5. The Science of Man

5.
The Science of Man

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)

Herbert Spencer may have been the most prominent advocate of evolutionary theory in the mid-nineteenth century, but he would soon share the stage with English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882). Building on Spencer’s views and grounding them in his own biological research, in 1859 Darwin published On the Origin of Species, in which he argued that animal species evolved over time through a process of natural selection by which the strongest and most well adapted to any given environment survived. The biblical story of creation had no place in Darwin’s conclusions, and this incited considerable debate. The debate intensified twelve years later when Darwin applied his theory of evolution directly to humans in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, excerpted here.

From Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1896), 606–9, 612–13, 618–19.

The main conclusion here arrived at, and now held by many naturalists who are well competent to form a sound judgment, is that man is descended from some less highly organized form. The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken, for the close similarity between man and the lower animals in embryonic development, as well as in innumerable points of structure and constitution, both of high and of the most trifling importance,—the rudiments which he retains, and the abnormal reversions to which he is occasionally liable,—are facts which cannot be disputed. They have long been known, but until recently they told us nothing with respect to the origin of man. Now when viewed by the light of our knowledge of the whole organic world, their meaning is unmistakable. The great principle of evolution stands up clear and firm, when these groups of facts are considered in connection with others such as the mutual affinities of the members of the same group, their geographical distribution in past and present times, and their geological succession. It is incredible that all these facts should speak falsely. He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation. . . .

We have seen that man incessantly presents individual differences in all parts of his body and in his mental faculties. These differences or variations seem to be induced by the same general causes, and to obey the same laws as with the lower animals. In both cases similar laws of inheritance prevail. Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of subsistence; consequently he is occasionally subjected to a severe struggle for existence, and natural selection will have effected whatever lies within its scope. . . .

Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, subspecies. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species. Nevertheless all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities, that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterized would probably deserve to rank as man. . . .

By considering the embryological structure of man,—the homologies which he presents with the lower animals,—the rudiments which he retains,—and the reversions to which he is liable, we can partly recall in imagination the former condition of our early progenitors; and can approximately place them in their proper place in the zoological series. We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World. . . .

The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, . . . to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man’s reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture. . . .

I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion. . . .

The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind—such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these exalted powers—Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

  1. What evidence does Darwin supply to support his theory of human evolution?

    Question

    UvN1L/Y7QqNwpfboEoHrjENHl61nofqIGG+Ij9SrlARHfMD8MvIKk3sgoUTlDoJ2deq9X+WlulY+SQLmgqcBk0FJfgM7rF3Jq2Ns3A13TiEuzKQ9h4HphGwABHs0+gsvNPleMZtT9U1OIze9tySCipQyO1g=
    What evidence does Darwin supply to support his theory of human evolution?
  2. How does this evidence call into question the relationship between religion and science?

    Question

    6YHCqY7mozIbD+FFyj/dn2smsGUwqlBr4u98MdyyFhNmeV4gaQnN1tmhtpMN0R9zNGagNEjoXXIEcZaeBOhLeb4kurSZII4WXJhyu92OBHiX/aS6lMUZJr4RtTbi4c6C4hGS07Ohdaf+APXHSDHWmhgROAsGXAuNTKuzH55qeH/JTaIY
    How does this evidence call into question the relationship between religion and science?
  3. How does Darwin voice the concern for realism and concrete facts that marked the general mood of his day?

    Question

    YzppPnkAmrOkngf75CFD12q6mYs1GG3Y8yzN651l1gmaSgqZCQD9s7WeynQxiGiyK/+y+eA7z3M1Pcs+K2nBy0fSWpKjP3myCqUgQWXJtVGW/+2FpX4YxUtQjTmUfK1sA44DRAa0NVIhu3R4fCUDHUuMXThu/KEGsUd3toEUNxdvFNfL9vzlffjL5tS+46aqCYN6wQ==
    How does Darwin voice the concern for realism and concrete facts that marked the general mood of his day?