lpetrich

I'd started a thread in BC&A about Jesus Christ being a mythic hero, and I had compared several other religious figures: Krishna, Moses, Buddha, and Mohammed. I'll now check on how Charles Darwin. He provides a good control, because there is a superabundance of first-hand and non-hagiographic documentation of him, and even large quantities of his writings (did Jesus Christ ever write any books?).

However, some mythology has grown up around him and his career; Darwin is sometimes implied to be the inventor of the idea of evolution, and some accounts seem to imply that he had gotten the idea of evolution by studying the famous Galapagos finches in his round-the-world trip aboard the Beagle.

In fact, that voyage is sometimes made to seem like parts of Rimstalker's mention of the Quest of the Hero in that BC&A thread (thanx, Rim):
<ol type="1">[*]Miraculous Birth[*]Initiation and Divine Sign[*]Preparation, Meditation, and Withdrawal[*]Trial and Quest[*]Death and the Scapegoat[*]Descent to the Underworld[*]Apotheosis, Atonement, and Ascension[/list=a]
More specifically, parts 2, 3, and 4.

Scoring him on Lord Raglan's scale reveals:

1. 0.25 - an aristocrat; I don't know if Charles Darwin was her first child.

2. 0.5 - an aristocrat and the son of biologist Erasmus Darwin.

3. 0

4. 0

5. 0

6. 0

7. 0

8. 0

9. 1 - (maybe this is significant only if a hero's infancy is described)

10. 1 - He travels aboard the Beagle and then works out his conception of evolution by natural selection.

11. 1 - He publishes the Origin of Species and some other important writings.

12. 0.25 - he marries an aristocrat.

13. 1 - He gets hailed as a great scientist.

14. 0.5 - He continues to be productive, though it is hard for him to compete with his magnum opus.

15. 1 - He continues to publish.

16. 0 - For the rest of his life, and afterwards, he is much appreciated.

17. 0 - He certainly isn't exiled.

18. 0 - His death is normal.

19. 0 - And is in his house.

20. 1 - His children do not become great biologists.

21. 0 - He was buried in Westminster Abbey.

22. 1 - His tomb is in there. (may only be significant for someone whose is not buried or otherwise preserved or half-preserved)

Score: 8.5 - comparable with Mohammed.

Kosh

Well, don't you think he was put on trial? Maybe
not in a court of law but he certainly had to
defend his theories....

bluefugue

I think it's interesting how scientists are sometimes mythologically depicted as having tidy epiphanies. The obvious example is Newton watching an apple fall. Similarly, a vague myth has grown up around Darwin suggesting that the theory of evolution sprang full-grown out of his head as he watched the Galapagos finches. In reality, of course, he spent years in England assembling his theory.

There is also the anti-myth that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed.

Huxley has gotten a supporting role in the Darwin mythos. He is Darwin's great apostle and/or evangelizer -- the Paul to Darwin's Jesus, if you will. His debate with Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilburforce has taken on a legendary status.

Bill

Yes, but only because nobody thought that the remarks of either of them were important enough to record for posterity contemporaneously with the event. Thus, we only have the recollections of several people in attendance who were in somewhat of a disagreement over exactly what the main exchange amounted to (about being descended from a monkey).

Still, nobody has any good reason to doubt that there was an actual debate, even if the actual words which were spoken were lost for all time.

And Huxley was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" (and identified as such) largely because Darwin himself refused to appear in public in defense of his theory. Huxley stepped in so that Darwin would not be overwhelmed by the likes of Gladstone and the rest of the "fundamentalists" who were attempting to denegrate Darwin.

== Bill

Bill

From Joseph McCabe's brief biography of Darwin, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/dictionary.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>, we have this quote: Now, if Sir Francis Darwin was, in fact, a "leading botanist," then I would challenge your finding that none of his sons became a "great biologist." In this instance, the distinction between biology (in general) and botany (in particular) seem meaningless.....

Also, given the gap between Origin and Descent, I wonder at your assignment of values for 14, as Descent is probably even more carefully researched and documented that was Origin, largely because it was far more controversial to be dealing with human beings as opposed to just about any other creature.

== Bill

Bill

This is wrong. As it notes <a href="http://www.lib.virginia.edu/science/parshall/darwin.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>, Darwin was not the SON of Erasmus Darwin, but the GRANDSON. His father was Robert Darwin. Erasmus was good friends with the Wedgwood family (of the famous porcelin), so his son Robert was able to marry one of the spare Wedgwood daughters. Susannah Wedgwood Darwin was thus the mother of Charles.

== Bill

Bill

Charles Darwin was not the first child nor even the oldest boy. From <a href="http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Darwin/DarwinSem-S95.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> we obtain this information: Later in the same essay we find out that Darwin married his own cousin and just how he accumulated the wealth he had upon his own death: Frankly, however, I wonder if the Wedgwood family in the days of Erasums Darwin (the grandfather of Charles) would be classified as "aristocratic." The family wasn't really wealthy until later. Darwin's other grandfater is referred to as the "potter Josiah Wedgwood." A wealthy potter, but nonetheless, a potter.

== Bill

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

lpetrich

Lord Raglan's criterion 2 refers to what his father was like; his father was the son of Erasmus Darwin. I think I ought to have made it clearer who I was referring to.

Also, Bill has some interesting points -- some of Charles Darwin's offspring had been distinguished scientists, even if not great evolutionary biologists; I ought to have qualified "biologist" as "evolutionary biologist".

Here are some revisions

1. 0.25 - His mother was in a rich family; Charles Darwin was not her oldest child.

2. 0.75 - his father was an aristocrat and a son of biologist Erasmus Darwin, who had speculated a bit about evolution.

3. 1 - His parents were only a few generations apart, if I read some of the comments correctly.

14. 0 - He did not rest on his Origin laurels; he produced many other distinguished works, such as The Descent of Man.

20. 0.25 - Some of his children become distinguished scientists, one of them becoming an eminent botanist, though they do not become very notable in evolutionary biology (maybe his botanist son, but I'm not sure).

These changes do not change his Lord Raglan score, however.

Finally, as to being put on "trial", the reception of his theories may be interpreted as that, but he was never exiled from the scientific community as some kind of crackpot.

Bill

Quite the opposite, as his burial at Westminster Abbey proves. That is a singular honor, given to only a few of the greatest.

== Bill

Pantera

And now he even appears on the British ten pound note.



While looking for a picture, I was heartened to read the Bank Of England's <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/design.htm" target="_blank">criteria for choosing people to put on money</a> - a nice reminder of how different Britain is to the US.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>