Sandra Herbert

The place of man in the development of Darwin's theory of transmutation. Part II

ConclusionThe place of man in Darwins development of a theory of transmutation has been obscured by his manner of disclosure. Comparing the 1837–1839 period to his entire career as a theorist suggests that it was Darwins practice to present himself and his work only before the most select scientific audiences, and then in accordance with their expectations. The negative implications of this rule for his publication on man are clear enough: finding no general invitation in science to publish as a theorist and no contemporary scientific audience for the sorts of inquiries he was making on man, he was silent, at least until such time as he could publish on the strength of reputation alone. Now, with the availability of manuscripts from the early period, what was once hidden stands revealed. It is clear from Darwins notebooks that man played a dual role in the formation of his theory: as a zoological species to be incorporated into the theory and as the primary vehicle for the study of behavior. On the first score, integrating man into the theory provoked Darwin to break with the traditional view of mans place in nature and to reject a major element in the scientific notion of progressive development. On the second score, the study of behavior led Darwin outside natural history and thence, unexpectedly, to Malthus and natural selection.One is left with the certainty that the subject of man was a central element in Darwins formulation of his species theory. To an extent, then, the public judgment of Darwin was right all along, for the public had always sensed that Darwin spoke to a larger audience than that formed around science. On the basis of new evidence, we can add that Darwin drew from that larger audience as well. There are of course ironies to this conclusion: that Darwin the professional drew so heavily from fields where he was the amateur, that as a transparent man his inner life should prove so at odds with the manner in which he presented himself, and that his arrival at a strong sense of himself—the revolutionary “I” of his notebooks—should occur just as he stepped beyond science to engage the general culture. But when one considers the inherent difficulties of Darwins subject and the magnitude of his claims respecting man, these ironies are perhaps not surprising at all but those of a kind which might be anticipated.

Charles Darwin as a prospective geological author

On occasion Charles Darwin can seem our scientific contemporary, for the subjects he engaged remain engaging today, but in his role as author he belongs to the past. It is not customary today for scientists to write book after book, as Darwin did, or for these books to serve as the primary vehicle of scientific communication. For Darwin, however, the book was central. He wrote at least eighteen, depending on what one counts; in his Autobiography he entitled the section describing his most important work ‘An account how several books arose’; and in his personal Journal, begun in August 1838 after he had come to a mature sense of himself, he organized entries around his books. A characteristic entry is that for 1846: ‘Oct. 1st. Finished last proof of my Geolog. Observ. on S. America; This volume, including Paper in Geolog. Journal on the Falkland Islands took me 18 & 1/2 months:–’. Further, almost always he had a book under way: when one was complete, the next was begun. He called them the milestones to his life.

The Darwinian Revolution Revisited

The “Darwinian revolution” remains an acceptable phrase to describe the change in thought brought about by the theory of evolution, provided that the revolution is seen as occurring over an extended period of time. The decades from the 1790s through the 1850s are at the focus of this article. Emphasis is placed on the issue of species extinction and on generational shifts in opinion.

A study and critique of the teaching of the history of science and technology. Interim report by the committee on undergraduate education of the history of science society (U.S.A.)

Summary The history of science and technology has been a scholarly discipline with little attention given to the special needs of undergraduate teaching. What needs to be done to transform a discipline to an undergraduate subject? Suggestions include using the relation between science and technology as well as the role of interpreters in formulation of the popular world view. Relations with science and history departments are considered. Curriculum materials are surveyed with some recommendations for correcting deficiencies.

Creation and extinction: The geological background to the initial American reception of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species

On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was published in 1859 in England and in 1860 in the United States. Its relatively positive initial reception in the United States was facilitated by a number of factors including the prominence of geology among the sciences, the high standing of Darwin with James Dwight Dana (1813–1895), and common knowledge about geology among many non-geologists. As indicated by the example of Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865), knowledge of a long duration for the Earth and of the fact of species extinction was taken for granted. At the level of elite science, knowledge of geological concepts was also widespread, as indicated by the example of Joseph Henry (1797–1878), first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Instructed in geology not only by Amos Eaton (1776–1842) but also by the lectures of Charles Lyell (1797–1875), Henry proved a well-placed advocate for giving Darwins book a fair hearing. In doing so Henry allied himself with the Harvard botanist Asa Gray (18...