Darwinism in Context: a Course on the Nature of Science Kostas Kampourakis & Christos Gripiotis Geitonas School, P.O. Box: 74128, Vari Attikis, 16602, Athens, Greece email: [email protected]

Abstract A course, Darwinism in Context: Evolutionary Ideas in a Victorian Age, a study of social, cultural and scientific issues in 19 th century England is described. This was an explicit, highly contextualized nature of science instruction that aimed to help students learn about a core nature of science idea, that there are historical, cultural and social influences on the practice and directions of science, through a well documented historical case study: the development of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The course consisted of five lectures that focused on a) Victorian society, b) the views and beliefs of scholars that had an impact on Darwin’s thinking (historical influences), c) aspects of Darwin’s personal and social life that influenced the publication of his theory (social influences), d) the relationship between religion and science (cultural influences) and e) the relationship between science and literature. A secondary aim of the project was to present Darwin’s theory in its context and debunk some widespread myths, especially on Darwin’s religious views and on the Huxley-Wilberforce debate. In all cases instruction included presentations of the historical events but was mostly based on the analysis of excerpts from the respective original writings. Examples of the latter as well as bibliographical sources are made available. Introduction The discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought the workings of the universe into the realm of science, showing that they could be explained by human reason: scientific explanation through natural laws. Hence, it was found that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but a small planet rotating around an average star, and that the motions of the planets around the sun could be explained by the same simple laws that accounted for the motion of physical objects on earth. This was a revolutionary shift in the intellectual history of humanity that radically changed our conception of the universe. Until the mid-19 th century the origin of organisms and their marvellous adaptations were either left unexplained or were attributed to design. In England, the dominant approach to explain natural design was Natural Theology, according to which all organisms were designed by a benevolent and wise Creator. Wherever there was design, there was a designer; the existence of a watch was evidence of the existence of a watchmaker. The publication in 1859 of The Origin of Species (hereafter Origin) by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) provided a second revolutionary shift in our intellectual history that radically changed our conception of the place of humanity in the universe. Darwin, although not the first to conceive this idea, accumulated evidence that demonstrated that organisms had evolved, diverging from common ancestors, and also proposed a mechanism for the process by which they had evolved: natural selection. The adaptations and the diversity of organisms, the origin of novel and highly organized forms, even the origin of humanity itself could be explained by an orderly natural process of change. The aim of Darwinism in Context: Evolutionary Ideas in a Victorian Age was to help secondary students learn about the nature of science through a well documented historical case study: the development of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Explicit, highly contextualized nature of science instruction is considered to be one important, though not adequate by itself, way to teach effectively about the nature of science (Clough, 2006). In particular, the study of this influential idea, as well as of the cultural, political, religious and scientific contexts in which it was elaborated may help students learn about a core nature of science idea: that “scientific ideas are affected by their social and historical milieu” (McComas, Almazroa & Clough, 1998) or that “there are historical, cultural and social influences on the practice and direction of science”

1

(McComas, 2007). Darwinism in Context takes Darwin’s life and times as a basis for the development of authentic nature of science learning experiences. Darwin’s scientific work as well as the elaboration, the reception and the impact of his evolutionary theory in Victorian England in the late 19 th century form an important case-study about the interaction between science and society. The course consisted of five lectures that focused on a) historical influences, b) social influences and c) cultural influences. Students were first introduced to Victorian era as it was described in literary texts of the first half of the 19 th century (lecture 1). The study of historical influences included the views and beliefs of scholars that had an impact on Darwin’s thinking, through the study of their writings that Darwin had made reference to (lecture 2). The study of social influences was an examination of the aspects of Darwin’s personal and social life that delayed or catalyzed the publication of the Origin, such as Darwin’s anxiety about the public reaction to his rather heretical views, the weakening of his faith due to the loss of his beloved daughter and the fear to lose priority on the discovery of natural selection (lecture 3). The study of cultural influences focused on the relationship between religion and science. In particular, emphasis was put on the Huxley-Wilberforce debate, in an attempt to show that it was not an instance of a general science-religion debate (lecture 4). Finally, a brief description of Darwin’s impact on literature was given in order to highlight this often neglected relationship (lecture 5). It is worth mentioning that, due to the sequence of the lectures, students were at the same time given a brief description of the most important historical facts relevant to Darwin’s theory. A group of 17-year-old students who knew enough of Biology and had a satisfactory grasp of English to browse in the original texts attended the lectures in the amphitheatre of Geitonas School in Athens, Greece. Janet Browne’s Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography (2006) was suggested to students as a required reading. A student guide containing biographical information and excerpts from writings of many important figures of Victorian era was also distributed to students. The student guide was mostly a compilation of texts from a variety of sources. The selection was a careful one in order to achieve scientific and historical accuracy and debunk popular myths. The student guide was based mostly on published print material (books, anthologies) which was considered more reliable. Life and tho ughts before the Origin Lecture 1, entitled Life and Thoughts in Victorian Age, was a short introduction on Victorian London. His majesty King Henry VIII was given a part – though he belonged to Tudor times- as he was famous for his passionate hatred towards cleanliness which he regarded as useless. Numerous other facts that illustrated the case were mentioned to students. An attempt is made here to name but a few. Water at the time came from village pumps which got it from the village stream which in turn was likely to be full of sewage from the nearby town. Sugar was very expensive and known to rot teeth, so rotten teeth meant wealth; hence, women who could not afford such a luxury used to black their teeth out to appear richer than in reality. The aristocrats who lived in spacious houses with separate bedrooms had the nasty habit of hanging their clothes over sewage holes so that lice were killed with the help of urine smell. Four – poster beds were invented out of necessity, as country people had to find a way of having an undisturbed night’s sleep without bugs, rats or dogs falling from the thatched roofs on their beds – thus, the expression it is raining cats and dogs. England was small and people started running out of places to bury their dead. So, they would dig up coffins and take the bones to a house and re-use the grave. In opening the coffins, one out of twenty-five people were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized that they had been burying people alive. So, they thought they could tie a string onto the dead person’s wrist and lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night to listen for the bell. Hence the sayings “saved by the bell” and “dead ringer”. Poor people actually forced their children to work in mines or factories as they needed the extra money, even though that meant longevity of only twenty five years on average for their offspring. Students were encouraged to ask questions and comment on the points mentioned. An interesting discussion emerged on how ignorant of science people of Victorian Era were and how little they valued cleanliness. The students were then given the chance to read the famous works by Charles Dickens (18121870), Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806 -1861), George (Lord) Byron (1788-1824), Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892) and Mary Shelley (1797-1851) and reveal

2

details featuring evolutionary-relevant ideas. Mary Shelley's Introduction to Frankenstein (1818) clearly features such ideas: “I busied myself to think of a story - a story to rival those which would speak to the mysterious fears of our nature...” (Shelley, 1985/1818, p.57) or “Many and long were the conversations between Lord Byron and Shelley to which I was a devout but nearly silent listener. During one of these various philosophical doctrines were discussed and among others the nature of the principle of life and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered and communicated” (p.58). Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s The Cry of Children (1843) is a powerful cry, as the title readily suggests, against her times: “For oh, say the children, we are weary, and we can not run or leap; if we cared for any meadows, it were merely, to drop down in them and sleep. Our knees tremble sorely in the stooping, we fall upon our faces, trying to go; and underneath our heavy eyelids drooping, the reddest flower would look as pale as snow” (quoted in Forster,1988, p.181). Thomas Carlyle in Sartor Resartus (1833-1834) and the chapter on Natural Spiritualism claimed that: “... Have any deepest scientific individuals yet dived down to the foundations of the Universe, and gauged everything there? Did the Maker take them into His counsel; that they read his ground plan of the incomprehensible All; […] That Nature is more than some boundless Volume of such Recipes, or huge, well - nigh inexhaustible Domestic Cookery Book, of which the whole secret will in this manner one day evolve itself, the fewest dream” (quoted in Greenblatt, 2005, p.1000). Alfred Tennyson in In Memoriam (1844) stated his worry that change and instability were universal: “So careful of type? but no. From scarped cliff and quarried stone she cries, a thousand types are gone; I care for nothing, all shall go” (Tennyson, 1861/1844, p.125). Finally, Charles Dickens’ Hard Tines (1854) show the difficulties of everyday life: “In the hardest working part of Coketown; in the innermost fortifications of that ugly citadel, where Nature was as strongly bricked out as killing airs and gases were bricked in; at the heart of the labyrinth of narrow courts upon courts, and close streets upon streets, which had come into existence piecemeal, every piece in a violent hurry for some one man's purpose, and the whole an unnatural family, shouldering, and trampling, and pressing one another to death; in the last close nook of this great exhausted receiver, where the chimneys, for want of air to make a draught, were built in an immense variety of stunted and crooked shapes, as though every house put out a sign of the kind of people who might be expected to be born in it; among the multitude of Coketown, generically called 'the Hands,' - a race who would have found more favour with some people, if Providence had seen fit to make them only hands, or, like the lower creatures of the seashore, only hands and stomachs - lived a certain Stephen Blackpool, forty years of age” (Dickens, 1997/1854, p.70). These are just some examples; Greenblatt (2005), Ford (1999) and Ousby (1996) are full of interesting literary evidence on authors or poets who felt disappointed with reality and thirstily asked for a different one. By the time the first lecture finished, students were asked to search by themselves for additional material in order to bring to light other literary excerpts that could show that Victorian people were wondering about life and its origins. Out of the eighty five students attending the lecture, fifty volunteered to go on with the whole project. An interesting remark made by several students was that they had a wrong view of Victorian society, as the life of aristocrats is most often depicted in films, rather than that of the “lower” classes. Historical Influe nces Lecture 2, entitled Darwin’s Intellectual Background, was an analysis of readings from major figures that had influenced Darwin. Short readings from Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), David Hume (1711-1776), William Paley (1743-1805), Jean Lamarck (1744-1829), Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Charles Lyell (1797-1875), and Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) were presented to students. The central theme of this lecture was that the elaboration of a scientific theory is not a matter of a single person; since the latter has studied what other scholars had suggested in earlier times, it is unavoidable that he will be influenced. But being influenced does not only mean to adopt the idea of someone else and to advance it. A scientist may be influenced by the wrong ideas of others and get to the right conclusion. Charles Darwin was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, a fire-breathing, nonconformist man. Erasmus died on 1802 and hence Charles, having been born on 1809, never met him and at least at the beginning of his career he did not seem to have been influenced by his writings and to have become an evolutionist (Darwin, 1995, p.166). Erasmus’ evolutionary views were presented in

3

two major works: Zoonomia (1794-1796) and The Temple of Nature (1802). In Zoonomia, Erasmus made explicit reference to the possibility of common descent: “… would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great first cause endowed with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!”(quoted in Browne, 2003, p.84). In The Temple of Nature this idea was even more elegantly presented: “Organic Life beneath the shoreless waves, was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves; first forms minute, unseen by spheric glass, move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass; these as successive generations bloom, new powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;” (quoted in Browne, 2003, p.39). These ideas were developed in a time when many important philosophers had come to question the authority of religion and its ability to answer particular questions. Perhaps the most successful was David Hume, an empiricist philosopher who expressed his skepticism about the existence of God, although he did not declare himself an atheist: “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (Hume, 1993/1779, p. 100). Such a view was absolutely incompatible with Natural Theology which was a popular approach to the study of nature at the early 19 th century. However, it seems that neither Erasmus’s, nor Hume’s views initially had a direct impact on Darwin’s thinking. Hume is rarely cited in Darwin’s writings and although it is evident that Darwin had read the works of Hume, it seems that he was not influenced so as to question theology and its methods (Huntley, 1972). Only later in his life did Darwin seem to consider seriously Hume’s views (Keynes, 2001, p.335-338). On the contrary, while a student at Cambridge, Darwin accepted William Paley’s ideas on the relation between adaptation and utility; Paley supported that body structures existed because they were useful to organisms and hence they indicated the wisdom of God: “This mechanism being observed […] the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker - that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction, and designed its use” (Paley, 2006/1802, p. 8). Paley believed that several body structures existed because they were useful to their possessors and that this fact proved the wisdom of the Creator. Darwin reversed the logic of this argument, turning adaptation from a fixed state into a process by which species responded naturally to environmental changes (Bowler, 2003, p.149). The debates that led to the emergence of Darwin’s theory were influenced by the evolutionary theory of Lamarck, who had suggested that the changes in the environment produced needs that caused adaptational variation. This idea was formulated through his two laws: “In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges the organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears” (First Law) and “All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young” (Second Law) (translated in Bowler, 2003, p. 92). While Darwin denied this view, Lamarck’s concept of small scale change based on organism advantage became Darwin’s context for his mechanism for evolution, recognizing what he liked least and formulating a theory of opposite import (Gould, 2002, p.175). Darwin was also influenced by two major figures of the early 19 th century who, although in generally disagreed with each other on several scientific issues, both rejected evolution and had refuted Lamarck’s theory: Charles Lyell and Georges Cuvier. Lyell was a geologist who proposed the doctrine of uniformitarianism that opposed the catastrophism of Cuvier, which had been endorsed with enthusiasm in England. Cuvier thought that the geologic record suggested a historical pattern of catastrophic floods that drowned all terrestrial life, laid down sedimentary rocks containing fossils of the organisms and that the lands later resurfaced and were repopulated

4

by new kinds of organisms (Larson, 2004, p.22). On the contrary, Lyell argued that earth’s history was practically unlimited, that it had enjoyed a steady state, and that natural phenomena like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions were enough to bring about all the effects read from the geological record (Ruse, 2003, p.94). Lyell initially rejected evolution and thought that each species had its own essence and could not evolve. But he made the crucial contribution of dissecting the evolutionary process into its elements the species, an approach that had a major influence on Darwin (Mayr, 1982, p.404-405), by writing that: “… it appears that species have a real existence in nature, and that each was endowed, at the time of its creation, with the attributes and organization by which it is now distinguished” (Lyell, 1832, p. 64-65). While Cuvier also rejected evolution, especially Lamarck’s theory of species succession as a product of outdated materialism (Bowler, 2003, p.93-94), his work established the fields of comparative anatomy and paleontology. By comparing living animals with fossils, Cuvier was able to document that they were different in kind and that the fossilized ones, once inhabited and at sometime went extinct: “Living organisms without number have been the victims of these catastrophes” (quoted in Larson, 2004, p.24). Both these ideas that distinct species exist and that certain kinds of organisms had gone extinct were prerequisites for Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Finally, a crucial moment for the development of Darwin’s theory was when he read Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) and came across the idea of “struggle for existence”. Malthus had described the idea as follows: “It is well known that a country in pasture cannot support so many inhabitants as a country in tillage, but what renders nations of shepherds so formidable is the power which they possess of moving all together and the necessity they frequently feel of exerting this power in search of fresh pasture for their herds. A tribe that was rich in cattle had an immediate plenty of food. Even the parent stock might be devoured in a case of absolute necessity. The women lived in greater ease than among nations of hunters. The men bold in their united strength and confiding in their power of procuring pasture for their cattle by change of place, felt, probably, but few fears about providing for a family. These combined causes soon produced their natural and invariable effect, an extended population. A more frequent and rapid change of place became then necessary. A wider and more extensive territory was successively occupied. A broader desolation extended all around them. Want pinched the less fortunate members of the society, and, at length, the impossibility of supporting such a number together became too evident to be resisted. Young scions were then pushed out from the parentstock and instructed to explore fresh regions and to gain happier seats for themselves by their swords. ‘The world was all before them where to choose.’ Restless from present distress, flushed with the hope of fairer prospects, and animated with the spirit of hardy enterprise, these daring adventurers were likely to become formidable adversaries to all who opposed them. The peaceful inhabitants of the countries on which they rushed could not long withstand the energy of men acting under such powerful motives of exertion. And when they fell in with any tribes like their own, the contest was a struggle for existence, and they fought with a desperate courage, inspired by the rejection that death was the punishment of defeat and life the prize of victory” (Malthus, 1798, p. 14). That was the key to his theory; in Darwin’s words he “had at last got a theory by which to work” (quoted in Browne, 2006, p. 45). A successful way to illustrate these influences to students was to use an excerpt from the Origin and provide links to specific ideas of some of the aforementioned scholars as shown below: “Owing to this struggle for life (Malthus), any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species (Lyell), in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature (Lamarck), will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive (Cuvier). I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt (Paley) organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature” (Darwin, 1859, p. 61). Students were surprised to realise that a naturalist was influenced not only by other naturalists but by a theologian and an economist as well. Social influences

5

Lecture 3, entitled The Origin of Species, was a description of how several aspects of Darwin’s personal and social life influenced the preparation and publication of the Origin. Although, Darwin had been considering the possibility of evolutionary change as early as 1839, he hesitated to proceed to publication because he feared the reaction of religious people, as they might consider his theory as an insult to the established beliefs of the time. In 1839 Darwin was married to Emma Wedgwood (1808-1896), his first cousin on his mother’s side, who was a deeply religious person that made him hesitant to publish his evolutionary views. The conflict between Darwin’s scientific findings on the origin of humanity and Emma's own devout Christian beliefs, feared her that his ideas would keep them apart in life after death. Another reason for not publishing his theory was the public reaction to the publication of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) anonymously published by Robert Chambers that caused a scandal in Victorian England, as it was the first time that a book brought a widespread discussion of evolutionary issues: “There is, also, in this prejudice, an element of unkindliness towards the lower animals, which is utterly out of place. These creatures are all of them part products of the Almighty Conception, as well as ourselves. All of them display wondrous evidences of his wisdom and benevolence. All of them have had assigned to them by their Great Father a part in the drama of the organic world, as well as ourselves. Why should they be held in such contempt? Let us regard them in a proper spirit, as parts of the grand plan, instead of contemplating them in the light of frivolous prejudices, and we shall be altogether at a loss to see how there should be any degradation in the idea of our race having been genealogically connected with them” (Chambers, 1844, p.235). What followed made Darwin quite anxious and uncomfortable to the idea of publishing his own evolutionary views (Browne, 2006, p.45-53). Hence, in 1844 he wrote a sketch of his theory which had been a complete presentation of the arguments included in the Origin. Darwin gave Emma the sketch and a letter in which he wrote: “… I have just finished my sketch of my species theory. If, as I believe, my theory in time be accepted even by one competent judge, it will be a considerable step in science. I therefore write this, in case of my sudden death, as my most solemn and last request, which I am sure you will consider the same as if legally entered in my will, that you will devote £400 to its publication and further will yourself, or through Hensleigh, take trouble in promoting it. I wish that my sketch be given to some competent person, with this sum to induce him to take trouble in its improvement, and enlargement …”(Darwin, 1995/1902, p.171). Darwin also shared his views with Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817-1911) in a letter that he wrote in the same year: “I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with distribution of the Galapagos organisms &c. &c., and with the character of the American fossil mammifers, &c. &c., that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable” (Darwin, 1995/1902, p. 173-174). However, two later incidents made Darwin change his mind. The first was the death of his daughter Annie (1841-1851). Although he loved all of his children, Annie was his beloved child as she treated him with an affection that touched him deeply. After having probably suffered from tuberculosis, she died at the age of 10. Her death caused terrible pain to Darwin and is said to have driven him to atheism, although he preferred to describe himself as an agnostic (Keynes, 2001, p. 218-224, 341; Browne, 2006, p.46). The second and perhaps most crucial incident was a letter Darwin received from Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). Wallace was one of Darwin's numerous correspondents from around the world. Wallace knew that Darwin was interested in the question of how species originate, and trusted his opinion on the matter. Thus, he sent him his essay (Wallace, 1858) and asked him to review it. Wallace wrote: “The life of wild animals is a struggle for existence. The full exertion of all their faculties and all their energies is required to preserve their own existence and provide for that of their infant offspring. The possibility of procuring food during the least favourable seasons, and of escaping the attacks of their most dangerous enemies, are the primary conditions which determine the existence both of individuals and of entire species. These conditions will also determine the population of a species; and by a careful consideration of all the circumstances we may be enabled to comprehend, and in some degree to explain, what at first sight appears so inexplicable -the excessive abundance of some species, while others closely allied to them are very rare” (quoted in Berry, 2003, p.53). […] “Now, let some alteration of physical conditions occur in the district […] it is evident that, of all the individuals

6

composing the species, those forming the least numerous and most feebly organized variety would suffer first, and, were the pressure severe, must soon become extinct. The same causes continuing in action, the parent species would next suffer, would gradually diminish in numbers, and with a recurrence of similar unfavourable conditions might also become extinct. The superior variety would then alone remain, and on a return to favourable circumstances would rapidly increase in numbers and occupy the place of the extinct species and variety.” (p.57). While Wallace's essay did not employ Darwin's term natural selection, it did outline the mechanics of an evolutionary divergence of species from similar ones due to environmental pressures. In this sense, it was essentially the same as the theory that Darwin had worked on for twenty years, but had yet to publish. Darwin wrote in a letter to Charles Lyell: “… if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters!” (Darwin, 1995/1902, p.185). What was concluded was that science is a human activity and consequently scientists are influenced by their feelings, in this case the sadness of the loss of a beloved daughter, the fear of what the public reaction might be and in the same time the anxiety not to lose the priority of an idea developed in private for almost twenty years. Students started a very interesting discussion on the objectivity of science as soon the lecture was over. The distinction between finding scientific evidence and interpreting it was something that most of them had never thought of. C ultural influe nces Lecture 4, entitled The Huxley – Wilberforce debate, focused on the reception of Darwin’s theory and more specifically on the encounter between Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873), Bishop of Oxford, and Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), known as “Darwin’s bulldog”. It is widely accepted that Wilberforce, attempted to ridicule Darwin and his theory at a meeting of the British Association in Oxford on 30 June 1860. There he faced Huxley, who is said to have succeeded in defeating the obscurantism of Wilberforce and through that the pretension of the Church to dictate to scientists the conclusions they were allowed to reach. A careful historical analysis shows that the legend overlooks the fact that Wilberforce’s speech, rather than reflecting prejudice and religious sentiment, encapsulated many of the scientific objections of Darwin’s contemporaries, as well as that Joseph Dalton Hooker’s contribution in defending Darwin was more successful than Huxley’s (Lucas, 1979; Gauld, 1992a; 1992b). Huxley was of course an ardent supporter of Darwin. Soon after the publication of the Origin he expressed his support on Darwin’s theory: “ That this most ingenious hypothesis enables us to give a reason for many apparent anomalies in the distribution of living beings in time and space, and that it is not contradicted by the main phenomena of life and organisation appear to us to be unquestionable; and, so far, it must be admitted to have an immense advantage over any of its predecessors. But it is quite another matter to affirm absolutely either the truth or falsehood of Mr. Darwin's views at the present stage of the inquiry. Goethe has an excellent aphorism defining that state of mind which he calls "Thätige Skepsis"–active doubt. It is doubt which so loves truth that it neither dares rest in doubting, nor extinguish itself by unjustified belief; and we commend this state of mind to students of species, with respect to Mr. Darwin's or any other hypothesis, as to their origin. The combined investigations of another twenty years may, perhaps, enable naturalists to say whether the modifying causes and the selective power, which Mr. Darwin has satisfactorily shown to exist in Nature, are competent to produce all the effects he ascribes to them; or whether, on the other hand, he has been led to over-estimate the value of the principle of natural selection, as greatly as Lamarck overestimated his vera causa of modification by exercise” (Huxley, 1859). One of the complaints against Wilberforce was that he presumed to speak of scientific matters, although he was not a scientist. But five weeks earlier Wilberforce had written a review of Darwin's Origin of species, which was published in the July issue of The Quarterly Review (Gauld, 1992b). The fact that in his speech he used arguments included in the review shows that Wilberforce, contrary to the central tenet of the legend, did not prejudge the issue. One of his aims was to overthrow Darwin’s analogical argument from selection under domestication: “We come then to these conclusions. All the facts presented to us in the natural world tend to show that none of the variations produced in the fixed forms of animal life, when seen in its most plastic condition under domestication, give any promise of a true transmutation of species ; first, from the difficulty of accumulating and fixing variations within the same species ; secondly, from

7

the fact that these variations, though most serviceable for man, have no tendency to improve the individual beyond the standard of his own specific type, and so to afford matter, even if they were infinitely produced, for the supposed power of natural selection on which to work ; whilst all variations from the mixture of species are barred by the inexorable law of hybrid sterility. Further, the embalmed records of 3000 years show that there has been no beginning of transmutation in the species of our most familiar domesticated animals ; and beyond this, that in the countless tribes of animal life around us, down to its lowest and most variable species, no one has ever discovered a single instance of such transmutation being now in prospect ; no new organ has ever been known to be developed—no new natural instinct to be formed—whilst, finally, in the -vast museum of departed animal life which the strata of the earth imbed for our examination, whilst they contain far too complete a representation of the past to be set aside as a mere imperfect record, yet afford no one instance of any such change as having ever been in progress, or give us anywhere the missing links of the assumed chain, or the remains which would enable now existing variations, by gradual approximations, to shade off into unity” (Wilberforce, 1860). Lecture 4 also served as a basis for the presentation of the current status of the evolutioncreation debate. Moreover, the religious views of some evolutionary biologists were presented and discussed. The aim was to show that there is no single attitude towards religion among scientists and especially among evolutionary biologists. Hence, by using excerpts from their books, these scientists were shown to possess entirely different views on religious issues, which were classified as atheism, agnosticism and religiosity. Richard Dawkins was the scientist-atheist: “Maybe you think it is obvious that God must exist, for how else could the world have come into being? How else could there be life, in all its rich diversity, with every species looking uncannily as though it had been ‘designed’? […] Far from pointing to a designer, the illusion of design in the living world is explained with far greater economy and with devastating elegance by Darwinian natural selection” (Dawkins, 2006, p.2) … “Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind” (p.3). Simon Conway Morris was at the other extreme, however without being as explicit as Dawkins: “… given that evolution has produced sentient species with a sense of purpose, it is reasonable to take the claims of theology seriously. In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in the connections that might serve to reunify the scientific world view with the religious instinct. […] In my opinion it will be our lifeline” (Conway-Morris, 2003, p.328) …“… the complexity and beauty of ‘Life’s Solution’ can never cease to astound. None of it presupposes, let alone proves, the existence of God, but all is congruent. For some it will remain as the pointless activity of the Blind Watchmaker, but others may prefer to remove their dark glasses. The choice of course, is yours.” (p.330). Finally, the views of the late Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) were presented as the case for agnosticism: ““I do not see how science and religion could be unified, or even synthesized, under any common scheme of explanation or analysis; but I also do not understand why the two enterprises should experience any conflict. Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world […] Religion on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values” (Gould, 1999, p.4) … “I am not a believer. I am an agnostic in the wise sense of T.H. Huxley, who coined the word in identifying such open-minded skepticism as the only rational position because, truly, one cannot know. Nonetheless […] I have great respect for religion” (p.8-9). Hence, it was made explicit that it is not possible to have a war or even a conflict between science and religion since scientists do not share the same religious views. And students were encouraged to examine a plurality of views before arriving to any conclusions. Darwin’s Impact on Literature There are many different types of interaction between science and literature, as a result of the common historical and cultural contexts that shape both activities (Cartwright, 2007). Lecture 5 entitled Darwin’s Influence on 19 th century literature presents how full chapters from books by highly admired authors or poems by poets of established reputation such as Herbert George Wells (1866-1946), Samuel Butler (1835-1902), Thomas Hardy (1840-19280, George Eliot (18191880) and George Meredith (1828-1909), adopted Darwin’s ideas. For example H. G. Wells in 1884 won a scholarship to the Normal School of Science, now Imperial College, London. His year

8

under T.H.Huxley studying comparative anatomy was seminal; his first full length works were textbooks of biology and geography. Some authors of the time thought that evolution meant progress, however readers were quick to pick up that it also conflicted with the concept of creation derived from the Bible and with long established assumptions of the values attached to man’s special role in the world. It is a fact that the most interesting verbal innovations arise when the individual invents a term to define a position in the intellectual conflicts that surround him. Therefore, it was a perfect moment to acquaint students with terms such as meliorism (coined by George Eliot) or agnosticism (coined by Thomas Huxley). In 1869 – 1870 the Vatican Council declared the Pope infallible in matters of faith and soon afterwards, in 1871 Darwin’s The Descent of Man was published. John Tyndall, the physicist, took over saying that “in Victorian times men had to become accustomed to the idea that not for 6000, not for 60000, not for six thousand thousand but for centuries embracing untold millions of years this earth has been the theatre of life and death…”(quoted in Greenblatt, 2005, p.1624). Sir Edmund Gosse in his From Father and Son wrote that P.H. Gosse, his father, could not give up the painful and slow conclusion of five and twenty years’ study of geology and believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie (quoted in Greenblatt, 2005, p.1907). So, G. Meredith in his epic poem Modern Love (1862), R.L. Stevenson in The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886) and H.G. Wells in The Time Machine (1895) and The Island of Dr Moreau (1896) attempted to write on Darwinian themes and Darwinian man: “The two species that had resulted from the evolution of man were sliding down towards, or had already arrived at, an altogether new relationship. The Eloi, like the Carolingian kings, had decayed to a mere beautiful futility. They still possessed the earth on sufferance: since the Morlocks, subterranean for innumerable generations, had come at last to find the daylit surface intolerable. And the Morlocks made their garments, I inferred, and maintained them in their habitual needs, perhaps through the survival of an old habit of service” (Wells, 2002/1895, p.93) or “What are we first? First, animals; and next Intelligences at a leap; on whom pale lies the distant shadow of the tomb, and all that draweth on the tomb for text. Into which state comes love, the crowning sun: beneath whose light the shadow loses form. We are the lords of life, and life is warm. Intelligence and instinct now are one. But nature says: 'my children most they seem when they least know me: therefore I decree that they shall suffer.' Swift doth young love flee, and we stand wakened, shivering from our dream. Then if we study Nature we are wise. Thus do the few who live but with the day: the scientific animals are they. Lady, this is my sonnet to your eyes” (Meredith, 2004, p.32) or “Of course he read Mr Darwin's books as fast as they came out and adopted evolution as an article of faith. "It seems to me," he said once, "that I am like one of those caterpillars which, if they have been interrupted in making their hammock, must begin again from the beginning. So long as I went back a long way down in the social scale I got on all right, and should have made money but for Ellen; when I try to take up the work at a higher stage I fail completely." I do not know whether the analogy holds good or not, but I am sure Ernest's instinct was right in telling him that after a heavy fall he had better begin life again at a very low stage, and as I have just said, I would have let him go back to his shop if I had not known what I did”(Butler, 2004/1903, p.280). Students read through these works and separated excerpts bearing Darwin’s influence. Even the field of politics had to change under the burden of Darwin’s ideas. In late Victorian times, the Woman Question was concerned with issues of sexual inequality in politics, economic life, education and social intercourse. Married women were allowed to own and handle their property. Employment status in factories and mines changed as to allow only a 16 – hour working day! Obligatory education for young boys and girls was established. Finally, the minds and habits of the ordinary Englishman were so completely transformed by 1897 that he would not recognize his own grandfather. As mentioned, the aim of this lecture was to clarify the way science and literature share a common historical, social and cultural context. Their relationship was proved to be a real close one; and both of them have shaped the future as we experience it now. The link to informal learning To achieve the aim of this course, we needed to combine learning in formal and informal environments. Hence, we started with lectures and we are planning to conclude with a trip to London, to those places where the actual history took place. We believe that knowledge of informal environments is important because if teachers neglect consideration and application of the range of resources and learning opportunities that are available outside the classroom, the in-

9

school lessons may become unnecessarily limited (McComas, 2006). The informal part of the course will be the focus of a future paper. The course as described above served as a stage of preparation for the informal learning during the museum visits. We believe that interaction with environments beyond classroom can increase creativity and help students develop various learning styles. Our project is a contribution to the idea that the focus of attention should not be, in a limited way, the domain of knowledge alone, but also those of feeling and doing. It has been suggested that further consideration of the personal nature of learning, the context of that learning, and the time taken to process and assimilate new information is needed to investigate the impact that learning in museums has on people’s lives (Rennie & Johnston, 2004). However, as learning takes time, we hope that the project described above will offer students a realistic time schedule to learn more about Darwin’s theory and through that to understand that science is not an extraordinary but an ordinary human activity. The final touch of lecture 1 will be given at the London Dungeon an interactive “museum” of that time. Actors, dressed in 19 th century rugs, successfully reconstruct Victorian times and show what Black Death and lack of elementary medical knowledge can do to the London population. Lecture 2 will be continued at the London Natural History Museum, where students will have the chance to examine the evidence available to Darwin and his contemporaries. Many specimens that Darwin had collected are preserved in the Darwin Centre of the Museum. Students will have the chance to examine the evidence available to Darwin and how it formed the basis for his theory. To get in the mood of Darwin’s fears and scientific theorizing, a visit at the Down House will take place, where Darwin lived for forty years. There, students will have the chance to see where he worked and he spent his day between family and scientific matters, as described in lecture 3. In addition, to revive the encounter described in lecture 4, students will visit the Oxford Museum of Natural History where it took place. Finally, a visit to the library of the British Museum is planned so that students may be able to find more about Darwin’s influence on literature. Co nclusion Science is an indispensable part of our culture, but it also has an enormous influence on our world and on our everyday life. It is a human activity and its apparent weaknesses result from our own mental and cognitive abilities. But it is exactly this characteristic that makes science the most objective way to explore the factual character of nature and to understand life without any reference to supernatural agents. Moreover, the apparent weaknesses of science can sometimes be its strengths: the motivation to investigate further, understand better and eventually get to know more. The history of Darwin’s theory is an excellent example to illustrate these characteristics of science. It is a fascinating story which is expected to help students understand how science is done and what a powerful scientific argument Darwin’s theory involves. References Berry, A. (ed.) (2003) Infinite Tropics: an Alfred Russel Wallace Anthology. Verso, London & New York. Bowler, P. J. (2003) Evolution: the History of an Idea, (third edition). University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Browne, J. (2003) Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Pimlico, London. Browne, J. (2006) Darwin's "Origin of Species": A Biography. Atlantic Books, London. Butler, S. (2004) [1903] The Way of All Flesh. Dover Publications, New York. Cartwright, J. (2007) Science and literature: towards a conceptual framework. Science & Education, 16(2), 115139. Chambers, R. (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. John Churchill, London. Clough, M. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463-494. Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (first edition). John Murray, London. Darwin, F. (1995) [1902] The Life of Charles Darwin. Studio Editions Ltd, London. Dickens, C. (1997) [1854] Hard Times. Signet Classic, New York. Ford, B. (ed) (1999), The New Pelican Guide to English Literature: From Dickens to Hardy. Penguin, UK. Forster, M. (1988) Elizabeth Barrett Browning: Selected Poems. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

10

Gauld, C. (1992a) The historical anecdote as a “caricature”: A case study. Research in Science Education, 22(1), 149-156. Gauld, C. (1992b) Wilberforce, Huxley & the use of history in teaching about evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 54 (7), 406-410. Greenblatt, S. (ed) (2005) The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume 2: The Romantic Period th through the Twentieth Century. W.W. Norton, 8 edition. Hume, D. (1993) [1779/1777] Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Natural History of Religion, (Gaskin, J. C. A. ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. Huntley, W.B. (1972) David Hume and Charles Darwin. Journal of the History of Ideas, 33(3), 457-470. Huxley, T.H. (1859) The Darwinian Hypothesis. The Times, 12/26/1859 (reprinted in Largent, 2004, p.177182). Keynes, R. (2001) Darwin, his Daughter and Human Evolution. Riverhead Books, New York. Largent, M.A. (2004) Sourcebook on History of Evolution (Revised Printing). Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Larson, E.J. (2004) Evolution: the Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Modern Library, New York. Lucas, J.R. (1979) Wilberforce and Huxley: a legendary encounter. The Historical Journal, 22 (2), 313-330. Lyell, C. (1832) Principles of Geology Volume II. John Murray, London. Malthus, T.R. (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population. J. Johnson, London. Mayr, E. (1982) The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England. McComas, W. F. (2006) Science teaching beyond the classroom: the role and nature of informal learning environments. The Science Teacher, 72(10), 26-30. McComas, W.F. (2007) Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education (online first article). McComas, W.F., Almazroa, H. & Clough, M. (1998) The nature of science in science education: an introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511-532. Meredith, G. (2004) Selected Poems by George Meredith. Kessinger Publishing, Montana. Ousby, I. (1996) The Cambridge Paperback Guide to Literature in English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Paley, William (2006) [1802] Natural Theology or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. (Eddy, M. D. & Knight, D., eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. Rennie, L. J. & Johnston, D. J. (2004) The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from museums. Science Education, 88(S1), S4-S16. Ruse, M. (2003) Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England. Shanahan, T. (2004) The Evolution of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shelley, M. 1985 [1818] Frankenstein. Penguin, New York. Tennyson, A. (1861) [1844] In Memoriam. Ticknor and Fields, Boston (available at http://books.google.com/) Wallace, A.R. (1858) On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, (3): 53-62. Wells, H.G. (2002/1895) The Time Machine. Signet Classic, New York. Wilberforce, S. (1860) Review of “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races on the struggle for life”. Quarterly Review, 108, 225-264 (reprinted in Largent, 2004, p.139144).

11