The Scientific Method is Evolution Writ Large

Darwin’s theory of evolution was originally inspired by, and applied to, living organisms. He noticed variations between isolated species of finches and other animals and developed the idea of variation, inheritance, and natural selection as the underlying engine of the development of all life. But the fundamental principles that drive biological evolution extend far beyond the natural world. These principles can help us understand cultural shifts, the evolution of language, the progression of technology, the rise and fall of financial strategies, and the development of scientific theories themselves. All of these frameworks rely on generating new possibilities and selecting among them based on their “fitness” for a specific, and possibly changing, environment.

The scientific method was becoming well established by Darwin’s time; Francis Bacon had proposed a systematic approach to scientific inquiry based on induction and experimentation in the early 17th century. By the mid 17th century, natural philosophers like René Descartes and Isaac Newton had refined those ideas, laying out principles of testability, repeatability, and systematic doubt.

When On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859, it sparked intense debate within both scientific and religious circles, garnering immediate support from some naturalists and fierce opposition from others who saw it as a direct challenge to established beliefs. Over time, as more empirical evidence accumulated, the scientific community increasingly embraced Darwin’s theory. Within a few decades, the idea of evolution by natural selection had profoundly reshaped the biological sciences. But it would take until the mid 20th century for Karl Popper and Donald T. Campbell to begin drawing the analogy between natural selection and scientific conjecture and refutation.

Just as genes provide the blueprint for physical traits, cultural “memes” and scientific hypotheses rely on their own variant forms to test their fitness. Fashions spread like genetic alleles, and those that resonate with the mood of the moment propagate while others fade away. Scientific theories, too, are constantly challenged, tested, and refined, generating a landscape of intellectual variation that’s pruned by the selection pressure of empirical evidence.

Variation: The Engine of Adaptation

At the heart of all evolutionary processes lies variation, the raw fuel for change. In biological contexts, variation arises from random genetic mutations sparked by factors like cosmic rays or quantum level shifts, as well as from environmental upheavals—whether catastrophic or gradual. But variation also surfaces in cultural and intellectual domains through education, creativity, fashion, conflict, and generational feedback. These sources of novelty form a sprawling exploration of possibility space. Just as mycelial networks probe their surroundings for nutrients, exploring and discarding fruitless paths, populations, societies and scientific communities are constantly exploring new ideas. Some fail, while others thrive and deepen their roots, opening up fresh territory for growth.

Every system needs a source of energy, a gradient from low entropy to higher. In cultural and scientific systems, randomness can function as a catalyst for creativity and adaptability. Creative ideas, thoughts, even mistakes can expand the possibility space to explore (think of jazz improvisation). These chance occurrences act as sparks—scattered seeds of novelty—that, when combined with existing structures and ideas, can illuminate unforeseen pathways of thought. As Isaac Asimov said, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny…’”

But variation without structure would lead to anarchy: unbridled creativity with no common language for understanding, and no way to build on previous ideas.

Selection: Shaping the Survivors

Selection in the Darwinian sense has often been misunderstood. Nature does not make choices, and there is no evolutionary “drive” toward a specific goal. Selection is just a consequence of the fact that not every individual in a population will reproduce successfully. In a particular environment, some individuals and sub-populations will be better suited than others. If the environment changes (due to climate change, say) then the fitness criteria change, and the playing field shifts. As long as heritable traits exist, survivors will pass on those traits to their offspring.

Nature does not favor complexity in and of itself; in fact an overly complex organism may well be less suited to its environment – less flexible or adaptable, less energy-efficient, more failure-prone. Bacteria are just as “successful” evolutionarily as humans.

Nor does “survival of the fittest” always mean a contest for supremacy: strength, power or control. It is not always a zero-sum game. Selection in biology must be understood at a population (or genomic) level; the survival of the population may indeed be served by outcompeting poorly suited subgroups, but it may also be due to development of cooperation and altruism, or sensitivity to subtle stimuli. We now have many examples of natural selection where mating and child-rearing behavior favors traits like beauty, novelty, and generosity. As well as helping a population thrive, these traits may lead to flexibility: the ability to react to a changing environment, which may be more of an overall advantage than perfect fit to a narrow niche.

In the scientific method, selection is driven by discourse, test and refutation. A proposed theory undergoes a rigorous examination by others. Does it have explanatory power? Can it be refuted by experiment? Is it as simple as possible but no simpler? Does it contradict known theories? Then anyone can run experiments to confirm or refute the theory. A single counterexample may be enough to discount it, or that may be experimental error, in which case repeatability comes into play. If a theory “stands the test of time” that doesn’t mean it is 100% certain, but as it is subject to more and more scrutiny or selection pressure, it becomes the dominant theory within its environment. When the environment or paradigm changes, as with Copernicus and Galileo in the 17th century or discovery of the quantum properties of energy early in the 20th century, those shifts impose new criteria for success and lead to re-evaluation of existing ideas.

Selection simply acts as a filter driven by the environment. The environment imposes constraints: the complexity of a rainforest ecosystem, shifting climate patterns, or the intellectual rigor of a scientific community. Selection can be sexual or asexual, competitive or cooperative, swift or gradual, and can sometimes boil down to sheer luck. It’s an unthinking, relentless process, leaving traits, genes and ideas that flourish in the current context and discarding those that do not.

In all of these cases, selection is not perfect. Individuals or even populations may survive or die by luck; theories may not be refuted because of inadequate scrutiny or human frailties like politics and dogma. Sometimes traits or ideas appear as byproducts—spandrels—in the cultural or scientific record, rather than being directly favored by selection. Yet these “accidental” features can go on to inspire new avenues of research, creativity, and understanding, enriching the evolutionary tapestry of knowledge.

Embracing the Evolutionary View

Just as living organisms adapt to changing habitats, scientific fields evolve by proposing variations and allowing environmental pressures—like peer review, reproducibility, and technological constraints—to shape which ideas endure. Understanding evolution as a universal process, rather than a strictly biological one, reveals how deeply interconnected all forms of growth and change are. Viewing science through this lens helps us see that intellectual progress is not linear or guaranteed, but emerges from a feedback loop of competing concepts, unexpected insights, and rigorous testing. It reminds us that progress can only occur in an environment that encourages creativity, critical thinking, and a thirst for discovery and knowledge.