What happens to Darwin?

A few months ago, a "great win" was hailed for British feminism: Jane Austen would be on the £10 note. I didn't think too much of it at the time. As some of my readers may know, I like Jane Austen's books, but I don't share the British passion for her writing: I think she's a good writer, nothing extraordinary; I think if she had lived and written books nowadays she would have been classified as "chick lit" rather than a classic. But no matter: whatever I may think, she is a recognised author, a woman who published under her own name, a woman who gave an insight into the lives of the upper class at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, all in all, an important player in British culture who deserves to be appreciated and celebrated. As I've mentioned, the fact that she will be on the £10 note has been hailed as a win for British feminism: it makes an important woman more visible, in an area dominated by men (she will be the first woman to feature in a British note). And yet... I can't whole heartedly support this.

The other day I took a ten pound note out of my wallet. It was a bit worn, had a black mark near the bottom right corner, probably the result of counting in a bank or a shop, all in all, it looked perfect, a note that had served its purpose and was still going, a note that had seen the world. And on it, serious, with his great beard and his straight nose, with his bushy eyebrows and bald head, was Darwin. And I swear, my heart almost stopped beating. Because, yes, Austen will be on the note. But what will happen to Darwin?

I refuse to draw a comparison between Darwin and Austen. They are incomparable. They were two completely different people, in different times. But I have a fondness for Darwin, the person, that I don't have for Austen. One has to love a man whose wife feared for his soul, because he didn't believe in God. A man who loved his children, who travelled on HMS Beagle, who spent his days observing dirt worms in his garden, and hypothesising as to how they turned the earth over, who had pigeons, who was able not just to see (for others before him had seein it) but to make a case for natural selection as the mechanism for the evolution of species. A highly intelligent man, who was afraid to publish his work because he was afraid he did not have enough data to support it, a man who went case by case, recording all he could, in order to gather more and more evidence to support his theory. The only man in the history of science who has come up with a theory that is both fact and theory.

A lot of confusion seems to fly around when it comes to Darwin. The "canonical" story, what they tell us in school, is that Darwin traveled on the Beagle as the ship's naturalist, got to the Galapagos, and there inspiration hit him as he saw the biodiversity of the islands and he came up with evolution. Unfortunately, almost no part of this story is true.

Firstly, the only reason Darwin ever traveled on the Beagle was because the ship's commander, Robert FitzRoy, wanted a companion to talk to. In the 19th century, it was not practice for the ship's captain to socialise with the crew, and FitzRoy was afraid he might have depressive tendencies (his uncle had committed suicide during a depressive bout), so he decided to ask Darwin to be his companion to stave off loneliness. As it turns out, FitzRoy was right about his susceptibility to depression, and he committed suicide by slitting his throat with a razor in 1865. In any case, Darwin wasn't the ship's naturalist or its doctor, he was simply a young man who was the captain's companion.

Secondly, Darwin did not come to evolution through natural selection in the Galapagos. In fact, he did not even find much to interest him there, and it was only after arriving back in Great Britain that he started formulating his theory. He even had to ask former crew members for their finches, because he hadn't collected any.

Thirdly, and this is a widespread misconception, Darwin did not come up with evolution. Evolution was a more or less accepted concept, as shown by Lamarckian models of evolution. No, the originality of Darwin's approach was not to say that organisms evolved, this was obvious, and few people would deny it (artificial selection, after all, could be observed easily), it was to formulate the mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection makes sense. Not just logically, but factually: if an organism does not have characteristics that will allow it to survive until it reproduces, it will not produce offspring that can inherit its characteristics. New characteristics arise randomly (actually, gene mutations aren't exactly random, some areas of the genome are more prone to them than others), and then the environment will determine whether these random characteristics will allow the organism to be better adapted or not.

Finally, a lot has been said about Darwin not really coming up with natural selection. This is unarguably true: he was not the first to formulate natural selection. He was the first, however, to communicate the concept well and give it the importance it was due. This may sound like cheating, but one must not forget that in science, making a discovery has no value if you are unable to communicate it to others. Darwin's genius was not only his theory, but his fantastic writing (to anyone who hasn't read "On the Origin of Species", I can say I whole heartedly recommend it, not just as a scientific masterpiece, but also as a literary work of art. The writing is accurate and clear, at times difficult to read but always beautiful).

I believe Darwin represents a lot of things many people strive for: he was a tireless worker, he was humble, he was incredibly intelligent, he loved his family, he was a reasonable man. He was unique, possibly one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientific mind in history (I happily admit I may be biased making this judgement). As much as I do believe that women have to become more visible in order for equality to be achieved, I can't help but find it terribly sad that it might be at the cost of losing Charles Darwin. Because Jane Austen may represent women, and arts, and writing; but Darwin represents humanity.