1	Chronology and context: origins and structure of Darwin’s long argument Darwin and his World Charles Darwin, the Copley Medal, and the Rise of Naturalism Honors 1104: Unity & Diversity of Knowledge Bemidji State University, Fall Semester 2004 Dann Siems
2	Darwin’s Early Life (1809 to 1825) See Autobiography of Charles Darwin Born 12 February 1809 Same day and year as Abraham Lincoln Painting at left from 1816 Fifth of six children – born to wealth and privilege Mother and three elder sisters were Unitarians who acknowledged a creator but not divinity of Christ Father trained in materialist medical tradition and showed little interest in religion First Rev. Case’s Unitarian School then boarding school at Samuel Butler’s Schrewsbury School from 1817-1825 (walk home) Transmutationist Grandpa Erasmus -- died suddenly in 1802 [HETERODOX (TRANSFORMATIONIST) IDEAS à PUBLIC SCORN] “My mother died in July 1817, when I was a little over eight years old, and it is odd that I can remember hardly anything about her except her death-bed, her black velvet gown, and her curiously constructed work-table. In the spring of this same year I was sent to a day-school in Shrewsbury, where I stayed a year. I have been told that I was much slower in learning than my younger sister Catherine, and I believe that I was in many ways a naughty boy.” [EARLY EXPOSURE TO UNTIMELY DEATH]
3	Earlier Transmutation Theories Essence: quality necessary and sufficient to identify a kind Essentialism is an ancient belief that each kind has an ‘essence’ which is unchangeable (immutable) since it was created perfect by an omnipotent creator Transmutationists believed essences change over time Alchemists try to turn lead à gold Thus in biology, transmutationists argued that the essence of a species might change over time Four early transmutationists (click pics for bios) Goethe (1749-1832) Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) -- Zoonomia (1794-1796) Lamarck (1744-1829) -- Philosophie zoologique (1809)* Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844) Important Note: Lamarck and most other early transmutationists generally believed only in change within created types and did not (at least usually or explicitly) accept or promote common descent Post-Darwin biologists don’t accept the idea that each species has an essence – more on this point later…
4	Edinburgh & Cambridge (1825-1831) Edinburgh medicine (1825-1827) “Athens of the North” Materialist tradition Transmutation sympathies Family tradition – father and grandfather Erasmus Darwin Robe rt Grant – invertebrate zoology – introduced Darwin to transmutationist ideas o f Lamarck and Geoffroy Darwin roomed with brother Erasmus, five years his senior Collecting and describing inverts from the Firth of Forth No taste for medicine Father’s comments on Darwin’s prospect – “care for nothing…” [TRANSMUTIONIST IDEAS] Cambridge theology (1828-1831) Had to accept the “Thirty-nine article of Anglican communion” Demonstrate competence in new testament Greek William Paley’s (1802) “Natural theology” or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Bridgewater Treatises On the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God As Manifested in the Creation Rev. Adam Sedgwick (geologist) Rev. John Stevens Henslow (botanist) Social and professional connections! Later Hooker’s father-in-law Introduces Darwin to writing of Augustin Pyrame de Candolle and Alexander von Humboldt [ADAPTATION AND DESIGN]
5	Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) German romantic adventurer and universal scholar of nature “Personal Narrative of Travels to Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent” [1814-1829] – read at Henslow’s urging Darwin read this in 1831 and immediately decided to follow Humboldt’s example Humboldtian ‘nature reveries’ [SENSE OF THE SUBLIME] Integrative theorizing about nature [NATURE ‘ALL OF A PIECE’] See Sloan 2001for more on Humboldt’s influence on Darwin’s worldview Side Note: Elizabeth Leeves (Edward Sabine’s wife) published a four-volume translation of Humboldt’s monumental textbook of geophysics Kosmos between 1849-58.
6	Beagle Opportunity “Wanted: Gentleman naturalist and companion” Captain Robert Fitzroy (1805-1869) Contacted Rev. Henslow with offer Next offered to brother-in-law Leonard Jenyns who first accepted then suddenly backed out – spouse NO! Darwin was last minute second choice! Even then “nose problem” almost ruled Darwin out… Initially a two year unpaid position… Darwin’s father famously objects…but still pays Uncle Josiah intervenes on Charles behalf Darwin’s departure, initial experience, and elevation to official naturalist status Syms Covington, (1816?-1861) cabin boy assistant think ‘Master & Commander’ [GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION WITHIN TYPES] -- end of Darwin’s essentialism? – (Mayr 1976) Side note: Darwin co-nominates Fitzroy for R.S. in 1851
7	Charles Lyell (1797-1875) The father of modern geology On the Beagle voyage, Fitzroy loaned Darwin his copy of Lyell’s (1830) treatise “Principles of Geology” (v. 1) The principle of uniformitarianism Lyell did not accept transmutation of species* at this point but his work did firmly establish two related ideas in Darwin’s thinking [APPRECIATION OF ‘DEEP TIME’] [UNIFORMITARIAN GEOLOGY] Intellectual hero and mentor to Darwin Lyell’s Antiquity of Man (1863) plays a key role in later debate Review by Alfred Russel Wallace
8	Appreciation of ‘Deep Time’ See S.J. Gould. 1989. Time’s arrow, time’s cycle
9
10
11	Two Key Influences on Darwin’s Philosophy of Science William Whewell (1794-1866) Coined the then controversial term ‘scientist’ in 1833 – first “philosopher of science” “History (1837) and Philosophy (1840) of the Inductive Sciences” “Consilience of inductions” – one class of facts coincides with an induction obtained from a different class – ‘strengthens the fabric of our knowledge’ See Wilson, E.O. 1998. Consilience (pro \| con) William Whewell-John Stewart Mill debate [CONSILIENCE OF INDUCTIONS] John Herschel (1792-1871) “Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy” (1830) SEARCH FOR VERA CAUSA AS SCIENTIFIC IDEAL Establish existence of cause Establish adequacy of the cause Establish responsibility of the cause [SEARCH FOR VERA CAUSA]
12	To marry or not to marry? [Genetic quality and health effects of close mating] To marry or not to marry -- parallel list Marry, marry, marry! But to whom? First love Fanny Owen already married… Wedgwood cousins (Josiah’s daughters) Closer to older daughters but… Emma had grown up during Charles’ voyage Long walks and talks etc. Concern about genetic effects of close mating Personal health concerns – inherited weak constitution or Chagas disease? As early as July of 1838 Darwin begins overt strategizing about how to self-censor his ideas with Emma… Emma and Charles wed 31 Jan 1839
13	The London Years (1837-1842) Period of Darwin’s most intense intellectual foment Diagram from 1837 Notebook B “Zoonomia” Branching tree of life Consilience of inductions [COMMON DESCENT] Read Rev. Thomas Malthus in 1838 ‘for amusement’ Essay on the Principle of Population London population increase [STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE] Pigeon Fanciers Clubs etc. [POWER OF MAN’S SELECTION]
14	Influence of Rev. Thomas Malthus How ‘amusing’ is the Rev. Thomas Malthus? “…I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species."
15	Darwin’s Early Drafts Darwin Correspondence Project 1842 Sketch on Natural Selection 1844 Essay 1844 Letter to Hooker (read at Linnean Society 1858) “I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a ‘tendency to progression’ ‘adaptations from the slow willing of animals’ &c, but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different than his – though the means of change are wholly so – I think I have found out (here’s presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends.” 1857 Letter to Asa Gray (read at Linnean Society 1858) Parallel developments: George Eliot’s (1846) translation of Strauss’s “Life of Jesus” – German Higher Criticism of the Bible Anonymous (1844) publication of “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation” -- theistic account of transmutational change – in 1884 revealed to have been the work of Robert Chambers (1802-1871)
16	Moral foundation of general loss of religious faith among Victorian intellectuals? “The loss of religious faith in…Victorian agnostics… like … George Eliot was not due, in the first place, to the usually suggested reasons -- the rise of evolutionary theory in geology and biology and the Higher Criticism of the Bible. Indeed,…the dominant factor was a growing repugnance toward the ethical implications of what each had been taught to believe as essential Christianity -- especially the set of interrelated doctrines: Original Sin, Reprobation, Baptismal Regeneration, Vicarious Atonement, Eternal Punishment.” (David DeLaura 1969, p 13 as cited here)
17	Annie Darwin: ‘A dear and good child’ 2 February 1841 -- 23 April 1851 Effects on Darwin’s theory of natural selection? Likely minimal though perhaps affirmed his fears about consequences of (his own) ‘bad constitution’ or, in anachronistic terms, his ‘bad genes’ Sketch of 1842 & Essay of 1844 show that his theory was largely complete long before Annie’s death… Despondence (aggravating his own ‘wretched’ health) may have delayed work on his big species book Effect on Darwin’s faith? Final blow for any faith in the power or good of a creative deity: deism à atheism (pantheism)? Further complicated relationship with his beloved Emma thus softening desire to publish???
18	Events leading to publication of the ‘Origin’ 1857 – Darwin begins working in earnest on his full scale treatise on that ‘mystery of mysteries’ 1858 – Darwin receives letter and manuscript from Alfred Russel Wallace June 1858 – Extracts of Darwin’s work and Wallace’s papers read at meeting of Linnean Society See bibliography on final slide ‘Origin of Species’ written over nine month as an abstract for what Darwin envisioned as a full-scale technical treatise (like that of Lyell and other F.R.S.) Resulting book somewhat less technical (more accessible?) than it might otherwise have been
19	Origin of Species by Mean of Natural Selection (1859) Darwin’s ‘one long argument’ presents at least three related arguments MAIN ARGUMENT FOR NATURAL SELECTION [A VERA CAUSA ARGUMENT] (HERSCHEL) Existence of selection Does selection exist? Adequacy of selection Can selection account for change in species? Adaptive fit to environment? Origin of new species? Responsibility of selection Is selection both a necessary and a sufficient cause? BROADER ARGUMENTS [CONSILIENCE OF INDUCTIONS] (WHEWELL) Broader argument for transmutation within species over time Broader argument for descent of different species from a common ancestor
20	First, the broader arguments Supported by Whewell’s ‘consilience of inductions’ ‘Transmutation’ of Species ‘Essence’ (throughout) No fixed species ‘essence’ populations vary and thus can evolve TRANSMUTATION à EVOLUTION No essence? No transmutation necessary! Populational v. typological thinking See Mayr 1976, Beatty 1985 Common Descent (final paragraph of Ch. 13) “Finally, the several classes of facts* which have been considered in this chapter, seem to me to proclaim so plainly, that the innumerable species, genera, and families of organic beings, with which this world is peopled, have all descended, each within its own class or group, from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of descent, that I should without hesitation adopt this view, even if it were unsupported by other facts or arguments.” * classification, morphology, embryology, rudimentary organs
21	The Structure of the Origin [Adapted from Hodge 1977 and Waters 2003]
22	Natural Selection Three (inductive) observations and two (inescapable) deductions Observation 1 – Adults on average produce (many) more offspring than required for their own replacement Observation 2 – Populations remain relatively constant in number (at least they don’t increase continuously) Deduction 1 – Therefore, it necessarily follows that some (many) offspring must fail to survive and/or to reproduce IMPORTANT NOTE: Deduction 1 in no way implies the inevitability of competition. Many offspring fall prey to predators, are victims of pathogens or parasites, or are victims of environmental events. The widespread belief (past and present!) that natural selection requires competition reflects cultural rather than biological foundations! Observation 3 – Within any population there are heritable variations in form and physiology (species have no immutable essence) Deduction 2 – Any heritable variations which enhance prospects for survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over time
23	The post-1859 reactions Mixed reception of Darwin’s Theory Widespread and often enthusiastic acceptance of transmutation in some intellectual circles (e.g., X-club) More reluctant acceptance of common descent and broader implications for human origins Mixed reaction to natural selection as an adequate mechanism Deep seated fears about moral and ethical implications of Darwin’s work Occasional overt hostility from clergy but more especially from congregants new to these idea
24	The Huxley-Wilberforce Debate British Association Advancement of Science -- 30 June 1860 Rev. Henslow presiding… In place of Richard Owen John Draper’s (dull) speech… Later (1874) wrote ‘The Conflict Between Science and Religion’ See also A.D. White ‘Warfare between science and theology’ Wilberforce attack… Huxley response… Hooker response… Darwin off taking water cure… The winner? You will decide in your first game decision point…meantime search Wilberforce-Huxley on the web
25	Science \| Religion The conflict intensifies Essays and Reviews (1860) book review of 2000 scholarly edition (on reserve) Bishop J.W. Colenso (1862) The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined T.H. Huxley (1862) Evidence of Man’s Place in Nature Charles Lyell (1863) Antiquity of Man Student’s Declaration (1864) 1864 Correspondence of Charles Darwin (on reserve)
26	Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences (1864) “We the undersigned Students of the Natural Sciences desire to express our sincere regret, that researches into scientific truth are perverted by some in our own times into occasions for casting doubt upon the Truth and Authenticity of Holy Scriptures. We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of God, as written in the book of nature, and God’s word written in Holy Scripture to contradict one another, however much they appear to differ. We are not forgetful that Physical Science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly; and we confidently believe, that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular. We cannot but deplore that Natural Science should be looked upon with suspicion by many who do not make a study of it, merely because of the unadvised manner in which some are placing it in opposition to Holy Writ. We believe it is the duty of every scientific student to investigate nature simply for the purpose of elucidating truth, and that if he finds that some of his results appear to be in contradiction to the written word, or rather to his own interpretation of it, which may be erroneous, he should not presumptiously affirm that his own conclusions must be right, and the statements of Scripture wrong; rather, leave the two side by side till it shall please God to allow us to see the manner in which they may be reconciled; and, instead of insisting upon the seeming difference between Science and the Scriptures, it would be as well to rest in faith upon the points in which they agree.”
27	Hershel’s Response? -- “law of higgeldty-piggeldy” Herschel, Whewell, & Mill all skeptical – Darwin’s reply… “I am pleased with your note on my book on species, though apparently you go but a little way with me. […] One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons) then I cannot see design in the variations in structure of animals in a state of nature, those which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed. But I ought to apologise for thus troubling you.” “You will think me very conceited when I say I feel quite easy about the ultimate success of my views, (with much error, as yet unseen by me, to be no doubt eliminated); & I feel this confidence because I find so many young & middle-aged truly good workers in different branches, either partially or wholly accepting my views, because they find that they can thus group & understand many scattered facts. […] Forgive me boasting, if you can; I do so, because I should value your partial acquiescence in my views, more than that of almost any other human being.”
28	Clergyman Charles Kingsley (1819-1875) Theistic naturalism expressed in 1859 Letter to Darwin “I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that he created primal forms capable of self development into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that he required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought.”
29	Some Relevant People & Key Game Roles
30	Annotated Bibliography -- (N)icenet (R)eserve Beatty, J. 1985 Colp, R. Jr. (1986). "Confessing a Murder": Darwin's First Revelations about Transmutation. Isis, 77(1), 8-32. (N) Darwin, C. (1959). The origin of species by Charles Darwin: a variorum text. Philadephia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Amazing work including changes across all editions of the 'Origin' in a single text. (R) Gale, B. G. (1972). Darwin and the Concept of a Struggle for Existence: Extrascientific Origins of Scientific Ideas. Isis, 63(3), 321-344. (N) Hodge, J. 1977. Hodge, J., & Radick, G. (2003). The Cambridge Companion to Darwin. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. An excellent update of the status of Darwin scholarship. Key contributors to field including especially relevant contributions from Hodge (London years), Waters (structure of argument), Hull (Victorian philosophy of science), and Brooke (Victorian Christianity). (R) Mandelbaum, M. (1958). Darwin's Religious Views. Journal of the History of Ideas, 19(3), 363-378. (N) Mayr, E. (1976). Typological versus population thinking. In E. Mayr (ed), Evolution and the Diversity of Life (pp. 26-30). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Mayr's most concise and succinct argument that Darwin's key idea was his anti-essentialist move from typological to populational thinking. (N) Shea, V., & Whitla, W. (2000). Essays and Reviews: the 1860 text and its reading. Charlottesville VA: University Press of Virginia. Richly annotated scholarly edition of the work that precipitated in crisis in the Anglican Church and opened a (perhaps unbridgable) gulf between supernaturalist religion and naturalistic science. Includes seven essays by liberal religious thinkers. General familiarity with the structure and strategy of this work is essential for understanding the events of 1860-1865. (R) Sloan, P. R. (2001). The sense of sublimity: Darwin on nature and divinity. Osiris, 16, 251-269. Fascinating account of the early and pervasive influence of Humboldt's romanticism on Darwin's thinking about nature and god. (N) Turner, F. M. (1978). The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension. Isis, 69(3), 356-376. Classic study of events. Waters, K. 2003. in Hodge & Radick 2003 (R) Young, R. M. (1985). Darwin's metaphor: nature's place in Victorian culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See especially Chapter 5 entitled "Natural theology, Victorian periodicals, and the fragmentation of a common context“ See also “Darwin Correspondence Project” and Osiris (V. 16, 2001) (R)