The Idea of Teleology

Author(s): Ernst Mayr

Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1992), pp. 117-135
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709913 .
Accessed: 06/03/2014 15:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Idea of Teleology
ErnstMayr

Background
1. Philosophical

Perhapsno otherideologyhas influenced biologymoreprofoundly

thanteleological thinking.In oneformor another it was theprevailing
worldviewprior to Darwin. (Indeed it is oneofthe relativelyfewworld
viewsseriously consideredbywestern man.)Appropriately, thediscussion
ofteleologyoccupiesconsiderable space(10-14%)inseveral recent philos-
ophiesof biology.'Such a finalistic worldviewhad manyroots.It is
reflectedbythemillenarian beliefsofmanyChristians, bytheenthusiasm
forprogress promoted bytheEnlightenment, bytransformationistevolu-
tionism, and by everybody's hopefora betterfuture. However, sucha
worldviewwasonlyoneofseveralwidely
finalistic adoptedWeltanschau-
ungen.
Grosslysimplifying a farmorecomplexpicture,one can perhaps
distinguish,in theperiodpriorto Darwin,threewaysoflookingat the
world:
1. A recently createdand constantworld.This was theorthodox
Christian dogma,which, however, by1859hadlargely lostitscredibility,
at leastamongphilosophers andscientists.2
2. An eternaland eitherconstantor cyclingworld,exhibiting no
constant direction or goal.Everything in sucha world,as assertedby
Democritus andhisfollowers, is dueto chanceornecessity, withchance
byfarthemoreimportant factor. Thereis no roomforteleology in this
worldview,everything beingdue to chanceor causalmechanisms. It
allowsforchange, butsuchchangeisnotdirectional; itisnotanevolution.
Thisviewgainedsomesupport duringtheScientificRevolution andthe
Enlightenment, butremained verymucha minority viewuntilthenine-
teenthcentury. A ratherpronounced polarizationdevelopedfromthe
seventeenth to thenineteenth centuries, betweenthestrictmechanists,
1
Morton Beckner,The Biological Way of Thought(New York, 1959); Alexander
Rosenberg,TheStructureofBiologicalScience(Cambridge,Mass., 1985); Michael Ruse,
(Berlin,1986).
ofBiology(London, 1973); Rolf Sattler,Biophilosophy
The Philosophy
2 ErnstMayr,The Growth ofBiologicalThought(Cambridge,Mass., 1982).

117

Copyright 1992 by JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, INC.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 ErnstMayr

whoexplained everything purelyin termsofmovements andforcesand

whodeniedanyvalidity whatsoever oftheuse ofteleological language;
and theiropponents-deists, naturaltheologians, and vitalists-who all
believedin teleology to a lesseror greater extent.
3. The thirdviewoftheworldwas thatofa worldoflongduration
(orbeingeternal) butwitha tendency towardimprovement orperfection.
Sucha viewexistedin manyreligions, it was widespread in thebeliefs
ofprimitive people(e.g.,theValhallaoftheold Germans), and it was
represented inChristianity byideasofa millennium orresurrection. Dur-
ingtheriseofdeism,after Revolution
theScientific andduring theeraof
Enlightenment, therewasa widespread beliefin thedevelopment ofever
greater perfectionintheworldthrough theexercise ofGod'slaws.There
was a trustin an intrinsic tendency of Naturetowardprogress or an
ultimate goal.Suchbeliefs weresharedevenbythosewhodidnotbelieve
inthehandofGodbutwhonevertheless believed ina progressive tendency
oftheworldtowardever-greater perfection.3
Although Christianity was its majorsourceof support, teleological
thinking gainedincreasing strengthalsoinphilosophy, from itsbeginning
withtheGreeksandCicerouptotheeighteenth andnineteenth centuries.
The conceptof theScala Naturae,thescale of perfection,4 reflecteda
beliefin upwardor forward progression in thearrangement ofnatural
objects.Fewwerethephilosophers whodidnotexpress a belief inprogress
andimprovement. It alsofitted quitewellwithLamarck's transformation-
isttheory ofevolution, anditisprobably correct tosaythatmostLamarck-
ianswerealsoteleologists. Theconcept ofprogress wasparticularly strong
inthephilosophies ofLeibniz, Herder,their followersandofcourseamong
theFrenchphilosophes oftheEnlightenment.
WhatstruckT. H. Huxley"mostforcibly on his firstperusalof
the Originof Specieswas the conviction thatteleology, as commonly
understood, had received itsdeathblow at Mr. Darwin's hands."5 How-
ever,Huxley'sprophecy did notcometrue.Perhapsthemostpopular
amongtheanti-Darwinian evolutionarytheories wasthatoforthogenesis,6
whichpostulated thatevolutionary trends, evennonadaptive ones,were
due to an intrinsic
drive. Even though the arguments ofthe orthogenesists
wereeffectively refuted by Weismann,7 orthogenesis continued to be
highlypopularnot onlyin Germanybut also in France,8theUnited

ErnstMayr,Towarda NewPhilosophy ofBiology(Cambridge,Mass., 1988),234-36.

4Arthur0. Lovejoy,The GreatChain ofBeing(Cambridge,Mass., 1936).
5 Thomas HenryHuxley,Lay Sermons, Addressesand Reviews(London, 1870), 330.
6 PeterJ.Bowler,TheEclipseofDarwinism (Baltimore,1983),141-81; PeterJ.Bowler,
The Non-DarwinianRevolution(Baltimore,1987).
7 Mayr,Towarda New Philosophy, 499, n. 3.
8 HenriBergson,CreativeEvolution(London, 1911).

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea of Teleology 119

States,9andRussia.10Thereasonwasthateventhough Darwin'sdemon-
stration ofthenon-constancy ofspeciesandofthecommon descent ofall
organisms madetheacceptance ofevolution inevitable,naturalselection,
themechanism proposed byDarwin,wasso unpalatable tohisopponents
that theygraspedat any otherconceivablemechanism as an anti-
Darwinianstrategy. One of thesewas orthogenesis, a strictlyfinalistic
principle,11whichdidnotreallycollapseuntiltheEvolutionary Synthesis.
Simpson,12 Rensch,13 andJ.Huxley,14 in particular,showedthatperfect
orthogenetic seriesas claimedbytheorthogenesists, simply didnotexist
whenthefossilrecordwasstudied morecarefully, thatallometric growth
couldexplaincertain seeminglyexcessivestructures,andfinally, thatthe
assertion ofdeleteriousness ofcertaincharacters, supposedlyduetosome
orthogenetic force,was notvalid.Theseauthorsshowed,furthermore,
thattherewasnogenetic mechanism thatcouldaccountfororthogenesis.
Bothfriends andopponents ofDarwinoccasionally classifiedhimas
It is truethatthisis whathe wasearlyinhiscareer,
a teleologist. buthe
gave up teleology soon afterhe had adoptednaturalselectionas the
mechanism ofevolutionary change.Whether thiswasas lateas the1850s,
as claimedbysomeauthors, oralreadyintheearly1840s,as indicated by
theresearches ofR. Eisert,is unimportant. Thereis certainlyno support
forteleology intheOrigin eventhough,
ofSpecies, inhislater
particularly
yearsandin correspondence, Darwinwas sometimes somewhat careless
in hislanguage.15 I havepreviouslypresented a ratherfullhistory ofthe
riseandfallofteleology inevolutionarybiology, inDarwin's
particularly
writings.16
All endeavors to findevidencefora mechanism thatwouldexplaina
generalfinalism in naturewereunsuccessful or,whereitoccursin orga-
nisms,it was explained causally(see below).As a result,
strictly bythe
timeoftheEvolutionary ofthe1940s,no competent
Synthesis biologist
was leftwhostillbelievedin anyfinalcausationofevolution or ofthe
worldas a whole.
Finalcauses,however, arefarmoreplausible andpleasing toa layper-
son thanthehaphazardand opportunistic processof naturalselection.
For thisreason,a beliefinfinalcauseshada fargreater holdoutsideof

9 Henry FairfieldOsborn, "Aristogenesis,the CreativePrinciplein the Originof

68 (1934), 193-235.
Species,"AmericanNattiralist,
10L. S. Berg,Nomogenesis,or EvolutiondeterminedbyLaw (London, 1926).
11See note 3 above.
12 GeorgeGaylordSimpson,Tempoand Mode in Evolution (New York, 1944);George
GaylordSimpson,The Meaningof Evolution(New Haven, 1949).
13 BernhardRensch,NeuereProblemederAbstammungslehre (Stuttgart,
1947).
14 JulianHuxley,Evolution:The ModernSynthesis (London, 1942).
15 David Kohn, "Darwin's Ambiguity: The Secularizationof Biological Meaning,"
BritishJournalfor theHistoryofScience,22 (1989), 215-39.
16
Mayr,Towarda New Philosophy, 235-55.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 ErnstMayr

biologythanwithin. Almostall philosophers, forinstance, whowroteon

evolutionary changeintheonehundred yearsafter1859,wereconfirmed
All threephilosophers
finalists. closestto Darwin-Whewell, Herschel,
and Mill-believedin finalcauses."7The Germanphilosopher E. von
Hartmann 8 was a strong defender offinalism,stimulating Weismann to
a spirited reply.In France,Bergson19 postulated a metaphysical force,
elan vital,which,eventhoughBergsondisclaimed itsfinalisticnature,
couldnothavebeenanything else,considering itseffects. Thereis room
fora goodhistory offinalism inthepost-Darwinian -philosophy, although
Collingwood20 has made a beginning. Whitehead, Polanyi,and many
lesserphilosophers, werealso finalistic.21
Refutation ofa finalisticinterpretation ofevolution or ofnatureas a
whole,however, didnoteliminate teleologyas a problem ofphilosophy.
of
For the Cartesiansany invoking teleological processeswas utterly
unthinkable. Comingfrom mathematics andphysics, theyhadnothing in
theirconceptual repertory thatwouldpermit themtodistinguish between
seemingly end-directed processes ininorganic nature, andseemingly goal-
directed in
processes living nature. Theyfeared, as shown particularly
clearlybyNagel,22 thatmakingsucha distinction wouldopenthedoor
tometaphysical, nonempirical considerations. All theirarguments, based
onthestudyofinanimate objects,ignored thecommon view,derived from
Aristotleand strongly confirmed by Kant,thattrulygoal-directed and
seemingly purposive occuronlyinlivingnature.
processes Yetthe(physi-
calist)philosophers ignoredthestudyoflivingnatureandthefindings of
thebiologists.Insteadtheyusedteleology inordertoexercise theirlogical
prowess.Whythiswas so has beenexplainedby Ruse: "Whatdraws
philosophers towardteleology is thatone has to know,or at leastit is
generally thought thatonehasto know,absolutely no biologyat all!...
philosophers wantno empiricalfactorsdeflecting themin theirneo-
Scholastic pursuits."23Theirony ofthisjibeagainst hisfellow philosophers
is that,havingsaidthis,Rusehimself promptly ignored theliteratureon
teleologywritten bybiologists andconcentrated on reviewing thebooks
ofthreephilosophers knownfortheirneglect ofbiology. Yet Ruseis not
alone.Onepaperorbookafter theotherdealingwithteleology continues
tobepublished inthephilosophical inwhichtheauthor
literature attempts

17 DavidL. Hull, Darwinand His Critics(Cambridge,Mass., 1973).

18 Eduard v. Hartmann,
Das Unbewusste vomStandpunkt undDeszen-
derPhysiologie
denzlehre(Berlin,1872).
19See note 8 above.
20 R.G. Collingwood,The Idea ofNature(Oxford,1946).
21 Mayr,Towarda New Philosophy,247-48.
22
ErnestNagel, The Structureof Science (New York, 1961); E. Nagel, "Teleology
Revisited:Goal DirectedProcessesin Biology,"JournalofPhilosophy,74 (1977), 261-301.
23 MichaelRuse, "The Last Wordon Teleology,or Optimality Modes Vindicated,"in
Michael Ruse, Is ScienceSexist?(Cambridge,1981),85-101.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea of Teleology 121

to solvetheproblemof teleology withthesharpestweaponsof logic,

whileutterly ignoringthediversity ofthephenomena to whichtheword
teleologyhasbeenattached, andofcourseignoring theliteratureinwhich
biologistshavepointedthisout.
Someofthedifficultiesofthephilosophers areduetotheir misinterpre-
tationofthewritings ofthegreatphilosophers ofthepast.Aristotle, for
instance,has oftenbeenrecorded as a finalist, andcosmicteleology has
beencalledan Aristotelian view.Greneis entirely correct whenpointing
outthatAristotle'steloshasnothing todo withpurpose"either Man'sor
God's. It was theJudaeo-Christian God who (withthe help of neo-
Platonism) imposedthedominance ofa cosmicteleology uponAristote-
liannature.Suchsweeping purposeis theveryoppositeofAristotelian
ModemAristotle
[philosophy]."24 specialists(Balme,Gotthelf, Lennox,
andNussbaum) areunanimous inshowing thatAristotle's seeming teleol-
ogydeals with of and in
problems ontogeny adaptation livingorganisms,
wherehisviewsareremarkably modern.25 Kantwasa strict mechanist as
faras theinanimate universeis concerned, but provisionally adopted
teleologyforcertainphenomena ofliving nature, which(inthe1790s)were
inexplicableowingto the condition
primitive of contemporary biology.26It
wouldbeabsurd, however, touseKant'stentative comments twohundred
yearslateras evidence forthevalidity offinalism.
The reasonsfortheunsatisfactory stateoftheteleology analysesin
thephilosophicalliteraturearenowevident. Indeed,onecango so faras
to saythatthetreatment oftheproblems ofteleology in thisliterature
showshownotto do thephilosophy ofscience.For at leastfifty yearsa
considerable numberof philosophers havewritten on teleology basing
theiranalyseson themethodsof logicand physicalism, "knownto be
thebest"or at leasttheonlyreliablemethods forsuchanalyses.These
philosophers have ignoredthe findings of thebiologists, eventhough
teleologyconcerns mostly or entirely theworldoflife.
Theyignored thatthewordfunction refers to twoverydifferent sets
ofphenomena; andthattheconcept ofprogram givesa newcomplexion to
theproblem ofgoal-directedness;
theyconfounded thedistinction between
proximate andevolutionary causations, andbetween static(adapted)sys-
temsandgoal-directed activities.
Eventhough thereisanenormous philo-
sophicalliterature
on theproblems ofteleology, thoserecentbooksand
papersarequiteuselesswhichstilltreatteleology as a unitaryphenome-
non.No authorwhohad nottriedto articulate thedifferences between
the significanceof cosmicteleology, adaptedness, programmed goal-

24 MarjorieGrene,"Aristotleand Modem Biology,"JHI, 33 (1972), 395-424.

25 Mayr,Towarda New Philosophy, 55-60.
26 ErnstMayr,"The IdeologicalResistanceto Darwin'sTheoryofNaturalSelection,"

Proceedingsof theAmericanPhilosophicalSociety,135 (1991), 123-39.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 ErnstMayr

directedness, and deterministic naturallaws,has madeanyworthwhile

contribution to thesolution oftheproblems ofteleology.
Theprincipal endeavor ofthetraditional philosopher wastoeliminate
teleologicallanguage fromall descriptions andanalyses. Theyobjected to
suchsentences as "theturtle swimstotheshoreinordertolayhereggs,"
or "thewoodthrush migrates to warmer climates in orderto escapethe
winter." To be sure,questions thatbeginwith"what?"and "how?"are
sufficientforexplanation in thephysicalsciences.However,since1859
no explanation in thebiological scienceshasbeencomplete untila third
of
kind question was asked and answered: "why?" It is theevolutionary
causationanditsexplanation thatis askedforin thisquestion. Anyone
whoeliminates evolutionary "why?"questions, closesthedoorona large
areaofbiological research. It is thereforeimportant fortheevolutionary
biologistto demonstrate that "why?"questions do not introduce a meta-
physical element intotheanalysis, andthatthereis no conflict between
causalandteleological analysis, provided itis precisely specified whatis
meantby"teleological." I haveelsewhere27 presented a detailedanalysis
of"themultiple meanings ofteleological" butmustpresent hereat least
thegistofmyfindings. Nagel28 andEngels29 havecriticized someofmy
views.Engels'smonograph isthemostcomplete treatment oftheteleology
problem intheGerman language. Inthefollowing accountI haveincluded
an answerto theirobjections. Beforedoingso I wantfirst to clearup a
number ofassumptions thathavebeena confusing element in therecent
Thiswillallowme to showthatthefollowing
literature. assertions are
invalid.
1. Teleological statements and explanations implytheendorsement of
unverifiabletheological or metaphysical doctrines inscience. This criticism
wasindeedvalidinformer times, particularlyintheeighteenth andearly
nineteenth centuries, as wellas formostvitalists rightuptomodern times,
including Bergson andDriesch.It doesnotapplyto anyDarwinian who
usesteleological language(seebelow).
2. Anybiological explanation thatisnotequallyapplicable toinanimate
natureconstitutes rejection ofa physico-chemical explanation. Thisis an
invalidobjection, sinceeverymodembiologist acceptsphysico-chemical
explanations at thecellular-molecular level,and furthermore, since,as
willbe shownbelow,seemingly teleologicalprocesses inlivingorganisms
canbe explained strictly materialistically.
3. Teleological languageintroduces anthropomorphism intobiology.
Manyphilosophers, indeed,havemadehumanintentions andpurposive
actsthestarting pointoftheiranalysis ofgoal-directed activitiesinother

27
Mayr,Towarda New Philosophy,
38-66.
28 ErnestNagel, "TeleologyRevisited:Goal DirectedProcessesin Biology,"Journal
74 (1977).
of Philosophy,
29 Eve-MarieEngels,Die Teleologiedes Lebendigen(Berlin,1982).

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea ofTeleology 123
organisms. Thisintroduces concepts suchas purpose, intention,andcon-
sciousness intothediscussion andtiesthewholeproblem to humanpsy-
chology; butitseemsto methatthisis a poorfoundation foran analysis
of goal-directed activitiesin thenon-human livingworld.In myown
treatment I havetherefore refrainedfromusinganthropomorphic lan-
guage,particularly the termspurposeand intention, whenexplaining
teleonomic phenomena in animalsand plants.The termgoal-directed
is strictlydescriptive, whiletermslikepurposeor intention introduce
psychological problems thatareirrelevant to ourimmediate objective.
4. Teleonomic processes are in conflictwithcausality becausefuture
goalscannotdirectcurrent events.This objection, frequently raisedby
physicalists, is due to theirfailureto applytheconceptof program, a
conceptnotexisting in theclassicalframework of physicalistconcepts
and theories.
5. Teleological explanations mustqualify as laws.Actually theattempt
to insertlawsintoteleological explanations has led onlyto confusion.30
6. Telosmeanseither endpoint orgoal;they arethesame.Bycontrast,
fortheevolutionary biologist thereis a greatdifference between telosas
goalandtelosas endpoint. Ifoneaskswhether natural selectionand,more
broadly, all processes in evolution havea telos,onemustbe clearwhich
telosonehas in mind.
Thewordteloshasbeenusedin thephilosophical literaturewithtwo
verydifferent meanings. WhenAristotle usesit,itrefers toa processthat
hasa verydefinite goal,a goalordinarily anticipated whentheprocessis
initiated.Thetelosofthefertilized eggis theadultintowhichitdevelops.
For thedeisticteleologist, cosmicteleology also had a definite goal,i.e.,
theworldin itsfinalperfection as conceived byitscreatorand effected
byHislaws.Butteloshasalsobeenusedsimply torefer tothetermination
of an end-directed process.The telosof a rainstorm is whenit stops
raining. Day is thetelosofthenight. All processes causedbynaturallaws
sooneror laterhave an endpoint, but it is misleading to use forthis
termination thesamewordtelos,thatis ordinarily usedforthegoal in
goal-directed processes. The endpoint ofa non-teleological processis,so
to speak,an a posteriori phenomenon. Pierce3" realizedthattheterm
"teleological" is too stronga wordto applyto naturalprocesses in the
inorganic world.He therefore suggested that"we mightinvent theterm
finious to expresstheirtendency towarda finalstate"(7.471).
Teleologyand function: manyphilosophers ofsciencehavefeltthat
theproblem ofteleology couldbe solvedbyexplaining goal-directedness

30David L. Hull, "Philosophyand Biology," Contemporary Philosophy,2 (1982),

298-316.
31 CharlesSandersPierce,ArthurW. Burks(eds.), CollectedPapers,VII (Cambridge,
Mass., 1958).

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 ErnstMayr

in termsof function, i.e., by translatingteleologicalstatements32 into

function butalsoimplicitly
statements,33 Hempel,34 Nagel,3s
andnumer-
ous authorssince.Whether theyrecognizesix meanings of the term
as doesNagel,orten,as doesWimsatt,
function, all theseproposals
suffer
fromthefatalflawnotto have recognized thatthe wordfunction is
usedin biologyin twoverydifferent meanings, whichmustbe carefully
distinguishedin anyteleological analysis.Bockand vonWahlert36 have
admirably thesituation
clarified byshowing thatfunction is sometimes
usedfora physiological processandsometimes forthebiologicalroleof
a featurein thelifecycleoftheorganism. "For example,thelegsofa
rabbithave thefunctionoflocomotion... but thebiologicalroleof this
faculty maybe to escapefroma predator, to movetowarda sourceof
food,tomovetoa favorable tomoveaboutinsearchofa mate."
habitat,
Descriptionsofthephysiologicalfunctioningofan organorotherbiologi-
cal feature Indeed,in favorable
are notteleological. cases,theycan be
largelytranslatedintophysico-chemical explanations,theyare due to
proximate causations.Whatis involvedin an analysisofteleological
as-
roleofa structure
pectsis thebiological oractivity.Suchrolesaredueto
evolutionary ForthisreasonI carefully
causations. avoidthewordfunc-
tionwhenmyconcernis thebiologicalroleofa feature or process(see
below,p. 14).

2. Categories
ofTeleology

Themajority ofphilosophers
havetreated as a unitary
teleology phe-
nomenon. This ignoresthatthetermteleological has beenappliedto
severalfundamentally different
naturalphenomena. Underthesecircum-
stancesit is no surprisethatthe searchfora unitary explanationof
hassofarbeenentirely
teleology Beckner37
futile. hecandistinguish
thinks
threekindsofteleology, characterizedbythetermsfunction, goal,and
intention.
Although thisproposalleadsto someordering ofthephenom-
ena,itdoesnotrepresent a successful
solution, inviewofthe
particularly
relevanceofintentiononlytoman,andtheambiguity ofthetermfunction.
Woodger38 also saw thediversemeanings ofthewordteleological,and

32 W. Wimsatt, "Teleologyand theLogical StatusofFunctionStatements," Studiesin

theHistoryand Philosophy ofScience,3 (1972), 1-80.
33 RobertCummins, "FunctionalAnalysis,"JournalofPhilosophy,72 (1975), 741-65.
34 Carl G. Hempel,Aspects ofScientificExplanation(New York, 1965).
35 ErnestNagel, The StructureofScience(New York, 1961).
36 WalterJ.Bock and G. vonWahlert, "Adaptationand theForm-function Complex,"
Evolution,19 (1969), 269-99.
37 MortonBeckner,The BiologicalWayof Thought (New York, 1959).
38
J. H. Woodger,BiologicalPrinciples(London, 1929).

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea of Teleology 125

attemptedto recognizesomecategories butdid notcarrytheanalysis

veryfar.A carefulstudyofall theusesofthetermteleological in the
led
literature
andbiological
philosophical me to propose a divi-
four-fold
9
sion. Oneofthemajorfeaturesofmyproposalwastodividethecategory
intogenuine
offunction andthecategory
activities
functional ofadapted-
to thehistory
ness,corresponding offeatures witha biologicalrole(see
BockandvonWahlert).40

i. Teleomatic
Processes

Severalphilosophershave designated as teleological

any processes
which"persisttowardan end pointundervaryingconditions" or in
which"theendstateoftheprocessis determined byitsproperties at the
Thesedefinitions
beginning."41 wouldincludeall processes in inorganic
naturethathavean endpoint.A riverwouldhavetobe calledteleological
becauseit flowsintotheocean.To place suchprocessesin the same
categoryas genuinegoal-directedprocessesin organisms is mostmis-
leading.
All objectsofthephysicalworldare endowedwiththecapacityto
changetheirstate,andthesechangesstrictlyobeynaturallaws.Theyare
onlyina passive,
end-directed automaticway,regulated byexternal forces
thatis by naturallaws. I designated
or conditions, suchprocessesas
teleomatic42to indicatethattheyare automaticallyachieved.All teleo-
maticprocessescometo an endwhenthepotential is usedup (as in the
coolingof a heatedpieceof iron)or whentheprocessis stoppedby
encounteringan externalimpediment(as whena fallingobjecthitsthe
ground).The law ofgravityand thesecondlaw ofthermodynamics are
amongthenaturallaws whichmostfrequently governteleomatic pro-
cesses.
Aristotle
clearly teleomatic
distinguished from
processes theteleologi-
cal onesencounteredin organisms, to themas caused"by
and referred
Theseare mostoftheprocessescalledfinious
necessity."43 by Pierce.4
Theymayhavean endpointbuttheyneverhavea goal.The question
forthem.One cannotaskforwhat
"whatfor?"(wozu?)is inappropriate

9 ErnstMayr,"Teleologicaland Teleonomic.A New Analysis,"BostonStudiesin the

PhilosophyofScience,14 (1974).
40 See note36 above.
41 C. H. Waddington,The Strategyof theGenes(London, 1957).
42 See note 39 above.
43 A. Gotthelf, 30
"Aristotle'sConceptionofFinal Causality,"ReviewofMetaphysics,
(1976), 226-54.
44 See note 31 above.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 ErnstMayr

purpose lightning hadstruck a particulartree,orforwhatpurpose a flood

or an earthquake had killedthousands ofpeople.
Radioactive decayis a teleomatic process,it is notcontrolled by a
program. Anychunkofuranium willexperience radioactive decaygov-
ernedbythesamephysicallawsas anyother,in contrast to programs
thatarehighly specificandoftenunique.The naturallawsinteract with
properties
theintrinsic ofthematerial onwhichtheyact.Different materi-
als havedifferent andtherateofcoolingmaydiffer
properties, fromone
substance to thenext.Butinherent properties thatarethesameforany
sampleof thesamesubstance are something entirelydifferent froma
codedprogram. Thisis truerightdownto themolecular level.A given
macromolecule hasinherent properties,butthisbyitself is nota program.
Programs areformed bya combination ofmolecules, and otherorganic
components.
Prediction is notthedefining criterion ofa program. If I releasea
stonefrom myhand,I canpredict thatitwillfalltotheground. Therefore,
saysEngels,4s it is programmed to fallto theground,and thereis no
differencebetween teleomaticandteleonomic processes.Thisis thesame
argument Nagel46 madewithreference toradioactive decay.An example
willshowhowmisleading thisargument is: somewhere inthemountains
stonekillsa person.Engelswouldhavetosaythatthisstonewas
a falling
"programmed" to kill a person.The verygeneralterminal situations
effectedbynaturallawsaresomething entirely different
fromthehighly
specificgoalscodedinprograms. Theexistence ofprograms, ofcourse,is
innowayinconflict withnatural laws.Allthephysico-chemical processes
thattakeplaceduring thetranslation andexecution ofa program strictly
obeynaturallaws.Butto neglect theroleofinformation andinstruction
inevitablyresultsin a mostmisleading description ofa program. Could
oneexplaina computer interms
strictly ofnatural laws,carefully avoiding
anyreference to information andinstruction?

ii. Teleonomic
Processes

The termteleonomic has beenused withvariousmeanings. When

introduced
Pittendrigh47 theterm,hefailedto provideitwitha rigorous
As a resultvariousauthorsused it eitherforprogrammed
definition.
as didforinstance
or foradaptedness
functions B. Davis,48
G. G. Simp-
45 See note29 above.
46 See note28 above.
47 Colin S.
Pittendrigh,"Adaptation,NaturalSelection,and Behavior,"in Anne Roe
and GeorgeGaylordSimpson(eds.),Behaviorand Evolution(New Haven, 1958),390-416.
48 BernardD. Davis, "The TeleonomicSignificanceof BiosyntheticControlMecha-
nisms,"Cold SpringHarborSymposia,26 (1961), 1-10.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea of Teleology 127

son,49Monod,50and Curio.5"I restricted

thetermteleonomicto pro-
grammed activities52
and nowprovidethefollowing definition:
a teleo-
nomicprocessor behavioris one that owes its goal-directedness
to the
operationofa program. The termteleonomic thusimpliesgoal-direction
ofa processor activity. It dealsstrictly withproximate causations. They
occurin cellular-developmental processes, and aremostconspicuous in
thebehavior oforganisms. "Goal-directed behavior... isextremely wide-
spreadin theorganicworld;forinstance, mostactivities connected with
migration,food-getting, courtship, ontogeny andall phasesofreproduc-
tionarecharacterized bysuchgoalorientation. The occurrence ofgoal-
directedprocesses is perhapsthemostcharacteristic feature oftheworld
oflivingorganisms."53 It is sometimes statedthatPittendrigh andI intro-
ducedthetermteleonomic as a substitute forthetermteleological. This
isnotcorrect,rather itisa termforonlyoneofthefourdifferent meanings
ofthehighly heterogeneous termteleological.
In myoriginalproposal54 I suggested thatone mightexpandthe
applicationof thetermteleonomic to includealso thefunctioning of
humanartifacts (e.g.,loadeddice)thatarefixedinsucha wayas toassure
a wantedgoal.Thisextended use ofthetermhas beencriticized, and I
nowconsiderthathumanartifacts are onlyanalogs.Trulyteleonomic
dependon thepossession
activities ofa program.
All teleonomic behavioris characterized by twocomponents. It is
guidedby"a program" anditdepends ontheexistence ofsomeendpoint,
goal,or terminus whichis foreseen in theprogram whichregulates the
behavior.Thisendpointmight be a structure (indevelopment), a physio-
logicalfunction,theattainment ofa geographical position (inmigration),
or a "consummatory act""5in behavior. Each particular program is the
resultofnaturalselection, constantly adjustedby theselective valueof
theachievedendpoint.
Thekeywordin thedefinition ofteleonomic isprogram. Theimpor-
tanceoftherecognition oftheexistence ofprograms liesin thefactthat
a program is (1) something material and (2) something existingpriorto
oftheteleonomic
theinitiation process. Thisshowsthatthere isnoconflict
between teleonomy andcausality.
A programmightbe definedas codedorprearranged that
information

4 GeorgeGaylordSim'pson, "Behaviorand Evolution,"Anne Roe and GeorgeGay-

lord Simpson(eds.), Behaviorand Evolution(New Haven, 1958),507-35.
50JacquesMonod,Le Hasard et la Necessite(Paris, 1970).
5"Eberhard Curio,"Towardsa Methodologyof Teleonomy,"Experientia,29 (1973),
1045-58.
52 See note 39 above.
13 Mayr, Towarda New Philosophy, 45.
54See note 39 above.
55Wallace Craig,"Appetitesand Aversionsas Constituents of Instincts,"Biological
Bulletin,34 (1916), 91-107.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 ErnstMayr

controlsa process(or behavior)leadingit towarda goal. The program

containsnotonlytheblueprint ofthegoal butalso theinstructionsofhow
oftheblueprint.A program
to use theinformation is not a of
description
a givensituation buta setofinstructions.
Accepting theconceptofprogram seemsto causeno difficulties to a
biologist familiar withgenetics oranyscientist familiar withtheworking
ofcomputers. However, programs, suchas thosethatcontrol teleonomic
processes, do notexistin inanimate nature.Traditional philosophers of
science,familiar onlywithlogicand physics, therefore havehad great
difficulty in understanding thenatureofprograms, as is wellillustrated
bythewritings ofNagel.56
References to thepresumed existenceofsomething likea program in
the cells or the genomeof organisms can be foundin thebiological
literature farbackintothenineteenth century. E. B. Wilson, afterdescrib-
ingtheremarkably teleonomic mannerin whichthecleavageofan egg
takesplace,continues: "sucha conclusion needinvolveno mystical doc-
trineof teleology or of finalcauses.It meansonlythatthefactors by
whichcleavageis determined are in greater or in lessdegreeboundup
withan underlying organization oftheeggthatprecedescleavageand
is responsible forthegeneralmorphogenic process.The natureof this
organization is almostunknown, butwecanproceed withitsinvestigation
onlyonthemechanistic assumption thatitinvolves somekindofmaterial
configuration inthesubstance oftheegg."57 It is important oncemoreto
emphasize, because thisis almost consistentlymisunderstood intheclassi-
cal literature on teleology, thatthegoalofa teleonomic activitydoesnot
lieinthefuture, butis codedintheprogram. Notenoughis knownabout
thegenetic-molecular basisofsuchprograms to permit us to saymuch
morethanthattheyare innateor partlyinnate.The existence of the
program isinferred from itsmanifestations inthebehavior ortheactivities
ofthebeareroftheprogram.
Concepts, corresponding toprogram, gobackall thewaytoantiquity.
After all,Aristotle's eidoshadmanyoftheproperties wenowascribeto
thegeneticprogram, as was pointedoutbyJacob58 and Delbriick.59 So
did Buffon's mouleint&rieur60 as wellas themanyspeculations about
inbornmemories fromLeibnizand Maupertuis to Darwin,Hering,and
Semon.As soundas theintuition ofthesethinkers hadbeen,itrequired
an understanding oftheDNA natureofthegenotype, before thegenetic
program couldbe considered a validscientific concept.
56 See note22 above.
57 E. and Heredity(3rd ed., New York, 1925),
B. Wilson,The Cell in Development
1005.
58 FranqoisJacob,La Logiquedu Vivant(Paris, 1970).
59 Max J. Monod and E. Borek(eds.), Of Microbes
Delbruck,"Aristotle-totle-totle,"
and Life (New York, 1971), 50-55.
60 JacquesRoger,Buffon(Paris, 1989).

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea of Teleology 129

The studyof teleonomicprogramshas shownthatseveralkindscan

be distinguished.A programin whichcompleteinstructions arelaid down
in theDNA ofthegenotypeis called a closedprogram.61Most programs
whichcontroltheinstinctive behaviorof insectsand lowerinvertebrates
seemto be closedprograms.Thereis, however,anothertypeofprogram,
openprograms, whichare constituted in sucha waythatadditionalinfor-
mationcan be incorporatedduringlifetime, acquiredthroughlearning,
conditioning, or otherexperiences.Most behaviorin higheranimalsis
controlledby such open programs.Theirexistencehas longbeen known
to ethologistswithouttheirintroducinga special terminology. In the
famouscase of the followingreactionof the younggosling,the open
programprovidesforthefollowing reaction,buttheparticularobject(the
"parent")to be followedis added by experience(by "imprinting"). Open
programsare veryfrequent in thebehaviorprogramofhigherorganisms,
but evenin someinvertebrates thereis oftenopportunity to makeuse of
in
individualexperience fillingout open programs,forinstancewithre-
spect to suitablefood or potentialenemies,or the nest site in solitary
wasps.
The programscontrolling teleonomicactivitieswereinitiallythought
ofexclusively in termsof the DNA of thegenome.However,in addition
to suchgeneticprogramsitmightbe usefulto recognizesomaticprograms.
"For instance,whena turkeygobblerdisplaysto a hen,his displaymove-
mentsare notdirectly controlled bytheDNA in hiscell nuclei,butrather
by a somaticprogramin his centralnervoussystem.To be sure,this
neuronalprogramwas laid down duringdevelopment underthecontrol
of instructionsfromthe geneticprogram.But it is now an independent
somaticprogram."62 Somaticprogramsare particularly important in de-
velopment.Each stage in ontogenyrepresents, so to speak, a somatic
programforthenextstepin development. Most oftheembryonic struc-
turesthathavebeencitedas evidenceforrecapitulation, likethegillarches
oftetrapodembryos, are presumably somaticprograms.The reasonswhy
theyhave notbeen removedby naturalselectionis thatthiswould have
seriouslyinterferedwithsubsequentdevelopment. The existenceand role
of somaticprogramshas beenunderstoodby embryologists at leastsince
Kleinenberg.63
To borrowthetermprogramfrominformatics is nota case ofanthro-
pomorphism. Thereis a strictequivalenceofthe"program"oftheinfor-
mationtheorists,and the geneticand somaticprogramsof thebiologist.
The originofa programis quiteirrelevantforitsdefinition.It can be the

61 ErnstMayr,"The Evolutionof LivingSystems," Proceedings

oftheNationalAcad-
emyofSciences,51 (1964), 934-41.
62
Mayr, Towarda New Philosophy, 64.
63
Nicolaus Kleinenberg,"Uber die EntwicklungdurchSubstitutionvon Organen,"
Zeitschriftfurwissenschaftliche
Zoologie(1886), 212-24.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 ErnstMayr

product ofevolution, as areall genetic programs, oritcanbe theacquired

information ofan openprogram.
An objection thathas beenraisedagainsttheconceptofprogram is
thatreflexeswouldthenalsobe teleonomic activities.Whynot?Someof
themundoubtedly are.Sherrington" was fullyawareofthesignificance
ofthereflex as an adaptedact.He said"thepurposeofa reflex seemsas
legitimateand urgent an object for naturalenquiry as the purpose ofthe
coloring ofan insector blossom.Andtheimportance to physiology is,
thatthereflexcan notbe reallyintelligible to thephysiologist untilhe
knowsitsaim."Theeyelidclearly is programmed toclosebyreflex when
a threateningobjectordisturbance approaches theeye.A similar adaptive
functionisevident fornumerous reflexes.Otherreflexes, liketheknee-jerk
reflexso belovedbyphysicians, seemtobe merely an irrelevantproperty
ofcertain nerves,as irrelevant as theheartsoundsareforthefunctioning
oftheheart.Itwouldbemostuseful ifa neurophysiologist wouldsomeday
analyzethebetter knownreflexes for theirpossibleadaptivesignificance.
The directedness ofa teleonomic actionis effected by a numberof
devices-first of all, of course,by theprogram itself;buttheprogram
doesnotinducea simpleunfolding ofsomecompletely preformed gestalt,
foritalwayscontrols a more or less complex process that must allow for
internalandexternal disturbances. Teleonomic processes duringontoge-
neticdevelopment, forinstance, areconstantly indangerofbeingderailed
evenifonlytemporarily. Waddington65 hasquiterightly calledattention
tothefrequency andimportance ofhomeostatic devicesthatcorrect such
deviations;theyvirtually guarantee theappropriate canalizationofdevel-
opment.
Negativefeedbacks playan important rolenotonlyin development
butalsoinmanyotherteleonomic processes. Theyare,however, notthe
essenceof theteleonomic activity. As I pointedout earlier,"thetruly
aspectofgoal-seeking
characteristic behavior isnotthatmechanisms exist
whichimprove theprecision withwhicha goalis reached, butrather that
mechanisms existwhichinitiate, i.e.,'cause'thisgoal-seeking behavior."66

iii. AdaptedFeatures

to theadaptedness
Featuresthatcontribute ofan organismareinthe
usuallyreferred
literature
philosophical or functional
to as teleological
Bothof thesedesignations
systems. are potentially These
misleading.

I Actionof theNervousSystem(New Haven,

The Integrative
CharlesS. Sherrington,
1906),235.
65 See note41 above.
66
46.
Mayr,Towarda New Philosophy,

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea of Teleology 131

features are stationary systems, and as I pointedout previously,67 the

wordteleological wouldnotseemto be appropriate forphenomena that
do notinvolvemovements.
Thedesignation teleologicalsystem is misleading fora secondreason.
It wasadoptedbytheolderphilosophical literature undertheassumption
thatthesefeatures hadoriginated through someteleological forceofna-
ture.Thisassumption waslargely a heritage ofnaturaltheology, withits
beliefthattheusefulness of each feature had beengivenby God. The
fallacyofthisthinking hasbeenrefuted particularly byDaw-
effectively
kinsin his splendidbook,TheBlind Watchmaker.68 ImmanuelKant's
interestin teleology focussedon adaptedfeatures. On thebasisof the
scantknowledge ofbiology availableat theendoftheeighteenth century
he was unableto providea causal explanation. He therefore ascribed
adaptedness toteleological forces bywhichhepresumably meantthehand
of God.69Since1859suchdefeatism has becomeunnecessary. Darwin
has taughtus thatseemingly teleological evolutionary changesand the
production ofadaptedfeatures aresimply theresultofvariational evolu-
tion,theproduction ofgreatvariation ineverygeneration, andtheproba-
bilistic
survival ofthoseindividuals withthetemporarily fittest
phenotype.
Adaptedness thusis an a posteriori resultratherthanan a priorigoal-
seeking.Forthisreasonthewordteleological is misleading whenapplied
to adaptedfeatures.
Norshouldtheybe calledfunctional systems owingto theconfusing
dual meaning ofthewordfunction. Indeedmostofthosewhouse the
terminology functional systems werereferring to thebiologicalroleof
thesefeatures andtheireffectiveness in carrying outthisrole.Proximate
andevolutionary causations werefrequently confounded in functionalist
discussions.Munson70 andBrandon71 haveexcellently statedthereasons
whyan adaptationist language, in connection withadaptedfeatures, and
inconnection withan answerto "whatfor?"questions, is tobe preferred
to teleologicalor functional language.
Oneofthecharacteristics ofadaptedfeatures is thattheycanperform
teleonomic activities. Theyare, so to speak, executive organsforteleo-
nomicprograms. I havetherefore suggested72 thattheymight perhaps be
considered to be somaticprograms.
Morethananything elseitis theexistence ofadaptedfeatures thatled
biologiststo ask "why?"questions. The first
area in biology where they
wereusedwas in physiological research. WhenHarveywas askedwhat

67Ibid., 51-52.
68 RichardDawkins,The Blind Watchmaker (London, 1986).
69 Mayr,Towarda New Philosophy,57-59,and see note26 above.
70 RonaldMunson,"BiologicalAdaptation," ofScience,38 (1971), 200-215.
Philosophy
71 R. N. Brandon,"BiologicalTeleology:Questionsand Explanations,"Studiesin the
Historyand PhilosophyofScience,12 (1981), 91-105.
72
Mayr,Towarda New Philosophy, 62-63.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132 ErnstMayr

had inducedhimto thinkof thecirculationof blood,he answered, I

wondered whytherewerevalvesintheveins.73
Evidentlytheypermit only
flowofthebloodandthis,almostautomatically,
a one-directional ledto
an assumptionofcirculation.
One physiological
discoveryafteranother
fromasking"why?"questions
resulted concerningorganswithunknown
Such "why?"or "whatfor?"questionseventually
functions. became
in otherbranches
equallyproductive ofbiology,and theheuristicvalue
ofthismethodology hasbeenbyno meansexhausted.

3. NaturalSelection
andTeleology

AfterDarwinhad established theprinciple ofnaturalselection, this

processwas widelyinterpreted to be teleological, bothby supporters
and opponents. Evolution itselfwas frequently considered a teleological
processsinceit wouldlead to "improvement" or "progress."74 Perhaps
suchan interpretation not
was altogether unreasonable in the framework
oftheLamarckian transformationalparadigm. Itisnolonger a reasonable
viewwhenonefully appreciatesthevariational nature ofDarwinian evolu-
tion,whichhas no ultimate goaland which,so to speak,startsanewin
everygeneration. At besttheprocessof naturalselectionmayfitthe
definitionof Pierce's"finious"processes;75 but considering how often
naturalselection leadsintofataldead endsand considering howoften
duringevolution itspremium changes, resultingin an irregular zig zag
movement oftheevolutionary change,itwouldseemsingularly inappro-
priateto usethedesignation teleological.To be sure,naturalselection is
an optimization process,butit hasno definite goal,andconsidering the
number ofconstraints and thefrequency ofchanceevents, it wouldbe
mostmisleading tocallitteleological.Noris anyimprovement inadapta-
tiona teleologicalprocess,sinceitis strictlya posthocdecisionwhether
a givenevolutionary changequalifiesas a contribution to adaptedness.
Noneoffifteen authors contributing to a recentvolumeon naturalselec-
tionandoptimization duringevolution76 hasusedthetermteleological.
Thishastoberemembered whenoneencounters teleologicallanguage
in evolutionary If an authorsaysspecieshaveevolved
interpretations.77
73 F. Krafft, "Die Idee der Zweckmassigkeit in der Geschichteder Wissenschaften,"
Berichtezur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 5 (1982), 1-152.
74 FranciscoJ.Ayala,"TeleologicalExplanation in Evolutionary
Biology,"Philosophy
ofScience,37 (1970), 1-15.
75 See above,note31, and T. L. Short, "Teleologyin Nature,"AmericanPhilosophical
Quarterly(1984), 311-20.
76 J. Dupre, (ed.), The Lateston theBest:Essayson Evolutionand Optimality (Cam-
bridge,Mass., 1987).
7" R. T. O'Grady, "Evolutionary Theoryand Teleology,"Journalof Philosophy, 74
(1984), 261-301.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea of Teleology 133

isolating
mechanisms inordertoprotect integrity,
theirgenetic itsimply
meansthatindividuals avoidinghybridization withindividuals ofother
specieshad greaterreproductive successthanthosewhichhybridized.
Therefore, a geneticpredispositionnotto hybridize was rewarded with
reproductive Naturalselection
success.78 dealswiththeproperties ofindi-
vidualsofa givengeneration;itsimply doesnothaveanylongrangegoal,
eventhough thismayseemso whenonelooksbackward overa longseries
ofgenerations.Alas,someauthors eveninthemostrecent literatureseem
toendowevolution witha teleologicalcapacity.As recentlyas 1985J.H.
Campbellsaid "It becomesincreasingly evidentthatorganisms evolve
specialstructuresto promote theircapacitiesto evolve,and thatthese
structuresenormously expandthescopeoftheevolutionary process. Nev-
function
ertheless, isfundamentally a teleological
concept,especially when
appliedto theevolutionary process."79As Munson80 has rightlypointed
out,sucha dubioususeofthewordteleological caneasilybe avoidedby
usingadaptationistlanguage.

4. CosmicTeleology

Priorto thenineteenthcenturythebeliefwas almostuniversal that

changeintheworldwasduetoaninnerforceortendency toward progress
andever-greater Glacken,82
(seeabove).Gillispie,81
perfection and183 have
describedtheimmense powerofthisideology. As lateas 1876K. E. von
Baermadea passionate pleafortherecognitionoffinalism togivepleasure
to thosepeople"whoconsidertheworldand particularly theorganic
worldas theresultofa developmentwhichtendstowardhigher goalsand
is guidedbyreason."84The most determined opponents ofnatural selec-
tionwereteleologists, theories
andteleological ofevolution (orthogenesis,
etc.) continuedto be dominant untilthe beginning of the twentieth
century.85
Whenit was beingrealizedthattheworldwas neither
recentnor

78 Mayr, Towarda New Philosophy.

79 ofEvolution,"in D. Depew and B.
J.Campbell,"An OrganizationalInterpretation
H. Weber(eds.), Evolutionat a Crossroads(Cambridge,Mass., 1985).
80
See note71 above.
81
CharlesC. Gillispie,Genesisand Geology(New York, 1951).
82
ClarenceJ. Glacken,Traceson theRhodianShore.Natureand Culturein Western
Thought fromAncientTimesto theEnd of theEighteenth Century(Berkeley,1967).
83 See note2 above.
84
Karl ErnstvonBaer,Studienaus derGeschichte (St. Peters-
derNaturwissenschaften
burg,1876),240.
85 VernonL. Kellogg,DarwinismToday (New York, 1907), and see notes2 and 6

above.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 ErnstMayr

constant, threecategories ofexplanations forseemingly changes

finalistic
wereadvanced:
1. Thesechangesare due to theactionof an evolutionary planner
(theisticexplanation).
2. Thesechangesare guidedby a built-inprogram, analogousto
a teleonomic programin the genotype of an individual(orthogenetic
explanations). Muchofthepost-Darwinian researchresulted inproviding
evidence thatsucha cosmicprogram doesnotexist, andthattheirregular-
itiesofcosmicevolution arefartoogreatto be reconciled withtheexis-
tenceof a program. Indeedby the* timeof theevolutionary synthesis
(1930s-40s) all support fororthogenetic theories haddisappeared.
3. Thereis no cosmicteleology, thereis no trendtowardprogress or
perfection.Whatever changesinthekosmosareobserved inthecourseof
theworld'shistory, aretheresultoftheactionofnatural laws.Thisthird
explanation fitstheobserved factsso wellthatitmakesitunnecessary to
invokeexplanations 1 or 2.
The recognition thatthreeseemingly teleologicalprocesses,thatis,
teleonomic processes, teleomatic processes,andtheachievement ofadapt-
ednessbynatural selection,arestrictlymaterial phenomena, hasdeprived
teleology ofitsformer mystery andsupernatural overtones.Thereisadapt-
edness(Kant'sZweckmassigkeit) in livingnature but Darwin showedthat
its origincouldbe explainedmaterialistically. Even thoughthereare
indeedmanyorganic processes andactivitiesthatareclearly goal-directed,
thereis noneedtoinvolve supernatural forces,becausethegoalis already
codedin theprogram whichdirectstheseactivities. Such teleonomic
processes can,inprinciple, bereduced tochemico-physical causes.Finally,
thereare all theend-achieving processesin inorganic naturethatare
simply duetotheoperation ofsuchnaturallawsas gravity orthelawsof
thermodynamics. None of the threerecognized teleologicalprocesses
workbackwards from a futuregoal,thereis nobackwards causation.This
refutes theformerly frequently madeclaimofa conflict between causal
andteleological explanations. Sucha claimmight be trueifcosmicteleol-
ogyexisted, butitis invalidforthethreekindsofteleology nowaccepted
byscience.
The removal ofthementioned threematerial processes fromthefor-
merlyso heterogeneous category "teleological" leavesno residue.It has
revealed thenonexistence ofcosmicteleology, leftafterthethreemateri-
allyexplained categories of"teleological" beenremoved.
have
Therefutation ofcosmicteleology leavesus withoneunsolved prob-
lem:howcan oneexplaintheseemingly upwardtrendin organicevolu-
tion?Authorafter authorhasreferred totheprogression fromthelowest
prokaryotes (bacteria) tothenucleated eukaryotes, themetazoans, warm-
bloodedmammalsand birds,and finally manwithhiselaboratebrain,
speech,andculture. Thedefenders oforthogenesis nevertiredofclaiming
thatthiswasirrefutable evidenceforsomeintrinsic powerinlivingnature

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Idea of Teleology 135

towardprogress, ifnotevento an ultimate goal.Again,it was Darwin

whoshowedthatsuchan assumption was notinevitable. The processof
actingineverypopulation,
naturalselection, generation forgeneration,is
indeeda mechanism thatwouldfavorthe riseof everbetteradapted
itwouldfavortheinvasion
species, ofnewnichesandadaptive zones,and
as theend-resultofcompetition ofspeciesfavordevelopments thatare
bestdescribedas advancedtypes.Descriptively as to
thereis no question
whathas happenedduringthe diversestepsfromthe mostprimitive
bacteriatoman.Whether torefer
oneisjustified is still
tothisas progress
Thatmuchisclear,however,
controversial. thatnatural provides
selection
explanation
a satisfactory forthecourseoforganicevolution andmakes
an invokingofsupernatural forcesunnecessary.
teleological

Zoology,HarvardUniversity.
MuseumofComparative

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:39:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions