I've brought this post back up top because I find it strange that I've had two anonymous comments on it. It's about the history of science! Is that so controversial that people can't put their names to their comments? And if they're people I don't know (most likely), who are they and how did they find my blog? Strange.
---
At the 2006 BSHS conference* in Canterbury, the Cambridge historian of science John van Wyhe presented a paper entitled "Mind the Gap" which discussed the reasons why Charles Darwin delayed in publishing his theory of the origin of species. Contrary to the popular belief that Darwin feared the repercussions from the Church or from his religious wife, it seems that he just didn't have time, between dealing with ill health and studying barnacles.
I found it a fascinating paper. Of course, I'm interested in anything related to science and religion, particularly if it dispels popular myths about the Church suppressing science!
Dr van Wyhe's findings have been published in the Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, and have been reported by BBC news. Read about it here.
*If you click on this link, I'm in the photo!!
4 comments:
Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody ever said that it was the Church who suppressed Darwin's theory. All of the leading Darwin historians (who have spent far more time studying Darwin than Dr Van Wyhe has) have argued that Darwin didn't publish for twenty years because he was afraid that his theory would be socially unacceptable and would lead to him being an outcast from the scientific community and society at large. Dr Van Wyhe's argument appears to revolve around claims that Darwin was joking whenever he spoke of being afraid and that actually he was just a slow worker. His alleged refutation is based on some pretty dodgy empirical work and a complete disregard for social contexts. So don't believe everything you read.
Wow! 'A student in history of science' obviously does not like the conclusion of Van Wyhe's paper. But anyone who has read it could not honestly say that this is a fair assessment. Don't believe indeed! Better to look at the original paper instead. http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(5cejwmrodl31p0rqlkbe1n55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,9;journal,2,31;linkingpublicationresults,1:110825,1
Firstly, it's true that any myth about evolution being suppressed by the church is a myth (indeed, a less credible myth even than the Lady Hope story). But the better question is, "What does it mean, 'the church' suppressed evolution?" Usually "The Church" means the Inquisition gagging Galileo and putting Descartes' Meditations on the Index librorum prohibitum. While the C.ofE. was quite the Establishment in Britain at that time, it had no such strangle-hold over free discourse. Even the universities were loosening up a little with Edinburgh dominating the sciences and the University of London being founded (ie Oxbridge becoming less important for sciences). The other places for biological sciences were Germany and the USA, both of which embraced Natural Selection rather quickly. Darwin would not have worried if the Catholic church put his works on the Index as French biology had had its day by then.
Secondly, it's also a myth that more strict Protestants (than CofE) have always opposed evolution. Unfortunately, here in the US, that's what a lot of people assume. Ron Numbers (in Darwinism Comes to America) dispells this myth by showing that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries even quite evangelical protestants had no problem with evolution. At that time the religious landscape in the US was like Europe and Australia now, ie only radical fringe groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists actually thought evolution was incompatible with religion. In fact, religious neo-creationism was very much a twentieth century phenomenon.
Thirdly, van Wyhe seems to be arguing against Desmond & Moore's line. Well, they did tart it up a bit in Life of a tormented evolutionist, especially when they titled a chapter "Like Confessing a Murder". But mainly the torment was from his chronic illness. Their main emphasis is on the social milieu where books like Chambers's Vestiges of Creation had given evolution a bad name scientifically.
I think Janet Browne's explanation is best. She emphasises the scientific network Darwin was building before publication. He courted the younger generation of biologists - people like T.H. Huxley, J.D. Hooker and Asa Gray. (Because, being a good Kuhnian, he knew he'd never convert the Old Guard. Although he did come close to converting Sir Richard Owen.) Browne argues that it was this cultivation of allies that took so long. None of them were evolutionists when he met them, they needed grooming. And he had Hooker saying things like, 'No one should offer general theories of biology unless he is an expert in at least one particular area.' So Darwin had to go out and make himself an expert in barnacles in order to build himself a reputation as a good experimental biologist. Then he had to amass much more evidence than what he saw on the Beagle voyage. Any biography will tell you how much time he spent experimenting on potential methods of seed distribution etc.
Basically, I don't think that there's anything too new in vanWyhe's paper. Yes, it took Darwin a long time to publish the Origin. Yes, he did have a sketch of the theory of Natural Selection well before then. But he wasn't spending all that time wringing his hands. Desmond and Moore have shown us how ill he was, Browne has shown us how he developed his scientific credentials and everyone knows how absorbing barnacles can be once you start! But it should come as no surprise to anyone that he would try to amass as much evidence as possible for a revolutionary theory. That and anticipate the objections.
Actually, it's those objections that get me the most. If you read the Origin you'll see that he provides an explanation of how the eye could evolve with each small step conferring some survival advantage to the organism. Yet to this day we hear people spouting bullshit about "irreducible complexity"! If only they did a bit of reading they would have realised that Darwin anticipated this back in 1859!
Oh, and it appears that the Origin and the Descent of Man never appeared on the Index librorum prohibitum. Erasmus' stuff was, but that's no surprise because his botany was so damn sexy (no, seriously, he wrote naughty things about stamens and pistils).
I can't be bothered using anything more thorough than Google so, if anyone can proove that anything by Charles Darwin was placed on the Index, please correct me.
Post a Comment