Erasmus Darwin

[Q-Source]

Some years ago, I visited Lichfield, which is a beautiful small town in England. Just in front of a very old cathedral I saw a house which turned to be where Erasmus Darwin once lived. Well, he was Charles Darwin's grandfather, a physician, poet, philosopher, botanist, and naturalist.
I entered the house -which is now a museum- and the only thing that called my attention and impressed me a lot was a poem he wrote:

"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;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing."

(Erasmus Darwin. The Temple of Nature. 1802)

I just wondered how original were Charles´ ideas about the origin of species. It is obvious from the poem that his grandfather had already thought about it and maybe influenced his grandchild very strongly. However little credit or none has given to Erausmus Darwin.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It gets better ... one of his poems prefigures the Big Bang. I'm away from my books at the moment, so I can't give the exact quotation.

As to distribution of credit, the idea that species had evolved was in the air at that time and earlier --- remember Lamarck? And before Darwin (Charles), people had thought of the theory of evolution, qua idea, and mentioned it in this or that obscure book. Darwin (C.) credited them scrupulously in later editions of the Origin of Species, though he had the idea independently. Charles Darwin's contribution was to write the book which was, in his words, "one long argument" for the theory of evolution. Even then, it wouldn't become wholly creditable to scientists until the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics in the 1920's.

Erasmus Darwin was certainly one heck of a guy. There's a book about him and his set called The Lunar Men by Jenny Uglow which well repays reading: I think it's one of the best history-of-science books I've read.

UK link

US link

 

[T'ai Chi]

1. "Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
2. Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
3. First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
4. Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
5. These, as successive generations bloom,
6. New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
7. Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
8. And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing."

I wish he'd be more explicit in step 2).

 

[thomps1d]

I wish he'd be more explicit in step 2).

Welll, we could go with the ID version of the poem:

Goddidit.

Or alternatively, the YEC version of the poem:

Goddidit six thousand years ago,
Don't believe me? Burn in hell, heretic.

 

[Q-Source]

Erasmus Darwin was not recognised as scientific due to his tendency to write his ideas in poems. Of course, noone can dispute that it was necessary to make proper research and collect evidence to support this hypothesis. Therefore Charles Darwin got all the credits.

Now that you mentioned Lamarck it seems that they wrote their ideas on evolution very closely in time. Lamarck in 1801 and E.Darwin in 1802!!! According to this source, they were not aware of each other's work.

Ironically, Charles did acknowledge Lamarck's ideas on evolution:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

Maybe Lamarck was more explicit or maybe E. Darwin did know about Lamarck's work.

 

[T'ai Chi]

...he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. QUOTE]

Couldn't one just ask 'Don't laws require lawmakers?', 'fine tuning argument to get those laws', etc. etc.

 

[joobz]

...he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

Couldn't one just ask 'Don't laws require lawmakers?', 'fine tuning argument to get those laws', etc. etc.

Sure, one could ask that. But then "one" wouldn't gaini anything.
Asking what the laws are, testing those laws, then applying those laws to improve our surroundings are tangible things we can do.

This is done whether or not there was a lawmaker. Since we don't/can't break these laws, his existance is unimportant.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Now that you mentioned Lamarck it seems that they wrote their ideas on evolution very closely in time. Lamarck in 1801 and E.Darwin in 1802!!! According to this source, they were not aware of each other's work.

Hmm. I wasn't suggesting that Erasmus was getting his ideas from Lamarck, just that evolution was in the air. People knew that there had been a succession of forms, and that the earlier tended to be "lower" from the point of view of a Victorian gentleman.

Lamarck was the first theorist of evolution, so far as I know. He has the honorable distinction (no sarcasm intended) of thinking of a theory which was almost exactly inside out. It was the phlogiston theory of evolution.

Ironically, Charles did acknowledge Lamarck's ideas on evolution ...

The implied question being, why didn't he acknowledge his grandfather?

Interesting question. There are a number of hypotheses, none of which can ever be confirmed. (Which proves that goddidit.)

(1) He wanted to do his grandfather out of the credit.

This seems unlikely. Charles shared credit with Wallace, he credited Lamarck, he kept on adding bits to the preface pointing out that this or that totally obscure person had thought of the theory qua theory.

(2) Erasmus didn't have anything worth mentioning.

Erasmus wrote a poem about ideas current amongst biologists in his time. These ideas were still known generally among educated men when Charles wrote. Did you read my poem about titanium? Are chemists of the future bound to credit me?

(3) Charles never read Erasmus.

IIRC, Charles disliked Shakespeare, so he must have had a complete tin ear for poetry. I don't think he was a reading man apart from reading about biology. Someone tell me if I'm being mean to Charles, but I think that's right.

(4) Charles wished to distance his theory from Erasmus for the good of the theory.

Erasmus was an outspoken atheist; and Erasmus presented his ideas in a book of poems; and Erasmus was engaged in pure speculation and romance; Erasmus might be called a pseudoscientist as easily as we might declare him a protoscientist; and Erasmus would make a nice straw man. Maybe he was a liability.

---

That's history for you. I shall now go and think about something with a definite answer, possibly "am I sleepy?"

 

[Dr Adequate]

I wish he'd be more explicit in step 2).

Nominated. Classy.

 

[articulett]

Darwin did the legwork and had the good fortune of traveling to many islands to test out and flesh out his theorem and had the audacity to write it all down complete with reference to animal sex lives. And his claims have been marvelously illustrated in exquisite detail through time. But the facts, unfortunately draw into question claims humans were told by other humans never to question. Reality can't help it if it doesn't conform to supposed divine texts (of which there have been many--none particularly prescient on scientific discoveries--clearly a big oversight if the one writing it down was actually talking to an omniscient entity).

Thai, your belief to make one of those texts (or some other guru's words be true), makes it impossible for you to learn about these discoveries which we as humans are very privileged to be able to know. Scientists of major discoveries have always had to tap dance around these issues because people won't let them share the information if it causes them to question some holy guy's authority.

Yes...evolution does make all other creation stories suspect. It makes you wonder why a divine entity didn't write it down. It makes the whole Adam and Eve story and "original sin" a parable at best. It makes talking snakes and fully formed humans in human form poofed into existence frighteningly unlikely.
Not to mention an invisible god who talks to them in their head and tells them not to bite from a tree of knowledge and then punishes all humanity when they disobey. It makes a god who kills his kid (who is really him) to atone for this all the more unlikely--not to mention impregnating virgins without their consent.

Yes, yes, it calls all religious fairytales and creation stories into question just as facts are won't to do. On the other hand, it shows that humans can find out amazing things when they don't listen to the people who tell you that you can never know something--that it's beyond you--

And it makes hells of any sort exceedingly unlikely so that power hungry men are less likely to scare people into believing that said man has the key to avoid this tragedy and guarantee happily ever after (or virgins in the next life etc.).

And our studies in neurology are doing the same, Thai. Invisible, immeasurable entities that are indistinguishable from the imaginary--are most likely imaginary. That includes souls, gods, demons, incubi, sprites, and so forth. Yes, people like to create such things--it helps them explain that which they don't understand and makes them feel they have control over that which they have no control. Plus it's pretty good at influencing masses of people to let someone else do the thinking for them. Did you know Kim Jong Il was born of a god just like Jesus--all their holy books say so. Do you wish Erasmus would have mentioned it?

I think what you really wish is that your beliefs had evidence in support of them. Because you know quite well, that scientist would readily refine and utilize such notions in order to achieve actual human goals. But there is no evidence. And all the promises are about an afterlife that no one can verify.

 

[kedo1981]

CD didn’t come up with the idea of evolution, HE PROVE IT

 

[Mojo]

I just wondered how original were Charles´ ideas about the origin of species. It is obvious from the poem that his grandfather had already thought about it and maybe influenced his grandchild very strongly. However little credit or none has given to Erausmus Darwin.

Charles Darwin's theory was the theory of evolution by natural selection. It was not the idea of evolution itself, but a description of a mechanism for evolution. I don't see any mention of that in the poem.

 

[trvlr2]

...he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. QUOTE]

Couldn't one just ask 'Don't laws require lawmakers?', 'fine tuning argument to get those laws', etc. etc.

One could ask. Better yet , go have a banana. Or, share it with Kirk!

 

[John Hewitt]

Hmm. I wasn't suggesting that Erasmus was getting his ideas from Lamarck, just that evolution was in the air. People knew that there had been a succession of forms, and that the earlier tended to be "lower" from the point of view of a Victorian gentleman.
<snip>
The implied question being, why didn't he acknowledge his grandfather?

Interesting question. There are a number of hypotheses, none of which can ever be confirmed. (Which proves that goddidit.)

(1) He wanted to do his grandfather out of the credit.

This seems unlikely. Charles shared credit with Wallace, he credited Lamarck, he kept on adding bits to the preface pointing out that this or that totally obscure person had thought of the theory qua theory.

(2) Erasmus didn't have anything worth mentioning.

Erasmus wrote a poem about ideas current amongst biologists in his time. These ideas were still known generally among educated men when Charles wrote. Did you read my poem about titanium? Are chemists of the future bound to credit me?

(3) Charles never read Erasmus.

IIRC, Charles disliked Shakespeare, so he must have had a complete tin ear for poetry. I don't think he was a reading man apart from reading about biology. Someone tell me if I'm being mean to Charles, but I think that's right.

(4) Charles wished to distance his theory from Erasmus for the good of the theory.

Erasmus was an outspoken atheist; and Erasmus presented his ideas in a book of poems; and Erasmus was engaged in pure speculation and romance; Erasmus might be called a pseudoscientist as easily as we might declare him a protoscientist; and Erasmus would make a nice straw man. Maybe he was a liability.

Was there not an argument between Charles Darwin and Samuel Butler about the failure to give credit to Erasmus. I have to say I do find that failure puzzling. In a sense, Erasmus seems to have anticipated both natural and sexual selection.
Charles must have known about Erasmus' work, both because of the family connection and because the Lunar Society, whose members were not pseudoscientists, was well known. Darwin was himself an atheist and associated willingly enough with the atheistic Huxley.
He certainly seems to have found Butler's intervention distasteful. I find it most likely that Charles did not wish to be seen as someone who merely developed his grandfather's ideas.

Incidentally, if you wrote a poem, accurately predicting the properties of titanium, before that element were isolated, I feel you would deserve a mention in the scientific history books. Did you, in fact, achieve that feat?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Darwin was himself an atheist and associated willingly enough with the atheistic Huxley.

Darwin was eloquently agnostic; and Huxley actually invented the word "agnostic" to describe his own point of view.

 

[articulett]

...he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. QUOTE]

Couldn't one just ask 'Don't laws require lawmakers?', 'fine tuning argument to get those laws', etc. etc.

While legislative laws may require lawmakers and the ignorant like to use such definitions to play semantic blames that boil down to-- goddidit--Scientific Laws are a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions.

Human laws may or may not be true. Natural laws like the law of gravity are unavoidably true. Inserting god into the equation is useless, unnecessary, and what many people resort to when they've reached the limit of their understanding. It's a path to ignorance--just say "god did it, so humans can never hope to understand it"--it's been used by the ignorant for years and is ultimately meaningless is there is no evidence that such and entity exists.

In fact, there is tons of evidence that people invoke imaginary invisible entities to explain all sorts of things...but of course these entities disappear as we understand the actual reasons for things. Remember Zeus. Your query is like asking--since we don't exactly what makes it rain, doesn't that imply rain gods are real? Keep doing your rain dances and playing your semantic games, Thai. No one is depriving you of your need to believe. But your additions are useless for understanding anything other than how brains seeped in woo become immune to logic.

You have a belief for which there is no evidence--your belief is indistinguishable from schizophrenic delusions or that which is imaginary--because of this, they are really only useful for making you feel special or from allaying your fears of eternal damnation--and of course, for amusing skeptics. They are not based on fact or anything measurable at all.
I'm sure if any evidence ever comes by, scientists will be clambering to find out more. Until that time, I am everlastingly amused at the god-blindness of some people on this forum who can only read and comprehend statements in light of whether it supports the notion they want to have.

Natural laws do not imply gods. Get it? I thought not.

 

[T'ai Chi]

While legislative laws may require lawmakers and the ignorant like to use such definitions to play semantic blames that boil down to-- goddidit--Scientific

You're calling logic a "semantic game"? I'm fine with that.

Human laws may or may not be true. Natural laws like the law of gravity are unavoidably true.

These "natural laws" are our human understandings and approximations of the real natural laws that exist.

Inserting god into the equation is useless, unnecessary, and what many people resort to when they've reached the limit of their understanding. It's a path to ignorance--just say "god did it, so humans can never hope to understand it"--

But no one on this thread has said that. Moreover, take Newton. You're essentially saying since he believed in God that he just stopped trying to understand the world.

Natural laws do not imply gods. Get it? I thought not.

Where did the laws come from? I know I know, it is naturalistic turtles all the way down.

 

[joobz]

You're calling logic a "semantic game"? I'm fine with that.

These "natural laws" are our human understandings and approximations of the real natural laws that exist.

On one end, you are claiming indirect evidence for god by claiming there are natural laws that would require a law maker. You state that this is a logical conclusion.

Then you state that these "Natural laws" are only our simple human understandings and approximations of reality. This is true.

But then how can you claim that your initial argument isn't just a semantic game when you acknowledge that our use of the term "Natural laws" is purely a human construction to aide our understanding?

But no one on this thread has said that. Moreover, take Newton. You're essentially saying since he believed in God that he just stopped trying to understand the world.

Where did the laws come from? I know I know, it is naturalistic turtles all the way down.

You invoke scientists with faith as a defense. But these scientists never used god to avoid a hard question. their discoveries had no direct relationship with their faith.

Your actions are to define god and or find god through science. And all anyone has said is that god isn't needed for any of these theories. I'm not against a faith in god. I just think trying to work him into any theory of the world is forced and unnatural.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Where did the laws come from? I know I know, it is naturalistic turtles all the way down.

You are reifying the laws of nature.

Don't.

 

[Roboramma]

Where did the laws come from?

I don't know. Maybe no where. Maybe they could not be anything else. Maybe the whole multiple universes spawned by black holes idea is true.

No one knows right now. That doesn't mean that you do.