Darwin was not a biologist (talk)

You could read hundreds of pages of Darwin’s work and easily come to the conclusion that he was a geologist. But a different selection of readings would convince you he was a biologist. In truth, he was neither and both. I’m giving a talk this weekend for the Humanists of Minnesota that will explore what Darwin really was: An experimentalist, a part time anthropologist, a natural historian and most impressively, an integrative thinker of the likes rarely to be seen again for a century after he lived. My talk will draw heavily on Darwin’s own work and provide a sampling of some of his more interesting and compelling findings.

The talk will be at the Nokomis Community Center, on Saturday, February 18th, at 10:00 AM

More details here. See you there!

Comments

  1. #1 John
    February 15, 2012

    Mr. Darwin referred to himself as a geologist in his account of the Beagle voyage, and spilled quite a bit of ink describing his geological observations. Those parts added a great deal to this reader’s enjoyment.

  2. #2 Greg Laden
    February 15, 2012

    Yeah, I made a graph of Darwin’s ink the other day:

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/charles_darwin_geologist.php

  3. #3 John
    February 15, 2012

    :) Thanks!