Just a few days ago we celebrated a pair of birthdays of two remarkable men, one an Englishman, Charles Darwin, the other an American, Abraham Lincoln. To commemorate the 200th anniversary of their births, Darwin and Lincoln celebrations were held in many cities and towns, and at least one American town celebrated both together with readings from the works of the two men. I was honored to participate and here is some of what I read.
Although exact contemporaries, Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln never corresponded or met each other. Yet there are striking concordances in their lives and work. For example, Darwin’s notebooks contain many references to his revulsion of slavery. Here’s one:
"Do not slave holders wish to make the black man other kind?... from our origin in one common ancestor we may be all netted together."
This is a particularly clear example of how science can also emancipate our minds. Indeed Darwin was a quiet but committed freethinker:
How so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd religious beliefs, have originated, we do not know; nor how it is that they have become, in all quarters of the world, so deeply impressed on the minds of men; but it is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressionable, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason. (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man p. 122)
Many people are still uncomfortable in this country with this kind of talk and Darwin acknowledged this was true even in his own family. He was devoted to his Evangelical Christian wife, whom he was loathe to upset:
I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.
So Darwin, a quiet man who disliked controversy and confrontation, thought to protect himself by "sticking to science." Sticking to science would not protect Darwin from attack today. His science has itself become a lightning rod for arguments about religion. He would perhaps be baffled by this, but Lincoln understood it. Lincoln said:
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
We’ve come a long way in 200 years. But we still have a long way to go.
- Log in to post comments
Funny how Darwin had a Divinity Degree and his publications were never subjected to peer review, nor were any other scientists at the time. Mendel, the father of gene theory ended his life as an Abbot.
BTW, an interesting book on the debates going on at the time between Theology and Darwinism is Banquet at Delmonicos.
Spencer took evolution on the road to social darwinism which then led to Eugenics, a social and state philosophy. Fiske, as a philosopher seemed to balance theology and science quite well. He was not religous but believed in a deity, not a personal one, but an amorphous deity along the lines of Spinoza's God, a view Einstein also had. Einstein was never subjected to peer review also until 1936 when he had a paper rejected, he was furious and published it in a journal that did not do peer review.
Anyways, Fiske did not see any conflict between science and faith, since science was concerned with understanding the laws of nature which were created by the deity. Evolution was simply the process the deity chose to create intelligent species. In fact, many Christians saw in Darwins evolution theory a proof of intelligent design.
Of course, science always gets corrupted by political, religous and social leaders who use it to their own corrupt ends. Darwinism in the end was corrupted to justify the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race and survival of the fittest beliefs of social conservatives (eugenics and opposition to social welfare), and led to American Imperialism.
Josiah Strong of the Evangelical Alliance used Darwinism as justification for his call on Protestants to support civilizing and Christianizing the world, and prophesized in 1885 : "-the final competition of the races for which the Anglo Saxon is being schooled". In 1898, we began our foreign imperialism and conquest of inferior races with the Spanish American War, and brutal occupation of the Philippines, although we said it was for our security after the USS Maine was conveniently blown up in Cuba (sounds familiar).
So Lincoln was right, Darwinism taught in the schools led to the current philosophy of government.
By todays standards, Darwins science was quite poor, he offered no direct evidence that supported his theory, which was not published until Alfred Wallace sent him a draft of a paper with a similar theory, after which they agreed to share credit for it. But it did not get a lot of credibility among the scientists at the time, and met with much criticism, although it was picked up by the followers of Spencerism, and evidence came along later to support the theory, although there are some missing links. Evolution was not a novel idea, it was decades old among Malthusians by the time Darwin published, and Darwin never used the terms survival of the fittest or evolution until they became popular through Spencers and his ilks use of the word and phrase.
As for Lincoln. he did not intend to end slavery in the states, just the territories, primarily because he feared the consequences of a larger black population in America. His treatment of American Indians was just as brutal as most other Presidents at the time, since his passion was the railroad, and the path needed to be cleared of "resistance'.
But hey, myths make people feel good and simplify history, so we have myths. This is also a problem with science among scientists who have a vested interest in protecting flawed theories. Einstein and Darwin probably could not get published today as peer review is the great censor.
I appreciated reading your thoughts on Darwin and Lincoln. Both great men and great thinkers. I look up to them.
I wanted to share a thought about Darwin. Though his science might not live up to the standards we in the scientific community aspire to today, in reading his journals and letters I am often struck by how amazingly observant he was. How many of us I wonder, notice as much of the world around us on a daily basis? How many take the time, even given our immensely increased resources, to chronicle things that catch the eye or inspire the mind and then later return to think about them?
Man or myth I would have loved to sit down and have a conversation with Darwin, or perhaps take a stroll with him. Not for the purpose of learning his science - I can learn that in a classroom or a book- but instead just to try and get a better notion of how he saw the world. With all we take for granted in modern times I fear looking at things, experiencing them with a Darwinian perspective is becoming a lost art. Or even a lost science.