Noted British scientist Charles Darwin, who essentially, and rather reluctantly, fathered the now commonly accepted (at least among the world scientific community) theory of evolution, was born on this day back in 1809.
He is best known for his the world famous book, "On the Origin of Species," which is short for the actual, full title, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." The publication of this book, in which Darwin published his scientific findings during his time on the HMS Beagle. In particular, he came up with his "theory of evolution" during the time that he spent on the Galapagos Islands off the coast of South America, where there are unique creatures not seen anywhere else in the world.
The book was a bombshell. Very few books in history can be said to have had anywhere near the impact that this book dense with scientific discoveries has had on the world. It called into question the working theory that was prevalent and simply, largely unquestioningly accepted universally (at least in the West), that the world was by "God's design." The idea that creatures evolve certain traits over enormous periods of time, which prove useful in some way to the survival of their species, obviously went against that working theory of God's grand design for a perfect world. This was ultimately to have enormous ramifications not just on people's perceptions of this world, but on human origins, as well. Darwin hardly even mentioned the human species in that book, although he would return to address it later in two books, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" published in 1871, and then "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals," which was published in 1872.
All he says of human origins in "The Origin of Species" is simply this:
“Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”
~ Charles Darwin
Yet, people suspected that Darwin's "theory" indeed had clear and obvious ramifications for humans, as well. And again, Darwin would eventually address the origins of human beings in those two aforementioned books. Still, the original book which introduced the world to the "theory of evolution" proved to be a lightning rod. Even today, despite mountains of evidence that has largely proven Darwin true, many people - particularly religious-minded people - refuse to believe it.
In my own life, I had been only somewhat familiar with Darwin's "Origin of Species" book and evolutionary theory before college. But during my days at Bergen Community College (BCC), I did a research paper on it, and found myself engrossed in the drama. Not just the theory itself, but the adventures that Darwin embarked upon as a relatively young man aboard the Beagle, his findings on the Galapagos Islands, and his hesitation to publish these findings. He himself was a religious man, or had been. In time, his religious views changed, of course. How could they not, given the significance of his scientific discoveries? However, he seemed to understand just how groundbreaking and controversial his theories would prove to be.
Now in time, it should be noted that the controversies surrounding Darwin's evolutionary theories went well beyond science. Some people fixated on races, and began to develop theories of evolution based on race. Typically, it was Europeans (or whites), who developed these theories, and they pretty much always looked upon their own race as naturally superior. This has come to be known as "Social Darwinism," and it is important to note that Darwin himself never developed these theories.
And yet...Darwin himself had some troubling views on racism. I will post a very well-written paragraph that explains this complicated and paradoxical side to Darwin from the Guardian article by Adam Rutherford (see link below), which I strongly urge the reader to take a look at for themselves. Again, it is a wonderful and informative, thought-provoking article, and I found myself getting fascinated by Darwin and the drama of his theories all over again, much like I did back in my BCC days. Anyway, here is that paragraph:
Darwin was a liberal, and an abolitionist, perhaps influenced by his taxidermy tutor in Edinburgh, a Guyanese man called John Edmonstone who had once been enslaved. But we must be honest in our assessment of him and his work. He was a man of his time, and The Descent of Man contains many passages that seriously jar today, being scientifically specious and politically outmoded. Darwin never mentions Edmonstone by name, only as a “full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate”. He speaks of how the “civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”.
So to be clear, Darwin did not himself come up with or necessarily condone what we have come to know as "Social Darwinism," a pseudo-scientific and obviously biased philosophy that pretends to have an academic credibility that it never actually earned, and which has long been accepted and championed by racists, particularly in Nazi Germany and, in time, in apartheid South Africa, where whites were taught similar theories in their schools.
Nor does it stop there. Darwin not only held views that we today would understand as being blatantly racist, he also had views that we would understand as obviously sexist, as well. Here is another Darwin quote that I obtained from this same article by Rutherford:
“If men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”
Yet, even all of this should perhaps be given as asterisk, or at least understood a little bit better. Because ultimately, Darwin may have had some unlikable traits and manners of thinking, but he was mostly a decent man. That may sound paradoxical, but yet another Darwin quote that I am taking from this Rutherford article show an entirely different, and much more humane, side to Darwin and his approach to how human beings should treat one another:
“As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”
At the end of the day, I decided to write and publish this blog entry not simply to honor the man uncritically, or not to question the flaws of Darwin's prejudices. We should be made aware of them, and try to understand how such a brilliant man could hold views that we today would view as backwards. Still, there is absolutely no question that Darwin was a brilliant scientist, and his work shook the world, and our understanding of not just our own role in it, but of life itself. In this regard, he can be said to have punched much harder than his weight in furthering our understanding of the world. And this is something that I certainly feel is worth not just mentioning, but honoring.
How should we address Charles Darwin's complicated legacy? by Adam Rutherford, 13 Feb 2021:
The Descent of Man, 150 years old this month, is a work of humanist brilliance – yet its errors, particularly on sex, now make for uncomfortable reading
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/feb/13/how-should-we-address-charles-darwin-complicated-legacy
Charles Darwin Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
No comments:
Post a Comment