really Aren’t Better Decision Makers

Politicians took part in a classic choice experiment but failed to do better than the rest of us.

The Big One

One town, Champlain, New York, was the source of nearly half the scams targeting small businesses in the United States last year. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.