Today is the birthday of the greatest scientist who ever lived. When you visit Darwin's home (Down House) you get a sense of what he must have been like. One of the things that's obvious is the number of bedrooms for the children. The house must have been alive with the activities of young children. It's no wonder that Darwin needed some peace and quiet from time to time.
Gwen Raverat was Darwin's granddaughter (daughter of George Darwin). She described Down House as she knew it in the years shortly after Darwin died.
Of all places at Down, the Sandwalk seemed most to belong to my grandfather. It was a path running round a little wood which he had planted himself; and it always seemed to be a very long way from the house. You went right to the furthest end of the kitchen garden, and then through a wooden door in the high hedge, which quite cut you off from human society. Here a fenced path ran along between two great lonely meadows, till you came to the wood. The path ran straight down the outside of the wood--the Light Side--till it came to a summer-house at the far end; it was very lonely there; to this day you cannot see a single building anywhere, only woods and valleys.I became interested in Darwin's children about fifteen years ago when I first began to appreciate the influence they had on his life. We all know the story of Annie's death when she was ten years old and how this led to Darwin's rejection of religion. There were other tragedies but Charles and Emma turned out to be very good parents.
Here's a short biography of each of Darwin's children from AboutDarwin.com
William Erasmus Darwin
The first of Darwin's children was born on December 27, 1839. He was a graduate of Christ’s College at Cambridge University, and was a banker in Southampton. He married Sara Ashburner from New York, but they had no children. William died in 1914.
Anne Elizabeth Darwin
Born on March 2 1841, and died at the age of ten of tuberculosis on April 22, 1851. It was the death of Annie that radically altered Darwin’s belief in Christianity.
Mary Eleanor Darwin
Born on September 23, 1842 but died a few weeks later on October 16th.
Henrietta Emma Darwin ("Etty")
Born on September 25, 1843 and married Richard Buckley Litchfield in August of 1871. She lived 86 years and edited Emma's (her mother) personal letters and had them published in 1904. She had no children.
George Howard Darwin
Born on July 9, 1845. He was an astronomer and mathematician, and became a Fellow of the Royal Society ... in 1879. In 1883 he became the Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University, and was a Barrister-at-Law. He studied the evolution and origins of the solar system. George married Martha (Maud) du Puy from Philadelphia. They had two sons, and two daughters. He died in 1912.
Elizabeth Darwin
Born on July 8, 1847 and died in 1926. She never married and had no children.
Francis Darwin
Born on August 16, 1848. He became a botanist specializing in plant physiology. He helped his father with his experiments on plants and was of great influence in Darwin's writing of "The Power of Movement in Plants" (1880). He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1879, and taught at Cambridge University from 1884, as a Professor of Botany, until 1904. He edited many of Darwin's correspondence and published "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" in 1887, and "More Letters of Charles Darwin" in 1903. He also edited and published Darwin’s Autobiography. He married Amy Ruck but she died when their first child, Bernard, was born in September of 1876. He then married Ellen Crofts in September of 1883, and they had one daughter, Frances in 1886. Francis was knighted in 1913, and died in 1925.
Leonard Darwin
Born on January 15, 1850. He became a soldier in the Royal Engineers in 1871, and was a Major from 1890 onwards. He taught at the School of Military Engineering at Chatham from 1877 to 1882, and served in the Ministry of War, Intelligence Division, from 1885-90. He later became a liberal-unionist MP for the town of Lichfield in Staffordshire 1892-95, and was president of the Royal Geological Society 1908-11. Leonard married Elizabeth Fraser in July of 1882. He married a second time, but had no children and died in 1943.
Horace Darwin
Born on May 13, 1851. He was a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge, and became an engineer and a builder of scientific instruments. In 1885 he founded the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company. He was the Mayor of Cambridge from 1896-97, and was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1903. Horace married Emma Farrer in January of 1880 and they had three children. He died in 1928.
Charles Waring Darwin
Born on December 6, 1856 but died on June 28 1858.
Re Darwin the greatest scientist who ever lived.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that Darwin was one of the three most important scientists who ever lived, the others being Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Certainly, there is no way to support a claim that Darwin was a a more important scientist then Newton.
Biology is much harder than calculus or physics.
ReplyDeleteScientists who go into biology are usually people who aren't very good in mathematics.
ReplyDeleteNewton and Einstein discovered important stuff. Darwin changed the way humanity (most of it) thinks and (all of it) acts.
ReplyDeleteslc says,
ReplyDeleteScientists who go into biology are usually people who aren't very good in mathematics.
Whereas physicists are experts in biology and this makes them superior?
Look, I agree that scientists who specialize in biology may not share the same passion for tensor calculus as physicists. By the same token, physicists are not very good at the messiness and abstraction of biological principles.
What's your point? We all know that mathematics is basically a very simple, but boring, discipline. :-)
Coturnix writes: Darwin changed the way humanity (most of it) thinks and (all of it) acts.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure most of the 6.5 billion people on the planet don't know who Darwin is nor what he did, so I can't agree with the first claim. As for the second, I don't understand what you might mean.
Noam Chomsky:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060301.htm
"Science talks about very simple things, and asks hard questions about them. As soon as things become too complex, science can’t deal with them. The reason why physics can achieve such depth is that it restricts itself to extremely simple things, abstracted from the complexity of the world. As soon as an atom gets too complicated, maybe helium, they hand it over to chemists. When problems become too complicated for chemists, they hand it over to biologists. Biologists often hand it over to the sociologists, and they hand it over to the historians, and so on."
Nauman, I like the rest of that quote too:
ReplyDelete"But it’s a complicated matter: Science studies what’s at the edge of understanding, and what’s at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated. In fact even understanding insects is an extremely complicated problem in the sciences. So the actual sciences tell us virtually nothing about human affairs."
Re math is boring.
ReplyDeleteI would partially agree with Prof. Moran; many branches of mathematics are somewhat tedious (e.g. algebra). However, other branches are fascinating e.g. plane geometry and group theory. To physicists, group theory is particularly interesting as its application to physics allows them to place the conservation theorems on a mathematical basis.
Biology is much harder than calculus or physics.
ReplyDeleteOh ho! That's rich.
Scientists who go into biology are usually people who aren't very good in mathematics.
ReplyDeleteThou sayest. :D
Larry, I just noticed that you misspelled "Charles" at the top of the page where you wrote: "The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Chalres Darwin." Today would be a good day to fix that.
ReplyDeleteFactiod: George Darwin (one of the sons) proposed the influential but ultimately falsified theory that the moon arose from matter spun off of a rapidly rotating earth.
ReplyDeleteRecommendation: Gwen Raverat's book about growing up a Darwin in Cambridge is delightful throughout.
I'd just like to point out that Coturnix's argument that Darwin changed the way we think is based on a very intricate political theory that is not especially solid.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Today is the birthday of the greatest scientist who ever lived."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware that Newton's birthday was today. But Darwin did good too.
"Darwin changed the way humanity (most of it) thinks and (all of it) acts."
In what sense? Einstein is probably more famous, though I'm not sure that atomic energy or relativity is as well known as the name.
However, even though I'm a lousy student of history, as I understand it Newton wrought most change. Before him there was virtually no science (as we know it) - after him the method had impetus. (Sic!) As a (very) small sample I hear "Action and reaction" a lot coupled to real understanding, not "why are there still monkeys?".
Perhaps Darwin started biology for serious. In any case, congrats to him on his birthday!
PS. Speaking of biology anniversaries, don't forget that this year marks the tercentenary since Carl Linnaeus birth: http://www.linnaeus2007.se/internationalinitiatives.4.44d172dc10f76d2e37e80008580.html . DS.
Have I entered an alternate universe here? Do I actually agree more with Robert O'Brien and SLC than I do Larry Moran? IT CANNOT BE!
ReplyDeleteBut in all seriousness I do have to give this a shot:
Biology is much harder than calculus or physics.
But economics is harder than biology, why aren't you worshipping on the altar of John Maynard Keynes and/or Milton Friedman?
Tyler DiPietro says,
ReplyDeleteBut economics is harder than biology, why aren't you worshipping on the altar of John Maynard Keynes and/or Milton Friedman?
Economics may be difficult but it's also insignificant, so it doesn't merit serious consideration. Economics is only concerned with one small aspect of the behavior of one of the millions of species on this planet. That's just not very important in the big picture of understanding nature.*
Putting emphasis on economics is like worshiping those scientists who study the mating behavior of zebrafish. Both subjects have about the same relative importance.
* Incidentally, this can be used as an argument for the importance of physics or chemistry over biology since, as far as we know, biology only exists on one small planet in an insignificant galaxy.
Putting emphasis on economics is like worshiping those scientists who study the mating behavior of zebrafish. Both subjects have about the same relative importance.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Dr. Moran made a funny.
"Economics is only concerned with one small aspect of the behavior of one of the millions of species on this planet."
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to weigh importance based on the scale of the system.
Presumably biology and economics have universal aspects, which we would recognize if the systems are instantiated somewhere else. For example, I don't think planets and their processes are less important or interesting than the vacuum just because the latter is so voluminous. Similarly, dark matter seems rather bland compared to the antics of ordinary matter.