I want to echo the sentiments of the other students who expressed their appreciation to you for introducing us to the James brothers, John Stuart Mill, and Charles Darwin. I have always intended to read The Origin of Species, but never got around to it. As I read it, I was directed to other books and then I discovered that the James brothers and Mill would also have read it. There is something special about reading a book and imagining what it must have been like for them to read it, but my greatest delight came in discovering the Henry David Thoreau had also read it and it had a profound effect on him. I only wished he had lived longer so he could have shared more of how he felt.
And I want to thank the other students for their post they have enlighten me and I am most grateful and wish those who are moving on to a new life the very best and I hope our paths will cross.
Don
The four individuals we studied this semester were all born
in the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill, 1806, Charles Darwin, 1809,
Williams James, 1842, and Henry James, 1843. They were influenced by or
influenced events and writings in the nineteenth century and beyond which deal
with human beings’s relationship with each other and with nature. While their
influence was predominantly in the Anglo-American sphere, Darwin’s influence
extended globally. While Europeans led the way in advancing science and
philosophy, William James was an early contributor in the new discipline of
psychology and in pragmatism. “Many historians consider the 19th
century, especially the latter half, to be the start of the modern era of
science, because many of our current ideas and theories of the natural world
were initiated during this time.”[1]
Many of these pioneers challenged accepted theories and dogma that had been disseminated
from those in power.
Once human beings evolved to the
degree that some members in each society could reflect on where they came from,
they created stories to explain the origin of their society. The few who were
literate created religious systems. These systems share several things in
common: each attempt to address their origin and “each system provides
directions for appropriate and expected behaviors and serves as a form of
social control for individuals within that society. Religious sanctions that
encourage conformity are strong.”[2] However, even the most learned members were
ignorant of the natural and physical laws that governed the universe. Ancient Egyptians
observed the sun appearing and disappearing each day and associated its
movement with a god Ra who blessed them with his appearance bringing light for them
to see and for their plants to grow. Elaborate rituals were created by the
priestly caste and performed daily to welcome the god’s arrival. They had no
way of knowing that the sun was a mass of hot gases and that it was the earth
that revolved around the sun. They were not alone, almost every primitive
society worshipped the sun in some form and it is understandable when you
consider how important it was in their lives.
Today, most of us know better, not
because we are smarter, but because we have acquired the knowledge and created
the tools to be able to observe our sun in our solar system in relation to
other suns in other solar systems and other galaxies. That knowledge and those
tools inundated the world in the nineteenth century. In the western world,
Greek philosophers make small chinks in the foundation that claimed that the
Earth and everything in it had been created six thousand years ago, and that
there was nothing new under the sun. Those chinks were widened by a Polish
monk, Copernicus, and an Italian astronomer, Galileo, who demonstrated that the
earth was not the center of the universe, let alone the center of its own solar
system. This was the first blow to the biblical account of creation because up
to that moment almost everyone believed in a geocentric Earth. Proponents of the heliocentric model of our
solar system were branded as heretics and the church fought back with ferocity
against them, realizing that not only the church’s spiritual well-being, but its
financial well-being was at risk. The controlling powers demanded conformity
and the individuality encouraged later by John Stuart Mill was crushed or
burned at the stake – the fate of Giordano Bruno for defending the Copernican
system. Ironically, it wasn’t until 1992 that the Catholic church acknowledged
that Galileo was right.
The nineteenth century ushered in a
new age of scientific breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, geology, and biology
that would serve as wrecking balls to the foundation of biblical creation. When
these discoveries were coupled with the technological advances related to
communication and transportation, they created a global network for exchanging
ideas and cultures and caused internal conflicts for individuals in the Western
world who had been trained from childhood to believe that everything written in
the Hebrew bible was to be taken literally as divinely inspired. Thus, began
the conflict between science and religion that exists to this day, “Four in 10
Americans believe God created the Earth and anatomically modern humans, less
than 10,000 years ago, according to a new Gallup poll.”[3]
Also, a National Science Foundation study found that one of four Americans thought
that the sun revolved around the Earth.[4]
Some of us may remember that Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin thought
the Earth was less than seven thousand years old and contended that she had
seen images of human footprints in dinosaur fossils. This ignorance of
scientific facts is not confined to the United States, other countries have
similarly high percentages.
Geology was the second of three
blows to the biblical creation story. No one had an effective and accurate way
to measure the age of the Earth. Bishop Ussher from Ireland estimated the date
as 4004 B.C. based on biblical chronologies and this became set in church stone
and appears on the first page to this day in most bibles. When Charles Lyell
published Principles of Geology, he was very careful to manage how it was
released and to focus on divorcing science from religion so it would not appear
that he was attacking the biblical narrative about creation. This would give
time for it to receive a fair hearing. What it achieved was to share evidence
of what Lyell and others had accumulated and then allow the reader to draw his
own conclusions, Any reasonable person could only conclude that the Earth had
existed for much longer than proposed by the Bible and that the processes that
were occurring in the present had occurred in the past in the same fashion.
Lyell’s observations about a long-time
line for Earth’s formation while controversial were accepted because of his position
on another issue that endeared him to religious leaders. He was a fervent
opponent of evolution. “If evolution was true, Lyell believed, no divinely
implanted reason, spirit or soul would set human beings apart; they would be
nothing but an improved form of the apes…with humans no more than better beasts
and religion exposed as a fable, the foundations of civil society would
crumble.”[5]
Toward the end of his life after learning of the latest discoveries and reading
the latest literature, he expressed his inner conflict, “‘it cost me a struggle
to renounce my old creed.’ He could follow Darwin’s reasoning, but his
‘sentiments and imagination’ revolted against removing man from the exalted
position in which the seventeenth-century philosopher Pascal had placed him as
‘the archangel ruined.’”[6]
He was not alone, there were many learned individuals who had to come to terms
with the apparent contradictions in the biblical creation story that they had
been taught and what they were learning and observing.
Most of the early origin writers justified
their stories as being divinely inspired and they were reluctant to accept or
hostile to any suggestion that a god who created the universe would have known
their assertions to be false. One example is the story of Joshua in the Hebrew
bible commanding the sun to stand still when it is the earth that is rotating
around the sun. If the writer possessed the knowledge we have today or the
knowledge of a god, they might have described the event as a solar eclipse, but
once it was clear that it was in error, they had several options: 1.
Acknowledge that the writer was wrong and ignorant of astronomy and laws of
gravity and therefore that the passage was not divinely inspired. 2. Insist
that with god all things are possible and continue to teach that the sun stood
still because to cast doubt on divine inspiration on any issue would raise a
question of credibility on other assertions. 3. Create an alternative explanation
which would justify the assertion to be understood in a figurative rather than a
literal way. These same options were considered and used when fossils were
discovered including one theory that god or the devil had planted them
throughout the world for geologists and paleontologists to find and report on
(Consider just some of the fossil finds in this year alone - https://www.livescience.com/topics/fossils
and then search back over the last ten years and imagine if this information
had been available and understandable to the early origin writers).
Most of the early scientific
pioneers were conflicted with the guilt of wanting to conform their findings to
their religious teachings and to not express anything which would question
their beliefs even as they realized that what they observed challenged those
deeply held beliefs. Some like Dr. Louis Agassiz, clung to their beliefs and
defended certain assertions even when the evidence was overwhelmingly against
them, some tried to integrate the new findings and create an updated religion
- creationism or intelligent design,
some chose to question their faith in the writings of early writers but kept certain
tenets of their religion, and some abandoned their religion.
Charles Darwin was one of those
individuals who had internal struggles with his beliefs. He had the good
fortune like American author Henry James to be born into privilege and had the
time and resources to explore the world unencumbered with the need to earn a
living and to focus on what interested him. Both had much in common. They both
were detail driven and very observant. Both recorded their observations
meticulously which enabled them to be master writers. Both excelled in
travelogues. They had similar views on religion in the latter part of their
lives. Christopher Stewart cites Kaplan as stating that James’s reply to the
question “Is There Life After Death?”, thought that it was not likely, and Edel
stated about the same question, that James, “believed there was none. Death was
absolute.”[7]
Darwin likewise, “Like many other educated men of his generation, had been
slowly, almost imperceptibly, but surely, losing religious faith…Darwin was concerned
with the physical realities of life on earth and probing their mysteries. He
was temperamentally disinclined to probe the possibilities of life after death
or to speculate on ‘salvation’.”[8]
Darwin communicated some of his thoughts to Asa Gray an American botanists. “With
respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.
— I am bewildered. — I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that
I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design
& beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the
world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would
have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars…”[9]
Before he reached this stage in his
life, Darwin had devoted five years of his life traveling on the HMS Beagle
collecting specimens from South America and Asian and shipping them home and
then organizing his findings and notes when he returned in 1836. Over the next
twenty years he continued to study, experiment, and observe nature. It is
difficult to imagine the personal knowledge that he gained during this time,
but one small example may give some insight into his efforts to gather as much
information as possible before expressing any conclusions about what he
believed. “I do not believe that botanists are aware how charged the mud of ponds
is with seeds; I have tried several little experiments, but will here give only
the most striking case: I took in February three tablespoonsful of mud from
three different points, beneath water, on the edge of a little pond: this mud
when dried weighed only 6 ounces; I kept it covered up in my study for six
months, pulling up and counting each plant as it grew; the plants were of many
kinds, and were altogether 537 in number; and yet the viscid mud was all
contained in a breakfast cup!”[10]
It was this attention to detail
along with his earliest travelogue of his voyage on the Beagle that so
captivated the readers even if they did not agree with his implicit
conclusions. It is difficult to measure the impact of Charles Darwin’s book, the Origin of Species, published in
1859, on the psyche of people then who were just trying to grasp the more
personal and relevant things like vaccinations, pasteurization, anesthesia,
along with electricity, telegraph, telephone, and photography let alone the
more esoteric concepts like absolute zero, gas and thermodynamic laws, and
organic chemistry. When you add in discoveries
in astronomy, geology, and biology, it is easy to see how Darwin’s theory of
descent with modification or natural selection flowed as part of a continuum of
scientific revolution. There were several reasons for his delay in publishing
it until 1859. First, he had seen the response to Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation published anonymously
in 1844 because the author feared the repercussions of his controversial stand
that contended that the origins, growth, and development of the earth and
living organisms on Earth were the result of a process later to be call
evolution rather that the unique creation by god. Second, Darwin’s wife was
deeply religious and he did not want to publish something even if he believed
it that would be detrimental to her. Third, he wanted more time to gather more
evidence to make his presentation as irrefutable as possible. The last reason
was unexpected overthrown when he received a package in the mail in 1858 from
Alfred Russel Wallace who outlined a theory of natural selection that was
almost identical to Darwin’s.
After he consulted with some close
friends, he submitted a summary of his work along with Wallace’s to the Linnaean
Society and then proceeded relentlessly to write his book. It became an
immediate success; the first edition was sold out within a day. It was popular
in Europe and in America, where pirated copies were printed. On the cold wintry
night of January 1, 1860 in Concord Massachusetts at the home of Franklin
Sanborn, he, Asa Gray, renowned botanist, Amos Bronson Alcott, father of Louisa
Mae Alcott, Charles Loring Brace, cousin of Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Henry
David Thoreau met to discuss slavery and the recent execution of John Brown
whom they had supported. Brace brought Darwin’s book with him and it would
change the lives of those in attendance and it would change America.[11]
Asa Gray became an early supporter of Darwin’s theory of natural selection and
wrote a couple of powerful book reviews that propelled The Origin of Species to national attention at a time of impending
conflict over slavery and made an argument for the position that if we were all
related to an early progenitor that slavery was not justified. Gray later
experienced internal conflict with the damage the theory might have on religion
and wrote two more reviews that retreated from his original strong support.
The other individual at that
meeting who was probably the most deeply affected was Thoreau. He was only
forty-two but had acquired a reputation for his support of transcendentalism
and for his literary credentials-- essays and
Walden. As he read, absorbed,
and reflected on the Origin, he wrote,
‘“The development theory implies a greater vital force in nature, because it is
more flexible and accommodating, and equivalent to a sort of constant new creation.’ Constant new creation. The phrase represents an epoch in American
thought. For one thing, it no longer relies upon divinity to explain the
natural world… ‘The development theory’ suggested a natural world sufficient
unto itself—without the façade of heaven. There was no force or intelligence
behind Nature, directing its course in a determined and purposeful manner.
Nature just was.”[12]
According to Mark Brake, “The case
outlined in The Origin of Species can
be distilled down into three component concepts: Variation (each and every
individual of any particular species is different), multiplicity (living
creatures…tend to make more offspring and have bigger broods than the
environment can necessary maintain), and natural selection (The individual
differences between members of a species, coupled with the environmental forces
highlighted by those like Malthus, shape the likelihood that a particular
individual will last long enough to pass its characteristics on to posterity”[13]
The Metaphysical Club at Harvard consisting of Chauncey Wright, Charles Peirce,
William James, John Fiske, Nicholas Green, and Oliver Wendell Holmes discussed The Origin of Species with Pierce
writing this, “Natural selection, as conceived by Darwin, is a mode of
evolution in which the only positive agent of change in the whole passage from
moner to man is fortuitous variation. To secure advance in a definite direction
chance has to be seconded by some action that shall hinder the propagation of
some varieties or stimulate that of others.”[14]
With respect to William James, Wiener notes that “As Professor Ralph B. Perry
remarks in his definitive work on James, ‘the influence of Darwin was both
early and profound, and its effects crop up in diverse and unexpected
quarters…With Professor Perry we must discriminate an early positivistic phase
of James’s idea of evolution. In this phase, James pitted himself against his
anti-Darwinian teacher of zoology, the famous Louis Agassiz”[15]
While James was clearly knowledgeable about The
Origin of Species, he may have concentrated on other works that gave him
insight into the development of the human brain and nervous system and led to
his pioneering work in psychology.
The
Origin of Species was published at a pivotal point of the nineteenth
century because it provided the impetus to the scientific revolution. Sir
Julian Huxley writing in the Introduction to the centennial reprinting of it
expressed the sentiments of those who understood its importance. “Why is The Origin of Species such a great book?
First of all, because it convincingly demonstrates the fact of evolution: it
provides a vast and well-chosen body of evidence showing that existing animals
and plants cannot have been separately created in their present forms, but must
have evolved from earlier forms by slow transformation. And secondly, because
the theory of natural selection, which the Origin
so fully and lucidly expounds, provides a mechanism by which such
transformation could and would automatically be produced. Natural selection
rendered evolution scientifically intelligible.”[16]
But the last words about all of his collections, observations, research, work,
writings, and reflections can best be expressed by Darwin himself. “Although I
am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the
form of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists
whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long
course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy
to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the ‘plan of creation,’ ‘unity
of design,’ &c., and to think that we give an explanation when we only
restate a fact. Anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to
unexplained difficulties that to the explanation of a certain number of facts
will certainly reject the theory. A few naturalists, endowed with much
flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt the immutability of
species, may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the
future, -- to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides
of the question with impartiality.”[17]
Long ago, I read The Revised Standard Version (1946) of
the Bible from cover to cover and finally
after all of these years I have finally read Darwin’s Origin of Species. I still had questions as I read the text, but I
know that many of them have been answered since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. However, even as
a young boy, I doubted the literal version of Adam and Eve. I grew up on a farm
and saw plenty of snakes and I did not know any women in my neighborhood that
talked to a snake unless it was with a hoe chopping off their head, and I found
it hard to believe that one snake in the Garden of Eden condemned all the
snakes in North America who were supposedly walking around upright to suddenly
crawl on their stomachs and lose their appendages; it did not make any sense.
Sadly, for a long time, women have had to pay for that story through
discrimination, abuse, and injustice.
[1]
Michael Windelspecht, Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments, Inventions and
Discoveries of the 19th Century (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
2003), xvii)
[2]
Jeanne Ballantine, Kathleen Korgen, and Keith Roberts, Our Social World: Introduction to Sociology (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE,
2016) 378.
[3] Tia
Ghose. 2014. 4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago. https://www.livescience.com/46123-many-americans-creationists.html
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
James A. Secord, ed., Charles Lyell:
Principles of Geology (London, Penguin Group, 1997) xxxiii-xxxiv)
[6]
Ibid., xxxviii
[7] Christopher
Stewart, Colby Quarterly, Volume 35, no.2, June 1999, p.90-101
[8]
Paul Johnson, Darwin: portrait of a
genius (New York, Penguin Group, 2012) 51-52.
[9] Darwin
Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 2814,” accessed on 9 August 2017,
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2814
[10] Charles
Darwin, Charles Darwin: The Origin of
Species: With an Introduction by Sir Julian Huxley (New York, Signet
Classics Penguin Group, 2003), 410.
[11]
Randall Fuller, The Book That Changed
America: How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Ignited a Nation (New York,
Viking, 2017) ix – 28.
[12]
Ibid., 246-7.
[13]
Mark L. Brake, Revolution in Science (New
York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) 139-140.
[14] Philip
P. Wiener, Evolution and the Founders of
Pragmatism (New York, Harper & Row, 1949) 3.
[15]
Ibid., 99.
[16]
Darwin, xi.
[17]
Darwin, 500.
Home Run, Don!
ReplyDeleteYou've written an engrossing, succinct account of a humble, physically-afflicted, self-effacing, but brilliant student of nature who himself had an inconvenient story to tell, a story that would fundamentally redirect the ideas of modern thinkers in philosophy, literature, the arts, the sciences... the ideas of people like the Jameses and J.S. Mill, and H.D. Thoreau, and (to bring our course-full circle) William Wordsworth...
I spoke this afternoon at my mother-in-law's funeral. Georgia Roth (1931-2017) lived a rich, impactful life. She loved (and had memorized in grade school) the death-poem "Thanatopsis" by William Cullen Bryant. If you've not read and reflected upon its message, I urge you to do so. Bryant was a fan of our man Wordsworth, who wrote:
"Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendor in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind…"
What remains behind? This is really a question about evolution and Wm James's "really vital question" about the future of life. I said this afternoon:
Life remains behind, here and now on this Earth and, let us hope, for many tomorrows and many generations to come, newly invigorated by her memory. Bryant’s “consideration of death” lends strength to that hope.
And I think that's probably a good coda for our little summer course. We may or may not be optimistic, but we owe it to our children and grandchildren to be hopeful for their life-prospects. In one way or another, that's something the Jameses, J.S. Mill, and Charles Darwin all agreed on. I hope we all do too.
Good luck to you all. I do hope we'll meet again, in computer space and real space. To those of you about to graduate: congrats! A my favorite author/entertainer Garrison Keillor always says: be well, do good work, and keep in touch.