Download Final Exam Study Guide

Historical Study B-45:
Darwinian Revolution
Thomas Henry Huxley
-Huxley, an English comparative anatomist, was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy
of Darwin's theory of evolution. The publication of Origins in 1859 completely convinced
Huxley of evolution. Although he was slow to accept some of Darwin's ideas, such as gradualism,
and was undecided about natural selection as the main mechanism, he was wholehearted in his
public support of Darwin. He called himself an agnostic.
-Huxley was involved in a famous public debate with Bishop Wilberforce in 1860 at the British
Association meeting in Oxford University Museum, and it was a key moment in the wider
acceptance of evolution.
-We saw a movie clip in class where Mr. Huxley (“Bishop, you are misinformed…) debates with
Wilberforce while Professor Owen sits quietly. Darwin doesn’t appear at the public lecture but
Huxley tells him what happened retrospectively at his house. In fact, for most of the public
controversy, Darwin himself did not engage in public debate. He would write letters and such to
defend his views but it was Huxley who did it publicly in person
-The debate was a clash between church and science (though there were religious figures such as
Kingsley in support of Darwin and prominent scientists such as Owen against) and was symbolic
of how public controversy often simplifies and crystallizes issues, exaggerates differences, and
makes them black/white. In reality, it’s not an easy divide of right vs. wrong, particularly since
most people were quite ambivalent
-Huxley also debated with Richard Owen, a comparative anatomist who believed in fixity, over
connections (or separations) between primates and mankind, especially the existence of
Hippocampus minor in the brain
-Huxley’s polemical pictures in “Man’s Place in Nature”—gibbon, orang, chimp, gorilla, man. In
that order because he believed humans were closest to gorillas
-The debates over Darwin’s theory in the UK were held during a time of great transformations in
the country—religion (fragmenting), social structure (fragmenting), finance (diversifying),
technology (multiplying), imperial expansion
Huxley reading: “Darwin on the Origin of Species” Westminster Review
This reading selection is one example of the powerful and adamant defense Huxley gives for
Darwin’s theory. He summarizes Darwin’s findings because they have “the merit of being
eminently simple and comprehensible in principle” and emphasizes that the “method of inquiry
which Mr. Darwin has adopted is not only rigorously in accordance with the canons of scientific
logic, but that it is the only adequate method.” Huxley also summarizes Darwin’s response to
certain questions that have arisen after the publication of Origins, such as why there are no
intermediate between two species. He claims that “there is no fault to be found with Mr.
Darwin’s method,” that Darwin’s view “steps out of the ranks of hypotheses into those of proved
theories,” and that the chapters “have not only no equals, but, so far as our knowledge goes, no
competitors”
Bishop Samuel Wilberforce
Wilberforce was a very strong opponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution and he engaged in
public debates with Huxley. He was one of the greatest public speakers of his day and was
extremely eloquent. Richard Owen’s extremely hostile anonymous review of the Origin in the
Edinburgh Review also primed Wilberforce to write an anonymous one in the Quarterly Review,
running to 17,000 words. At the 1860 debate with Huxley, he criticized Darwin's theory, arguing
that it was not supported by the facts and that the greatest names in science were opposed to the
theory. Nonetheless, Wilberforce's speech is generally only remembered today for his inquiry as
to whether it was through his grandmother or his grandfather that Huxley considered himself
descended from a monkey. His manner at the debate was extremely polite because the rudest
thing one can do is to be very personal and very polite.
Asa Gray
Reading: Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.
This is Gray’s review of The Origin of Species for the US audience.
He agrees with the concepts of “Variation under Nature” and “Struggle for Existence” that
Darwin uses to build his idea of “natural Selection” upon. Gray likes the idea of “Natural
Selection” because it “illustrates the advantages of good breeding and makes the most of every
creature’s best.” He points out the difficulties that taxonomists have with distinguishing species
from varieties and proposes this as a strong point of Natural Selection.
Gray says that the problem for human pride is to look back at geological ages and realize that
human races are related, then that humans and apes are related. Nevertheless, he says that “the
four-handed races will not serve for our forerunners – at least, not until some monkey, live or
fossil, is producible with great-toes, instead of thumbs… until some testimony of the sort is
produced, we must needs believe in the separate and special creation of man.”
“Variation and natural selection may play their part, and so may specific creation also.”
Gray now talks about the Zeitgeist of his age, the scientific endeavor, finding connections were
there were none believed in physics, chemistry, astronomy and finally biology. He says that “the
mind of such an age cannot be expected to let the old belief about species pass unquestioned.”
Gray now deals with contemporary Darwin critique in the US (Agassiz):



Sterility of hybrids: “As to the sterility of hybrids, that can no longer be insisted upon as
absolutely true, nor be practically used as a test between species and varieties.”
Permanence of species: Natural Selection does not imply that the parent species has to die.
It can “set off a variety now and then.”
All lower forms should have evolved to higher ones: This would leave a vacuum behind
which would push species to fill it.
Gray concludes by warning his readers not to accept Darwin’s theories or the “blind faith” of
Darwin’s opponents and hopes for a theistic theory:
“We are confident that, if a derivative hypothesis ever is established, it will be on a solid theistic
ground… the derivative hypothesis leaves the argument for design, and therefore for a designer.
Asa Gray accommodated the new views of Natural Selection and evolutionary theory with his
belief. He corresponds with Darwin from 1855, arranges US editions of Origin of Species. He
tackles Agassiz on definition of species, ideal types, catastrophes, argues about Origin from 1859.
Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural theology 1860: defends the right of science to
inquire into origins, but also believes there must be a ‘first cause’ that explains design. He says
that variations are subject to natural selection but God plans the result (makes the channel for the
stream). He also sees the danger of ‘materialism’ and the atheistic interpretation of Origins.
Form his letters to Darwin and Hooker it is clear that he enjoyed defending Darwin’s
evolutionary theory and natural selection against Agassiz. The public debate over Evolution in
the US illustrates that Darwin was one of the first international stars of science. Darwinism
became a worldwide phenomenon. It also shows in the context of the class the different
interpretations of science based on religious views, social structure, academic background and
national feeling.
Louis Agassiz
Agassiz was a major opponent of Darwin’s theories at the time of the publishing of The Origin of
Species (1859). His definition of species is that of a fixed ‘essence’ originating in the mind of
God.
He was a proponent of separate creation and thought that there were multiple human species
(‘races’) created on different continents (polygenism) and therefore not sharing a common origin.
(This led him to defend slavery.) He had several critiques (mentioned in the Gray article) of
Darwinism and participated with Gray in public debates on the matter. The public debates show
the influence of Darwinism all across the world and illustrate how it was one of the first
international public debates.
Agassiz was a professor at Harvard and built the Museum of Comparative Zoology. The
museum’s architectural features were difficult to adapt to the presentation of Darwin’s theories
later on because of his different understanding of origins. Even today they are changing the setup
to cope with it. Originally, he emigrated from Switzerland where he studied glaciers and was the
first to propose an ice age instead of a flood. This was his major contribution to science that he
would never be able to repeat. He was an outstanding teacher, even gave public lectures
(something that even professors nowadays look down upon) and a proponent of “hands-on”
science.
Many of his students went on to teach evolution at colleges all over the US. He tried to explain
fossils with multiple ice ages and multiple creations at different times and organized expeditions
to find proof against Darwin’s theories.
Wallace (+ reading #34)
A.R. Wallace (1823-1913)
Wallace was the preeminent tropical biologist of his day and founder of the studies of
biogeography. He is considered the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Unlike Darwin, Wallace began his career as a traveling naturalist already believing in the
transmutation of species, a concept that had been advocated by Lamarck, and Erasmus Darwin,
among others. He was profoundly influenced by Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural
History of Creation, a work of popular science published anonymously in 1844 that advocated an
evolutionary origin for the solar system, earth, and living organisms. Thus, Wallace deliberately
planned his field work to test the hypothesis that under an evolutionary scenario, closely related
species should inhabit neighboring territories. Wallace and Henry Bates, a leading British
biologist, traveled to Brazil and while in the Amazon basin, he realized that geographical barriers
often separated the ranges of closely allied species. In 1855, while working in the state of
Sarawak on the island of Borneo, Wallace wrote “On the Law which has regulated the
introduction of species.” In the paper he gathered and enumerated general observations
regarding the geographic and geologic distribution of species (biogeography). Wallace’s
conclusion that "every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a
pre-existing closely allied species" has come to be known as the Sarawak Law, which essentially
explains the idea of decent with modification.
According to his autobiography, Wallace was in bed with a fever when he thought about Thomas
Malthus’ idea of positive checks on human population growth, and then came up with the idea of
natural selection. Wallace sent Darwin his 1858 essay “On the tendency of varieties to depart
indefinitely from the original type,” with the request that Darwin would review it and pass it onto
Charles Lyell. Although 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. Darwin was blown away and sent the manuscript to Lyell. Lyell and
Hooker decided to publish the essay in a joint presentation together with unpublished writings
which highlighted Darwin's priority. Wallace's essay was presented to the Linnean Society of
London on July 1st 1858. Wallace accepted the arrangement and was happy that he had been
included at all. Darwin’s social and scientific status was far greater than his, and it was unlikely
that Wallace’s views on evolution would have been taken seriously. Wallace’s essay prompted
Darwin to publish The Origin of Species in 1859, and after its publication, he became one of its
staunchest defenders. In 1889, Wallace published the book Darwinism as a response to the
scientific critics of natural selection.
Wallace: The Origin of the Human Races and the Antiquity of Man deduced from the
Theory of Natural Selection




“Man may have been once a homogenous race; but it was at a period of which we have as
yet discovered no remains, at a period so remote in his history, that he had not yet
acquired that wonderfully developed brain, the organ of the mind, at a period when he
had the form but hardly the nature of man, when he neither possessed human speech, nor
those sympathetic and moral feelings.”
“the differences we now behold in mankind must have been produced before he became
possessed of a human intellect or human sympathies. During the long periods in which
other animals have been undergoing modification, man’s body will have remained
generically the same while his head and brain alone will have undergone modification
equal to the animals’.”
Argued that different races are different species, and some races are more mentally
developed than others.
those who are most mentally developed
o Europeans on top of hierarchy
o Praises Germanic races
 Germans, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons (doesn’t include Italians, French)
Haeckel (+ reading #30)
Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919)
Haeckel was an eminent German biologist, naturalist, and philosopher who discovered, described,
and named thousands of new species, mapped a genealogical tree relating all life forms, and
coined terms such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology. Although Haeckel's ideas are important
to the history of evolutionary theory, and he was a competent invertebrate anatomist most
famous for his illustrations of radiolaria, many speculative concepts that he championed are now
considered incorrect.
Haeckel promoted Darwin’s work in Germany and developed the controversial recapitulation
theory- ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny- claiming that an individual organism’s embryonal
development (ontogeny) parallels and summarizes its species’ entire evolutionary development
(phylogeny). He supported the theory with embryo drawings that have since been shown to be
oversimplified and in part inaccurate.
At the time that Darwin first published On the Origin…, no remains of human ancestors had yet
been found. Haeckel postulated that evidence of human evolution from ape ancestors would be
found in the Dutch East Indies, and described these theoretical remains in great detail. He even
named the as-of-yet unfound species, Pithecanthropus alalus, and charged his students to go find
it. One student did find the remains: a young Dutchman named Eugene Dubois went to the East
Indies and dug up the remains of Java Man, the first human ancestral remains ever found. These
remains originally carried Haeckel's Pithecanthropus label, though they were later reclassified as
Homo erectus.
Haeckel did not support natural selection, rather believing in a Lamarckian inheritance of
acquired characteristics and the idea that organic form is the result of an inner drive towards
development, “Entwicklung.”
Haeckel’s literary output was extensive: 42 works and numerous scientific memoirs and
illustrations. He published numerous books, including General Morphology (1866), Natural
history of creation (1868).
Haeckel: “Our Ape Ancestors”
 Division of Apes into Platyrrhines and Catarrhines
o Platyrrhines: Apes of the New World – Eastern Apes with flat noses
o Catarrhines: Apes of the Old World- Western Apes with narrow noses
 “Man has just the same characters, the same form of dentition, auditory passage, and nose
as all the Catarrhines; in this he radically differs from the Platyrrhines. Phylogenetically,
man is a direct blood relative of the Apes of the Old World, and can be traced to a
common stem-form together with all the Catarrhines. In his whole organization and in his
origin, man a true Catarrhines. The Platyrrhines form a divergent branch of our
genealogical tree, and this is only distantly related to the human race.”
 “The chief advances that effected this creation of man, or his dffierentiation from the
nearest related Catarrhines were: the adoption of the erect posture, and the consequent
greater differentiation of the fore and hind limbs, evolution of articulate speech, further
development of the brain; sexual selection had a great influence on this as Darwin
showed.”
 “The gorilla comes next to man in the structure of the hand and foot, the chimpanzee in
the chief features of the skull, the orang in brain development. None of these existing
anthropoid Apes is among the direct ancestors of our race.” Need to find intermediate
form- the Ape-man. Dubois found the Java Man.
Kropotkin, Pyotr (1812-1921)……the “anarchist prince”
-wrote “Mutual Aid” in 1903
The fittest are those who cooperate
Kropotkin presented an alternative view to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” concept.
Kropotkin argued that cooperation and mutual aid among individuals in a species
are the most important factors for survival – and not competition.
Darwin himself pointed out the importance of cooperation in “numberless
animal species” in his article “Descent of Man.”
Kropotkin acknowledges that animals compete in nature. However, “mutual aid is as
much a law of animal life as mutual struggle, but that, as a factor of evolution, it
most probably has a far greater importance” as it develops traits and habits that
“insure the maintenance and further development of the species.”
Mutual aid is needed for the safety of the individual, rearing progeny, and obtaining
food….beetles help one another bury large corpses…crabs protect those that are
molting….white-tailed eagles combine forces when hunting
Humans could learn from these animals – look at the bees. When some find a new habitat,
they’ll guard it until another swarm of bees arrives to settle. Human colonists
would have been much more successful if they followed a similar tactic.
In geographical context….in Russia, Darwinism without Malthusian competition – so no
need for natural selection.
- people struggled against the environment but there were no real limitations on
population growth or competition…so the argument for natural selection didn’t
have a big following in Russia
Monogenism
Desire to show all human beings come from one source, often biblical
One idea is that human beings all came from Adam and Eve, and then diverged
into five kinds
Philantrhopic, Quaker, missionary aims, anti-slavery
Polygenism
Belief that there were several different origins for humans, different races have different
histories
Louis Agassiz, “Diversity of origin of human races,” 1850
- classified racial types as different kinds and mapped racial histories
- God created races in places of origin
Pro-slavery
Many lines of evolutionary development (Karl Vogt, “Lectures on Man,” 1864)
- different species evolved from separate places of creation
Social Darwinism & Herbert Spencer (+ reading #40)
Herbert Spencer
- One of the earliest proponents of Social Darwinism, which “is a theory that competition
among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human
societies”
- Thought about the idea of evolution and progress before the publication of The Origin of
Species in this book Principles of Biology (1864)
- He termed the phrase “survival of the fittest,” suggesting natural selection, but actually
referring to a Lamarckian mechanisms of inheritance
- “He believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for individuals; and
so held that government intervention, ought to be minimal in social and political life”
Some key quotes from the Spencer Reading:
- “Unless the change in the environment is of so violent a kind as to be universally fatal to
the species, it must affect more or less differently the slightly different moving equilibria
which the members of the species present…That is to say, it cannot happen that those
individuals whose functions are most out of equilibrium with the modified aggregate of
external forces, will be those who die.”
- “But this surivival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest” (and the process of
weaker beings dying continues):
- On Darwin: “Indeed, when once enunciated, the truth of his hypothesis is so obvious as
scarcely to need proof.”
- “Just as we seek that each plant bears a multitude of seeds, out of which some two or
three happen to fulfill all the conditions required for reaching maturity, and continuing
the race: so we see that each species is perpetually producing numerous slightly modified
forms, deviating in all directions from the average, out of which most fit the surrounding
conditions no better…”
Sexual selection
From Class: Derived largely from Darwin Descent of Man 1871: human choice pushes races in
different directions, hierarchy of racial types, females naturally selected to be weak, protoeugenic thoughts
It means that certain traits can be explained by competition between the members of a species.
Certain species are “selected” for due to the process of mating or male to male competition or
anything of that sort. Survival of the fittest takes over.
Andrew Carnegie
(1835-1919) Steel baron who is regarded as the second richest man in history. While he paid low
wages, he became a great philanthropist during the end of his life. His ideas, in relation to the
class are:




Equates rules of political economy with laws of nature (God’s design)
Individual self-interest is socially beneficial
Free competition is a necessary law of economics
Profit motive the only reliable incentive for action—Carnegie and others believed that the
pursuit of profit boosted material and spiritual health of nation.
All you have to do here is think of the glory of the free market and apply it in your ID. Relate
everything back to the economy.
Cesare Lombroso
From Class Notes: Criminal anthropology— Cesare Lombroso claimed there were physical
stigmata that indicated reversion (atavism) to primitive types, L'Uomo Delinquente (1876)
Which makes very little sense. Wikipedia explains it better. Lombroso “stated that criminality
was inherited, and that someone "born criminal"' could be identified by physical defects, which
confirmed a criminal as savage, or atavistic” He pioneered criminal physiognomy, which means
that you can identify possible character and personality traits by looking at people’s faces.
Things like large jaws and high cheekbones are bad. This links back to eugenics. Lombroso
believed very much in social progress and phrenology. He also believed that degeneration could
happen, which supports efforts to “improve” (eugenics).
Karl Pearson
Karl Pearson (1857-1936) was an English mathematician (particularly interested in statistics).
He was both a socialist and a strong eugenics proponent, a mix which might seem paradoxical.
He was in many ways the protégé of Francis Galton (Charles Darwin’s cousin, the inventor of
the term ‘eugenics,’ and a strong proponent of the eugenics movement). Pearson eventually
became a professor of eugenics at the University of London.
The Pearson reading is from his 1905 book, National Life: From the Standpoint of Science.
In the excerpt assigned, Pearson makes the case for promoting the reproduction of the fittest. He
starts out by discrediting the effort to improve society through intervention, noting that, “Nurture
and education may immensely aid the social machine, but they must be repeated generation by
generation; they will not in themselves reduce the tendency to the production of bad stock.
Conscious or unconscious selection can alone bring that about” (p.21). This point very much
stems from Darwin’s theory, as the idea that the effects of interventions could be passed on from
generation to generation is in essence Lamarckian.
He proceeds to note that having races of different capabilities (different qualities of stock)
living side by side is inefficient, making a case of the United States. Had Native Americans and
colonists shared the land, white men would have been restricted in their ability to innovate,
develop, etc. Pearson states that, “In place of the red man, contributing practically nothing to the
work and thought of the world, we have a great nation, mistress of many arts, and able, with its
youthful imagination and fresh, untrammeled impulses, to contribute much to the common stock
of civilized man” (p.25).
Pearson acknowledges that his perspective may seem quite belligerent, admitting that the
process of the survival of the fittest is expectedly unpleasant for unfit. “The struggle means
suffering, intense suffering, while it is in progress; but that struggle and that suffering have been
the stages by which the white man has reached his present stage of development” (p.26). He
justifies the suffering with the progress that society will achieve as a result. Again, this seems
quite counter-intuitive, considering that he was a self-declared socialist who refused knighthood
offered by the English Crown because it was contrary to his ideals.
If Pearson’s support for eugenics is quite unabashed throughout the excerpt, it’s worth noting
that at the end, he does show some reservation. Francis Galton had argued that we could speed
up human progress by imposing reproductive restrictions on parents, but Pearson observed that
“the all-important question of parentage is still largely felt to be solely a matter of family, and
not of national importance” (p.28). However, he then expresses support of “inculcating a feeling
of shame in the parents of a weakling,” a pretty harsh stance.
Herbert Georges (H. G.) Wells
H. G. Wells was an English fiction and non-fiction writer and an outspoken socialist. The
readings assigned are chapters 4 and 5 from his fictional work, The Time Machine.
In chapter 4, thanks to a time machine, the protagonist has reached the year 802, 701 A.D. He
wanders around observing the new environment. He notes that houses and cottages, once
characteristic of the English landscape had disappeared, and had been replaced by palace-like
mansions. However, some of these were in ruins. He begins hypothesizing about the causes for
the ruin, concluding that it is “communism.” That is, the world has reached an incredibly
prosperous state, but wealth is shared, thus all houses have been replaced by mansions.
As he continues exploring, the protagonist reaches the conclusion that humanity was “upon
the wane” (p.340), and provided the following rationale for why:
What, unless biological science is a mass of errors, is the cause of human intelligence and vigor?
Hardship and freedom: conditions under which the active, strong, and subtle survive and the
weaker go to the wall; conditions that put a premium upon the loyal alliance of capable men,
upon self-restraint, patience, and decision.
People in the future have changed in various ways. They are “slighter,” as the protagonist
observes, but beautiful. However, they lack much focus or interest in anything in particular.
Basically, they’ve progressed to the point where the forces that drive human effort and ingenuity
today have disappeared. As the protagonist notes, “Under the new conditions of perfect peace
comfort and security, that restless energy, that with us is strength, would become weakness, Even
in our own time certain tendencies and desires, once necessary to survival, are a constant source
of failure” (p342).
In chapter 5, the protagonist comes to reassess his hypothesis on the development of the
world since his day. While he had previously thought that progress and communism had lead to
everyone sharing in abundant wealth that negated insecurity and want, he realizes that the world
he observes is actually the result of drawn-out capitalism.
While wandering around a ruined manor, he spots a beast like creature, which immediately
flees when it realizes he has seen it. He follows it to a shaft that leads underground. He has
observed many of these shafts spread across the countryside, and comes to realize that the
“Morlocks,” the beast-like beings that live below ground, and the “Eloi,” those above ground, are
the results of the divergence of humans along aristocracy/bourgeoisie and labor lines. He notes
that laborers were, in his day, already spending much of their time underground (factories, etc.),
and that as society progressed they came to spend more and more time underground. Some might
have been miserable or rebellious, but he Eloi could eliminate those people, so the underground
dwellers would have “become as well adapted to the conditions of underground life, and as
happy in they way, as the Upper-world people were to theirs.” This idea of adaptation to
underground dwelling explains the physical changes observed in the Morlocks. The slightest of
the Eloi results from the fact that the Morlocks perfor all the work to sustain the Eloi. Thus, the
Eloi have lost their drive and ingenuity.
Considering Wells’ socialist background, this is quite an interesting allegory. Originally, it is
thought that the sharing of wealth, or “communism,” has accounted for weakened incentives in
society. However, it turns out that the flaws of the future world Wells describes result from
capitalism taken to its extreme. The story bases itself on Darwinian theory, as conveyed through
the evolution of the Eloi and the Morlucks. It raises an interesting consideration: selective
pressures like “hardship and freedom” may drive the progress of society, but once such pressures
are overcome (if they can be = the pursuit of perfection debate…), what will drive humans to
maintain the status they’ve achieved. In the case of the Eloi, security and lack of need for
physical labor has made them physically slight and intellectually disengaged.
Gregor Mendel (+reading #42)
- 1822-1884
- Lived and worked as an Abby in Brno, Czechoslovakia
- He was very well trained in botany and mathematics. As a result, he taught a lot of the
little children in Brno.
- Most famous for his work on peas, but also worked on garden flowers, maize, and bees.
o Was seeking was to increase yields. To do so, needed pure lines of peas.
- Developed the law of inheritance known as Mendelism (see next term for more
information)
- His discoveries were published in Brno Natural History Society in 1866, but largely
ignored.
o Mendel’s discoveries were instrumental in the shift from blending inheritance to
the particulate inheritance theory in the 19th century
o Why ignored until the 20th Century?
 Difficult to say
 Some theories are that Mendel was working in a different
paradigm and therefore underappreciated. “Ahead of his time”
 The journal he published in may have been too obscure
 His ideas were not important until they were involved in another
controversy (Mendelians)
-
Reading : Experiments in Plant Hybridisation
o Highly technical, TFs say not to worry too much about the genetic/science aspect
o Basically a description of Mendel’s research in plant hybridization. Describes a
variety of experiments he conducted on peas and the results he found (wrinkled,
not wrinkled, etc).
o Data from these experiments were very perfect, leading modern scientists to
suspect foul play
 Alternative explanation was that Mendel only reported his best data
Mendelism
- The principles of heredity formulated by Gregor Mendel in 1866.
- These principles compose what is known as the system of particulate inheritance by units,
or genes.
- Two basic laws:
o Law of segregation
 Both parents contribute a part of a gene to make express a trait in their
offspring, ensuring variation
o Law of independent inheritance


-
Units of inheritance come in pairs, dominant or recessive
Certain characteristics are mutually exclusive (i.e. wrinkled peas vs.
smooth peas). Different traits are inherited seperately
 traits appear in 3-1 ratios.
Was bought in as part of the Modern Synthesis, integrating genetics into the theory of
natural selection to form a comprehensive theory of evolution
o Darwin was lacking the genetic component and he knew it
This was rediscovered by Bateson, de Vries, Carl Corren, & E.V. Tschermak
o Mendelians
o Was used to support Bateson’s beliefs that evolution came in jumps because of all
the variations in Mendel’s peas
 Thought that maybe evolutionary theory was unnecessary because
genetics can explain everything.
o Used to study “undesirable traits” = support for eugenics
Thomas Hunt Morgan (+ “The Particulate Theory of Heredity and the nature of the Gene”)
Thomas Hunt Morgan was a 20th century geneticist, best known for his work with
Drosophila melanogaster and his research on genes and chromosomes. As a professor at
Columbia University, Morgan became increasingly interested in the study of heredity, and he
developed a “fly room,” in which he studied mutations in Drosophilia, and specifically those in
the chromosomes of their salivary glands. Morgan’s major accomplishment was his
demonstration that genes are carried on chromosomes and that they are the basis of heredity.
According to Professor Browne, Morgan “brought it all together,” as his work represented the
culmination of prior and concurrent genetic research; as a result, his research is considered to be
the basis of modern genetics.
In his chapter, “The Particulate Theory of Heredity and the nature of the Gene,” of his book,
The Physical Basis of Heredity, Morgan presents his evidence for the gene in relation to
Mendelian genetics. Morgan concludes that if chromosomes were the most fundamental units of
heredity, then there could be no more independent pairs, a hypothesis negated by the observation
of the spectrum from full linkage to independent assortment, indicating that there is a more basic
unit of heredity than the chromosome (which he calls germ-plasm). Morgan also discusses the
manifold effects of each gene; for example, he found that “whatever it is in the germ-plasm that
produces white eyes, also produces other modifications as well…such as productivity and
viability.”
Drosophila Melangosaster
Drosophila is a species of fly and is, even today, one of the primary model organisms used in
biology. This organism was first extensively studied by Thomas Hunt Morgan, who had
numerous specimens in his famous Fly Room at Columbia University. Morgan performed many
crosses on these flies and studied various mutations he observed. He ultimately discovered that
genes on the same chromosome don’t undergo independent assortment. He also studied their
various X-linked mutations, most famously white eye vs. red eye color.
Drosophila is a good model organism for genetic study because it is small, reproduces and
matures quickly, only has four chromosomes, and has highly visible chromosomes in its salivary
glands. As a result, genetic research continues to be performed on this species today.
Classical Genetics
This term refers to genetic research prior to the arrival of modern biology. Years after
Mendel’s work, in 19th century England, two individuals, William Bateson (a biologist) and
Hugo de Vries (a botanist) independently discovered Mendel’s paper and saw laws that supporter
their theories of jumps (there was not gradual change, such as in plant color, but rather ‘jumps’
in phenotype). Bateson then created a field that he named genetics based on Mendel’s work and
the theory of mutations (the field was officially given the name genetics in 1905). Many other
individuals, including August Weismann and Thomas Morgan Hunt, are among the classical
geneticists, each contributing further knowledge on the nature of chromosomes, genes, and
heredity.
Eugenics (Positive and Negative)
Eugenics as an overarching concept links evolution with human heredity, public health, politics
and economic, class, gender, and intelligence. It was supported by the middle/professional
classes and medical personnel. It involved using science as a means of halting national
decline/degeneration of a country. This stemmed from the perception that there were rising and
expanding medical and social problems (i.e. malnutrition, overcrowding, mental disorders, etc.)
and the anxiety that continued breeding by the unfit would dilute the country’s population.
Positive Eugenics involves encouraging those who are “fit” to breed more, where as Negative
Eugenics involves discouraging or preventing those who are “unfit” to breed. In regards to
Positive Eugenics, many strategies evolved for encouraging healthy people to breed more. For
example, positive eugenics was propagated by using the state fair to promote the “Model
Family” and fitter family competitions, conducting better baby contests, or establishing the
National League for Physical Improvement. In regards to Negative Eugenics, strategies such as
sterilization, birth control, and restrictions on immigration were used to limit the “unfit” from
propagating in America or other countries which advocated for Negative Eugenics.
Key figures mentioned in the study of Eugenics include the following: Francis Galton, Karl
Pearson, Madison Grant, Henry Laughlin, Henry Goddard, and Charles Davenport.
Aldous Huxley
Aldous Huxley was an English writer, whose Brave New World is one of his most well-known
books. He is the brother of Julian Huxley, a noted biologist, and also the grandson of TH Huxley,
one of Darwin’s champions. Huxley fits with the themes of this course since he is related to
well-known biologists and advocates of Darwin during the time, and also because of his critique
of the dehumanizing aspects of scientific progress in Brave New World. This critique reflects
some of the reservations toward scientific progress during the time.
Brave New World, Chapter 1 [Source: Sparknotes]
The novel opens in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. The year is a.f. 632
(632 years “after Ford”). The Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning is giving a group of
students a tour of a factory that produces human beings and conditions them for their predestined
roles in the World State. Human beings no longer produce living offspring. Instead, surgically
removed ovaries produce ova that are fertilized in artificial receptacles and incubated in specially
designed bottles.
The Hatchery destines each fetus for a particular caste in the World State. The five castes are
Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Clones produced are predestined to perform identical
tasks at identical machines. The fetuses undergo different treatments depending on their castes.
The artificial process, says the Director, aims to make individuals accept and even like “their
inescapable social destiny.”
How Brave New World Relates to the Course
The novel can be seen as a critique of the overenthusiastic embrace of new scientific discoveries.
The first chapter reads like a list of stunning scientific achievements: human cloning, rapid
maturation, and prenatal conditioning. However, the satirical tone of the chapter makes it clear
that this technology-based society is not a utopia, but the exact opposite.
As the Director says, “social stability” is the highest social goal, and through predestination and
rigorous conditioning, individuals accept their given roles in society without question. The caste
structure is created and maintained using specific tools, and it is technology that allows the most
powerful members of the World State’s ruling Alpha caste to solidify and justify the unequal
distribution of power and status. The satirical tone of the text makes it clear that, though social
stability may sound like an admirable goal, it can be used for the wrong reasons toward the
wrong ends.
Thus the chapter appears to link to our study of eugenics, in which humans are trying to
scientifically alter the characteristics of the country’s population and maintain good
characteristics while suppressing ones that are “unfit.” More broadly, the chapter touches on the
concept of hierarchy and how races or classes in society have become prevalent, almost like the
caste system in the novel.
Henry H. Goddard (1866-1957): think IQ testing, mental retardation, negative eugenics.




He served as Director Of Research for the Vineland Training School for the feeble
minded in NJ from 1906 to 1918.
He translated and distributed the Binet —now Stanford Binet—IQ test in the United
States in 1908.
He first proposed terms for degrees of mental retardation: moron (IQ 51-70), imbecile
(26-50), and idiot (0-25).
The Kallikak (kalos=beauty; kakos=bad) family study, published in 1912, concluded
that mental retardation was hereditary. He used the results of the study to advocate

negative eugenics by segregation or institutionalization of the “feeble-minded.” He
supported sterilization but did not publicly advocate it. However, the study was not
very rigorous—there was very little testing of individuals before they were labeled
“feeble minded”—and the study is now considered psuedoscience. Goddard later
acknowledged that there were flaws in the study.
He also established an intelligence testing program in Ellis Island, which led to a
dramatic increase in deportation, and which contributed to the passage of the
Immigration Act of 1924.
Madison Grant (1865-1937): think eugenics, isolationism.





Yale graduate, Columbia law 1890, never married, active in politics (friends with
several Presidents)
The Passing of the Great Race (1916) stated his theory of “Nordic superiority” and
argued for a storng eugenics program in order to save the Nordic race from the other
lower races. It was a very influential work of scientific racism, and was often
blatantly accused as being little more than racist ideas peppered with amateur science.
Hitler and the Nazi euthanasia program justified the Third Reich’s population policies
by citing Grant.
He advocated racial hygiene, which uses improving the public health as the argument
for eugenic policies. He also supported anti-miscegenation laws, which outlawed
interracial marriage.
His work and advocacy helped to enact the emergency Quota law of 1921 (Johnson
Act) which for the first time set a limit on all immigration. He also worked to pass the
Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act), which further limited the number of
immigrants allowed, and permanently excluded all Asian immigrants.
He was also an active conservationist, and he was personally responsible for saving
several American species from extinction.
Harry H. Laughlin (1880-1943): think fierce advocate of compulsory sterilization



He was the superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from 1910-1922.
He drew up a “model eugenical sterilization law” in 1914, which mandated
compulsory sterilization of unfit members of the population, to improve existing
sterilization laws in many states. Many states modeled their laws after his model.
Carrie Buck, a woman of apparently normal intelligent who was sterilized under the
Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, despite her appeals that went up to the US
Supreme Court. Laughlin provided expert testimony in the Buck v. Bell, in which the
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the compulsory sterilization laws.
William Jennings Bryan
Bryan was a member of the prosecution in the Scopes trial, portrayed in Inherit the Wind as
Brady. Known as the “Great Commoner,” he built a populist political career around defending
rural America from exploitation and protecting their way of life. He denounced Darwinism as
“guesses strung together” and defended creationism. The fact that Bryan and Darrow were both
at the center of the case drew massive media attention, and refocused the debate very clearly on a
clash between religion and science.
Bryan wrote a New York Times article called “God and Evolution”, in which he argued that
while evolution could be harmless when applied to animals, it is incredibly dangerous when
applied to humans, because it destroys man’s family tree as taught by the Bible and makes him a
descendant of the lower forms of life. He points out that no one has discovered the origin of
species. He links Darwinism to sexism (arguing that women are not inferior), atheism, and
materialism. He finds it impossible to believe that the world came about by chance, and believes
that God works all the time (rather than in the past in a deist view). He summarizes his
objections by saying that evolution is merely a guess, there is no support in the Bible for it, and
there’s no instance observed where a species changed into another. He further clarifies why it is
dangerous, by saying that it makes people believe that they can understand everything (by
excluding the supernatural and miracles found in the Bible), that it makes them agnostics, and
that it is harmful for the children. He also makes the further argument that although atheists have
a right to believe what they want, evolution should not be taught in schools paid for by taxpayers,
because religion is not taught in school. He also suggests that evolution and atheism is
fundamentally un-American. A paleontologist and a zoologist answered Mr. Bryan in the next
edition of the newspaper.
Clarence Darrow
Darrow was one of the primary defense attorneys working with the ACLU in the Scopes trial,
portrayed in Inherit the Wind as Drummond. Known for his dramatic performances in legal
cases, he was agnostic, opposed religion in public life, and attacked biblical literalism. He was
often sharply criticized and attacked, with media portraying him as the Antichrist, though he
fended off the hostility. This is indicative of the difficulty of selling evolution to the public, even
up to modern day. The fact that Bryan and Darrow were both at the center of the case drew
massive media attention, and refocused the debate very clearly on a clash between religion and
science.
Scopes Trial
Initiated by the ACLU’s (American Civil Liberties Union) challenge of Tennessee state
legislature that made the teaching of Evolution Theory illegal, the Scopes Trial became one of
the defining legal battles of the 1920s (and the 20th century for that matter). Scopes had
volunteered to become a martyr for the ACLU’s cause, and the organization brought in big time
defense lawyer Clarence Darrow to defend him in a trial against the self-proclaimed
representative of the everyman of America, William Jennings Bryan.
The trial became an instant spectacle of the day – complete with vendors, caterers, hotels, etc
that arose to accommodate the crowd – as a result of a number of factors coming to a head in the
1920s. To start, the development of the media and the press contributed to the widespread
attention the trial received; it was some of the first live broadcasting of events at the time.
Another issue was the increased accessibility of higher-level education in the 1920s, which made
issues regarding the information taught in schools of greater import to a greater number of
people.
Scopes was, of course, convicted, given that the trial was a question of whether or not he had
broken the Tennessee law in question – which he had indeed done. Bryan died a week later.
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis
After nearly 75 years of the development of the debate behind Darwinism, intellectuals had
diverged into roughly three unrelated approaches to understanding evolutionary theory:
geneticists, who were focused primarily on the workings of the gene itself; populationists, who
were focused on the genetic development of animal populations; and diversificationists, who
were mainly concerned with working with the fossil record to better understand how new species
arose.
Leaders like Ernst Mayr, George Simpson, Geroge Stebbins, and Julian Huxley decided that a
synthesis of all these fields would better serve the progress of the understanding of evolutionary
theory. Such collaboration was a monumental development in the history of Darwinism, and
provided the 20th century platform that would allow for even greater scientific ground to be
covered.
Inherit the Wind (1960)
A good example of the media’s interaction with the historical drama of science, Inherit the Wind
was actually a fairly well-received film of the early ‘60s. The movie dramatizes the Scopes Trial,
and, while certainly increasing the public understanding of the history behind the debate of
evolution, further polarizes the public view of the debate.
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Russian geneticist who tried to link genetics to natural history.
After emigrating from Russia to the US, he worked with Morgan, which was significant because
other Russian scientists of the time, mainly Lysenko, denounced Western genetics. He wrote a
landmark book, Genetics and the Origin of Species, combining the ideas of genetics,
chromosomes, and natural selection, in 1937. His ideas identified an evolutionary synthesis that
was necessary to reconcile the views of geneticists who looked at variation through chromosome
theory, statisticians who looked at gene distributions in populations, and naturalists who were
concerned with the origin of new species. Also tried to define species as “that stage of the
evolutionary process at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms
becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of
interbreeding.”
Ernst Mayr
Ernst Mayr was a field naturalist who worked in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard, where he specialized in classification theory. He created a careful redefinition of
species as a breeding population in order to clarify some of the arguments that arose between
geneticists, statisticians, and naturalists.
Mayr Reading (#51)
Many controversies came about because of different species concepts, particularly the line
between species and subspecies. He was not satisfied with any previous definitions, including
Dobzhansky’s. He defines a few criteria generally used to define species. Morphological
characters are descriptive characters such as structure, proportions, color patterns, and so on,
that define a species; it is of little value because there is no difference in morphological
characters between subspecies and species. Genetic distinctness is of little value because every
individual of a species has slightly different genetics. Lack of hybridization is not useful because
some species can cross. Thus, none of these three criteria should be used. Mayr’s definition is:
A species consists of a group of populations which replace each other geographically or
ecologically and of which the neighboring ones intergrade or hybridize wherever they are in
contact or which are potentially capable of doing so (with one or more of the populations) in
those cases where contact is prevented by geographical or ecological barriers. Mayr’s definition
is informed by his background as a taxonomist.
Trofim Lysenko
He was a Russian biologist and agronomist under Stalin. Lysenko was a disciple of Michurin
who worked on the technique of grafting plants. Michurin believed that particles of heredity
were all inherited so that if you change the body you change what is inherited – followed
Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics. Lysenko tried to use this technique on plants
in Russia to help the starving poor. Lysenko denounced Western genetics (and thus capitalist
way of understanding nature) to promote Michurinism. Lysenko admired by communist
state. People working on genetic theories in Russia were ostracized. Lysenko’s “vernalisation”
of wheat dominated in Russia beginning in 1927. With Krushchev’s rise to power in 1953,
Russia gradually opens up to the west – Lysenko officially discredited in 1964.
Julian Huxley
He was an English evolutionary biologist, proponent of natural selection and grandson of T.H.
Huxley. He was heavily influenced by his grandfather and the theories of Charles Darwin. He
wrote a biology textbook with H.G. Wells. Julian helped with the evolutionary
synthesis. Evolutionary change seemed to take place at three different levels: gene mutation,
population genetics, and diversification. Julian was one of several people who tried to bring
these diverse processes together. Julian also became director of UNESCO (United Nations
Education Sciences Culture& Organization) in 1946 and was considered to be the person who
brought the “science” to it. The predecessor of this group was the League of Nations – they had
not been successful in preventing outbreak of wars. Julian was committed to a secular science
where the supernatural did not exist. He was also a humanist and tried to bring these
characteristics to biology as well. He believed that the world was self-sustained.
Julian Huxley: Evolution, The Modern Synthesis
I. The Theory of Natural Selection
Biology at the present time is embarking upon a phase of synthesis after a period in which new
disciplines were taken up in turn and worked out in comparative isolation. Nowhere is this
movement towards unification more likely to be valuable than in this many-sided topic of
evolution.
Darwin was concerned both to establish the fact of evolution and to discover the mechanism by
which it operated and it was because he did both at the same time that he was so successful. He
did so with enormous quantities of facts and by starting with a few general principles.
David Lack
He was a British biologist and protégé of Huxley. He worked on Darwin’s finches and was able
to prove that the beaks are differently adapted for food. This was thought to be a myth for a
while until Lack proved it to be true in 1947. Prior to this, Morgan-Mendelian genetic theory
was on the rise and was not reliant on Darwin’s theory (hence the reason for the supposed myth
of Darwin’s finches). Morgan-Mendelian theory was a mutation based theory that did not rely at
all on natural selection. The work done by Lack further helped synthesize the evolution theories
that were present in that time. Further proof followed later with the peppered moth. Peppered
moth evolution serves as a very clear example of natural selection.
Lysenko: The Science of Biology Today
Lysenko equates the teachings of Weismann to the chromosome theory of heredity. The
Michurinian trend (what Lysenko follows) in biology is a materialist trend, because it does not
separate heredity from the living body and the conditions of its life. The living body and its
conditions of life are inseverable. The Morganists, however, maintain that heredity is isolated,
something apart from the mortal living body, from what they call the soma.
The Michurinists say that inheritance of acquired characters is possible and
necessary. Morganists cannot comprehend this principle so long as they have not fully discarded
their Weismannist notions.
Heredity is determined by the specific type of metabolism. You need but change the type of
metabolism in a living body to bring about a change in heredity. Thus it is possible to obtain
plant hybrids by means of grafting.
Variety within a plant is generally a quite frequent phenomenon among vegetative hybrids. As
the result of grafting, often get organisms that are shaken and therefore prone to vary.
“But, as is obvious to anyone, the described Darwinian method of selection has no bearing
whatever on the Mendel-Morgan theories.” Weismannism-Morganism does not reveal the real
laws of living nature; on the contrary, since it is a thoroughly idealistic teaching (based only on
chance and independent of environmental conditions), it creates an absolutely false idea about
natural laws.
The strength of the Michurinian teaching lies in its close association with the collective farms
and state farms, in the fact that it elucidates profoundly theoretical problems by solving
important practical problems of socialist agriculture.
James Watson
He is an American molecular biologist who was co-discoverer of the structure of DNA in
1953. For the longest time, it was uncertain how to reconcile these three things: genetic mutation,
population genetics/statistical results, and diversification (as popularized by the Origin of
Species). It was finally determined that it is the gene that is responsible for selection. DNA was
responsible for carrying the hereditary information that was used in the development and
functioning of all living organisms. However, if you want to know why a specific molecule
works the way it does, it is important to know its structure. Watson & Crick’s discovery of DNA
gave further insight into the selection process that drives the evolution of living beings.
Francis Crick (1916-2004)
Crick was teleological in his assumption that DNA contained genetic information and that it
was helical as opposed to Rosalind Franklin who took a methodological approach to proving the
DNA’s helical structure. He and James Watson used the helical assumption and then worked
backwards to find the structure of DNA which they first reported in 1953. They collaborated at
the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge University. In 1968 they received a Nobel Prize along
with Maurice Wilkins for their work in structure and nucleic acids.
Crick is also widely known for the use of the term “central dogma” which refers to the oneway flow of genetic information from DNA to RNA to proteins and is fundamental principle of
modern biology. Although is theory is surely “central” and of little dispute, the use of the word
“dogma” implies a sort of unquestionable rule and has drawn criticism.
The most significant controversy surrounding Francis Crick is his use of Rosalind Franklin’s
X-ray diffraction crystallography photographs to confirm his assumption of the helical structure
of DNA. Crick arrived at these photographs before they were published through Franklin’s
fellow researcher at King’s college, Maurice Wilkins. Although Franklin’s work was
contributed greatly to the discovery of the structure of DNA, she never received formal credit for
the discovery.
Rosalind Franklin
Was methodological in her scientific approaches and was more concerned with careful and
accurate analysis of data than the teleological Watson and Crick who used here research to
discover the structure of DNA. Her attention is detail may is a prime example of the theme of
increasing reductionism of evolutionary theory from the broad philosophical principles of
Darwin’s era to the biological minutia of gene theory.
Franklins work on DNA at King’s College in London using the process of X-ray diffraction
crystallography contributed greatly to the discovery of the structure of DNA yet she has never
received the same amount of credit as Watson and Crick nor Wilkins for that matter who was
instrumental in revealing her X-ray photographs to Watson and Crick without her consent.
Theme of genderism of science. Most all of Franklin’s co-workers were male. The 1987
film The Race for the Double Helix reveals that she felt oppressed by the culture and therefore of
ten worked alone and did not socialize. Even if she felt the urge to socialize, she would have
found difficulty in doing so as the common rooms and staff dining rooms at King’s were for men
only. Was science still an old boys club? Historical context: Wallace v. Darwin. Although
Franklin’s research was crucial in the discovery of the structure of DNA, she was not awarded a
Nobel Prize. She died before the awards were given of cancer likely caused by exposure to Xray radiation while collecting the data necessary for the discovery of DNA’s structure. Nobel
Prizes are not awarded posthumously.
Race for the Double Helix, 1987 movie
Science:
Competition, synthesis, genderism.
Contextualize with the progression of science of broad philosophical assumption to acute
objectivity. Reductionsim: searching for the physical properties of life. Biologization.
Is a 1987 dramatization of the discovery of the structure of DNA which is credited to James
Watson and Francis Crick who published their findings in 1953 and were jointly awarded a
Nobel Prize along with Maurice Wilkins for the discovery in 1962. The movie is based on James
Watson’s 1968 book, The Double Helix, which documents not only the discovery of the structure
of DNA, but also the personalities, conflicts, and controversy surrounding the work. The most
striking controversy is Watson’s use of Maurice Wilkins to gain access to Rosalind Franklin’s Xray diffraction data before it had been published.
There are several themes in the movie, the most prominent of which is the competitive nature
of science. Watson and Crick worked together and the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge
University. Wilkins and Franklin worked at King’s College in London. Watson never saw
himself to be in competition with the researchers at King’s as much as he imagined himself in
competition with fellow American Linus Pauling. Pauling’s son comes to work at Cavendish as
a character in the film and stimulates the competitiveness of Watson by proxy. To be sure
Watson and Crick, but Watson especially were motivated by the fame a accolades that would
surely be lauded upon the first to discover the structure of DNA.
In this competitiveness, however, the synthetic nature of science is revealed. In order to
derive their structure, Watson and Crick used the work of Franklin to confirm the helical
structure and also the work of Erwin Chargaff to determine the pairing properties of the nucleic
bases, adenine pairs with thymine and cytosine pairs with guanine. Rosalind’s character remarks
at the end of the film that it truly doesn’t matter who discovered the structure of DNA but that it
was discovered. She feels that all scientists are working together in some way.
To exemplify the “race” nature of the discovery of DNA, the movie notes that both Pauling
and Watson created incorrect preliminary structures of DNA. Pauling’s was helical but involved
three strands and ignored the acidic nature of DNA. The erroneous first structure of Watson and
Crick was reported in a chapter of The Double Helix to be a result of Watson’s poor note-taking
at a presentation by Franklin of her preliminary results. Watson wrote that he was distracted by
thoughts of how good Franklin might look if she gave it some effort, a sentiment which any
Harvard man may echo in regard to his own female classmates. Wikipedia photos of Franklin
reveal her nose to be rather man-ish.
This leads us to the last theme of The Race. The film is spares no opportunity to highlight
the genderism of science. Most all of Franklin’s co-workers are male. She feel oppressed by the
culture and therefore of ten works alone and does not socialize. Even if she felt the urge to
socialize, she would find difficulty in doing so as the common rooms and staff dining rooms at
King’s were for men only. Was science still an old boys club? Historical context: Wallace v.
Darwin. Although Franklin’s research was crucial in the discovery of the structure of DNA, she
was not awarded a Nobel Prize. She died before the awards were given of cancer likely caused
by exposure to X-ray radiation while collecting the data necessary for the discovery of DNA’s
structure. Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously.
Sociobiology:
Idea that genetic constitution is influential in our behaviour: “we are our genes”. This means that
sociobiologists believe that human behaviour, as well as nonhuman animal behavior, can be
explained as the outcome of natural selection. Very controversial because people do not like to
think about behaviours (especially human behaviours) deterministically. Critics say for instance
that sociobiology justifies racism because it is natural to "favour your kin as distinct from other
races".
Three Harvard professors, E. O. Wilson (for), Stephen Jay Gould and Dick Lewontin (against),
debate about it. Natural History of Rape by Thornhill and Palmer says that rape is (biologically)
a natural way to spread genes. Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene (1976), says that the gene
is the unit of selection and the organism is just the machine of gene propagation.
Edward O. Wilson
Professor of entomology at Harvard. Worked on instincts and behaviours of ants. Wrote
Sociobiology: A New Synthesis (1975) working through the behaviours of animals and finishes
about how this relates to human behaviour. He is criticized for this extrapolation. Colleagues at
Harvard and others wrote letter to NY Times saying, for example, that Wilson tries to justify
human slavery because of its "universal existence in the biological kingdom." Wilson feels
betrayed and responds that their statements were taken our context and are not his opinions.
Expand this in On Human Nature (1978). More recently he has changed track to become a
conciliatory figure in Creation (2000), saying that animals are not completely selfish and that
altruism is also genetically programmed. Finds that humanity is not constrained by genes, more
so by the cultural issues created by ourselves.
Altruism
By definition, altruism is the selfless concern for the welfare of others. Debate about how this fits
into evolution: survival of the fittest does not immediately imply altruistic behaviour and may
actually imply the opposite.
Utilitarian philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined term survival of the fittest in 1868)
popularized the idea, believing that culmination of progress would be for people to receive most
pleasure (utility) from altruism. Russian scientist Peter Kropotkin wrote Mutual Aid (1903),
suggesting that the right way to interpret Darwinism is that altruism, not competition, is key.
Richard Dawkins, "selfish gene"
Overarching themes and context: Genes in society in the age of 20th century reductionism—
this was when “biology suddenly went public” and the idea of an organism was continually
reduced into a simple matter of genes. Much public and scientific controversy arose over this
new dogma.
Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is a British scholar who pushed for a new arena of understanding for the field
of evolutionary biology. He was the author of the 1976 book The Selfish Gene, in addition to the
1986 book The Blind Watchmaker. His contribution to the genes in society debate fell within the
realm of the sociobiologists. He was particularly famous for introducing the ideas of the gene as
the primary unit of selection, and ruling out group selection—essentially making the organism a
“gene-survival machine.” He used powerful metaphors to help make his ideas relatable to society
as a whole—a means of making his theory more widely viable. Such metaphors included genes
as policy makers, brains as the executive, and God as a “blind” watchmaker—a slap in the face
to Paley’s watchmaker analogy. He stops short of making the claim that such selfishness is good;
he merely states that the “selfishness” of the gene is inbuilt and natural. Dawkins is one of the
modern class of “new atheists”—a class of unapologetic atheists who are staunchly against
religion and aren’t afraid to “come out of the closet” and admit it.
“The Selfish Gene”
Dawkins used The Selfish Gene (1986) to outline his gene-centered perspective on evolution.
Describing genes with the term "selfish" is not meant to imply that they have actual motives or
will – only that their effects can be accurately described as if they do. The contention is that the
genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to
continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.
This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships (when
an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own
genes). Proponents argue that the central point, that the gene is the unit of selection, usefully
completes and extends the explanation of evolution given by Charles Darwin before the basic
mechanisms of genetics were understood. Critics argue that it oversimplifies the relationship
between genes and the organism, and many find the view that genes are just using organisms as
vehicles for survival offensive.
Stephen Jay Gould
Stephen Jay Gould was an American biology professor at Harvard, and stark antisociobiologist and anti-creationist. Using his model organism of expertise (the land snail), he
believed in punctuated equilibrium (short blooms of rapid evolutionary diversification followed
by long periods of steady stasis), not gradualist evolution as originally conceived by Darwin.
However, Gould was not anti-Darwin, but instead put forth his theories as proposed revisions to
certain mechanistic details of evolutionary theory.
As much as he was a scientist, he was a social activist with strong left-wing views. He spoke
out against E.O. Wilson’s sociobiology with Lewontin. An objection to sociobiology was that if
certain mental and behavioral traits had a genetic basis, they could lead to racist interpretations.
He is also well known for introducing the term ‘spandrel’, to denote evolutionary ‘hitchhikers’,
physical features of an organism which themselves are not necessarily under natural selection,
but has arisen with other selected characteristics.
Creation Science
Creation science is an approach used to prove creationism and disprove evolution through
scientific arguments. Creation science is a good example of popular science (versus elite science)
insofar as it contains elements of scientific thought and appeals to a large group of people, but
generally does not meet standards of scientific evidence. Creation science is largely propagated
through the Internet and other media sources. Key players include George McCready Price
(offered $1000 prize for proof of the relative age of a fossil), Henry Morris (Institute for Creation
Research), Michael Behe (bacterial flagellum and irreducible complexity), Harun Yahya
(Turkish Atlas of Creation).
The 1981 McClean vs. Arkansas case directly pitted evolution science versus creation
science, in which evolution science prevailed. The argument was that without religious overtones,
creation science was simply a collection of unverified statements – not science. Creation science
(and its defeat) represents a considerable shift from more traditional objections to evolution,
attacking evolution on a scientific basis, not a theistic one.
Henry M. Morris (1918 – 2006)
Morris is from Texas, and has a degree in engineering. He lived and worked at the University of
Virginia as a professor of engineering, until he was obliged to resign because of publishing and
supporting creation research.
He published a book named The Genesis Flood in 1961. In this book, he suggested that the only
way to determine the true age of earth is for God to tell us, and the fossils do NOT provide the
evidence. He said that God tells us the earth is a thousand years old.
Morris is one of the founders of Creation Research Society, founded in 1963. He is also a
founder of the Institute for Creation Research, founded in 1970.
At the Institute for Creation Research, he put great efforts into expanding the institutional
structure for creation science. He generated the Center for Christian Leadership. He also offered
Degree programs on unconventional astronomy, biology, and geology.
Morris was not a Seventh Day Adventist. But he believed in creation science, and was a young
earth Creationist.
Institute for Creation Research (San Diego, 1970)
The institute is a center for creation research. It was founded by Henry Morris in 1970, and
includes the Museum of Creation & Earth History which recreates the fossil records according to
the days of the Creation. The museum displays cases such as human skulls, and the text
reinterprets these remains in a biblical way.
In this institute, Morris established the Center for Christian Leadership, and offered Degree
programs such as astronomy, biology, and geology. These programs are offered in a creationoriented way.
Reading #55 First Half: Creation Research Institutes
Institute for Creation Research (ICR):









Founded by Henry Morris.
The work of the ICR encompassed three ministries: research, writing, and speaking.
Despite its name, the institute conducted little research. One of the employees said that
“Henry looks at this whole thing as a sort of missionary effort rather than a scientific
one.”
Even though with little research, the ICR published a lot of books to spread the idea of
Creation Science.
Debates between creationists and prominent evolutionists were frequently held on
university campuses, and this helped the ICR to directly reach more audiences.
In 1981, the ICR announced a program offering graduate degrees in various creationoriented sciences to provide an academic setting where creationist students would be free
from discrimination.
The first catalog for the new graduate school includes four M.S. degrees: in biology,
geology, astro/geophysics, and science education.
Because of both internal instability and external vulnerability, the graduate school barely
survived its first decade of life.
With its graduate program in jeopardy and creation science under a constitutional cloud,
the ICR began recultivating old-fashioned biblical creationism, and launched a series of
Back to Genesis seminars. This attracted huge crowds and raised a lot of money.


Henry Morris institutionalized Creation Science in some fundamentalist Baptist colleges
such as the Liberty Baptist, where it later on initiated a new extradepartmental unit called
the Center for Creation Studies, where it has the world’s largest Creation museum.
As Henry Morris got older, beset by declining energy and failing eyesight, he turned to
his son John D. Morris for counsel and administrative assistance. John Morris later
became his successor.
Geoscience Research Institute (GRI)









The Geoscience Research Institute is run by the Seventh-day Adventist church.
Compared to the ICR, the GRI does more active research, and it gave birth to modern
flood geology.
Responding to the concerns of Adventist science teachers about the absence of qualified
earth scientists in the denomination, church leaders set up a Committee on the Teaching
of Geology and Paleontology. The set the roots of the GRI.
Two scientists in the institute, Hare and Ritland, argued for greatly extending the age of
the earth from thousands to billions of years and for drastically reducing the number of
fossil-bearing strata deposited by the flood, which is in direct contradiction to the Bible.
Hare and Ritland wanted to use the new institute as a vehicle for moving their church to a
more scientifically defensible position.
In 1962, Ritland wrote an unpublished paper on “Problems and Methods in Earth
History,” and pointed out that a careful study of the sedimentary strata indicated that
multiple catastrophes, not just Genesis flood, had sculpted the crust of the earth. Thus to
continue defending flood geology would “only bring embarrassment and discredit to the
cause of God.”
Hare did research on amino-acid ratios in marine shells, and the results indicated that life
had been on earth far longer than traditionally allowed by Adventists. When he reported
this to the church leaders, he was told that “the primary purpose of the GRI was to read,
write and study to look for inconsistencies in the evolutionary writings that appear, rather
than do original research.”
In 1970, Ritland published a book named A Search for Meaning in Nature: A New Look
at Creation and Evolution. In this book, he mentioned that the fundamental question was
not creation versus evolution but “whether the earth is a product of accident or of plan
and design.” He conceded that fossil record did not rule out the possibility of some kind
of evolution, and privately, he had come to accept the antiquity of life on earth and to see
Noah’s flood as a local event of limited geological significance.
The later leaders of the institute positioned the GRI to devote itself to salvaging what it
could of flood geology. As a result, the staff scientists who resisted the deluge found
themselves without a platform and eventually without a job.
Intelligent design
– a movement that supports the theory that some features and processes of the universe and of
living things are too complex to have come about by natural selection, so much so that might
have come about some other way, most likely a designer that might or might not be God.
Intelligent design attempted to avoid being associated with creationism, which was being
increasingly marginalized scientifically; rather, ID attempted to establish itself as a valid
alternative scientific theory to natural selection, and pushed for legal acceptance in public school
curricula.
ID represents a modern instance of conflict between religion and evolution theory. Unlike
creation science, ID reflects an attempt by its proponents to establish legitimacy as a valid,
debatable theory, using evolution’s own tools – the tools of science. The split between ID and
creation science is also indicative of how fractured and complicated the anti-evolution movement
has become.
Michael Behe
– part of the intelligent design movement, Behe introduced the idea of irreducible complexity in
the book Darwin’s Black Box. This is basically the idea of a system composed of several
interacting parts contributing to the main function, in which the removal of any one part causes
the function to stop working. He uses the bacterial flagellum as an example of an irreducibly
complex biological mechanism. Intelligent designers use the irreducible complexity argument to
question the universal applicability of natural selection, claiming that natural selection could
produce irreducibly complex systems, which are present in nature.
Behe’s publication represents one of ID’s first significant steps into the public outside of being a
marginalized faction, as Darwin’s Black Box was the first pro-ID or pro-creationist book
published by a trade publisher. Ultimately, ID was able to build on the attention generated by
these and other publications and events to establish in the minds of many that a valid controversy
existed about Darwinism.
‘Intelligent Design’ in ‘The Creationists’
p. 451
I. The mid-1990s was characterized by a shift in attention from scientific creationism to
intelligent design (ID). ID claimed to take a more scientific approach than creationism; it
attempted to ideologically avoid creationism’s emphasis on flood geology, and instead seek
evidence that a designer, possibly but not necessarily God, was involved in life’s origins.
II. Origins
A. The Mystery of Life’s Origin – written in 1984 by three Protestant Scientists, Charles
B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Featured a forward written by
Dean H. Kenyon, professor at San Francisco State University and coauthor of a major
textbook on chemical origins to life.
B. Evolution: Theory in Crisis – written in 1986 by Michael Denton, arguing that
evidence of divine design exists in nature
C. The Blind Watchmaker – opposition book written in 1986 by Richard Dawkins,
denouncing creationism and dismissing Genesis, as well as religion in general.
Ultimately Dawkins’ outspoken criticism may have indirectly benefited ID by
drawing media attention to it
III. Pandas and People, the first book to explicitly promote ID, was published in 1989. Written
as a supplement to high school biology textbooks, and originally conceived to promote creation
science, it was revised to be an ID book after the 1987 Supreme Court decision against teaching
creation science.
IV. Darwin on Trial – written by Phillip E. Johnston in 1991, a law professor at UC Berkeley,
criticizing evolution. Specifically, he criticized the assumption that naturalism was the only
legitimate way of doing science, which unfairly limited the range of possible explanation and
ruled out from the start any consideration of theistic factors.
A. Wedge strategy formulated by Johnson to penetrate this “materialist” philosophy.
B. Johnson and ID under heavy attack from all sides, including creation scientists, who
dislike ID for not emphasizing the Bible enough, not incorporating flood geology, and
not directly mentioning Genesis or God. Simultaneously, ID tried to stay away
ideologically from creationism
C. Stephen Jay Gould and Daniel C. Dennett both condemn Darwin on Trial
V. “Big tent” conferences in 1992, 1993 during which many antievolutionists gather
VI. Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC) founded to overthrow “scientific
materialism”
VII. Darwin’s Black Box – written by Michael Behe in 1996. This was the first major instance
of a trade press to publish a work supporting ID or creationism. In it, he advanced the theory of
“irreducible complexity”, in which he described processes and functions complex enough to
involve several parts that he claimed could not have evolved because that function could not
have been possible without all parts present.
VIII. William Dembski hoped to spark an “intellectual revolution” that would rewrite the rules
of science to allow the inclusion of supernatural explanations of phenomena.
IX. Meanwhile, some ID proponents tried to introduce ID to public schools, with limited success.
A. Rodney LeVake removed from teaching biology for exposing students to ID and
irreducible complexity; sued repeatedly but never won
B. Roger DeHart removed from teaching biology for using Of Pandas and People.
C. Minor success in Kansas, when Kansas State Board of Education voted to delete
teaching violation, big bang and long geological ages from recommended science
standards. This was rescinded and then reinstituted, and called for teachers to
challenge evolution in the classroom.
D. Mirecki affair – chair of religious studies department at University of Kansas deposed
for crude remarks, course on “Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious
Mythologies” cancelled; later claimed that he was beat up – big embarrassment for
progressives in Kansas
E. Ohio Board of Education approved a lesson plan aimed to teach students to think
about evolution critically; this was ultimately rescinded
F. School board of a small town in Wisconsin voted to teach students strengths and
weaknesses of evolutionary theory; later a bill passed to require science instruction to
be confined to material both “testable as a scientific hypothesis and describe[ing] only
natural processes.”
X. Santorum amendment, which called for students to learn about controversy surrounding
evolution, proposed but then downgraded
XI. ID involved in a series of mishaps with the Smithsonian Institution
A. Peer-reviewed ID journal article turned out to have been guided through the review
process by a research associate at the Smithsonian that was interested in creation
science/ID.
B. Discovery Institute announces that Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History was cosponsoring an ID movie; Smithsonian bows out of co-sponsorship
XII. Dover decision (2005) determines that ID is not science and that it is unconstitutional to
teach it in public schools
XIII. Controversy over the position of Catholics over evolution and design; Pope John Paul II
believed that evolution was “more than just a hypothesis” in 1996; later Pope Benedict XVI
expressed his support for the idea that the universe was a result of an “intelligent project”
XIV. Ultimately ID was successful in creating the impression that there existed a serious
scientific controversy about Darwinism, despite some lingering confusion still about the
distinction between ID and creation science. This was reflected in media headlines. Scientific
attacks on ID helped to draw more widespread attention to it.
Irreducible complexity also known as (IC) is used by proponents of intelligent design that
certain biological systems are too complex to have emerged from simpler, or "less complete"
predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring
chance mutations. Supporters of intelligent design use this term to refer to biological systems and
organs that they believe could not have come about by any series of small changes. They argue
that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or
would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of
natural selection. Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained
by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex
cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or
guided its evolution. Accordingly, the debate on irreducible complexity concerns two questions:
whether irreducible complexity can be found in nature, and what significance it would have if it
did exist in nature. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, (the
other one is specified complexity)
The argument was created by Michael Behe and he defines a system as irreducible complex
when it is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
functioning."
In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of
irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity
has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific
community at large.” Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important
argument by creationists, particularly intelligent design proponents. Many scientists call it a
pseudoscience.
Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District
This was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public
school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution
as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design
is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Prior to the case, the School Board instituted the following principles that would be taught to 9th
grade biology:
 Students will learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution.
 Emphasize Darwin’s theory is just a theory, and it has gaps for which no evidence has
been found.
 ID is an alternative explanation of the origin of life. A book “Of Pandas and People” will
be available to any student interested in learning about ID. It is not mandatory.
 Encourage students to keep an “open mind” and leave the discussion of the Origin of Life
to individual students and their families.
 Teaching of Darwin’s theory is for standards-based assessments.
The plaintiff argues that Argue that ID’s “master intellect” or designer is really just God, making
it no different from religion. No viable alternative other than God—or space aliens and timetraveling cell biologists—have been proposed. They use this to argue that ID is no scientific.
They then provide a number of arguments and historical references to ID’s development as a
scheme by Christians to push creationism under the guise of ID. They criticize the book “On
Padas and People” by the same logic. Argue that the change from “creation” to “intelligent
design” occurred around 1987, after the Supreme Court’s Edwards decision. Plaintiff’s main
argument: ID is creationism relabeled.
The court found that “the [School] Board’s ID policy violates the Establishment Clause.” By
doing so the court found that ID is not science and “cannot uncouple itself from creationist, and
thus religious, antecedents.” The court preemptively defends against being labeled an “activist”
court and softens the ruling suggesting that ID should continue to be “studied, debated, and
discussed” but just not in schools as an alternative to evolution.