…and this is a 
There's a new movie coming out about Darwin that does something different: instead of talking about the science of evolution, it's about Darwin's personal life. Roger Ebert has seen it and offers a few thoughts on the subject matter (it isn't a review, though!), and it sounds interesting — I'll be seeing it if it appears in Morris, which isn't likely, or when it's available on DVD, which is much more likely. I'm not worried that it will provide comfort to creationists, but I am a little concerned that it may Hollywoodize history a little bit.
Ebert points out that it focuses on the difficulties he had with religion, and how it colored his marriage and work. I don't know how well it represents reality, though. It's a lens we use to look back on the 19th century, but it may not be entirely fair to Darwin's views.
Fearing to offend his wife, he was shy about extending his belief to the evolution of mankind itself, but it is certainly what he privately thought. He denied being a atheist, but said agnosticism came close to reflecting his views. Apart from his research and ideas about science, that conflict in this marriage and with the conventional religious of his times was the most significant thing about him.
I have my doubts that the conflict with religion was a major issue with Darwin. He avoided it very effectively, and did not make public pronouncements on religious belief. He differed from his wife's opinion, but here's the thing: there isn't the slightest hint in any of his writings that he was even tempted to disagree with Emma, and the impression I get is that at every step his priority was to accommodate his ideas with his wife's beliefs.
Yes, I said it: Charles Darwin was an accommodationist.
I don't think the most significant thing in his life was the conflict with religion at all — his family and his happy relationship with his wife and children was #1, and I don't think 'conflict' was a word that applied (although, of course, it would have to be emphasized in a movie).
It also leaves something out: Darwin himself said that his greatest talent was as a businessman. Over his lifetime, he invested carefully and wisely and grew a small seed of money given at his marriage into a huge fortune. If anyone wants to sort out what contributed most to his scientific work, I think that fact should loom much larger than a slight tension on matters of religion in which he always deferred to his wife.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Steve_C | September 11, 2009 9:57 AM
I guess I should read Darwin's biography. Which do you suggest? I had no idea he was wealthy. I could understand someone keeping to themselves what they knew would upset someone they loved.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 11, 2009 10:01 AM
Heresy! Burn the Infidel Myers!
Just kidding. Who cares?
See fundies? Darwin was no god. Just a scientist. Go play in traffic.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 11, 2009 10:04 AM
Read Janet Browne's biography -- it's the best.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 11, 2009 10:12 AM
...yet. Sounds like he plans to review it when it's released.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 11, 2009 10:15 AM
Steve_C,
The biography by Desmond and Moore is the only one I've read, it's very good, but pretty long (about 700 pages). I actually finished it with somewhat diminished respect for Darwin as a human being - he was very evidently a benevolent and amiable individual, but it was pusillanimous of him to hide his revolutionary conclusions until forced into publication by Wallace's letter. Even then, accommodationism was a serious flaw in a scientist!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 11, 2009 10:16 AM
In 19th Century Britain, independent means were practically a requirement for being a practicing scientist.
Darwin was never hurting for money at any time of his life, being the scion of prosperous rural gentry on the Darwin side and one of the early industrial fortunes on the Wedgewood side.
Posted by: Bodach | September 11, 2009 10:34 AM
I really enjoyed The Reluctant Mr. Darwin by David Quammen. Not meant as a biography, but still a good read.
Yeah, he was an accommodationist.
Posted by: MP | September 11, 2009 10:34 AM
Yeah, that would make a really thrilling movie. Focus on Darwin's sensible investment strategy. A sure-fire blockbuster.
Posted by: Tim Danaher | September 11, 2009 10:37 AM
...and he was also related to the family of Vaughn Williams.
I hope the film re-stages the Huxley vs. Wilberforce debate. The one the BBC did for The Voyage of the Beagle was electrifying. Go TH!!!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 11, 2009 10:39 AM
Not so small, actually. 20,000 pounds in 1839 money is the equivalent of at least a couple million today.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
September 11, 2009 10:46 AM
But how much is a coupla millions worth in this day an' age?
Still - I wouldn't have minded having Darwin look after my savings.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
September 11, 2009 10:53 AM
No one could take Darwin to task for being an accommodationist 150 years ago. We understand so much more now, including what accommodation did leading up to World War II.
Darwin came from a wealthy family. His story is NOT a rags-to-riches story.
Posted by: Rebecca C. | September 11, 2009 11:03 AM
How lucky I am to live in the 21st century when I could make "being an atheist" a prerequisite to being my spouse. Darwin must have loved the heck out of Emma. (I also threw "having chiseled abs" and "going vegan" in there, just 'cause I could.)
Posted by: Andy | September 11, 2009 11:08 AM
I hope this turns out to be a reasonably accurate film historically (within the limits of creating an effective story, conflict and all that), and a success financially. I like both Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly. I suspect the former's casting in the role (and perhaps his interest in it) grew from his turn as Dr. Maturin in Master and Commander,, where he came this close to preceding Darwin in the Galapogos.
Posted by: hazur | September 11, 2009 11:11 AM
NEB: "No one could take Darwin to task for being an accommodationist 150 years ago. We understand so much more now..." That's exactly what I was going to say after recently reading Quammen's book referenced by Bodach. In there he mentions the problems the theory of evolution had for acceptance after publication because the holes in knowledge there was at the time and for years later, which lead to the proposal of alternative theories that looked plausible then. It took the understanding of hereditary mechanisms to fully validate the TofE. Hardly Darwins fault.
Cheers,
Posted by: littlejohn | September 11, 2009 11:14 AM
As I understand it, one of the most interesting, and sad, aspects of Darwins life was his chronic illness. Presumably a tropical disease unfamiliar to British doctors. He was almost entirely housebound in the latter half of his life.
Posted by: Andy | September 11, 2009 11:14 AM
The economic history website has a series of tools for converting historical values to modern. There are all sorts of ways to calculate this, all of which are a little dodgy, but it's still very useful at least to get a general idea.
http://eh.net/hmit/
Using the "Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Present" tool, I get this:
In 2007, £20000 0s 0d from 1840 is worth
£1,369,011.04 using the retail price index.
£14,824,828.90 using average earnings.
Yes, it's either a lot of money, or a LOT of money.
Posted by: hazur | September 11, 2009 11:20 AM
By the way, Olivia Judson did review Creation. She liked it.
Posted by: Islander | September 11, 2009 11:31 AM
From Ebert's article-
"This will adamantly not be a review of "Creation," which will await its opening."
He's going to review the movie when it releases.
Posted by: John Emerson | September 11, 2009 11:43 AM
Even Bertrand Russell had to deal with piety face to face while he was growing up. He was raised, as I remember, by a devout and narrowminded aunt. He may never have believed personally, but he was all too familiar with the world of belief.
Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | September 11, 2009 11:56 AM
"Yes, I said it: Charles Darwin was
an accommodationista husband."There, I fixed it.
Posted by: GeekGoddess | September 11, 2009 12:01 PM
Dr. Eugenie Scott talked about this movie at the Skeptrack at DragonCon last week. She has seen the movie. She said it was indeed somewhat fictionalized, but that she personally felt it was a good movie and hoped that it would be picked up by a distributor in the U.S.
Posted by: FastLane | September 11, 2009 12:10 PM
I doubt it will play in a theater here in Dumbfuckistan, Kansas, either, but I'll catch on satellite or DVD.
Brownian, your 'now go play in traffic' cracked me up. *calls IT for a new keyboard*
Posted by: Sleeper | September 11, 2009 12:11 PM
I dread to think what Mark Kermode's review is going to be like, evolution denier that he is.
Posted by: enlitnd99
|
September 11, 2009 12:15 PM
Hey PZ, just so you know Olivia Judson did review this movie and seemed very pleased with it. http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/
Posted by: Texas Reader | September 11, 2009 12:24 PM
The two volume bio by Janet Browne is the best I've read. I think you can get both volumes in paperback now.
Posted by: Coel | September 11, 2009 12:37 PM
Really? I think there is considerable evidence that religion was a cause of tension between them. For example, Emma sent her husband a letter, in which she explained that she was fearful of an everlasting afterlife in which he did not accompany her, and pleading with him to make a declaration of faith in Jesus. This letter he kept, and wrote on it "When I am dead, know that I have kissed and cried over this many times." But he did not make the declaration of faith she asked for.Posted by: Coel | September 11, 2009 12:52 PM
A passage revealing about Darwin's religious views is this one, from his son Francis, commenting on a visit by Aveling, an outspoken atheist.
That last line implies that Darwin as essentially an atheist, but didn't want to be public or aggressive about it. The above letter from his wife is a strong indication of why. Indeed, he said this explicitly:Posted by: BdNf | September 11, 2009 12:53 PM
It was the opening movie at the TIFF (Toronto Film Festival). Here is a one minute review by Liam Lacey where he says that it goes overboard and that even if it this new perspective is interesting, it insists to much on hallucination and fever flashbacks and stuff like that.
Posted by: BdN | September 11, 2009 1:03 PM
A review in French says about the same thing (my rough translation/interpretation) : "the general feeling wasn't very positive among the viewers after the projection. The story is sometimes confusing and puts too much emphasis on his personal life rather than on the events that lead to his discoveries and understanding of the world. Because of that, the movie falls in the same trap as most bio-topics, using flashy dramatic effects that seem too much."
Posted by: StarScream | September 11, 2009 1:05 PM
Ebert makes a somewhat factual error in his article. He writes: "Today, no major religion finds conflict between God and the theory of evolution. The majority of Christians can live with both ideas; religious opposition to Darwin is limited to a fundamentalist minority of American Christians."
Ummm...although the official proclamations of certain moderate and liberal Islamic organizations (mainly in the West) may take the position of accepting the ToE, in practice almost all of the Islamic world vehemently reject it.
Posted by: BdN | September 11, 2009 1:05 PM
And here's the tweet by the National Post :
"Creation: Grandeur but little joy in theory's creation as Darwin mourns late daughter. Bettany looks the part, though. 2.5 stars"
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
September 11, 2009 1:16 PM
There was a piece about the movie on the BBC World News this morning, complete with a soundbite from Denise O'Leary, wearing a silly hat and complaining that "It's the creation myth of atheism". I think it's a pity they used the title Creation; it just feeds delusions of the O'Leary kind.
Posted by: uncle frogy | September 11, 2009 1:29 PM
That he was very sensitive to his wife's feelings and his family and did not just plunge ahead and openly declare his opposition to religious belief for the sake of his family I find in some ways admirable given the times he lived in.It makes him more human more kind. That he took a "small fortune" and through careful investment grew it into a much larger one is also indicative of his self honesty and reason. To make money investing requires the ability to look objectively at the way things are and not how we think they are or should be and act in a reasonable way to minimize risk without "falling in love" with and investment idea. Attitudes not unfamiliar to science. That he suffered from an infection he acquired in his travels is a tragedy. A man who lived and loved and did some important work . We are the better for it.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 11, 2009 1:33 PM
One would do better still to deal with Darwin's arguments for accommodation--and ask the question of whether or not they pertain in today's context (or indeed, in his). Biased he may have been, but he did think about the matter.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: BdN | September 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Is there a link to this ? I didn't find one.
Speaking of Leary, here is an update on Mario Beauregard. Audio and slides from the ASA 2009 annual meeting.
Posted by: Holbach | September 11, 2009 2:16 PM
No matter what can be said about the great Charles Darwin in his defense or faults, we owe our struggle against the morons of insanity to his researches and efforts. He is one of my most admired and revered persons.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
September 11, 2009 2:19 PM
It was the Talking Movies segment on the Beeb, if that helps. I can't find a link, either.
Posted by: doug l | September 11, 2009 2:29 PM
Maybe if Darwin had been less of greedy money-grubbing business man (profit over people?) and more into getting this damn stupid god thing done with and out of the way, there would be more understanding and we could save the planet better from the bible thumpers. It was the victorian era, he was perfectly within his rights and the customs according to somethings I've read to abuse his wife pubically if he wanted to, and call her out for being dimwitted and ignorant for being a devout xian and force her to stop believing, and maybe the lightbulb over her dimwitted skull filled with religious superstition, would have finally gone off and triggerd a change in others.
I don't know who said "you never see anybody change their minds as a result of being shouted at about how stupid they are." Well, actually I said it, many times,but the point is how do we know until we try? Maybe that's why it hasn't worked so far...so, anyhow, carry on.
Posted by: doug l | September 11, 2009 2:39 PM
I've cooled down (meds for pain) and now wish to retract my previous comment, and apologize if for any offense I may have caused. Cheers.
Posted by: mikecbraun | September 11, 2009 2:44 PM
PZ, have you read Quammen's biography of Darwin? It's great.
Posted by: doug l | September 11, 2009 2:46 PM
Also..I love your blog PZ and love Ebert's reviews at least as much if not more.
He's also written some really good essays on subjects other than movies which I've always found very perceptive and enlightening.
His essay from a few years back about the conspicuous absence from the autumn air of the smell of burning leaves which used to be so prominent in cities like Chicago and its suburbs where he lives, is a favorite, as are his observations on race and our foreign policy.
Posted by: mikecbraun | September 11, 2009 2:49 PM
Short, but still great.
Posted by: Alex Deam | September 11, 2009 2:57 PM
Now I see it. Now I see your evil plan laid bare before my eyes. You've attracted all these atheists here just so you can weave your fiendish web of evil against us.
First it's "Darwin was an accommodationist". Then it'll be Sagan once donated to JABS. Soon, you'll reveal Dawkins as a feng shui fetishist. Before long you'll have us all hating on evolution and atheism.
PZ, are you a secretly a Poe??
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 11, 2009 3:14 PM
sounds very interesting!
Posted by: NelC | September 11, 2009 3:18 PM
Mark Kermode's an evolution-denier? I hadn't heard that. Are you sure that isn't just that he disliked the movies Evolution or Underworld: Evolution? Cite?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 11, 2009 3:20 PM
Then why are almost all of the world's bible thumpers in the USA?
Posted by: Holbach | September 11, 2009 3:22 PM
mikecbraun @ 41
Yes, "The Reluctant Mr Darwin" is very good. His book, "The Song of the Dodo", is another good read.
Posted by: mikecbraun | September 11, 2009 3:38 PM
Holbach, I would totally read that, if I had more time! It will go on my list, which is getting severely backed up--I just got a Dovlatov in the mail that I know I won't get to for at least a few months.
Posted by: Erp | September 11, 2009 4:18 PM
Ralph Vaughn-Williams was a double grand nephew (Charle's sistet, Caroline, married Emma's brother, Josiah, and they are Vaughn-Williams grandparents). Charles' father and grandfather were respected professionals (medical doctors) not rural gentry though they mingled socially with them and were probably wealthier than many of the gentry. The closest to rags to riches in the family was his grandfather, Josiah Wedgwood, who was born the younger son of a poor potter with a large family.
The letter that Emma wrote Charles was before their marriage and her own views changed over her lifetime. Note she was never an orthodox Anglican though she attended the parish church and considered herself unitarian in belief (something I bet the movie skims over). Certainly by the end of her life she believed that God would not condemn someone for failing to believe in him.
Judging from #32's remarks I wonder if the movie merged the death of his daughter, Annie, in 1851 and the death of his son, Charles at age 18 months, on 28 June 1858 (10 days after Wallace's letter arrive).
Posted by: Holbach | September 11, 2009 4:27 PM
mikecbraun @ 49
I like that entry of Dovlatov's under "Quotes" in Wikipedia!
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | September 11, 2009 4:42 PM
Promoting science is not the same thing as promoting atheism. While I personally believe that science will inevitably take you to the edge of the precipice - if we cannot see God in action, why believe in God at all? - it is the hardest struggle to take that last step off.
Religion is a crutch. Kicking a crutch out from a limping man and telling him "You can walk if you just try" is both cruel & fruitless. You have to train him to walk, then let him cast off the crutch when he feels ready. It is what most people here did.
The CR/ID'ers who post here often get hung up on things, like "What is the purpose of life?" "What is the goal of evolution?". It is not just wanting the Sky Fairy, it is wanting that meaning. It is only when they are able to accept that you can be happy without some outside imposed meaning and purpose, that they can finally let go. (Oh, and that burn in Hell forever bit has to go, too.)
Posted by: MR | September 11, 2009 4:55 PM
Searching for information I found this example of religious groups trying to put their own positive spin on the film:
http://www.damaris.org/creationmovie
Some of the videos clearly have some connection with Theos, a "public theology think tank", who managed to get big publicity of a very biased survey on public attitudes to evolution into the uk media a few months ago.
And there's the trio of Levis Wolpert, plus a Theistic Evolutionist and a creationist engineering professor "debating Darwin".
Posted by: Sleeper | September 11, 2009 5:14 PM
@NelC (#46) It used to be on his Wikipedia entry. I can't figure how to find it in the history page.
Try this page and scroll down to the last Triva entry. It's the best I can do.
Also from my memory, if you can track down his podcast review of March of the Penguins, although he dissmisses claims that it disproves evolution he goes on to say he can't believe that life occured just by chance.
Posted by: The pro from dover | September 11, 2009 5:15 PM
To Littlejohn: Ah the famous Darwin malady. Did he have Chagas Disease or was he just a hypochondriacal psychosomatic Englishman suffering from the vapors whose symptoms mysteriously came and went in accordance to unpleasant events and people in his life that he wished to avoid, finally to succumb at the (for those times) ripe old age of 72 of coronary artery disease from the general awfulness of the British upper-middle class diet and the snuff he used regularly. It was good that he was such an astute manager of money so he could afford all the torturous and worthless cures he inflicted upon himself and his family. It is possible that he feared that as a product of inbreeding as were his children that he had inflicted upon them constitutional medical weakness.
Posted by: NelC | September 11, 2009 6:34 PM
That sounds like the vague CofE-type belief that's common to Brits, rather than outright evolution denial, Sleeper, so I don't think I'll stop listening to his film reviews just yet. Dreadfully accommodationist of me, I know.
Talking about reviews, Richard Dawkins was on a review show on the BBC just now, talking about Creation. Generally, he said it wasn't terribly historically accurate, especially exaggerating the conflict between Darwin and his wife, and painting Huxley as a terrible poison-dwarf driving Darwin to finish his book, but faithful in the way it depicted the doing of science.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | September 11, 2009 7:02 PM
Do check Panda's Thumb for Eugenie Scott's review.
Go to http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/eugenie-scott-r.html
Posted by: Erp | September 11, 2009 7:16 PM
#55 Pro from Dover
Charles Darwin's parents as far as I know were not related. His maternal grandparents were third cousins but that is it as far as inbreeding for Charles which isn't much.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | September 11, 2009 8:09 PM
Alex Dream up at 44 builds an interesting case and asks a most startling question:
Not only am I chilled to the bone by the implications of such a notion, I'm deeply intrigued by the possible answers to this question. I keep thinking that there could be more going on here than I had assumed, given three or four years of reading this blog as part of my daily routine. I can only imagine, well, not really imagine very well, what kind of hell would break loose if PZ was a Poe. But, Alex, how would we know?
*Why, the theological implications alone are staggering.*
Posted by: Fred | September 11, 2009 9:13 PM
It is only when they are able to accept that you can be happy without some outside imposed meaning and purpose, that they can finally let go. (Oh, and that burn in Hell forever bit has to go, too.)
Careful, H.D. You know what happened to mother.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | September 11, 2009 10:06 PM
Darwin was wrong!
Posted by: J. Goard | September 11, 2009 11:24 PM
#28:
Is that Edward B. Aveling, the Marxist and playah who hooked up with Karl's daughter and apparently drove her to suicide? Must be, I think. Never thought about him chatting with Darwin, but they were in high society at the same time...
Nice to see that Darwin's son tried to distance Dad from the folks in the late 19th century who were fervently preaching a blatantly unskeptical and unscientific view of people and society. (And whose intellectual descendents resist applying evolutionary fact to psychological research.)
Posted by: Sara | September 12, 2009 8:50 AM
Huh.
It seems that this sort of thing is exactly what happens to people who have theists in their families. The atheists try to be respectful, and, well, accommodate, because they want to have good relationships with people they care about, and all that theists do is throwing hissy fits in the end.
Poor Darwin :(
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 12, 2009 9:38 AM
Nice to see that Darwin's son tried to distance Dad from the folks in the late 19th century who were fervently preaching a blatantly unskeptical and unscientific view of people and society. (And whose intellectual descendents resist applying evolutionary fact to psychological research.) - J. Goard
Actually, there's a marked similarity between Marxists and evolutionary psychologists, in their simplistic reductionism - everything of significance in human culture being reducible "in the final analysis" to the "means of production" in Marxism, and to natural (including sexual) selection in evolutionary psychology.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 12, 2009 9:58 AM
I should have capitalised "Evolutionary Psychologists" @64, as I'm referring specifically to the "natural selection designed us module by module in the EEA" tendency.
Posted by: Norther | September 12, 2009 10:45 AM
According to a story in the London Telegraph, the film has yet to find a U.S. distributor because evolution is too controversial for American audiences.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | September 12, 2009 6:10 PM
Sounds like the poster of the above is as ignorant of the history as were the Bushites who were accusing those opposed to their Iraq war of being "appeasers". Always fun to see how the creationists and the 'new' atheists go for Godwin.
Posted by: Tad | September 13, 2009 12:36 PM
Unfortunately, I read (at nytimes.com, if I'm not mistaken) that the film's producer has stated that no U.S. distributors have stepped up to release the film here. Why? Because it's about Darwin, of course, and this is America!