The Darwin Debate in Dublin, 1859-1908. by Aodhan Kelly B.A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NUI MAYNOOTH 011*6*11 • * * iif* in n H i Hiatd The Darwin debate in Dublin, 1859-1908. by Aodhan Kelly B.A. THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M.LITT DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND MAYNOOTH Supervised by: Prof. R.V. Comerford. Submitted: February 2009. Table of contents: Acknowledgements p.iii 1. Introduction: Climate for controversy p.l 2. Early reactions p. 15 3. The Tyndall catalyst p.57 4. Darwinism develops p.95 5. Conclusion: Darwin 200 p. 123 Bibliography p. 127 Appendices p. 135 ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my mother and father, Anna and John for their great support throughout all my studies. I also wish to thank my supervisor Prof. Vincent Comerford for his guidance, support and patience throughout the research and writing process. I would like to acknowledge the help and advice of Greta Jones, John Privilege and Juliana Adelman. Furthermore, I would like to thank Tomás for his proofreading efforts and my good friends John and Arthur for offering guidance whenever needed. 1. Introduction: Climate for controversy This thesis intends to analyse both the course and the effects of the Darwin debate in Dublin during the first fifty years after the landmark publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of species in 1859. Darwin’s hypothesis that species evolved gradually over time by a process of natural selection was so vastly contrary to the popular belief in a static order of life that controversy was perhaps inevitable. The period in question was an extremely interesting phase in Irish history which saw much intellectual and ideological change. Dublin, at the centre of this, saw many important developments such as the rise of the Republican, Home Rule and Unionist movements. It also saw the Gaelic revival take place and experienced great vibrancy in Irish academic life, particularly in literature with fine work produced by Dublin bom men such as Yeats, Synge and Wilde. Important debates were taking place over the land question, the university question, the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland and the rising influence of Rome. It comes as no surprise that the study of Darwinism in this environment of change would deliver a number of interesting outcomes. Any study of Darwinism can become overwhelmed in an effort to define the concept itself. This investigation of the Darwin debate in Dublin will interpret Darwinism in a very broad sense, encapsulating the various intellectual concerns that can be considered to be related developments. The Origin laid out Darwin’s hypothesis on the evolution of species through a process of natural selection. Evolutionary theory or development theory 1 was not original to Darwin’s publication; he was preceded by other theorists, most famously Jean-Baptiste Lamarck a French biologist who had written on the subject half a century earlier. Robert Chambers in his Vestiges o f the natural history o f creation written in 1844 had put forward a developmental theory of creation which was written in anonymity as he had anticipated the controversy his work might create.1 Herbert Spencer, an early supporter of Darwin, advocated what later became known as Social Darwinism, the application of the survival of the fittest concept to society. Spencer had written on the subject as early as 1851 with Social statics and another work Progress: its law and cause published two years before the Origin.2 What was different about Darwin’s work was his vehicle for evolution, the process of natural selection which later became popularly known as the survival of the fittest. Another Englishman, Alfred Russell Wallace, had simultaneously formulated a theory of natural selection but by publishing his work first Darwin’s name was branded on the concept. Darwin’s name became synonymous with the term ‘evolution’ over the coming decades. If Darwin was not the originator of the concept of evolution then why did his work arouse such a controversy? On one level Darwin’s hypothesis removed the necessity for a divine creator which was extremely offensive in any Christian society. Darwin’s theory also offended many men of science and in particular those naturalists whose work had been based around the idea of fixity of species. Essentially, to accept the concept of evolution 1 Robert Chambers, Vestiges of the natural history o f creation (London, 1884). 2 Herbert Spencer, Social statics (Michigan, 1865) and ‘Progress: Its law and causes’ in The Westminster Review, lxvii (Apr, 1857) pp 445-65. 2 involved what is now known as a paradigm shift or a complete change in a universally accepted worldview. Darwin’s idea of natural selection was the difference between his theory of evolution and those of men like Lamarck, it was the idea of the survival of the fittest in a struggle for life. The very idea of this system of existence was not in any way compatible with the Christian belief in a benevolent deity. The strength and depth of Darwin’s research was another major factor. Darwin was already well established in scientific circles, particularly as a result of his published journal The voyage o f the Beagle in 1839 which documented his natural discoveries on that expedition in great detail and won him international acclaim. Darwin used this vast array of knowledge of the natural world to add a mass of supporting evidence to his claims. Charles Robert Darwin, 1809-1882.3 3 Image available at hUn://li.sher.berkelev.edu/ctea/images/DhotQs/darwin.ins (12 Jan . 2009). Despite Darwin’s admirable ability, the formulation of the natural selection theory should not be viewed solely as a work of a genius independent from history but also as a product of his social context. How else could the simultaneous formulation of the theory by Darwin and Wallace be explained, or its clear associations towards the Malthusian theory of population?4 It must also be remembered that while the idea of evolution made considerable gains in the late nineteenth century, natural selection was not entirely dominant as the accepted process. It wasn’t until its synthesis with Mendel’s work on heredity in the twentieth century that natural selection gained predominance. The reliance of Darwin’s work on the then yet unproven theory of heredity left his own work open to much greater criticism. An alternative perspective on the pre-Mendel phase of evolutionism is laid out by Peter Bowler in his Non-Darwinian revolution which argues that parts of Darwin’s work had comparatively little impact on nineteenth century thought.5 Perhaps the most influential factor in arousing controversy was Darwin’s early group of supporters. The men of science who began to rally behind this new theory were by and large atheistic or agnostic materialists. Darwin may not have formulated natural selection to promote materialistic atheism, but given the implications of such a theory it is not 4 For a full discussion on this subject see Gregory Radick ‘Is the theory of natural selection independent of its history?’ in Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick (eds) The Cambridge companion to Darwin (Cambridge, 2003) pp 143-167. 5 Peter J. Bowler, The Non-Darwinian revolution (London, 1988) 4 surprising that its earliest proponents were of this persuasion.6 These men were generally more steadfast in their defence of Darwinian theory than the man who actually formulated the ideas. They were determined to use the concept as a flagship for an armada of secularisation and intellectual change aimed at overthrowing the established order. This belligerence towards the current social order, in particular the role of the churches, necessarily created a conflict, and a vociferous debate between science and religion ensued. Peter Bowler, in his very comprehensive work Evolution, points out that understanding how Darwinism achieved its first success cannot be attained by looking at the scientific debate alone, but by understanding the changes taking place in the scientific community and in the social environment.7 He identifies that to understand its early successes in England we need to look at how Darwin’s supporters gained control of the scientific establishment and promoted their position.8 Darwin’s support from this group of influential scientific heavyweights was solidified with the formation of the X Club in London in 1864, an informal dining group of nine men which promoted Darwin’s theory and generally sought to liberate and secularise academia. These men included Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer and Irish bom physicist John Tyndall. The first clash of this new scientific movement is classically considered to be the debate between Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce at the British Association meeting at Oxford in 1860. Here Bishop 6 David L. Hull, ‘Darwinism and historiography’ in Thomas F. Glick (ed.), The comparative reception of Darwinism (Austin, 1972) p. 391. 7 Peter J. Bowler, Evolution'. The history of an idea (London, 1984) p. 22. 8 Ibid. 5 Wilberforce mockingly inquired as to whether Huxley was related to an ape on his mother’s or father’s side. Huxley famously responded that he would rather have an ape as a grandfather than a man ‘possessed of great means of influence & yet who employs ... that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion.’9 Thus the scene was set for Huxley, who became known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, and the other X Clubbers to campaign for a reassignment of intellectual authority. The role of these men in the controversy essentially made Darwin’s hypothesis much more offensive than it would have been otherwise. The three primary environments for the examination of the Darwin debate in Dublin are academic, religious and cultural, with significant intersection between these three occurring in a number of instances.