I should have thought that Darwin's theory of evolution does not recognise anything like an 'arc of history'; that evolution is not progressive, and that it moves with no purpose (cf. R.Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Darwinian evolution, working causally through random variation and natural selection, is naturalistic, non-directional and non-progressive: Bernard Lightman, 'Darwin and the Popularization of Evolution', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 64, No. 1 (20 March 2010), pp. 5-24: 5.)
We can project evaluative attitudes on to Darwinian evolution but that is our work, not Darwin's view.
In contrast to Darwin:
For Hegel, history is the unilinear way
of progress, which is determined by the struggle of ideas. Each historical stage is a way forward
in the path of progress. Hegel also presumes that the process of development will reach at the
consummating point where the struggle of ideas will cease to exist. Hence, it is a perfect stage
of development without inner contradictions and for Hegel that stage is the end of history, the
end point of progress. (K.P. Mishra, 'Fukuyama's End of History: Triumph of the Liberal State', The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 68, No. 3 (JULY - SEPT., 2007), pp.
These are compressed statements of the relevant views of Darwin and Hegel but they state accurately enough the relevant contrast between Darwin and Hegel. What can, however, be readily granted is that Darwin uses notions and language that are analogous to those of Hegelian teleology - of striving, purposiveness and goal-directed behaviour. 'Natural selection', for instance, does not operate teleologically with an end in view but it is analogous to the teleological activity of selecting.