DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Article

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Article Daniel Halverson Research Article Monographs on the Universe: Americans Respond to Ernst Haeckel’s Evolutionary Science and Theology, 1866–1883 Daniel Halverson Case Western Reserve University Ernst Haeckel was one of the nineteenth century’s most famous and influential sci- entists and science popularizers. According to one historian of biology, he was “the chief source of the world’s knowledge of Darwinism” in his time.1 At the same time, he endeavored to set up his own pantheistic-evolutionary theology in the place of Christianity. This study makes use of new information technologies to gather docu- ments which have been largely unavailable to historians until recently. Halverson finds that Haeckel’s ideas met with a poor reception in the United States because American journalists, ministers, and scientists insisted on maintaining a sharp separation between science and theology, while Haeckel was intent on merging the Volume 6, Issue 1 6, Issue Volume two under an evolutionary-pantheistic framework. Although often regarded as an 1 6, Issue Volume 50 advocate of the “conflict thesis,” on his own terms he was a deeply religious man 51 who wanted to reform, rather than abolish, theology. Past Tense Past Tense Past Monographs on the Universe rnst Haeckel (1834–1919) was was all there ever had been, or would one of the nineteenth century’s be. In its totality, it was God. most prominent scientists and Haeckel saw himself as another Escience popularizers.2 He was a specialist Martin Luther, bringing a second, in marine invertebrate zoology who scientific Reformation to the public.4 undertook detailed studies of medusae, His enormously popular science books radiolarians, and sponges, proposed presented their readers with a heady the first phylogenetic histories,mix of Darwinian biology, pantheistic predicted the discovery of “Java Man,” theology, and anti-Christian polemics. and proposed the “biogenetic law” In German-speaking Europe, Haeckel’s in embryology. He was also a gifted monism was not a very radical idea. artist, whose paintings of sea creatures Similar arguments had been made and other animals continue to amaze in the previous generation by Jacob for both their beauty and detail. But it Moleschott, David Friedrich Strauss, was not his work as a zoologist or as and Ludwig Büchner.5 an artist that earned him a place in the In the English-speaking world, public imagination — it was his tireless however, it was radical, and it advocacy of all things Darwinian. transgressed a long-standing boundary He was one of the first scientists in between science and Christian Germany to embrace Darwin’s Origin theology. For where science was the of Species and, for 50 years, he was one ascertainment of certain fact on the of its leading public advocates, both in basis of empirical evidence, theology Germany and throughout the world.3 was the ascertainment of transcendent Haeckel was not content with and eternal truth on the basis of spreading the good news that Darwin divine revelation. The skepticism of had forever changed natural history. American readers towards Haeckel’s He insisted on revolutionizing theology attempt to merge the two can be fairly as well. Scientific progress, Haeckel summarized in the words of one argued, had exposed Christian theology contributor to the National Quarterly as utterly absurd. It would have to give Review, who ridiculed his latest offering way before the pantheistic theology of as a “monograph on the universe.”6 By Bruno, Spinoza, and Goethe, which juxtaposing the limited and specialist alone was truly rational. Haeckel character of a “monograph” with called it “monism,” as opposed to the the vast comprehensiveness of “the “dualism” of Christian theology. As the universe,” this contributor reinforced Volume 6, Issue 1 6, Issue Volume name suggests, the principal theme of the boundary that Haeckel was intent 1 6, Issue Volume 52 monism was unity. Haeckel argued that on transgressing. 53 there were not two separate substances, His comments were characteristic of realms, or areas of knowledge: one the the more general reception of Haeckel’s province of the mental, the spiritual, the science-theology in the United States. supernatural, and the other of crude, Between the years 1876 and 1883, Past Tense Past Tense Past lifeless matter. On the contrary, mind American journalists, ministers, and and matter were but different aspects of scientists overwhelmingly rejected the same underlying substance, which Haeckel’s bid to unite evolutionary Daniel Halverson Haeckel was the great, unacknowledged, unjustly- besmirched genius of the nineteenth century biology with pantheistic theology. They inclined Volkism with evolution and attacked both poles of his thought: his science…provided an ideological basis science as undisciplined speculation, for National Socialism.”9 Gasman’s and his theology as impious atheism, view of Haeckel’s science was equally thereby reinforcing the boundary negative: “Although he considered which, in their view, was supposed to himself to be a close follower of Darwin, separate science and theology. I will there was, in fact, little similarity show that it was their insistence on between them.... [Haeckel] ultimately maintaining the boundary that Haeckel helped to deny Germany a true was intent on effacing which primarily Darwinian revolution.”10 Despite the accounts for the failure of his ideas to mixed reviews his book received when win a substantial following in the United it was published, Gasman’s Scientific States during these years. In their view, Origins had considerable influence on his synthesis failed as both science and a generation of scholarship.11 Modern theology. scholarship unites, however, in rejecting his thesis, on the grounds that it is Historiography and Method monocausal, anachronistic, and based on insufficient evidence.12 s Mario Di Gregorio has In The Tragic Sense of Life, Robert Aobserved, despite his great fame in Richards is concerned with rescuing his own lifetime, Haeckel “would have Haeckel’s reputation from Gasman, been very surprised probably to find as well as from other scholars who that very soon he was to be completely have been highly critical. In Richards’ forgotten by the public.”7 Indeed, it is view, Haeckel was “Darwin’s authentic remarkable how little scholarly attention intellectual heir,” and, “undeniably, a Volume 6, Issue 1 6, Issue Volume this important intellectual has received scientific and even an artistic genius.”13 1 6, Issue Volume 52 until quite recently. What attention When evaluated fairly, Richards argues, 53 he had previously received was largely the depth of Haeckel’s intellect and from Daniel Gasman in his book, The accomplishments cannot be denied.14 Scientific Origins of National Socialism. Associations with National Socialism, Past Tense Past Gasman’s portrait of Haeckel was quite however, are entirely spurious, and Tense Past disparaging.8 In his view, “Haeckel’s have their roots in fundamentalism, prophetic synthesis of romantically- opposition to evolutionary biology, Monographs on the Universe careless scholarship, and other tended to acknowledge his interest in vices.15 Rightly understood, Richards theology but to focus on his science. maintains, Haeckel was the great, Haeckel, however, viewed his work as unacknowledged, unjustly-besmirched a scientist as preparation for a larger genius of the nineteenth century, whose synthesis, which, read on its own terms, merit lay not only in his advocacy of was emphatically theological. Haeckel evolutionary biology, or in his own believed that empirical science was artistic and scientific fecundity, but in the sure foundation on which the new, his opposition to all things clerical and scientific, rational theology would be ignorant.16 Richards’ biography is fiery based. This study follows Haeckel in in spirit and rich in detail, but its efforts considering his science and his theology to rehabilitate its hero are not entirely as a whole. It also strives to place his successful. Haeckel may have been work in a transnational context which vindicated from the charge of having has received little attention in the past. been a “proto-Nazi,” but it is a long way In Haeckel’s time, the invention of from “not a proto-Nazi” to “scientific high-powered microscopes opened new genius,” and the distance is not traversed avenues for scientific discovery. A world by the argument and evidence Richards of tiny organisms became available for offers. inspection for the first time, and the In From Here to Eternity, Mario Di new science of microscopy flourished. Gregorio has steered a middle course, In a similar way, recent technological understanding Haeckel as neither a developments have opened new proto-Nazi nor “Darwin’s authentic avenues for historical discovery. Until intellectual heir,” but a scientist with quite recently, it has been difficult to a very shaky grasp on what Darwin write intellectual history from any other actually advocated, and who was perspective than the top-down — which principally interested in Darwin’s is to say, from the perspective of the views, and science more generally, as intellectuals themselves. The reason has a springboard for his own monistic been the arrangement of the archival religion.17 Haeckel may have presented material. To locate the books written himself as a second Martin Luther, by or about Ernst Haeckel is quite leading a scientific Reformation,feasible. But to locate all the chapters, but beneath his aggressive rhetoric, magazine articles, book reviews, Gregorio argues, lurked a profoundly lectures, encyclopedia entries, and other conservative program.18 Haeckel did sources written about him in his own Volume 6, Issue 1 6, Issue Volume not want to reshape the society he lifetime, would have made impossible 1 6, Issue Volume 54 lived in, but to give it a new, Darwinian demands on the time of even the most 55 rationale. The Christian clergy was to be dedicated researcher. Haeckel himself shown the door, certainly, and scientists could not have known everything that set up in their place, but everything else was being written about him.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Konturen VI (2014) 1
    Konturen VI (2014) 1 Introduction: Defining the Human and the Animal Alexander Mathäs University of Oregon Foreword: First, I would like to thank the contributors to this special volume of Konturen: Defining the Human and the Animal. All the authors presented drafts of their manuscripts at a conference on this topic, which took place on May 2 and 3, 2013 at the University of Oregon. I am grateful to the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Oregon Humanities Center, the Journal of Comparative Literature, the Univeristy of Oregon’s College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Philosophy, Department of Comparative Literature, the German Studies Committee, and the Department of German and Scandinavian for their generous support. Without them both the conference and the ensuing publication would not have been possible. Special thanks go to my departmental colleagues, and foremost to my Department Head and Chair of the German Studies Committee, Jeffrey Librett, who gave me the opportunity to publish this volume. I am grateful for the support of Alexis Smith, Eva Hofmann, Stephanie Chapman, and Judith Lechner, who assisted me at various stages of the project. I am also indebted to the graduate students who participated in a class on Human-Animal borders that I taught in Winter 2013. Sarah Grew’s assistance with the web design is greatly appreciated. And I would like to thank our office staff, above all Barbara Ver West and Joshua Heath, who were of great help in organizing and advertising the conference. Introduction: In recent years the fairly new field of Animal Studies has received considerable attention (see bibliography).
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophical and Historical Roots of Evolutionary Tree Diagrams
    Evo Edu Outreach (2011) 4:515–538 DOI 10.1007/s12052-011-0355-0 HISTORYAND PHILOSOPHY Depicting the Tree of Life: the Philosophical and Historical Roots of Evolutionary Tree Diagrams Nathalie Gontier Published online: 19 August 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract It is a popularly held view that Darwin was the were the result of this blend would, from the nineteenth first author to draw a phylogenetic tree diagram. However, century onward, also include the element of time. The as is the case with most popular beliefs, this one also does recognition of time would eventually lead to the recognition not hold true. Firstly, Darwin never called his diagram of of evolution as a fact of nature, and subsequently, tree common descent a tree. Secondly, even before Darwin, tree iconographies would come to represent exclusively the diagrams were used by a variety of philosophical, religious, evolutionary descent of species. and secular scholars to depict phenomena such as “logical relationships,”“affiliations,”“genealogical descent,”“af- Keywords Species classification . Evolutionary finity,” and “historical relatedness” between the elements iconography. Tree of life . Networks . Diagram . Phylogeny. portrayed on the tree. Moreover, historically, tree diagrams Genealogy. Pedigree . Stammbaum . Affinity. Natural themselves can be grouped into a larger class of diagrams selection that were drawn to depict natural and/or divine order in the world. In this paper, we trace the historical roots and cultural meanings of these tree diagrams. It will be Introduction demonstrated that tree diagrams as we know them are the outgrowth of ancient philosophical attempts to find the In this paper, we focus on the “why” of tree iconography.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    Chapter 1 History Systematics has its origins in two threads of biological science: classification and evolution. The organization of natural variation into sets, groups, and hierarchies traces its roots to Aristotle and evolution to Darwin. Put simply, systematization of nature can and has progressed in absence of causative theories relying on ideas of “plan of nature,” divine or otherwise. Evolutionists (Darwin, Wallace, and others) proposed a rationale for these patterns. This mixture is the foundation of modern systematics. Originally, systematics was natural history. Today we think of systematics as being a more inclusive term, encompassing field collection, empirical compar- ative biology, and theory. To begin with, however, taxonomy, now known as the process of naming species and higher taxa in a coherent, hypothesis-based, and regular way, and systematics were equivalent. Roman bust of Aristotle (384–322 BCE) 1.1 Aristotle Systematics as classification (or taxonomy) draws its Western origins from Aris- totle1. A student of Plato at the Academy and reputed teacher of Alexander the Great, Aristotle founded the Lyceum in Athens, writing on a broad variety of topics including what we now call biology. To Aristotle, living things (species) came from nature as did other physical classes (e.g. gold or lead). Today, we refer to his classification of living things (Aristotle, 350 BCE) that show simi- larities with the sorts of classifications we create now. In short, there are three featuresCOPYRIGHTED of his methodology that weMATERIAL recognize immediately: it was functional, binary, and empirical. Aristotle’s classification divided animals (his work on plants is lost) using Ibn Rushd (Averroes) functional features as opposed to those of habitat or anatomical differences: “Of (1126–1198) land animals some are furnished with wings, such as birds and bees.” Although he recognized these features as different in aspect, they are identical in use.
    [Show full text]
  • Ernst Haeckel and the Morphology of Ethics Nolan Hele
    Document généré le 26 sept. 2021 19:41 Journal of the Canadian Historical Association Revue de la Société historique du Canada Ernst Haeckel and the Morphology of Ethics Nolan Hele Volume 15, numéro 1, 2004 URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/012066ar DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/012066ar Aller au sommaire du numéro Éditeur(s) The Canadian Historical Association/La Société historique du Canada ISSN 0847-4478 (imprimé) 1712-6274 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Hele, N. (2004). Ernst Haeckel and the Morphology of Ethics. Journal of the Canadian Historical Association / Revue de la Société historique du Canada, 15(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.7202/012066ar Tous droits réservés © The Canadian Historical Association/La Société Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des historique du Canada, 2004 services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. https://www.erudit.org/fr/ chajournal2004.qxd 12/01/06 14:11 Page 1 Ernst Haeckel and the Morphology of Ethics NOLAN HEIE n 10 May 1907, Johannes Reinke,1 a Professor of botany at the University Oof Kiel and member of the Prussian upper chamber, the
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Krauskopf's Evolution and Judaism
    The University of Manchester Research Joseph Krauskopf’s Evolution and Judaism: One Reform Rabbi’s Response to Scepticism and Materialism in Nineteenth-century North America DOI: 10.31826/9781463237141-012 Document Version Final published version Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer Citation for published version (APA): Langton, D. (2015). Joseph Krauskopf’s Evolution and Judaism: One Reform Rabbi’s Response to Scepticism and Materialism in Nineteenth-century North America. Melilah: Manchester Journal of Jewish Studies, 12, 122-130. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463237141-012 Published in: Melilah: Manchester Journal of Jewish Studies Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Takedown policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing relevant details, so we can investigate your claim. Download date:10. Oct. 2021 EDITOR Daniel R. Langton ASSISTANT EDITOR Simon Mayers Title: Joseph Krauskopf’s Evolution and Judaism: One Reform Rabbi’s Response to Scepticism and Materialism in Nineteenth-century North America Author(s): DANIEL R.
    [Show full text]
  • Ernst Haeckel's Embryological Illustrations
    Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud Ernst Haeckel’s Embryological Illustrations By Nick Hopwood* ABSTRACT Comparative illustrations of vertebrate embryos by the leading nineteenth-century Dar- winist Ernst Haeckel have been both highly contested and canonical. Though the target of repeated fraud charges since 1868, the pictures were widely reproduced in textbooks through the twentieth century. Concentrating on their first ten years, this essay uses the accusations to shed light on the novelty of Haeckel’s visual argumentation and to explore how images come to count as proper representations or illegitimate schematics as they cross between the esoteric and exoteric circles of science. It exploits previously unused manuscripts to reconstruct the drawing, printing, and publishing of the illustrations that attracted the first and most influential attack, compares these procedures to standard prac- tice, and highlights their originality. It then explains why, though Haeckel was soon ac- cused, controversy ignited only seven years later, after he aligned a disciplinary struggle over embryology with a major confrontation between liberal nationalism and Catholicism—and why the contested pictures nevertheless survived. INETEENTH-CENTURY IMAGES OF EVOLUTION powerfully and controversially N shape our view of the world. In 1997 a British developmental biologist accused the * Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, United Kingdom. Research for this essay was supported by the Wellcome Trust and partly carried out in the departments of Lorraine Daston and Hans-Jo¨rg Rheinberger at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. My greatest debt is to the archivists of the Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Jena: the late Erika Krauße gave generous help and invaluable advice over many years, and Thomas Bach, her successor as Kustos, provided much assistance with this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Ernst Haeckel's Monistic Religon
    ERNST HAECKEL'S MONISTIC RELIGION BY NILESR. HOLT For some of his contemporaries, the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was the "nihilistic yet superstitious prophet of a new religion."' Others saw him as a vindicator who would confirm the triumph of science in its nineteenth-century warfare with religion. For still others, he was the "apostle of Darwinism," the major crusader on the European continent for the acceptance of Darwinism. Charles Darwin wrote that if one of Haeckel's works had appeared before his own The Descent of Man (1871), "I should probably never have com- pleted it. Almost all of the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by ... this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is fuller than mine."2 Unlike some exponents of Darwinism, Haeckel's own consequential achievements in morphology and embryology pre- vented him from being dismissed as merely another of "Darwin's bull- dogs." From a position of scientific eminence, as professor of zoology at the University of Jena, Haeckel combined his activities to promote Darwinism with popularizations of his own "Monism." He presented Monism as a scientific movement which was based on Darwinism and 'This particular description is from "Popular Science in Germany," The Nation, DCXV (1879), 179-80. Haeckel's hopes to make of his Monism an international move- ment were heightened by interest in his Monistic system in the United States to the point that Paul Carus, editor of the Monist, attempted to distinguish between Haeckel's and that journal's "Monism." See the early correspondence between Carus and Haeckel, published as "Professor Haeckel's Monism and the Ideas of God and Im- mortality," Open Court, V (1891), 2957-58.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Did Goethe and Schelling Endorse Species Evolution?
    Did Goethe and Schelling Endorse Species Evolution? Robert J. Richards University of Chicago Charles Darwin was quite sensitive to the charge that his theory of species transmutation was not original but had been anticipated by earlier authors, most famously by Lamarck and his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. The younger Darwin believed, however, his own originality lay in the device he used to explain the change of species over time and in the kind of evidence he brought to bear to demonstrate such change. He was thus ready to concede and recognize predecessors, especially those that caused only modest ripples in the intellectual stream. In the historical introduction that he included in the third edition of the Origin, he acknowledged Johann Wolfgang von Goethe as “an extreme partisan” of the transmutation view. He had been encouraged to embrace Goethe as a fellow transmutationist by Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire and Ernst Haeckel.1 Scholars today think that Darwin’s recognition of Goethe was a mistake. They usually deny that the Naturphilosophen, especially Friedrich Joseph Schelling, held anything like a theory of species evolution in the manner of Charles Darwin—that is, a conception of a gradual change of species in the empirical world over long periods of time. Dietrich von Engelhardt, for instance, in commenting on an enticing passage from Schelling’s Erster Entwurf eines Systems der Naturphilosophie (First sketch of a system of nature philosophy,1799), declares “Schelling is no forerunner of Darwin.” Schelling, 1 Darwin mentions in his historical introduction to the Origin that Geoffroy St. Hilaire had recognized Goethe as a transmutationist.
    [Show full text]
  • From Idea to Law: Theory, Concept and Terminological Formation in Ernst Haeckel’S Works Karl Porgesa, Ian G
    ISSN 1062-3604, Russian Journal of Developmental Biology, 2019, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 290–302. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2019. Published in Russian in Ontogenez, 2019, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 368–382. HISTORY OF BIOLOGY From Idea to Law: Theory, Concept and Terminological Formation in Ernst Haeckel’s Works Karl Porgesa, Ian G. Stewartb, c, Uwe Hoßfelda, and Georgy S. Levitd, * aResearch Group for Biology Education, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, 07743 Germany bHistory of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, B3H 2A1 NS cDepartment of Classics, Dalhousie University, Marion McCain Arts and Social Sciences Building, Halifax, B3H 4R2 NS dInstitute of Biology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Straße 40, Kassel, 34132 Germany 2 Biology *e-mail: [email protected] Received May 29, 2019; revised July 2, 2019; accepted July 8, 2019 Abstract—Since Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) published their trailblazing ideas, the scientific community’s discussion of evolutionary biology has included the topic of embryological development. The concepts of ontogeny and phylogeny, still current in contemporary biology, together with the now obsolete biogenetic law and his Gastraea theory, which trace back to Haeckel, all underwent an evo- lution of their own in Haeckel’s works. The record of this evolution makes clear how the features of his think- ing that proved durable, such as ontogeny and phylogeny, were established as such through a difficult creative process of formation of concepts, theories, and terminology that themselves enjoyed varying fortunes. Begin- ning with Haeckel’s Generelle Morphologie der Organismen [General Morphology of Organisms] (1866), this paper traces aspects of the conceptual and terminological evolution that takes place both within the pages of this highly complex but seminal work and then chronologically in later works.
    [Show full text]
  • Nurture Becomes Nature:! the Evolving Place of Psychology in the Theory of Evolution! Tutor: Prof
    UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO-BICOCCA! ! Facoltà di Scienze della Formazione! Dipartimento di Scienze Umane per la Formazione “R. Massa”! Dottorato di Ricerca in Scienze della Formazione e della Comunicazione! XXVI Ciclo! Curriculum “Sviluppo Organizzativo e Comunicazione Multimediale”! ! ! ! Nurture becomes nature:! the evolving place of psychology in the theory of evolution! ! ! ! Tutor: Prof. Romano MADERA! ex Prof. Dietelmo PIEVANI! Tesi di Dottorato di! Giorgio TARDITI SPAGNOLI! Matricola 744875! ! ! Anni Accademici 2011-2013! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! To my three mentors:! ! Ernst Haeckel! who recapitulated the Body until the two columns of the Soul World.! ! Ex Deo Nascimur.! ! Carl G. Jung! who individuated the Soul until the threshold of the Spirit World.! ! In Christo Morimur.! ! Rudolf Steiner! who freed the Human Spirit in the lap of the World Spirit.! ! ! Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus.! "2 Background to the thesis here presented! At the beginning of this PhD project I focused my research on the status of the so called Extended Synthesis (ES). Taking as the main reference the book Evolution – The Extended Synthesis edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd Müller (2010). The first phase of this work consisted in the bibliographical research necessary to tackle the caveats of the ES while the second phase was aimed to acknowledge its theoretical aspects so to integrate it in the current theory of evolution.! Delving deeper into this aspect I and Sara Baccei, a PhD student of Biology at the Zoo.Plant.Lab. of the Biology Department at the University Milan-Bicocca, did a research that could bound together an empirical perspective with a theoretical one. So Baccei added her knowledge in molecular biology to my philosophical perspective on evolvability, or the “evolution of evolution”, a central theme in the ES (Pigliucci, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • "Ernst Haeckel and the Morphology of Ethics"
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Érudit Article "Ernst Haeckel and the Morphology of Ethics" Nolan Hele Journal of the Canadian Historical Association / Revue de la Société historique du Canada, vol. 15, n° 1, 2004, p. 1-27. Pour citer cet article, utiliser l'information suivante : URI: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/012066ar DOI: 10.7202/012066ar Note : les règles d'écriture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domaines du savoir. Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter à l'URI https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Université de Montréal, l'Université Laval et l'Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. Érudit offre des services d'édition numérique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998. Pour communiquer avec les responsables d'Érudit : [email protected] Document téléchargé le 9 février 2017 05:14 chajournal2004.qxd 12/01/06 14:11 Page 1 Ernst Haeckel and the Morphology of Ethics NOLAN HEIE n 10 May 1907, Johannes Reinke,1 a Professor of botany at the University Oof Kiel and member of the Prussian upper chamber, the Herrenhaus, rose and addressed his fellow delegates on the dangers posed by the German Monist League, which had been founded on 11 January
    [Show full text]
  • Ernst Haeckel's Evolutionary Monism in American Context
    “MONOGRAPHS ON THE UNIVERSE”: ERNST HAECKEL’S EVOLUTIONARY MONISM IN AMERICAN CONTEXT, 1866-83 by DANIEL HALVERSON Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May, 2017 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of Daniel Halverson candidate for the degree of Master of Arts Committee Chair Alan Rocke Committee Member Ken Ledford Committee Member Miriam Levin Date of Defense March 16, 2016 *We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein. 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction – Ernst Haeckel and his Influence…………………………..…...…..3 II. Historiography and Method……………………………………………………….8 III. Haeckel’s Evolutionary Monism in German Context………………………..…..15 IV. Haeckel’s Evolutionary Monism in American Context…………………...….….25 V. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….48 2 “Monographs on the Universe: Ernst Haeckel’s Evolutionary Monism in American Context, 1866-83” Abstract by DANIEL HALVERSON Ernst Haeckel was one of the nineteenth century’s most famous and influential scientists, and science popularizers. According to one historian of biology, he was “the chief source of the world’s knowledge of Darwinism” in his time. He was also one of the chief sources of the world’s knowledge of what has come to be called, in our time, the “conflict thesis” in the history of science and religion. At the same time, he endeavored to set up his own Darwinian-romantic theology, the forgotten religion of monism, in the place of Christianity. This paper makes use of new information technologies to gather documents which have been largely inaccessible in the past, on account of the difficulty of finding and sorting them.
    [Show full text]