Congratulations to Jalak Shah and Oscar Merino for submitting the
two winning Darwin essays for the Fall 2009 competition.
Jalak B. Shah
Evidence plays an integral role in scientific discovery.
In David Quammen's book, The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, the importance
of evidence is observed through the works of both Charles Darwin
and his younger counterpart, Alfred Wallace. Through the different
evidentiary support acquired by both authors, a reader comes to learn
the importance of evidence in the discovery and justification of
evolution by natural selection. With an ample amount of evidence,
a scientist understands his subject with greater clarity and is able
to convey his ideas to others with precision.
Through his nearly obsessive experimentations, Darwin
was able to both discover and justify evolution by natural selection.
The phenomenon of evolution did not simply fall into the lap of the
great scientist. On the contrary, Darwin systematically gathered
evidence that slowly led to his discovery. For example, Darwin's
initial evidence came from his voyage on the Beagle. He noted that
different species of mockingbirds inhabited different islands. This
evidence planted the seed for the idea of biogeography, a crucial
part to Darwin's discovery (Quammen, 25). The evidence that Darwin
gathered led to a systematic thought process of understanding and
recognizing the ideas that he proposed. Not only is evidence important
to justify a scientific theory, but it also leads to further inquiry
in the scientific field. Data also aided Darwin to reject natural
theology and accept his own theory. After all, one must accept his
or her own ideas before presenting it to others. Through his struggles,
Darwin exclaimed to himself, "Study geographical distribution.
Study the fossil record, and the geographical overlap between extinct
creatures and similar living species, Consider all this evidence,…and
'the fabric falls' "(37). The "fabric" that Darwin
rejected was natural theology, the popular belief at the time. Once
Darwin was able to reject this idea, he started believing that evolution
and natural selection could exist.
The scientist not only used evidence that he acquired
himself, but he also used that of others to further develop and perfect
his theory. For example, Darwin used Malthus' book, The Essay
on Population, to develop his idea of natural selection, and
in turn, the idea of evolution by natural selection. Darwin correlated
the "checks" that Malthus discussed about society with
the ideas of death, competition, and excess reproduction (45). With
the aid of Malthus' book and his own evidence of predators and prey,
Darwin made his initial outline of the three conditions for natural
selection (50). Darwin was the type of scientist who needed evidence
for every discovery that he made in order to understand it. Darwin
even had empirical evidence that proved that new species had been
produced from another (59). Not only did he need evidence to understand
his theory, but he also needed it to know why his theory occurred.
When Darwin was reading about quinarianism, he knew that species
could resemble one another. This information was not enough because
he also needed to know WHY they did. His undying need for evidence
gave him a sense of satisfaction and self-worth. In Darwin's case,
with greater evidence came greater understanding of the phenomenon
that he had discovered.
Alfred Wallace was also eager to gather evidence like
Charles Darwin did. However, unlike Darwin, Wallace did not gather
enough evidence to understand his theory to a point of perfection.
His main source of evidence was the anonymous book titled, Vestiges
of the Natural History of Creation (122). This book provided
Wallace with the motivation that he needed in order to make further
inquiries during his journey to the Amazon. As seen in Darwin's case,
evidentiary support was crucial in justifying evolution by means
of natural selection. Wallace also obtained evidence to support his
theory of evolution. He differed from Darwin in the fact that he
chose to collect "redundant samples" (127). By sampling
many individuals of the same species, Wallace learned about variability.
These "redundant samples" were also crucial for Wallace
to understand biogeography, progressive development, and varieties
within species (130). Wallace's conclusion on biogeography would
not have been possible without the evidence that he had gathered
of twenty one species of monkeys. He understood biogeography by learning
that different species of monkey resided on different sides of the
river (132). Although Wallace did obtain an ample amount of evidence,
his data only aided him in understanding biogeography and variation.
He did not painstakingly acquire enough evidence as Darwin did to
justify every aspect of his theory. In fact, in his report, On
the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species,
Wallace himself did not understand his ideas, but was simply eager
to publish them. He did not even have an actual theory like Darwin
did. Wallace's situation makes a reader understand the important
role that evidence plays in scientific thought and process.
By examining the situations of both Darwin and Wallace,
readers gain insight on the importance of evidence. Evidence is needed
to support each aspect of a theory in order to make it understandable
to both the scientist and other. While Darwin made great efforts
to support his idea of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Wallace
did not. The difference in their evidentiary support reflected in
their theories. While Darwin was extremely thorough and precise,
Wallace was accurate but hasty. After all, it is the more meticulous
scientist who claims fame for discovering evolution by means of natural
selection.
Oscar Merino
Strong ground
Where does science stand on? Why should we trust science? Is it all
guessing and failing or is there a process grounded on reason and
facts to come up with “scientific stuff”? The reading of “The Reluctant
Mr. Darwin” successfully answered these questions by taking us
through the long but productive journey that led Darwin to the
Theory of Evolution. Although the book is undoubtedly a remarkable
biography, it develops a more significant theme. Throughout the
book we clearly recognize that evidence played a crucial role in
the discovery and justification of evolution by natural selection.
During years of scientific inquiry, we see evidence as the engine
that propels Darwin to keep on looking forward. In fact, Darwin
conceived his theory through a process that was unmistakably framed
within the scientific method, always supported by evidence. His
endeavors seeking evidence all around the world included a trip
in the Beagle all around South America. Darwin’s trip aboard the
Beagle allowed him to collect and examine dozens of specimens from
different locations. Quammen describes how the “harvest included
facts, notes, and ideas, but also mammal pelts, bird, skins, pickled
reptiles, and fish, dried plants, and fossils” (21). Observing
all these incredible specimens, Darwin started to see a broader
phenomenon that eventually became the Theory of Evolution. In Darwin’s
own words: “These facts origin of all my views” (Q 27). That’s
how important evidence was for
Darwin himself. Precisely after returning to England, Darwin started
to process all this evidence gathered for years. At this point,
he started to write notebooks with ideas interpreting the evidence.
Later on, he counted with the collaboration of dozens of friends
or even total strangers that sent them countless specimens. Eventually
the pieces of evidence started to take their places, like a puzzle.
Without such huge amount of evidence and hands-on experience, it
would have been impossible for Darwin to come up with an organic,
authentic Theory. In the Introduction of “On The Origin of
Species” Darwin assures that “these facts seemed to me to throw some
light on the origin of species” (Darwin 9). He also mentioned the
years he spent “patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts
of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it” (Darwin 9).
Not only did he gather enough evidence to make a strong argument,
but he also did not commit the mistake of rushing his ideas. Darwin
himself confesses, “I have not been hasty in coming to a decision”
(Darwin 9). Indeed, his Theory, although only newborn, was already
backed up by hundreds of lines of evidence.
On the other hand, Alfred Wallace arrived to almost the same conclusions
without a methodic scientific process. Wallace’s sin was not absence
of evidence but precocity. In fact, when Wallace submitted his
first paper for publication, he “was not quite clear in his own
mind as to how far his thinking had gotten him” (Q 135). The theory
“still eluded him” but “he was eager to put his exciting ideas
into print, even if they were still amorphous”(Q 135). At that
point he still had not enough evidence to support his claims. However,
the truth is that evidence was also a determinant factor in Wallace’s
endeavor. Just like Darwin, Wallace made a great collection of
specimens in his trips to South America and especially in the Indonesian
Archipelagos. Although Darwin spent “eight years with barnacles,
five years of travel, and ten years of study” (Q 127) to realize
variation in the wild, Wallace “saw it sooner because, besides
being an alert observer, he was a commercial collector” (Q 127).
We also see him interested in “measurements of different varieties
of domestic animal, especially fetuses and juveniles” (Q 141),
and many other activities trying to gather evidence. So, Wallace did have
evidence, he just was not still prepared to put it all together
and see the bigger picture. Evidence remained the most important
factor in the whole process leading him to the final solution;
he just failed to add sobriety and focus to his work.
Concerning the scientific importance of evidence in general,
there are countless conclusions that we can draw from Darwin’s story.
First of all, evidence must be the cornerstone of the scientific
process. Without evidence, we only have weak assumptions or to-be-proved
myths, not real science. No serious scientific would dare claim something
without the evidence that links his claims to reality. Also, it is
necessary to not rush conclusions out of evidence, since that could
harm our capability of being persuasive and organic in our scientific
research. Science needs to be tested, retested, verified by others,
and always framed within evidence. Evidence should remain and will
remain the cornerstone of science. With such a strong ground, we
can definitely trust science.
