Yesterday a Church of England member announced that the institution owes Charles Darwin an apology. Writing directly to Darwin, the Rev Malcolm Brown said the church should be penitent "for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still." While initially reported as an apology from the church itself, a CoE spokesperson said that this attempt at posthumous reconciliation is being made by Brown and not by the church itself. Nevertheless, a new section on Darwin has been added to the Church of England website in the run-up to the "Year of Evolution," although I would beware of Whiggish history hidden in the pages.
This is all a bit strange, of course, because before embarking on the Beagle Darwin had just finished his formal education at Cambridge and was set to be an Anglican clergyman in a quiet country parish. Given all the ways in which Darwin was almost prevented from going on the Beagle (read Terry Pratchett's The Science of Discworld: Darwin's Watch for a fanciful view of the contingencies, and Desmond & Moore's biography Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist for the real hurdles), I have to wonder how history would be different had he never made it aboard. Would he have passed down to us great sermons about God's inordinate fondness for beetles? (Darwin certainly shared such an affinity for the Coleoptera.) Perhaps he would have followed a path similar to that of Edward Hitchcock in New England, studying both natural history and religion in the countryside. Such speculations are more amusing than they are profitable, though, and I for one am glad that Darwin revolutionized the way we understand nature.
[Hat-tip to John Wilkins]
- Log in to post comments
I have to wonder how history would be different had he never made it aboard.
I suppose there are two questions here: 1) how would history be different and 2) how would Darwin's history be different?
I sometimes wonder if Darwin's inquisitive mind might have hit on natural selection even if he hadn't gone on the Beagle. He said the voyage "was the most important event in my life and has determined my whole career" and, as a champion of The Beagle Project, I obviously subscribe to the importance of the voyage to Darwin's personal and intellectual development, but I can't help wondering whether he might have found evidence and inspiration for natural selection even as an English clergyman. His mind was so open and, most importantly, curious, about the natural world, and he was such a meticulous observer ...he very well might have done it.
Even if he hadn't, we can be confident that someone else would have come up with a mechanism for evolution. And of course, at least one other person DID come up with a mechanism for evolution - Alfred Russel Wallace. But I don't think Wallace (or someone else) would have done evolution by natural selection the justice Darwin did, by collecting such a truly enormous amount of data and by writing about it so thoroughly, so honestly and so eloquently, and for a lay audience to boot.
The second question, how would Darwin's life have unfolded if he hadn't gone on the Beagle, is perhaps even more interesting. Would he have been so ill and if not would he have been perhaps even more productive and prolific (hard to imagine, I know)? Would he have continued as Henslow's protege? Probably, and who knows where that might have led?
And who would have gone in his stead? Perhaps Henslow himself would have reconsidered the voyage. Or perhaps another trainee of Henslow would have been nominated. Perhaps whoever it was would have hit on natural selection too.
This will have to go on my list of questions to ask Jim Moore and Randal Keynes next time I see them...
Ignorant bloody yanks*! No English person or organisation would ever use "Chuck" as an informal version of Charles. It's an American nickname, never used in Britain. For Charles we have Charlie and Chas (Chas being derived from the abbreviated form that used to be used on brass name plates and visiting cards), or in recent decades Chazza (in the pattern of Gazza, the brilliant but flawed footballer). We do NOT use Chuck. So it only shows up your quote marks as fibs.
But have you seen that beard? With the beard, he could only be Mr Darwin!
* and yes, I know!
I read with this story with fascination. Darwin's theory has yet to be proven in any way. It bears no more certainty than the theory of intellegent design. I should think that the Church of England or any church would follow Biblical teachings as divine truth. Darwin didn't even believe his own theories in later life. "You cannot serve two masters.."
Mark B - There is much more substance to believe in evolution than there is for intelligent design. It is called the fossil record. Over time similarities in the fossil record show the opportunity for an evolving of organisms. The only 'proof' the church has is that is was written in a book. Oh, I know; you can say God meant for evolution to occur, but this is not proof of intelligent design. It only proves evolution, not the existence of a higher being.
"Darwin's theory has yet to be proven in any way."
No offense intended, but this remark shows a lack of understanding of how science actually works. Science actually proves NOTHING. Science looks for evidence to support an idea. As long as the evidence supports this idea, then it is accepted as true. When the evidence does not support an idea, then it is rejected. Evolution is accepted by most scientists because, so far, the evidence support it rather than the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old.obviously the church understands this - time you do too.
I for one believe that it was gods design that we shall foever be continously evolving from Ape to Man to ???
If indeed all things were created by God, each would have been created as full and mature. Carbon dating is flawed and there is no "evidence" that supports evolution any more
than the Biblical account of creation. What sparked life?
Can something be gotten out of nothing? Where is the evidence to support such claims. Or any evidence that man came from apes. In the end it all comes down to faith. Some have faith that a Supreme and Loving God created all things
and some believe we just happend to come from nothing. Curious at best.
Mark; Please stop the goal-post shifting. We've all seen the same creationist arguments recycled over and over again.
I'm not going to go into a massive recap of evolutionary theory; it would be an immense waste of time. Instead, I'll keep things simple. Let's consider the basic principles that make up the fact (that's right) of natural selection.
1) There are more organisms born than can possibly survive. If every organism lived to maturity populations would quickly outstrip resources and eat themselves into extinction. This is a basic observation.
2) Not every organism that is born makes it to maturity or reproduces. Some are killed by disease, predators, genetic defect, etc. This is a basic observation.
3) Organisms vary, and these variations are heritable. In fact, some of these variations are beneficial enough that they confer a benefit onto the organism that has them, leading them to have greater reproductive success and change the pool of variations in the next generation. This is a basic observation.
4) Points 1 through 3 are all basic observations made from nature, and when taken together they undeniably point to evolutionary change. To deny evolution by natural selection is to deny some basic point of reality. Indeed, evolution by natural selection is perhaps one of the least controversial ideas there is in terms of being amply supported by evidence from nature. It is all around us!
There is more to evolutionary theory than just that, of course, but that is the core of Darwin's theory and hence modern evolutionary biology. Do not try to confuse the issue. If you choose to deny reality in favor of belief, that is your prerogative, but claiming that evolution has no support only reveals your own ignorance of science.
Hey, please check out my British blog - Experience - England (http://www.experience-dating.com/content/view/124/90/). The blog is for people from: London, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, and Coventry. It was a lot of work but I am very happy with it, I hope you guys like it!