life-work3

Darwin sought a naturalistic explanation for all that he saw, or thought he saw, in the natural world.
He wanted to construct a biology � and therefore a philosophical world view � without a Great
Maker. As he remarks on many occasions though the book, he was fairly disgusted by much of
what he saw of both human and some animal behaviour. Does this show a growing desire in him to
find an explanation for the ugliness, dirt, struggle and death which did not invoke a Creator, or at
least a benevolent one? Darwin had taken a degree in theology and was possibly lined up for the
Anglican priesthood: in any event it was barely acceptable in Darwin's time to come straight out
and speculate openly that there was no need to invoke a cosmic intelligent creator, i.e. God, so
perhaps he was writing as near to the mark as he thought he could get away with. It is a great pity
that his reasoning at points like this was so tortuous (and no doubt using coded language to avoid
the charge of atheism) that it is difficult to pin him down, and to agree with or criticise the points he
is really trying to make.

Writing about a poisonous snake, Trigonocephalus crepitans, Darwin remarks that it appeared to
be intermediate between a rattlesnake and 'the viper'. (rattlesnakes are, of course, vipers so
presumably he must have meant some other particular viper which is not here named). He went on
to say, 'I observed a fact, which appears to me very curious and instructive, as showing how every
character, even though it may be in some degree independent of structure, has a tendency to vary
by slow degrees. The extremity of the tail of this snake is terminated by a point, which is very
slightly enlarged; and as the animal glides along, it constantly vibrates the last inch; and this part
striking against the dry grass and brushwood produces a rattling noise, which can be distinctly
heard at the distance of six feet�.The Trigonocephalus has therefore in some respects the
structure of a viper, with the habits of a rattlesnake; the noise however being produced by a simpler
device.' Here we see, perhaps, the beginnings of Darwin's idea that it was possible for one animal
to change into another by numerous slow changes over aeons, and is typical of the reasoning he
would use in his Origin to justify gigantic leaps from simple observations of relatively small
variations. He would use speculative conclusions, wholly unsupported by evidence, and present
them as indisputable fact. It seems that during The Beagle's voyage Darwin was building up those
�straw men� of creation which he would so energetically demolish later in The Origin of Species.
�S.H.