* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Syllabus - Erika Milam
Natural selection wikipedia , lookup
Objections to evolution wikipedia , lookup
Sociocultural evolution wikipedia , lookup
Hologenome theory of evolution wikipedia , lookup
Jewish views on evolution wikipedia , lookup
Creation and evolution in public education in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
Hindu views on evolution wikipedia , lookup
Koinophilia wikipedia , lookup
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex wikipedia , lookup
Punctuated equilibrium wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to evolution wikipedia , lookup
Creation and evolution in public education wikipedia , lookup
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups wikipedia , lookup
PrincetonUniversity History392 Spring2017–TheHistoryofDarwinism Prof. Erika Lorraine Milam Location: Fisher Hall B03 Time: Tuesdays and Thursdays 1:30-2:50 pm Office Hours: 135 Dickinson, Thursdays 9:30-11:30 am, or by arrangement You can guarantee yourself a specific time slot by signing up through WASS: https://wass.princeton.edu/pages/viewcalendar.page.php?makeapp=1&cal_id=1615. Contact: email: [email protected] or office phone: 609.258.0209 —DickOldden,TheMedicalTribune(3April1961) ____________________________________________ CourseDescription In 1973, population geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky proudly declared, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”1 At the time, however, evolutionary biologists like Dobzhansky were fighting intellectual battles on many fronts: against molecular biologists who believed the future of biology resided in cells and DNA, against a new generation of “young turks” like paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who sought to make intellectual room for theories like punctuated equilibrium, and against conservatives seeking to oust natural selection from classrooms. Despite Dobzhansky’s triumphalist claim, the future of evolutionary biology as a field seemed anything but secure. By interweaving intellectual and cultural threads, this course traces the interdisciplinary history of evolutionary theory from Charles Darwin (and the natural historians on whom he drew), through 1 Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” The American Biology Teacher 35/3 (1973): 125-129. 1 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam Dobzhansky and Gould, to the late 20th century. Across this century and a half we will explore how biologists invested in evolutionary theory the capacity to explain our all too human nature and, perhaps, the possibility of solving some of the world’s most pressing problems—including racial conflicts and the battle of the sexes. We will see how evolutionary theory became a model linking disparate life sciences, building on evidence from bones, organisms, and molecules. We will also discuss how and why critics have attacked evolution as amoral and socially dangerous. In sum, the course reveals how impossible it is to understand the history of a professional scientific theory without taking into account both the implications of the theory in other disciplines and contemporary popular opinion. ____________________________________________ ClassMeetings In general, the class is organized to emphasize lecture on Thursday and discussion on Tuesday, although it will take a few days to settle into that schedule. Attendance at lectures and participation in discussions are required. Readings This course involves a little over 100 pages of reading per week. All readings are what historians call “primary sources” related to the main theme of the week’s lectures. That is, these essays and papers and chapters provide historical evidence of the social and intellectual stakes of their authors, usually scientists. All readings will be available through the course Blackboard site. Evaluation&Grading Participation, incl. responses: 30% Two Short Papers (6-7 pages): 20% One Longer Paper (10-12 pages): 30% Responses due Monday before 6pm, regarding readings for the following day Paper 1: Due Friday, Mar 10 before 5pm Paper 2: Due Friday, April 21 before 5pm Paper 3: Due Dean’s Date before 5pm Participation Discussion will focus on questions introduced during lecture and on deeper analysis of selected issues raised by the readings assigned for that week. Class participation will be judged according to the History Department’s grading rubric (found at the end of the syllabus). If you miss more than one discussion without a pre-arranged acceptable excuse, you will receive a failing participation grade. Over the course of the semester, you are required to turn in six reading responses of 500 words, each describing two themes you see running through the readings as a whole and posing a question. These are due to me via email Monday at 6pm. These will not be graded but will count towards your participation grade. Papers will be judged on the merits of their argument, use of evidence, and presentation, as outlined in the History Department’s grading rubric (found at the end of this syllabus). For each paper, you will be given a set of essay prompts that you will need to answer based on the 2 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam readings and discussion from class. The first two papers will not require any additional outside research. The final, longer paper will be more open-ended and allow you to explore a topic you have found especially interesting during the semester. It will require additional independent research. LatePolicies Late reading responses will not be accepted. The penalty for late papers is as follows—a third of a letter grade will be deducted for each 24-hour period after the deadline. It’s up to you to decide whether the deduction is worth the extra time. After 7 days, late papers will no longer be accepted. LaptopPolicy Students can use a laptop to take notes in class if they sign a “Laptop Contract” in which they agree to use their laptop in lecture for note-taking purposes only. Failure to adhere to this agreement may lead to laptops being banned for the entire class. Laptops are not allowed in discussions, so you may want to print the readings or take notes on the readings in a separate notebook that you can access during discussions. ____________________________________________ CourseSchedule Part1.AQuickHistoricalStudyofDarwin,HisInspirations,andtheLegacyofHisIdeas Day One – Introduction to the Course Lecture & Discussion: Feb 7 “AspeciesofLizardFoundonsomeofthe IslandsoftheGalapagosArchipelago,” TheVoyageoftheBeagle Day Two – On the Origin of Species Lecture & Discussion: Feb 9 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray, 1859): “Struggle for Existence,” 60-79, “Natural Selection,” 80-130, and “Recapitulation and Conclusion,” 459-490. [103 pp.] Day Three – Traveling and Field Research Lecture and Discussion: Feb 14 Charles Darwin, “Galapagos Archipelago,” The Voyage of the Beagle (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1909 reprint), 394-424. [31 pp.] 3 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam Alexander von Humboldt, “Introduction,” Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent, during the years 1799-1804, Vol. 1, trans. Helen Maria Williams (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1814), i-li. [51 pp.] Week Two – Species Before Origin Lecture: Feb 16 Discussion: Feb 21 CharlesDarwin,NotebookB: TransmutationofSpecies(1837) Readings Robert Chambers, “Mental Constitution of Animals,” in Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (London: John Churchill, 1844): 324-360. [37 pp.] George Cuvier, “4. First Proofs of Revolutions on the Surface of the Globe” and “30. Proofs that the extinct Species of Quadrupeds are not Varieties of the presently existing Species,” in Essay on the Theory of the Earth (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1822), 7-23, 114-128. [32 pp.] Lorenz Oken, “Preface to the Translation,” “Preface,” and “Introduction,” in Elements of Physiophilosophy, trans. Alfred Tulk (London: Ray Society, 1847), ix-xiv, 1-4. [10 p.] William Paley, “The Being of God Demonstrated in the Works of Creation,” in E. Paley, ed. Works of William Paley, D. D., Vol. VII (London: Thomas Davison, 1825), 405-419. [15 pp.] Week Three – Progressive Adaptation Lecture: Feb 23, Discussion: Feb 28 Frontispiece,ThomasHenryHuxley, EvidenceastoMan’sPlaceinNature (London:WilliamsandNorgate,1863). Readings Letter Alfred Russel Wallace to Richard Spruce, 19 September 1852: http://wallaceletters.info/content/“i-am-afraid-ship’s-fire” and http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/scientific-resources/collections/librarycollections/wallace-letters-online/349/349/S/details.html. Letter Charles Darwin to Alfred Russel Wallace, 1 May 1857: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2086.xml. Letter Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, 5 September 1857: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2136.xml. Letter Charles Darwin to Alfred Russel Wallace, 22 December 1857: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2192.xml. 4 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam Letter Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, 18 June 1858: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2285.xml. Letter J.D. Hooker and Charles Lyell to the Linnean Society, 30 June 1858: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2299.xml. Thomas Henry Huxley, “On the Relation of Man to the Lower Animals,” in Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1863), 71-132. [62 pp.] Alfred Russel Wallace, “Preface” and “Borneo—The Orang-Utan,” in The Malay Archipelago, illus. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1869), v-viii, 46-74. [33 pp.] Week Four – Politics of Nature Lecture: Mar 2, Discussion: Mar 7 Readings Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relations Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution (Boston: Small, Maynard & Company, 1898), 1-22. [22 pp.] Thomas Henry Huxley, “The Struggle for Existence: A Programme,” The Nineteenth Century 23/132 (1888): 161-180. [20 pp.] Charles Kingsley, “On the Study of Natural History,” in New Miscellanies (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1860), 277-296. [20 pp.] Peter Kropotkin, “Introduction” and “Conclusion,” in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (New York: McClure Phillips & Co., 1902), vii-xix, 293-300. [21 pp.] Herbert Spencer, “Preparation in Biology,” in Study of Sociology (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1874), 327-354. [29 pp.] Week Five – Family of Man Lecture: Mar 9, Discussion: Mar 14 Readings Theodosius Dobzhansky, “The Road Traversed and the Road Ahead,” in Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962): 319-348. [30 pp.] Julian Huxley, “Human Power and its Control,” Yale Review 4 (1931): 649-669. [21 pp.] Joshua Lederberg, “The Genetics of Human Nature,” Social Research 40/3 (1973): 375-406. [36 pp.] George Gaylord Simpson, “Modes of Evolution,” in Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984 [1944]): 197-217. [21 pp.] UNESCO, “The Scientific Basis for Human Unity, 18 July 1950,” The Phi Delta Kappan 32/2 (1950): 34-36. [3 pp.] First Short Essay Due (Friday, March 10 before 5pm) 5 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam Week 6 – Genetics and Evolution Lecture: Thursday, Mar 16 Spring Break (March 18-26) Discussion: Tuesday, Mar 28 AEukaryoticCell Readings Rebecca Cann, “DNA and Human Origins,” Annual Review of Anthropology 17 (1988): 127-143. [17 pp.] Bernard D. Davis, “Bacterial Genetics and Drug Resistance,” Public Health Reports 67/4 (1952): 376-379. [4 pp.] Lynn Margulis, “The Symbiotic Theory,” in Origin of Eukaryotic Cells (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970): 45-68. [24 pp.] Thomas Hunt Morgan, “Selection and Evolution,” in A Critique of the Theory of Evolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1916): 145-194. [50 pp.] Francis J. Ryan, “Evolution Observed,” Scientific American 189/4 (1953): 78-82. [5 pp.] ____________________________________________ Part 2. Debates and Controversies in the 20th Century Week Seven – Could “Life” Itself have Evolved? Lecture: Mar 30, Discussion: Apr 4 Readings Erasmus Darwin, The Temple of Nature: Or, the origin of society: A Poem, with philosophical notes (London: J. Johnson, 1803): “Canto I. Production of Life,” 3-39, and “Additional Notes: Spontaneous Vitality of Microscopic Animals,” 1-11. [48 pp.] J. B. S. Haldane, “What is Life,” in Keeping Cool and Other Essays (London: Chatto and Windus, 1940): 48-63. [16 pp.] J. B. S. Haldane, “The Origin of Life,” Rationalist Annual (1929): 1-10. [10 pp.] Joshua Lederberg, “Of Men and Microbes,” New Perspectives Quarterly 20/3 (2003): 53-55. [3 pp.] Carl Sagan and Joshua Lederberg, “The Prospects for Life on Mars: A Pre-Viking Assessment,” Icarus 28 (1976): 291-300. [10 pp.] George Gaylord Simpson, “The Nonprevalence of Humanoids,” Science 143 (1964): 769-775. [7 pp.] 6 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam Week Eight – Did Evolution Change Ideas about Race? Lecture: Apr 6, Discussion: Apr 11 Readings Amram Scheinfeld, “Race,”in You and Heredity (Philadelphia: Frederick A. Stokes, 1939): 335-355. [21 pp.] Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), excerpt. W. E. B. DuBois and Augustus Dill, “Home Life,” in Morals and Manners Among Negro Americans (Atlanta, GA: The Atlanta University Press, 1914), 67-81. [15 pp.] Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, “A Biological View of Race,” in Ashley Montagu, ed. The Concept of Race (London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964): 153-179. [27 pp.] Joseph A. Towles and Colin M. Turnbull, “The White Problem in America,” Natural History (June-July 1968): 6-18. [6 pp.] Alfred Russel Wallace, “The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced from the Theory of ‘Natural Selection,’” Journal of the Anthropological Society of London 2 (1964): clviiiclvxxvii. [30 pp.] Sherwood L. Washburn, “Thinking About Race” Annual Report Smithsonian Institution (1945): 363378. [16 pp.] Sherwood Washburn, “The Study of Race,” American Anthropologist 65 (1963): 521-531. [11 pp.] Week Nine – Are Feminism and Evolution Antithetical? Lecture: Apr 13, Discussion: Apr 18 Readings Charles Darwin, “General Summary and Conclusion,” in Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Vol. 2 (London: John Murray, 1871): 385-405. [21 pp.] Richard Dawkins, “The Long Reach of the Gene,” in The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976): 234-266. [33 pp.] Irven DeVore, “Interview,” Psychology Today 10/9 (1977): 42-46+ [11 pp.] Elaine Morgan, “Man-Made Myth,” in The Descent of Woman (New York: Stein and Day, 1972): 113. [13 pp.] Joan Roughgarden, “Challenging Darwin’s Theory of Sexual Selection,” Daedalus 136/2 (2007): 23-36. [14 pp.] Marlene Zuk, “Feminism and the Study of Animal Behavior,” BioScience 43/11 (1993): 774-778. Robert Trivers response, “Deriving Females and Feminism,” BioScience 44/4 (1994): 210. [6 pp.] 7 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam Week Ten – Does a Necessary Conflict Between Evolution and Religion Exist? Lecture: Apr 20, Discussion: Apr 25 Readings Michael Behe, “What Darwinism Can’t Do” in The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007): 84-102. [19 pp.] Sean Carroll, “God as Genetic Engineer” [review of Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution], Science 316 (8 June 2007): 1427-28. [2 pp.] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, “Birth of Thought,” in The Phenomenon of Man, trans. Bernard Wall (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959): 299-311. [12 pp.] Dorothy Nelkin, “The Science-Textbook Controversies,” Scientific American 234/4 (April 1976): 33-39, plus letters to the editor that followed in July & October 1976. [10 pp.] H. G. Wells, Julian Huxley, G.P. Wells, “Selection in Evolution” and “Is There a Mystical Evolutionary Urge?” in The Science of Life (London: Cassell and Company Ltd., 1931), 364387. [24 pp.] John B. Conlan and Peter B. Dow, “Pro/Con Forum: The MACOS Controversy,” Social Education 39/6 (1975): 388-396. [9 pp.] Second Short Essay Due (Friday, April 21 before 5pm) Week Eleven – Are Humans ‘Naturally’ Cooperative or Competitive? Lecture: Apr 27, Discussion: May 2 Readings Theodosius Dobzhansky, “The Ascent of Man,” Social Biology 19/4 (1972): 367-378. [12 pp.] Alfred Emerson, “The Biological Basis of Social Cooperation,” Illinois Academy of Sciences Transactions 39 (1946): 9-18. [10 pp.] Stephen Jay Gould, “Mickey Mouse Meets Konrad Lorenz,” Natural History 88/5 (1979): 30-36. [7 pp.] Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, “Apes on a Plane,” in Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 1-32. [32 pp.] John Maynard Smith, “The Evolution of Behavior,” Scientific American 239/3 (1978): 176-192. [17 pp.] 8 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson, “Altruism as a Biological Concept,” in Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 17-54. [38 pp.] Robert Trivers, “The Evolutionary Logic of Self-Deception,” in The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life (New York: Basic Books, 2011): 1-28. [28 pp.] Topic for Longer Essay Due (Friday, April 28 before 5pm) Day Twenty-Four – Darwinism, in Retrospect Lecture & Discussion: May 4 Revisit our first readings of the semester… Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray, 1859): “Struggle for Existence,” 60-79, “Natural Selection,” 80-130, and “Recapitulation and Conclusion,” 459-490. Longer Essay Due (Dean’s Date before 5pm) 9 His392–HistoryofEvolution Milam DepartmentofHistoryGradingPractices Participation A student who receives an A for participation in discussion in precepts or seminars typically comes to every class with questions about the readings in mind. An ‘A’ discussant engages others about ideas, respects the opinions of others, and consistently elevates the level of discussion. A student who receives a B for participation in discussion in precepts or seminars typically does not always come to class with questions about the readings in mind. A ‘B’ discussant waits passively for others to raise interesting issues. Some discussants in this category, while courteous and articulate, do not adequately listen to other participants or relate their comments to the direction of the conversation. A student who receives a C for discussion in precepts or seminars attends regularly but typically is an infrequent or unwilling participant in discussion. A student who fails to attend precepts regularly or to adequately prepare for discussion risks the grade of D or F. Papers An A or A- thesis, paper, or exam is one that is good enough to be read aloud in a class. It is clearly written and well-organized. It demonstrates that the writer has conducted a close and critical reading of texts, grappled with the issues raised in the course, synthesized the readings, discussions, and lectures, and formulated a perceptive, compelling, independent argument. The argument shows intellectual originality and creativity, is sensitive to historical context, is supported by a well-chosen variety of specific examples, and, in the case of a research paper, is built on a critical reading of primary material. A B+ or B thesis, paper, or exam demonstrates many aspects of A-level work but falls short of it in either the organization and clarity of its writing, the formulation and presentation of its argument, or the quality of research. Some papers or exams in this category are solid works containing flashes of insight into many of the issues raised in the course. Others give evidence of independent thought, but the argument is not presented clearly or convincingly. A B- thesis, paper, or exam demonstrates a command of course or research material and understanding of historical context but provides a less than thorough defense of the writer's independent argument because of weaknesses in writing, argument, organization, or use of evidence. A C+, C, or C- thesis, paper, or exam offers little more than a mere a summary of ideas and information covered in the course, is insensitive to historical context, does not respond to the assignment adequately, suffers from frequent factual errors, unclear writing, poor organization, or inadequate primary research, or presents some combination of these problems. Whereas the grading standards for written work between A and C- are concerned with the presentation of argument and evidence, a paper or exam that belongs to the D or F categories demonstrates inadequate command of course material. A D thesis, paper, or exam demonstrates serious deficiencies or severe flaws in the student's command of course or research material. An F thesis, paper, or exam demonstrates no competence in the course or research materials. It indicates a student’s neglect or lack of effort in the course. 10