Darwin's publisher was urged not to publish evolution work - "On the Origin of Species"

AFP on Yahoo ^ | 4/24/07 | AFP

[NormsRevenge]

LONDON (AFP) - Charles Darwin's publisher was urged by an adviser not to publish the scientist's historic work "On the Origin of Species," The Times reported on Wednesday.

Citing correspondence between Darwin's publisher John Murray and one of his special advisers Reverend Whitwell Elwin that is on display at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh, the paper said that Elwin suggested instead that Darwin write about pigeons.

Murray asked Elwin for his opinion on Darwin's work on evolution, and unsurprisingly for a reverend, Elwin gave the evolutionary thesis, which challenged Church teaching of creationism, a thumbs-down.

"At every page I was tantalised by the absence of the proofs," Elwin wrote to Murray in a letter dated May 3, 1859, lamenting the "harder and drier" writing style.

Elwin instead suggested an earlier work by Darwin on pigeons should be made into a book because "everybody is interested in pigeons."

"The book would be received in every journal in the kingdom and would soon be on every table."

As history has shown, however, Murray ignored Elwin's advice and went on to publish Darwin's work.

[NormsRevenge]

A copy of Darwin's book the "Origin of Species" in front of a life size stone bust of Charles Darwin at London's Natural History Musuem, June 2006. Darwin's publisher was urged by an adviser not to publish the scientist's historic work "On the Origin of Species," The Times reported on Wednesday.(AFP/File/Shaun Curry)

[GSlob]

Morale of the story: If you are in a business of publishing epoch-making books, do not ask any Rearends for advice, or if you do - ignore that advice and do the opposite.

[LiteKeeper]

The world would have been a lot better off without it!

[CondorFlight]

Darwin cribbed some of his book from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin’s writings, anyway. Erasmus wrote about evolution and it was even called ‘Darwinism’, and some paragraphs in the later book are just a rehash of the grandfather’s writings.

Erasmus’ long ‘epic’ poem (”The Life of Plants”, IIRC the title?) tells how life crawled up (evolved) out of the alluvial Nile mud (which was a retelling of an ancient myth), and then assumed different forms, as needed.

In Erasmus’ day, “spontaneous generation” of life was a common belief—it accounted for pollution in ponds, corruption in decaying meat, etc. Priestly himself scoffed at the notion that anything could be contaminated by tiny life forms present everywhere in the air. (It wasn’t until Pasteur proved the latter was the case, that ‘spontaneous generation’ lost favor.) But the idea of life spontaneously generating in mud or pools was commonly accepted in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

[GSlob]

You must have a very strange idea of “better”.

[BuckeyeForever]

Why would the world have been better off without it?

[taxesareforever]

"At every page I was tantalised by the absence of the proofs," Elwin wrote to Murray in a letter dated May 3, 1859

All these years later and Elwin is still right.

[balch3]

he should have heeded the advice.

[UndauntedR]

The world would have been a lot better off without it!

The world would have only been "better" (whatever twisted sense of the word you mean) for at most a year. Even though Darwin had been working for two decades on his proposed multi-volume work on the evolution of life, he had continuously postponed the publication of such a book because of the inevitable controversy that would surround his theory of descent. In fact, I don't think he published any papers either except for an 1857 letter to a Harvard botanist outlining his ideas. He was described as kind of a loner and seemed to keep most of his research personal.

In 1858 Darwin received a letter and manuscript from Alfred Russel Wallace. No doubt with disbelief, Darwin read the enclosed essay which outlined a scientific explanation for the evolution of species remarkably similar to his own. Independently, Wallace had come to the same conclusions as Darwin. Not wanting to be scooped, Darwin finished up Origin of Species which was published in 1859. A combination of the book, Darwin's age and research background, as well as some peer precedent (nice to have friends in high places), Darwin received priority for discovering the scientific theory of organic evolution by means of natural selection.

So, sure, if Darwin hadn't published - or had never lived - the flat-earthers would be complaining about Wallace instead. It's a common theme in science - at points in history some breakthrough ideas tend to become "ripe" and two or three people around the world will make the same discovery independently. For evolution, that time was the 1850's.

[ketsu]

Good post ;)

[Bob J]

I think you’re on the wrong thread, try the one where everyone is getting banned.

[muir_redwoods]

"The world would have been a lot better off without it!"

Your crabbed, dark, little view of the world would have been a lot less troubled without it.

[durasell]

I like pigeons

[Rummenigge]

and don’t ask anyone who believes to hold the ‘religious truth...’

[durasell]

Why do you hate pigeons? What did they ever do to you?

[muir_redwoods]

"Why do you hate pigeons? What did they ever do to you?"

They are right behind the democrats here in terms of crapping all over me.

[yankeedame]

The world would have been a lot better off without it!

How so? Wanting something not to exist doesn't stop it from existing. Besides, ever hear of Alfred Russel Wallace? [a.k.a. "Darwin's moon"]

[yankeedame]

I like pigeons

Alive or as squab?

[js1138]

New alter ego since Boris Yeltsin is dead?