Download Darwinism in Context: a Course on the Nature of Science

Darwinism in Context: a Course on the Nature of Science
Kostas Kampourakis & Christos Gripiotis
Geitonas School, P.O. Box: 74128, Vari Attikis, 16602, Athens, Greece
email: [email protected]
Abstract
A course, Darwinism in Context: Evolutionary Ideas in a Victorian Age, a study of social, cultural
and scientific issues in 19 th century England is described. This was an explicit, highly
contextualized nature of science instruction that aimed to help students learn about a core nature
of science idea, that there are historical, cultural and social influences on the practice and
directions of science, through a well documented historical case study: the development of
Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The course consisted of five lectures that focused on a) Victorian
society, b) the views and beliefs of scholars that had an impact on Darwin’s thinking (historical
influences), c) aspects of Darwin’s personal and social life that influenced the publication of his
theory (social influences), d) the relationship between religion and science (cultural influences)
and e) the relationship between science and literature. A secondary aim of the project was to
present Darwin’s theory in its context and debunk some widespread myths, especially on Darwin’s
religious views and on the Huxley-Wilberforce debate. In all cases instruction included
presentations of the historical events but was mostly based on the analysis of excerpts from the
respective original writings. Examples of the latter as well as bibliographical sources are made
available.
Introduction
The discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries brought the workings of the universe into the realm of science, showing that they could
be explained by human reason: scientific explanation through natural laws. Hence, it was found
that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but a small planet rotating around an average
star, and that the motions of the planets around the sun could be explained by the same simple
laws that accounted for the motion of physical objects on earth. This was a revolutionary shift in
the intellectual history of humanity that radically changed our conception of the universe. Until
the mid-19 th century the origin of organisms and their marvellous adaptations were either left
unexplained or were attributed to design. In England, the dominant approach to explain natural
design was Natural Theology, according to which all organisms were designed by a benevolent and
wise Creator. Wherever there was design, there was a designer; the existence of a watch was
evidence of the existence of a watchmaker. The publication in 1859 of The Origin of Species
(hereafter Origin) by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) provided a second revolutionary shift in our
intellectual history that radically changed our conception of the place of humanity in the
universe. Darwin, although not the first to conceive this idea, accumulated evidence that
demonstrated that organisms had evolved, diverging from common ancestors, and also proposed
a mechanism for the process by which they had evolved: natural selection. The adaptations and
the diversity of organisms, the origin of novel and highly organized forms, even the origin of
humanity itself could be explained by an orderly natural process of change.
The aim of Darwinism in Context: Evolutionary Ideas in a Victorian Age was to help
secondary students learn about the nature of science through a well documented historical case
study: the development of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Explicit, highly contextualized nature
of science instruction is considered to be one important, though not adequate by itself, way to
teach effectively about the nature of science (Clough, 2006). In particular, the study of this
influential idea, as well as of the cultural, political, religious and scientific contexts in which it was
elaborated may help students learn about a core nature of science idea: that “scientific ideas are
affected by their social and historical milieu” (McComas, Almazroa & Clough, 1998) or that
“there are historical, cultural and social influences on the practice and direction of science”
1
(McComas, 2007). Darwinism in Context takes Darwin’s life and times as a basis for the
development of authentic nature of science learning experiences. Darwin’s scientific work as well
as the elaboration, the reception and the impact of his evolutionary theory in Victorian England
in the late 19 th century form an important case-study about the interaction between science and
society. The course consisted of five lectures that focused on a) historical influences, b) social
influences and c) cultural influences. Students were first introduced to Victorian era as it was
described in literary texts of the first half of the 19 th century (lecture 1). The study of historical
influences included the views and beliefs of scholars that had an impact on Darwin’s thinking,
through the study of their writings that Darwin had made reference to (lecture 2). The study of
social influences was an examination of the aspects of Darwin’s personal and social life that
delayed or catalyzed the publication of the Origin, such as Darwin’s anxiety about the public
reaction to his rather heretical views, the weakening of his faith due to the loss of his beloved
daughter and the fear to lose priority on the discovery of natural selection (lecture 3). The study
of cultural influences focused on the relationship between religion and science. In particular,
emphasis was put on the Huxley-Wilberforce debate, in an attempt to show that it was not an
instance of a general science-religion debate (lecture 4). Finally, a brief description of Darwin’s
impact on literature was given in order to highlight this often neglected relationship (lecture 5). It
is worth mentioning that, due to the sequence of the lectures, students were at the same time
given a brief description of the most important historical facts relevant to Darwin’s theory.
A group of 17-year-old students who knew enough of Biology and had a satisfactory grasp of
English to browse in the original texts attended the lectures in the amphitheatre of Geitonas
School in Athens, Greece. Janet Browne’s Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography (2006) was
suggested to students as a required reading. A student guide containing biographical information
and excerpts from writings of many important figures of Victorian era was also distributed to
students. The student guide was mostly a compilation of texts from a variety of sources. The
selection was a careful one in order to achieve scientific and historical accuracy and debunk
popular myths. The student guide was based mostly on published print material (books,
anthologies) which was considered more reliable.
Life and tho ughts before the Origin
Lecture 1, entitled Life and Thoughts in Victorian Age, was a short introduction on Victorian
London. His majesty King Henry VIII was given a part – though he belonged to Tudor times- as
he was famous for his passionate hatred towards cleanliness which he regarded as useless.
Numerous other facts that illustrated the case were mentioned to students. An attempt is made
here to name but a few. Water at the time came from village pumps which got it from the village
stream which in turn was likely to be full of sewage from the nearby town. Sugar was very
expensive and known to rot teeth, so rotten teeth meant wealth; hence, women who could not
afford such a luxury used to black their teeth out to appear richer than in reality. The aristocrats
who lived in spacious houses with separate bedrooms had the nasty habit of hanging their clothes
over sewage holes so that lice were killed with the help of urine smell. Four – poster beds were
invented out of necessity, as country people had to find a way of having an undisturbed night’s
sleep without bugs, rats or dogs falling from the thatched roofs on their beds – thus, the
expression it is raining cats and dogs. England was small and people started running out of places
to bury their dead. So, they would dig up coffins and take the bones to a house and re-use the
grave. In opening the coffins, one out of twenty-five people were found to have scratch marks on
the inside and they realized that they had been burying people alive. So, they thought they could
tie a string onto the dead person’s wrist and lead it through the coffin and up through the ground
and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night to listen for the bell.
Hence the sayings “saved by the bell” and “dead ringer”. Poor people actually forced their
children to work in mines or factories as they needed the extra money, even though that meant
longevity of only twenty five years on average for their offspring. Students were encouraged to
ask questions and comment on the points mentioned. An interesting discussion emerged on how
ignorant of science people of Victorian Era were and how little they valued cleanliness.
The students were then given the chance to read the famous works by Charles Dickens (18121870), Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806 -1861), George (Lord) Byron (1788-1824), Thomas
Carlyle (1795-1881), Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892) and Mary Shelley (1797-1851) and reveal
2
details featuring evolutionary-relevant ideas. Mary Shelley's Introduction to Frankenstein (1818)
clearly features such ideas: “I busied myself to think of a story - a story to rival those which would
speak to the mysterious fears of our nature...” (Shelley, 1985/1818, p.57) or “Many and long
were the conversations between Lord Byron and Shelley to which I was a devout but nearly silent
listener. During one of these various philosophical doctrines were discussed and among others the
nature of the principle of life and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered
and communicated” (p.58). Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s The Cry of Children (1843) is a powerful
cry, as the title readily suggests, against her times: “For oh, say the children, we are weary, and we
can not run or leap; if we cared for any meadows, it were merely, to drop down in them and sleep.
Our knees tremble sorely in the stooping, we fall upon our faces, trying to go; and underneath our
heavy eyelids drooping, the reddest flower would look as pale as snow” (quoted in Forster,1988,
p.181). Thomas Carlyle in Sartor Resartus (1833-1834) and the chapter on Natural Spiritualism
claimed that: “... Have any deepest scientific individuals yet dived down to the foundations of the
Universe, and gauged everything there? Did the Maker take them into His counsel; that they read
his ground plan of the incomprehensible All; […] That Nature is more than some boundless
Volume of such Recipes, or huge, well - nigh inexhaustible Domestic Cookery Book, of which the
whole secret will in this manner one day evolve itself, the fewest dream” (quoted in Greenblatt,
2005, p.1000). Alfred Tennyson in In Memoriam (1844) stated his worry that change and
instability were universal: “So careful of type? but no. From scarped cliff and quarried stone she
cries, a thousand types are gone; I care for nothing, all shall go” (Tennyson, 1861/1844, p.125).
Finally, Charles Dickens’ Hard Tines (1854) show the difficulties of everyday life: “In the hardest
working part of Coketown; in the innermost fortifications of that ugly citadel, where Nature was
as strongly bricked out as killing airs and gases were bricked in; at the heart of the labyrinth of
narrow courts upon courts, and close streets upon streets, which had come into existence
piecemeal, every piece in a violent hurry for some one man's purpose, and the whole an unnatural
family, shouldering, and trampling, and pressing one another to death; in the last close nook of
this great exhausted receiver, where the chimneys, for want of air to make a draught, were built in
an immense variety of stunted and crooked shapes, as though every house put out a sign of the
kind of people who might be expected to be born in it; among the multitude of Coketown,
generically called 'the Hands,' - a race who would have found more favour with some people, if
Providence had seen fit to make them only hands, or, like the lower creatures of the seashore,
only hands and stomachs - lived a certain Stephen Blackpool, forty years of age” (Dickens,
1997/1854, p.70).
These are just some examples; Greenblatt (2005), Ford (1999) and Ousby (1996) are full of
interesting literary evidence on authors or poets who felt disappointed with reality and thirstily
asked for a different one. By the time the first lecture finished, students were asked to search by
themselves for additional material in order to bring to light other literary excerpts that could
show that Victorian people were wondering about life and its origins. Out of the eighty five
students attending the lecture, fifty volunteered to go on with the whole project. An interesting
remark made by several students was that they had a wrong view of Victorian society, as the life
of aristocrats is most often depicted in films, rather than that of the “lower” classes.
Historical Influe nces
Lecture 2, entitled Darwin’s Intellectual Background, was an analysis of readings from major
figures that had influenced Darwin. Short readings from Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), David
Hume (1711-1776), William Paley (1743-1805), Jean Lamarck (1744-1829), Georges Cuvier
(1769-1832), Charles Lyell (1797-1875), and Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) were presented to
students. The central theme of this lecture was that the elaboration of a scientific theory is not a
matter of a single person; since the latter has studied what other scholars had suggested in earlier
times, it is unavoidable that he will be influenced. But being influenced does not only mean to
adopt the idea of someone else and to advance it. A scientist may be influenced by the wrong ideas
of others and get to the right conclusion.
Charles Darwin was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, a fire-breathing, nonconformist man.
Erasmus died on 1802 and hence Charles, having been born on 1809, never met him and at least
at the beginning of his career he did not seem to have been influenced by his writings and to have
become an evolutionist (Darwin, 1995, p.166). Erasmus’ evolutionary views were presented in
3
two major works: Zoonomia (1794-1796) and The Temple of Nature (1802). In Zoonomia,
Erasmus made explicit reference to the possibility of common descent: “… would it be too bold to
imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages
before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all
warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great first cause endowed
with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by
irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to
improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation
to its posterity, world without end!”(quoted in Browne, 2003, p.84). In The Temple of Nature this
idea was even more elegantly presented: “Organic Life beneath the shoreless waves, was born and
nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves; first forms minute, unseen by spheric glass, move on the mud, or
pierce the watery mass; these as successive generations bloom, new powers acquire, and larger
limbs assume;” (quoted in Browne, 2003, p.39).
These ideas were developed in a time when many important philosophers had come to question
the authority of religion and its ability to answer particular questions. Perhaps the most successful
was David Hume, an empiricist philosopher who expressed his skepticism about the existence of
God, although he did not declare himself an atheist: “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and
willing? Whence then is evil?” (Hume, 1993/1779, p. 100). Such a view was absolutely
incompatible with Natural Theology which was a popular approach to the study of nature at the
early 19 th century. However, it seems that neither Erasmus’s, nor Hume’s views initially had a
direct impact on Darwin’s thinking. Hume is rarely cited in Darwin’s writings and although it is
evident that Darwin had read the works of Hume, it seems that he was not influenced so as to
question theology and its methods (Huntley, 1972). Only later in his life did Darwin seem to
consider seriously Hume’s views (Keynes, 2001, p.335-338). On the contrary, while a student at
Cambridge, Darwin accepted William Paley’s ideas on the relation between adaptation and utility;
Paley supported that body structures existed because they were useful to organisms and hence they
indicated the wisdom of God: “This mechanism being observed […] the inference, we think, is
inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker - that there must have existed, at some time,
and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find
it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction, and designed its use” (Paley,
2006/1802, p. 8). Paley believed that several body structures existed because they were useful to
their possessors and that this fact proved the wisdom of the Creator. Darwin reversed the logic of
this argument, turning adaptation from a fixed state into a process by which species responded
naturally to environmental changes (Bowler, 2003, p.149).
The debates that led to the emergence of Darwin’s theory were influenced by the evolutionary
theory of Lamarck, who had suggested that the changes in the environment produced needs that
caused adaptational variation. This idea was formulated through his two laws: “In every animal
which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any
organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges the organ, and gives it a power proportional to
the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly
weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally
disappears” (First Law) and “All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals,
through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence
through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are
preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired
modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young”
(Second Law) (translated in Bowler, 2003, p. 92). While Darwin denied this view, Lamarck’s
concept of small scale change based on organism advantage became Darwin’s context for his
mechanism for evolution, recognizing what he liked least and formulating a theory of opposite
import (Gould, 2002, p.175).
Darwin was also influenced by two major figures of the early 19 th century who, although in
generally disagreed with each other on several scientific issues, both rejected evolution and had
refuted Lamarck’s theory: Charles Lyell and Georges Cuvier. Lyell was a geologist who proposed
the doctrine of uniformitarianism that opposed the catastrophism of Cuvier, which had been
endorsed with enthusiasm in England. Cuvier thought that the geologic record suggested a
historical pattern of catastrophic floods that drowned all terrestrial life, laid down sedimentary
rocks containing fossils of the organisms and that the lands later resurfaced and were repopulated
4
by new kinds of organisms (Larson, 2004, p.22). On the contrary, Lyell argued that earth’s
history was practically unlimited, that it had enjoyed a steady state, and that natural phenomena
like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions were enough to bring about all the effects read from the
geological record (Ruse, 2003, p.94). Lyell initially rejected evolution and thought that each
species had its own essence and could not evolve. But he made the crucial contribution of
dissecting the evolutionary process into its elements the species, an approach that had a major
influence on Darwin (Mayr, 1982, p.404-405), by writing that: “… it appears that species have a
real existence in nature, and that each was endowed, at the time of its creation, with the attributes
and organization by which it is now distinguished” (Lyell, 1832, p. 64-65). While Cuvier also
rejected evolution, especially Lamarck’s theory of species succession as a product of outdated
materialism (Bowler, 2003, p.93-94), his work established the fields of comparative anatomy and
paleontology. By comparing living animals with fossils, Cuvier was able to document that they
were different in kind and that the fossilized ones, once inhabited and at sometime went extinct:
“Living organisms without number have been the victims of these catastrophes” (quoted in
Larson, 2004, p.24). Both these ideas that distinct species exist and that certain kinds of
organisms had gone extinct were prerequisites for Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Finally, a crucial moment for the development of Darwin’s theory was when he read Malthus’
Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) and came across the idea of “struggle for existence”.
Malthus had described the idea as follows: “It is well known that a country in pasture cannot
support so many inhabitants as a country in tillage, but what renders nations of shepherds so
formidable is the power which they possess of moving all together and the necessity they
frequently feel of exerting this power in search of fresh pasture for their herds. A tribe that was
rich in cattle had an immediate plenty of food. Even the parent stock might be devoured in a case
of absolute necessity. The women lived in greater ease than among nations of hunters. The men
bold in their united strength and confiding in their power of procuring pasture for their cattle by
change of place, felt, probably, but few fears about providing for a family. These combined causes
soon produced their natural and invariable effect, an extended population. A more frequent and
rapid change of place became then necessary. A wider and more extensive territory was
successively occupied. A broader desolation extended all around them. Want pinched the less
fortunate members of the society, and, at length, the impossibility of supporting such a number
together became too evident to be resisted. Young scions were then pushed out from the parentstock and instructed to explore fresh regions and to gain happier seats for themselves by their
swords. ‘The world was all before them where to choose.’ Restless from present distress, flushed
with the hope of fairer prospects, and animated with the spirit of hardy enterprise, these daring
adventurers were likely to become formidable adversaries to all who opposed them. The peaceful
inhabitants of the countries on which they rushed could not long withstand the energy of men
acting under such powerful motives of exertion. And when they fell in with any tribes like their
own, the contest was a struggle for existence, and they fought with a desperate courage, inspired
by the rejection that death was the punishment of defeat and life the prize of victory” (Malthus,
1798, p. 14). That was the key to his theory; in Darwin’s words he “had at last got a theory by
which to work” (quoted in Browne, 2006, p. 45).
A successful way to illustrate these influences to students was to use an excerpt from the Origin
and provide links to specific ideas of some of the aforementioned scholars as shown below:
“Owing to this struggle for life (Malthus), any variation, however slight and from whatever cause
proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species (Lyell), in its infinitely
complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature (Lamarck), will tend to the
preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also,
will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are
periodically born, but a small number can survive (Cuvier). I have called this principle, by which
each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its
relation to man's power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce
great results, and can adapt (Paley) organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of
slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature” (Darwin, 1859, p. 61). Students
were surprised to realise that a naturalist was influenced not only by other naturalists but by a
theologian and an economist as well.
Social influences
5
Lecture 3, entitled The Origin of Species, was a description of how several aspects of Darwin’s
personal and social life influenced the preparation and publication of the Origin. Although,
Darwin had been considering the possibility of evolutionary change as early as 1839, he hesitated
to proceed to publication because he feared the reaction of religious people, as they might
consider his theory as an insult to the established beliefs of the time. In 1839 Darwin was married
to Emma Wedgwood (1808-1896), his first cousin on his mother’s side, who was a deeply
religious person that made him hesitant to publish his evolutionary views. The conflict between
Darwin’s scientific findings on the origin of humanity and Emma's own devout Christian beliefs,
feared her that his ideas would keep them apart in life after death. Another reason for not
publishing his theory was the public reaction to the publication of the Vestiges of the Natural
History of Creation (1844) anonymously published by Robert Chambers that caused a scandal in
Victorian England, as it was the first time that a book brought a widespread discussion of
evolutionary issues: “There is, also, in this prejudice, an element of unkindliness towards the lower
animals, which is utterly out of place. These creatures are all of them part products of the
Almighty Conception, as well as ourselves. All of them display wondrous evidences of his wisdom
and benevolence. All of them have had assigned to them by their Great Father a part in the drama
of the organic world, as well as ourselves. Why should they be held in such contempt? Let us
regard them in a proper spirit, as parts of the grand plan, instead of contemplating them in the
light of frivolous prejudices, and we shall be altogether at a loss to see how there should be any
degradation in the idea of our race having been genealogically connected with them” (Chambers,
1844, p.235). What followed made Darwin quite anxious and uncomfortable to the idea of
publishing his own evolutionary views (Browne, 2006, p.45-53). Hence, in 1844 he wrote a
sketch of his theory which had been a complete presentation of the arguments included in the
Origin. Darwin gave Emma the sketch and a letter in which he wrote: “… I have just finished my
sketch of my species theory. If, as I believe, my theory in time be accepted even by one
competent judge, it will be a considerable step in science. I therefore write this, in case of my
sudden death, as my most solemn and last request, which I am sure you will consider the same as if
legally entered in my will, that you will devote £400 to its publication and further will yourself, or
through Hensleigh, take trouble in promoting it. I wish that my sketch be given to some
competent person, with this sum to induce him to take trouble in its improvement, and
enlargement …”(Darwin, 1995/1902, p.171). Darwin also shared his views with Joseph Dalton
Hooker (1817-1911) in a letter that he wrote in the same year: “I have been now ever since my
return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a
very foolish one. I was so struck with distribution of the Galapagos organisms &c. &c., and with
the character of the American fossil mammifers, &c. &c., that I determined to collect blindly
every sort of fact, which could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural
and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come,
and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is
like confessing a murder) immutable” (Darwin, 1995/1902, p. 173-174).
However, two later incidents made Darwin change his mind. The first was the death of his
daughter Annie (1841-1851). Although he loved all of his children, Annie was his beloved child as
she treated him with an affection that touched him deeply. After having probably suffered from
tuberculosis, she died at the age of 10. Her death caused terrible pain to Darwin and is said to have
driven him to atheism, although he preferred to describe himself as an agnostic (Keynes, 2001, p.
218-224, 341; Browne, 2006, p.46). The second and perhaps most crucial incident was a letter
Darwin received from Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). Wallace was one of Darwin's numerous
correspondents from around the world. Wallace knew that Darwin was interested in the question
of how species originate, and trusted his opinion on the matter. Thus, he sent him his essay
(Wallace, 1858) and asked him to review it. Wallace wrote: “The life of wild animals is a struggle
for existence. The full exertion of all their faculties and all their energies is required to preserve
their own existence and provide for that of their infant offspring. The possibility of procuring
food during the least favourable seasons, and of escaping the attacks of their most dangerous
enemies, are the primary conditions which determine the existence both of individuals and of
entire species. These conditions will also determine the population of a species; and by a careful
consideration of all the circumstances we may be enabled to comprehend, and in some degree to
explain, what at first sight appears so inexplicable -the excessive abundance of some species, while
others closely allied to them are very rare” (quoted in Berry, 2003, p.53). […] “Now, let some
alteration of physical conditions occur in the district […] it is evident that, of all the individuals
6
composing the species, those forming the least numerous and most feebly organized variety would
suffer first, and, were the pressure severe, must soon become extinct. The same causes continuing
in action, the parent species would next suffer, would gradually diminish in numbers, and with a
recurrence of similar unfavourable conditions might also become extinct. The superior variety
would then alone remain, and on a return to favourable circumstances would rapidly increase in
numbers and occupy the place of the extinct species and variety.” (p.57). While Wallace's essay
did not employ Darwin's term natural selection, it did outline the mechanics of an evolutionary
divergence of species from similar ones due to environmental pressures. In this sense, it was
essentially the same as the theory that Darwin had worked on for twenty years, but had yet to
publish. Darwin wrote in a letter to Charles Lyell: “… if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out
in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my
chapters!” (Darwin, 1995/1902, p.185). What was concluded was that science is a human activity
and consequently scientists are influenced by their feelings, in this case the sadness of the loss of a
beloved daughter, the fear of what the public reaction might be and in the same time the anxiety
not to lose the priority of an idea developed in private for almost twenty years. Students started a
very interesting discussion on the objectivity of science as soon the lecture was over. The
distinction between finding scientific evidence and interpreting it was something that most of
them had never thought of.
C ultural influe nces
Lecture 4, entitled The Huxley – Wilberforce debate, focused on the reception of Darwin’s theory
and more specifically on the encounter between Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873), Bishop of
Oxford, and Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), known as “Darwin’s bulldog”. It is widely
accepted that Wilberforce, attempted to ridicule Darwin and his theory at a meeting of the British
Association in Oxford on 30 June 1860. There he faced Huxley, who is said to have succeeded in
defeating the obscurantism of Wilberforce and through that the pretension of the Church to
dictate to scientists the conclusions they were allowed to reach. A careful historical analysis shows
that the legend overlooks the fact that Wilberforce’s speech, rather than reflecting prejudice and
religious sentiment, encapsulated many of the scientific objections of Darwin’s contemporaries, as
well as that Joseph Dalton Hooker’s contribution in defending Darwin was more successful than
Huxley’s (Lucas, 1979; Gauld, 1992a; 1992b). Huxley was of course an ardent supporter of
Darwin. Soon after the publication of the Origin he expressed his support on Darwin’s theory:
“ That this most ingenious hypothesis enables us to give a reason for many apparent anomalies in
the distribution of living beings in time and space, and that it is not contradicted by the main
phenomena of life and organisation appear to us to be unquestionable; and, so far, it must be
admitted to have an immense advantage over any of its predecessors. But it is quite another
matter to affirm absolutely either the truth or falsehood of Mr. Darwin's views at the present
stage of the inquiry. Goethe has an excellent aphorism defining that state of mind which he calls
"Thätige Skepsis"–active doubt. It is doubt which so loves truth that it neither dares rest in
doubting, nor extinguish itself by unjustified belief; and we commend this state of mind to students
of species, with respect to Mr. Darwin's or any other hypothesis, as to their origin. The combined
investigations of another twenty years may, perhaps, enable naturalists to say whether the
modifying causes and the selective power, which Mr. Darwin has satisfactorily shown to exist in
Nature, are competent to produce all the effects he ascribes to them; or whether, on the other
hand, he has been led to over-estimate the value of the principle of natural selection, as greatly as
Lamarck overestimated his vera causa of modification by exercise” (Huxley, 1859).
One of the complaints against Wilberforce was that he presumed to speak of scientific matters,
although he was not a scientist. But five weeks earlier Wilberforce had written a review of
Darwin's Origin of species, which was published in the July issue of The Quarterly Review (Gauld,
1992b). The fact that in his speech he used arguments included in the review shows that
Wilberforce, contrary to the central tenet of the legend, did not prejudge the issue. One of his
aims was to overthrow Darwin’s analogical argument from selection under domestication: “We
come then to these conclusions. All the facts presented to us in the natural world tend to show
that none of the variations produced in the fixed forms of animal life, when seen in its most
plastic condition under domestication, give any promise of a true transmutation of species ; first,
from the difficulty of accumulating and fixing variations within the same species ; secondly, from
7
the fact that these variations, though most serviceable for man, have no tendency to improve the
individual beyond the standard of his own specific type, and so to afford matter, even if they were
infinitely produced, for the supposed power of natural selection on which to work ; whilst all
variations from the mixture of species are barred by the inexorable law of hybrid sterility. Further,
the embalmed records of 3000 years show that there has been no beginning of transmutation in
the species of our most familiar domesticated animals ; and beyond this, that in the countless
tribes of animal life around us, down to its lowest and most variable species, no one has ever
discovered a single instance of such transmutation being now in prospect ; no new organ has ever
been known to be developed—no new natural instinct to be formed—whilst, finally, in the -vast
museum of departed animal life which the strata of the earth imbed for our examination, whilst
they contain far too complete a representation of the past to be set aside as a mere imperfect
record, yet afford no one instance of any such change as having ever been in progress, or give us
anywhere the missing links of the assumed chain, or the remains which would enable now existing
variations, by gradual approximations, to shade off into unity” (Wilberforce, 1860).
Lecture 4 also served as a basis for the presentation of the current status of the evolutioncreation debate. Moreover, the religious views of some evolutionary biologists were presented and
discussed. The aim was to show that there is no single attitude towards religion among scientists
and especially among evolutionary biologists. Hence, by using excerpts from their books, these
scientists were shown to possess entirely different views on religious issues, which were classified
as atheism, agnosticism and religiosity. Richard Dawkins was the scientist-atheist: “Maybe you
think it is obvious that God must exist, for how else could the world have come into being? How
else could there be life, in all its rich diversity, with every species looking uncannily as though it
had been ‘designed’? […] Far from pointing to a designer, the illusion of design in the living world
is explained with far greater economy and with devastating elegance by Darwinian natural
selection” (Dawkins, 2006, p.2) … “Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the
contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly
always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind” (p.3). Simon
Conway Morris was at the other extreme, however without being as explicit as Dawkins: “… given
that evolution has produced sentient species with a sense of purpose, it is reasonable to take the
claims of theology seriously. In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in the
connections that might serve to reunify the scientific world view with the religious instinct. […]
In my opinion it will be our lifeline” (Conway-Morris, 2003, p.328) …“… the complexity and
beauty of ‘Life’s Solution’ can never cease to astound. None of it presupposes, let alone proves,
the existence of God, but all is congruent. For some it will remain as the pointless activity of the
Blind Watchmaker, but others may prefer to remove their dark glasses. The choice of course, is
yours.” (p.330). Finally, the views of the late Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) were presented as
the case for agnosticism: ““I do not see how science and religion could be unified, or even
synthesized, under any common scheme of explanation or analysis; but I also do not understand
why the two enterprises should experience any conflict. Science tries to document the factual
character of the natural world […] Religion on the other hand, operates in the equally important,
but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values” (Gould, 1999, p.4) … “I am
not a believer. I am an agnostic in the wise sense of T.H. Huxley, who coined the word in
identifying such open-minded skepticism as the only rational position because, truly, one cannot
know. Nonetheless […] I have great respect for religion” (p.8-9). Hence, it was made explicit that
it is not possible to have a war or even a conflict between science and religion since scientists do
not share the same religious views. And students were encouraged to examine a plurality of views
before arriving to any conclusions.
Darwin’s Impact on Literature
There are many different types of interaction between science and literature, as a result of the
common historical and cultural contexts that shape both activities (Cartwright, 2007). Lecture 5
entitled Darwin’s Influence on 19 th century literature presents how full chapters from books by
highly admired authors or poems by poets of established reputation such as Herbert George Wells
(1866-1946), Samuel Butler (1835-1902), Thomas Hardy (1840-19280, George Eliot (18191880) and George Meredith (1828-1909), adopted Darwin’s ideas. For example H. G. Wells in
1884 won a scholarship to the Normal School of Science, now Imperial College, London. His year
8
under T.H.Huxley studying comparative anatomy was seminal; his first full length works were
textbooks of biology and geography. Some authors of the time thought that evolution meant
progress, however readers were quick to pick up that it also conflicted with the concept of
creation derived from the Bible and with long established assumptions of the values attached to
man’s special role in the world. It is a fact that the most interesting verbal innovations arise
when the individual invents a term to define a position in the intellectual conflicts that surround
him. Therefore, it was a perfect moment to acquaint students with terms such as meliorism
(coined by George Eliot) or agnosticism (coined by Thomas Huxley). In 1869 – 1870 the Vatican
Council declared the Pope infallible in matters of faith and soon afterwards, in 1871 Darwin’s The
Descent of Man was published. John Tyndall, the physicist, took over saying that “in Victorian
times men had to become accustomed to the idea that not for 6000, not for 60000, not for six
thousand thousand but for centuries embracing untold millions of years this earth has been the
theatre of life and death…”(quoted in Greenblatt, 2005, p.1624). Sir Edmund Gosse in his From
Father and Son wrote that P.H. Gosse, his father, could not give up the painful and slow
conclusion of five and twenty years’ study of geology and believe that God has written on the
rocks one enormous and superfluous lie (quoted in Greenblatt, 2005, p.1907). So, G. Meredith in
his epic poem Modern Love (1862), R.L. Stevenson in The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr
Hyde (1886) and H.G. Wells in The Time Machine (1895) and The Island of Dr Moreau (1896)
attempted to write on Darwinian themes and Darwinian man: “The two species that had resulted
from the evolution of man were sliding down towards, or had already arrived at, an altogether new
relationship. The Eloi, like the Carolingian kings, had decayed to a mere beautiful futility. They
still possessed the earth on sufferance: since the Morlocks, subterranean for innumerable
generations, had come at last to find the daylit surface intolerable. And the Morlocks made their
garments, I inferred, and maintained them in their habitual needs, perhaps through the survival of
an old habit of service” (Wells, 2002/1895, p.93) or “What are we first? First, animals; and next
Intelligences at a leap; on whom pale lies the distant shadow of the tomb, and all that draweth on
the tomb for text. Into which state comes love, the crowning sun: beneath whose light the shadow
loses form. We are the lords of life, and life is warm. Intelligence and instinct now are one. But
nature says: 'my children most they seem when they least know me: therefore I decree that they
shall suffer.' Swift doth young love flee, and we stand wakened, shivering from our dream. Then if
we study Nature we are wise. Thus do the few who live but with the day: the scientific animals are
they. Lady, this is my sonnet to your eyes” (Meredith, 2004, p.32) or “Of course he read Mr
Darwin's books as fast as they came out and adopted evolution as an article of faith. "It seems to
me," he said once, "that I am like one of those caterpillars which, if they have been interrupted in
making their hammock, must begin again from the beginning. So long as I went back a long way
down in the social scale I got on all right, and should have made money but for Ellen; when I try
to take up the work at a higher stage I fail completely." I do not know whether the analogy holds
good or not, but I am sure Ernest's instinct was right in telling him that after a heavy fall he had
better begin life again at a very low stage, and as I have just said, I would have let him go back to
his shop if I had not known what I did”(Butler, 2004/1903, p.280).
Students read through these works and separated excerpts bearing Darwin’s influence. Even the
field of politics had to change under the burden of Darwin’s ideas. In late Victorian times, the
Woman Question was concerned with issues of sexual inequality in politics, economic life,
education and social intercourse. Married women were allowed to own and handle their property.
Employment status in factories and mines changed as to allow only a 16 – hour working day!
Obligatory education for young boys and girls was established. Finally, the minds and habits of the
ordinary Englishman were so completely transformed by 1897 that he would not recognize his
own grandfather. As mentioned, the aim of this lecture was to clarify the way science and
literature share a common historical, social and cultural context. Their relationship was proved to
be a real close one; and both of them have shaped the future as we experience it now.
The link to informal learning
To achieve the aim of this course, we needed to combine learning in formal and informal
environments. Hence, we started with lectures and we are planning to conclude with a trip to
London, to those places where the actual history took place. We believe that knowledge of
informal environments is important because if teachers neglect consideration and application of
the range of resources and learning opportunities that are available outside the classroom, the in-
9
school lessons may become unnecessarily limited (McComas, 2006). The informal part of the
course will be the focus of a future paper. The course as described above served as a stage of
preparation for the informal learning during the museum visits. We believe that interaction with
environments beyond classroom can increase creativity and help students develop various learning
styles. Our project is a contribution to the idea that the focus of attention should not be, in a
limited way, the domain of knowledge alone, but also those of feeling and doing. It has been
suggested that further consideration of the personal nature of learning, the context of that
learning, and the time taken to process and assimilate new information is needed to investigate
the impact that learning in museums has on people’s lives (Rennie & Johnston, 2004). However,
as learning takes time, we hope that the project described above will offer students a realistic time
schedule to learn more about Darwin’s theory and through that to understand that science is not
an extraordinary but an ordinary human activity.
The final touch of lecture 1 will be given at the London Dungeon an interactive “museum” of
that time. Actors, dressed in 19 th century rugs, successfully reconstruct Victorian times and show
what Black Death and lack of elementary medical knowledge can do to the London population.
Lecture 2 will be continued at the London Natural History Museum, where students will have the
chance to examine the evidence available to Darwin and his contemporaries. Many specimens
that Darwin had collected are preserved in the Darwin Centre of the Museum. Students will have
the chance to examine the evidence available to Darwin and how it formed the basis for his
theory. To get in the mood of Darwin’s fears and scientific theorizing, a visit at the Down House
will take place, where Darwin lived for forty years. There, students will have the chance to see
where he worked and he spent his day between family and scientific matters, as described in lecture
3. In addition, to revive the encounter described in lecture 4, students will visit the Oxford
Museum of Natural History where it took place. Finally, a visit to the library of the British
Museum is planned so that students may be able to find more about Darwin’s influence on
literature.
Co nclusion
Science is an indispensable part of our culture, but it also has an enormous influence on our world
and on our everyday life. It is a human activity and its apparent weaknesses result from our own
mental and cognitive abilities. But it is exactly this characteristic that makes science the most
objective way to explore the factual character of nature and to understand life without any
reference to supernatural agents. Moreover, the apparent weaknesses of science can sometimes be
its strengths: the motivation to investigate further, understand better and eventually get to know
more. The history of Darwin’s theory is an excellent example to illustrate these characteristics of
science. It is a fascinating story which is expected to help students understand how science is done
and what a powerful scientific argument Darwin’s theory involves.
References
Berry, A. (ed.) (2003) Infinite Tropics: an Alfred Russel Wallace Anthology. Verso, London & New York.
Bowler, P. J. (2003) Evolution: the History of an Idea, (third edition). University of California Press, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, California.
Browne, J. (2003) Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Pimlico, London.
Browne, J. (2006) Darwin's "Origin of Species": A Biography. Atlantic Books, London.
Butler, S. (2004) [1903] The Way of All Flesh. Dover Publications, New York.
Cartwright, J. (2007) Science and literature: towards a conceptual framework. Science & Education, 16(2), 115139.
Chambers, R. (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. John Churchill, London.
Clough, M. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effective nature
of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463-494.
Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (first edition). John Murray, London.
Darwin, F. (1995) [1902] The Life of Charles Darwin. Studio Editions Ltd, London.
Dickens, C. (1997) [1854] Hard Times. Signet Classic, New York.
Ford, B. (ed) (1999), The New Pelican Guide to English Literature: From Dickens to Hardy. Penguin, UK.
Forster, M. (1988) Elizabeth Barrett Browning: Selected Poems. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore.
10
Gauld, C. (1992a) The historical anecdote as a “caricature”: A case study. Research in Science Education, 22(1),
149-156.
Gauld, C. (1992b) Wilberforce, Huxley & the use of history in teaching about evolution. The American Biology
Teacher, 54 (7), 406-410.
Greenblatt, S. (ed) (2005) The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume 2: The Romantic Period
th
through the Twentieth Century. W.W. Norton, 8 edition.
Hume, D. (1993) [1779/1777] Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Natural History of Religion, (Gaskin,
J. C. A. ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
Huntley, W.B. (1972) David Hume and Charles Darwin. Journal of the History of Ideas, 33(3), 457-470.
Huxley, T.H. (1859) The Darwinian Hypothesis. The Times, 12/26/1859 (reprinted in Largent, 2004, p.177182).
Keynes, R. (2001) Darwin, his Daughter and Human Evolution. Riverhead Books, New York.
Largent, M.A. (2004) Sourcebook on History of Evolution (Revised Printing). Kendall Hunt Publishing
Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Larson, E.J. (2004) Evolution: the Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Modern Library, New York.
Lucas, J.R. (1979) Wilberforce and Huxley: a legendary encounter. The Historical Journal, 22 (2), 313-330.
Lyell, C. (1832) Principles of Geology Volume II. John Murray, London.
Malthus, T.R. (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population. J. Johnson, London.
Mayr, E. (1982) The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England.
McComas, W. F. (2006) Science teaching beyond the classroom: the role and nature of informal learning
environments. The Science Teacher, 72(10), 26-30.
McComas, W.F. (2007) Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science &
Education (online first article).
McComas, W.F., Almazroa, H. & Clough, M. (1998) The nature of science in science education: an
introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.
Meredith, G. (2004) Selected Poems by George Meredith. Kessinger Publishing, Montana.
Ousby, I. (1996) The Cambridge Paperback Guide to Literature in English. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Paley, William (2006) [1802] Natural Theology or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity,
Collected from the Appearances of Nature. (Eddy, M. D. & Knight, D., eds), Oxford University Press,
Oxford and New York.
Rennie, L. J. & Johnston, D. J. (2004) The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from
museums. Science Education, 88(S1), S4-S16.
Ruse, M. (2003) Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London, England.
Shanahan, T. (2004) The Evolution of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shelley, M. 1985 [1818] Frankenstein. Penguin, New York.
Tennyson, A. (1861) [1844] In Memoriam. Ticknor and Fields, Boston (available at http://books.google.com/)
Wallace, A.R. (1858) On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type. Proceedings of
the Linnean Society of London, (3): 53-62.
Wells, H.G. (2002/1895) The Time Machine. Signet Classic, New York.
Wilberforce, S. (1860) Review of “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of
favoured races on the struggle for life”. Quarterly Review, 108, 225-264 (reprinted in Largent, 2004, p.139144).
11