The Public Understanding Of Science in the 1920s: Relativity and Evolution Carisa Sousa ______________________________________________________ An honors thesis submitted to the History Department of Rutgers University Written under the supervision of James Reed and Jackson Lears _____________________________________________________ School of Arts and Sciences New Brunswick, NJ April 2012 1 The Media, the Men of Science, and the Men of Religion 2 Table of Contents Pages Introduction 4-10 Part 1. The Problem of Popularization 11-34 Part 2. Cultural Considerations 35-58 Conclusion 59-63 Bibliography 64-66 3 Introduction The “Principles” of relativity, as they were understood among physicists between 1905- 1919, reached consensus and theory status by the May 29, 1919 solar eclipse. Following Einstein’s special theory of relativity paper, published in 1905, physicists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) began investigating the phenomenon. After their work in 1908 confirmed the theories, they presented their findings to a joint meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of science (AAAS) and the American Physical Society. The physics community confirmed the theory’s validity: Daniel Comstock [one of the physicists of MIT] proclaimed, “the principle [of relativity] is already in harmony with so many phenomena that the burden of proof lies with those who object to it.” Still debate pressed on. Many scientists firmly denounced the theory’s unintelligibility as it pertained to the senses and common experience regarding space and time. They scientists objected to modern physics’ new “economy of thought:” lamenting the modern turn away from empiricism to theoretical mathematics. “It is better to keep science in homely contact with our sensations at the expense of unity than to build a universe on a simplified scheme of abstract equations,” professor of physics Lewis Trenchard More summarized. Three successful tests of the theory later silenced protest within the scientific community.1 The New York Times reported on the Royal Academy of London's confirmations of the theory on November 9th (the meeting was on November 7th) 1919, signaling the entrance of the 1Tobey, The American Ideology of National Science, 100-104. The three tests were observation of the “red shift” of light, the derivation of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury and starlight deflection. The latter test was affirmed with the May solar eclipse. 4 theories into the public sphere.2 There was no immediate hostility. Journalists reported favorably on the theory, though they questioned (as skeptical scientists did) its incomprehensibility and apparent rejection of common sense. Serious debate and challenges began in early 1921. Physicist Charles Lane Poor began by questioning the scientific validity of the theory which the Times published in full on February 20th 1921.3 Then on April 10 1921, the NYT published an article on Professor Arvid Deuterdahl's accusations of plagiarism, attacking Einstein himself.4 Attention was paid, judging by the letters to the editors of the NYT, because soon after, the NYT adopted a skepticism toward the theory, suggesting its possible immorality, its scientific inaccuracy, and problematic assumptions. The newspaper continued publishing the objections of scientists to the theory, or to Einstein. Despite the attempts of a few scientists to defend the theories, media frenzy over relativity continued unabated into the mid-1920s.5 Scientific consensus followed by public rejection existed within the field of biology as well. Even though the controversy surrounding Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection raged for thirty years (1860-1890), Christian biologists worked to compromise evolution with faith. They usually prefaced discussion with an honorable mention of theism, often proclaiming their own religiosity. The biologist Asa Gray explained that evolution in fact proved God; it showed how all species are "part of one system, realizations in 2Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES, November 9, 1919, “ECLIPSE SHOWED GRAVITY VARIATION: Diversion of Light Rays Accepted as Affecting Newton's Principles. HAILED AS EPOCHMAKING British Scientist Calls the Discovery One of the Greatest of Human Achievements,” p 6 3NYT, February 20, 1921, “EINSTEIN LACKS PROOF: Motions of Planets Do Not Confirm Claims of Advocates of New Theory Confirmation Not Complete. Sun Not a Sphere. EINSTEIN LACKS PROOF,” p XX2. 4NYT, April 10, 1921, “CHALLENGES PROF. EINSTEIN: St. Paul Professor Asserts Relativity Theory Was Advanced in 1866,” p 21. 5NYT, April 13, 1921, “EINSTEIN WRONG, BRUSH INDICATES: New Experiments in Gravity Startle the American Philosophical Society. VARIATION OF FORCE FOUND Inventor Declares Theory Behind Results Upsets Views of the Earth's Density. New Method Used in Experiments. Discoveries in Atomic Forces. EINSTEIN WRONG, BRUSH INDICATES,” p 1; December 31, 1922, “Einstein's Theory Re-Examined,” p 44. 5 nature, as we may affirm of the conception of One Mind."6 But early 20th century developments in genetics not only proved the theory but provided an even more disturbing mechanism: random mutations. The geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan found that in his experiments with fruit flies during the 1910s, "evolution could take place by the incorporation into the race of mutations that are beneficial to the life and reproduction of the organism." The biological scientific community quickly accepted random mutation as a mechanism for evolution. Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History, concluded in 1922 "No living naturalist...differs as to the immutable truth of evolution."7 As soon as Darwin's work was published, an enormous wave of public debate and rejection resulted as a direct consequence of the theory's exclusion of "primary causes," ie, God. Debate of evolution resurfaced through various decades, and returned again during the 1920s. The discovery of the Piltdown Man, published by the NYT on December 19, 1912, as well as the introduction of random, directionless mechanisms of evolution, provoked debate. It however, proceeded quiet and overshadowed by European turmoil. Only after the War, the League of Nations fight, and the Russian Civil War, did the anti - evolution campaign begin, led by William Jennings Bryan. Bryan's campaign began in 1922 and culminated with the Scopes Trial in 1925. His critique of evolution blended progressive politics, World War I atrocities made possible by modern science, and traditional morality. The NYT published articles, by fundamentalist dissenters and atheist supporters, pitting this battle as one between God and Darwin.8 6Larson, Summer for the Gods, 22, 23. 7Larson, 25, 26. 8NYT, December 19, 1912 “PALAEOLITHIC SKULL IS A MISSING LINK: Human Remains Found in England Similar in Some Details to Bones of Chimpanzee. FAR OLDER THAN CAVEMEN Bones Probably Those of a 6 Tempting as it is to frame the rejection of science during the 1920s to religious sources, upon deeper examination, the reasons were more complicated. While religion may appear to dominate the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution by natural selection, its role was superficial. Only in the 1920s did both the fundamentalist movement and the denial of evolution become popular. At that same moment, fundamentalist leaders and the lay public turned to physics and also denied its revelations. How did this hostility to science become so widespread if only a small proportion of Americans identified with evangelical Christianity? There must have been something about the 1920s that caused a more general denial of science, while religion was used to explain away their rejection, to hide bigger problems. Within the history of American science, the struggle between layman and scientist connects the physicists’ apparent rejection of lay rationality and biologists’ apparent rejection of lay religion. The denial of science bubbled to the surface during a decade of intense cultural tension and anxiety. It was a confusing new era following the First World War; an age of flappers, female suffrage, Prohibition, labor strikes, socialist experiments, Palmer raids, heavy immigration, modern science. It was also the first decade where urban Americans outnumbered rural Americans, sustaining the belief of an encroaching morality and culture. Rejection of science was one of many outward expressions of a subconscious longing for certainty in the face of an invading modernity. How had the lay public even come to know of the debate? During the 1920s they became buyers in a more aggressive consumer society. Along with radio programs, films, and cars, the news was also a product to be consumed. To receive their financial support, a newspaper had to Direct Ancestor of Modern Man, While Cavemen Died Out,” p 6. It was not known then that it was in fact a hoax, and was treated as more proof of the theory. 7 appeal to them. So newspapers seized the opportunity given by cultural anxieties, even fueled the impression of encroaching modernity because increased readership meant increased profits. They also seized the opportunity given by loud religious fundamentalists – herein lies the explanation of how a small percentage of religious minorities’ scientific beliefs influenced the larger population’s scientific beliefs. The New York Times’ coverage of evolution and the Scopes Trial cast the debate as a religious one, leading the lay culture to understand modern science as clashing with religion. Feeling