![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Only a theory
Book Review: The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
I recall Andrew Marr making the case for Darwin in the Great Britons series many years ago, saying that of all the top contenders, Darwin was unquestionably a "nice man". (Given British science's other great historical figure in that list was Newton, there is no need to argue.) It is as if he had understood the consequences of his theory for humanity, and wondered whether it wouldn't really be better if he just kept his ideas to himself, but Alfred Russel Wallace had independently arrived at much the same conclusions, and Darwin was in a hurry when he wrote this. Reading with hindsight, the first few chapters really feel very wordy, like a man subconsciously trying to hide his awkwardness by speaking much too fast, and Darwin frequently offers up doubts and challenges presented by his theory, almost as an apology for it, and so many times over says he has examples but not the space or time to write them down, as if he were Fermat. But his arguments are really very simple; he offers up examples such as the selective breeding of pigeons, and argues from this that such preservation or extinction of characteristics could just as easily take place in nature, without any guiding hand beyond circumstance and the pressures imposed by the environment. The Law of Malthus was well known, but thermodynamics was still being fleshed out at the time, and to my mind a re-application of the physical laws explains the displacement over time of one species by another. Genetics was unknown, so Darwin could not offer a low-level explanation of how species varied and transformed themselves, just as Newton could not offer any explanation of gravity beyond some spectacularly successful empirical laws. Overall I did feel there was rather a lot of repetition, but there is enough in Darwin's writing to make it still instructive, though rather less revolutionary, today.
I recall Andrew Marr making the case for Darwin in the Great Britons series many years ago, saying that of all the top contenders, Darwin was unquestionably a "nice man". (Given British science's other great historical figure in that list was Newton, there is no need to argue.) It is as if he had understood the consequences of his theory for humanity, and wondered whether it wouldn't really be better if he just kept his ideas to himself, but Alfred Russel Wallace had independently arrived at much the same conclusions, and Darwin was in a hurry when he wrote this. Reading with hindsight, the first few chapters really feel very wordy, like a man subconsciously trying to hide his awkwardness by speaking much too fast, and Darwin frequently offers up doubts and challenges presented by his theory, almost as an apology for it, and so many times over says he has examples but not the space or time to write them down, as if he were Fermat. But his arguments are really very simple; he offers up examples such as the selective breeding of pigeons, and argues from this that such preservation or extinction of characteristics could just as easily take place in nature, without any guiding hand beyond circumstance and the pressures imposed by the environment. The Law of Malthus was well known, but thermodynamics was still being fleshed out at the time, and to my mind a re-application of the physical laws explains the displacement over time of one species by another. Genetics was unknown, so Darwin could not offer a low-level explanation of how species varied and transformed themselves, just as Newton could not offer any explanation of gravity beyond some spectacularly successful empirical laws. Overall I did feel there was rather a lot of repetition, but there is enough in Darwin's writing to make it still instructive, though rather less revolutionary, today.