After reading through Erasmus Darwin’s “Zoonomia” and “The Temple of Nature”, I was struck by how little credit seems to be given to this man in modern discourse of scientific history. According to the short biography, he was chastised by his peers for flashy prose and manipulation of rhetorical technique in scientific writing. Perhaps more surprising, Charles Darwin distanced himself from his grandfather’s scientific work, only praising his “vividness of imagination.” I find this unfortunate because some of Erasmus’ central beliefs outlined in “The Temple of Nature,” such as the ”Great First Cause” and the origin of “organic life beneath the shoreless waves”(295) closely link to our current understanding of the origin of life on earth through the widely accepted “Big Bang theory”. Furthermore, while the theory of spontaneous vitality of microorganisms outlined in the additional notes or the concept of original filament from “Zoonomia” may be incorrect given our increased biological understanding, the general evolutionary theory, mainly the concept of perfection through generational advance, is correct. For a pre-cell theory scientist, Erasmus’ understanding of the reproduction of bacteria and plants and their evolution over generational advances is quite excellent.
“The Temple of Nature” serves as a good indicator of the development of thought in the 19th century as it incorporates classical themes and rhetoric inspired by the great ancient civilizations with a progressive theory of the origin and development of life through spontaneous vitality of the smallest of life forms and progression over generational advance into more complex species. Honestly, I think Erasmus deserves a bit more credit for his work.
I agree Chris, it is clear that Erasmus Darwin made tremendous strides in evolutionary theory. I think we can both agree that Charles should have given more credit to his grandfather for his eventual findings in On the Origin of Species. More than anything though, I think that Erasmus tried to test the line of religious thinking. He does not discredit the existence of God as the creator of the Great First Cause but he does find trouble with wholly incorporating the Bible into science. Eventually, most of his theories are disproved, but he provided a framework of imaginative thinking that would characterize the future of evolutionary philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you both have said. Furthermore, it's highly impressive that Erasmus took the risk to display his scientific and evolutionary knowledge through complex poetry. While he may have been seen as incorrect and possibly scathing during his time, it is easy to see him as an example of a renaissance man (especially considering his inventions, as well) today. This makes me wonder what kinds of theorists and theories society is frowning upon today that may be proved correct later in history. I also think Erasmus deserves more credit based on the lengths he went to to reason out his argument. For a period that was skeptical of funding observation and experiments, Erasmus saw the value in arguments based on what he saw and a theory of cause and effect. But, like Erasmus notes in his "Additional Notes" to The Temple of Nature, we never know how much of what we understand true today will be disproved and built upon tomorrow. My guess is that the what's at the core of his arguments will stay true forever.
ReplyDelete