Dialogues with Darwin: An Exhibition of Historical Documents and Contemporary Art

Submitted by HÔ² on Saturday, June 13, 2009, at 5:03pm

I didn’t really like how some people tryed to be funny with the dailogues or just being plain stupid.

Submitted by A museum lover on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 10:21pm

Really liked the geographic exhibit that showed all the many placed darwin corresponded with. Not such a small world after all!!!

Submitted by allison sp on Monday, July 13, 2009, at 9:16pm

I really enjoyed the poetry that accompanied the Laramee sculptures and wish it were posted somewhere I could read it.
The entire exhibit was so gracefully done, and the post-it dialogue was fascinating!

Submitted by Allentown Art Lover on Friday, August 14, 2009, at 10:02am

I love the playfulness of the Laramee exhibit which makes everyone step back and laugh at themselves a bit over a debate that has sparked so much serious and heated argument and has been so divisive. This is a much different from the dramatization of the Scopes trial, “Inherit the Wind” which takes itself very seriously. The tone of the exhibit reminds me a bit of the Dadaists and their controversial “Readymades’ Allentown Attorney

Submitted by Dave on Saturday, August 15, 2009, at 10:27pm

I thought the exhibit was well done, and I really appreciated the fact that there was an opportunity to dialogue. The issue of origins is huge and I think it is great that we can dialogue about it. Although I strongly disagree with Darwin’s theory and believe it has been falsified by scientific evidence, I was fascinated by the exhibit. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Submitted by Joseph Long on Sunday, August 16, 2009, at 2:30pm

I absolutely loved the exhibition! It was certainly a fun and amazing time. 

Submitted by love it on Friday, August 28, 2009, at 9:08am

I find innovative interpretative activities and materials, embedded in the exhibition to give visitors the opportunity to participate in their own dialogues not only with Darwin, but also with current Darwin experts and even with each other.

I feel like the books and manuscripts related to the life and work of this seminal figure in the field of biology reflect his correspondence with other scientists.

Submitted by Alexis on Tuesday, September 01, 2009, at 7:55pm

The exhibition was highly creative and well done. I particularly like he Laramee exhibit.

Submitted by John on Thursday, September 03, 2009, at 4:40pm

Dave,I’m really Intrigued with your views regarding Darwin’s theory. Why do you disagree with it? Would you care to elaborate. I, however, am a firm believer of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Submitted by Bill Bartmann on Monday, September 07, 2009, at 7:15am

Excellent site, keep up the good work

Submitted by Paul on Thursday, September 10, 2009, at 3:08pm

This is really amazing. I never knew Darwin went to that many places. Cool!! 

Submitted by chanbara182 on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, at 3:56pm

Matthew Shumski
Dr. Hollister
Moasic II
18 September 2009-09-18
The Darwin exhibit as a whole makes a strong case of how remarkable it was for Darwin to come up with his theory of natural selection. In doing so, the exhibit displays how the idea of “evolution” was thought of well before The Origin of Species was written. It illustrates how the ideas of pre-Darwin naturalists prompted Darwin, not to only take their ideas further, but to come up with such an original theory. A theory that still influences mans understanding and arguing of species to this very day. Outlining how much research, writing, and evidence collecting Darwin did on the Beagle, the exhibit makes a case of how Darwin’s theories are misinterpreted into a “pop culture” view of evolution. A task of the exhibit is to promote what Darwin really discovered and made claims of. For example, there is a display in the exhibit dedicated to show how Darwin does not use the word evolve until the last chapter of The Origin of Species. I feel The American Philosophical Society did an astonishing job of demonstrating and supporting their case. The Origin of Species is not an easy read for me. Going to the APS exhibit not only made the read more exciting, but exemplified Darwin’s findings. The trip motivates me to read more in depth into The Origin of Species, and helps me understand natural selection. I reacted very positively to the experience.
W.B. Tagetmier’s book display on pigeons provided background for various passages in The Origin of Species. Representing how Darwin was so impressed by the variation among the pigeon family, the display directly relates to page 82, “The diversity of the (pigeon) breeds is something astonishing. Compare the English carrier and the short-faced tumbler, and see the wonderful difference in their beaks, entailing corresponding differences in their skulls”.  The illustration in Tagetmier’s book presents how nature could create new species by selecting small changes overtime. This is a key ingredient to Darwin’s Natural Selection theory.
What I found most intriguing was a display of a theorist who opposed Darwin. Louis Agassiz’s theory of species and time seemed very obscure and prompted me to read more into his findings. He stated in his theory that the beginning of time is the center of a circle. Present day is the perimeter around the circle and different species of animals appear in different spokes of the spinning circle. After time those animals go extinct. According to Agassiz, humans are the outermost layer of the wheel. I never learned of any theory on species close to this own. I found his research to be very interesting. The display showed the evidence for his thought, which appeared almost intentional in combating Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Submitted by Tiara Reed (Section 14) on Thursday, September 24, 2009, at 9:14pm

The overall case that is made in the Darwin Exhibit is that all species have descended from one parent species. The exhibit focused on how strong Darwin’s argument was, providing many forms of verification of his ideals. I feel that the exhibit most certainly made its case. With every one of Darwin’s theories, there was another theory either against or for his theory and parallels were drawn. The exhibit also showed the strengths of Darwin’s argument by showing that he used the evidence and facts of those before him. Darwin used the arguments of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, and William Paley, written archives from both men were present. By visually showing the work of others related to Darwin, this strengthened his argument. This does in fact help me to better understand Darwin’s idea of natural selection. Seeing the work of others allows me to have a bit more background on Darwin’s theory.
Something from the exhibit that is relative to The Origin of Species was an excerpt from a book written by Thomas Malthus. The most important aspect that Malthus discusses is the fact that population sometimes grows faster than the food supply. This is directly connected to Darwin’s ideals of natural selection in The Origin of Species. On page 117 of The Origin of Species Darwin makes a reference to this Malthus’ idea, “Hence, as more individuals are produced that can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence.….It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food…” With the animal and plant population growing and the food supply not growing, natural selection has room to take place, weeding out those who cannot find food supply.
There were two things that really intrigued me within the museum. The first was a chart created by James C. Nott, The Types of Mankind. Nott’s theory was that each region of the world was populated by separately created sets of species, animals and human. He also believed that each race was a different species. Obviously, Darwin disagreed with this notion, believing that all human descended from one common ancestor. This chart intrigued me because of the illustrations that were on it. Nott showed what he believed to be every different species around at the current time. Another item that intrigued me was Thomas Henry Huxley’s picture of the similarities between apes and humans. This pictured is always thought of when one brings up Charles Darwin. I found it interesting to find out that the picture incorrectly implies that there is a direct lineage from apes to humans. I always thought that this was the case.

Submitted by Louisa Amoakoh (Section 14) on Friday, September 25, 2009, at 4:10pm

The exhibit, as whole, was very intriguing. It carried the essence of everything Darwin spoke of in the Origin of Species.  There were different stations that depicted what was happening in history at the time he wrote this fascinating work.  I thought the exhibit would be larger than it actually appeared but I was amazed by it because so much information was present that led to my deeper understanding of Darwin.
The display that intrigued me the most was the one that concentrated on the pigeons. It was specifically titled, “Pillars of the Origin.” Darwin was influenced by a lot of early scientist and even his grandfather. His reference to others allowed him to strengthen his thoughts on the origin of species. One particular scientist, W. B. Tegetmeir, studied pigeons during Darwin’s time. Breeders created a variety of pigeons that were flamboyant.  This inspired Darwin into thinking how individuals with certain traits over generations could produce many different varieties from a single ancestor.  An example of this is the pigeon that Darwin wrote about in The Origin of Species.  “Many treatises in different languages have been published about pigeons and some of them are very important, a being considerably antiquity . . . The diversity of the breeds is something astonishing. Compare the English carrier and the short-faced tumbler, and see the wonderful difference in their beaks, entailing corresponding differences in their skull” (82). Because of the ancestral breeding, these pigeons are able to live for a long time and have different features.
The display that intrigued me the most was on the “Rise of Genetics” by Charles Davenport. His ideas were similar to Darwin’s except that he discriminated against “inferior” people using pseudoscience as a proof. “Selected parents will have better children this is the great aim of eugenics.” He was not interested in the breeding of different species but keeping a certain race pure.

Submitted by Triniboy on Friday, September 25, 2009, at 8:40pm

1. The exhibit highlighted Darwin’s theory of “natural selection,” presenting and using a variety of his works expanding throughout his twenty years of research on this topic. The exhibit stated that Darwin challenged the popular belief of his time that organisms change by adapting to their given environment. Darwin did not accept the adaption of an organism to their environment but rather certain environments favor certain organisms, therefore, they would have a higher rate of survival and pass on those traits. The exhibit was very helpful in understanding Darwin’s explanation of the origin of species in that it first presented the foundation from which he developed it. One display presented Jean-Baptiste Lamark (1744-1829), a French naturalist who argued that “animals strove to adapt to the needs of their environments” which resulted in changes that created more complex forms. This was an earlier form or of or evolution in its developmental stage. This piece helped me to understand that Darwin was not solely responsible for the doctrine of evolution. The exhibit also displayed Darwin’s editorial or revision stage, written letters to his friends, etc. The exhibit made Darwin’s theory plain and simple; he argued the origin of species rather than the origin of life itself.

2. An Essay on the Principle of Population by T. R. Malthus (1766-1834) argued that human population grew faster than the available food supply, leading to the struggle for resources. The display stated that Darwin read this particular work in 1838 and used it to support his theory that plants and animals or that organisms in general who are best adapted to their environments survive. The basic idea of Darwin’s research is “survival of the fittest” but more specifically Darwin himself states “[a] struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive; there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them” (Darwin 116-17). Darwin stated that the struggle for existence is a result of the high rate at which all organic beings increase. Each organism must struggle for existence, all can not survive, and otherwise the world could not contain them.

Darwin’s theory on survival of the fittest was strengthened by the work of Malthus and finally Darwin states “[o]wing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive” (115).

3. The display that demonstrated similarities between human and animal emotions was the less intriguing. The argument did in fact repel me further away from accepting the theory that humans descended from an animal. Although it was precieved as evidence, it is a weak argument. The display presented the argument that human emotions, including moral and aesthetic principals and intelect descend from animals. The display conluced these relationships as conrete proof that humans have an animal ancestry. Although humans and animals clearly have similar mental traits and muscular structure, I do not believe this argument valid enough to conculde humans’ desceneded from an animal. Unless we someone was alive to see a single organism reproduce or change into thousands of species over time, this argument will never be factual.
Another display that was interesting and did challenge me to change my perception of Darwin’s research was the display that housed the second edition of the Origin of Species. It revealed that Darwin did not address the origin of life. In addition, that he inserted the word “Creator” which was said to not nessarily a refernce to a Supreme Being or God but was a reference to the unknown. Given that it is unknown, it could still be God. I found it interesting that Darwin did in fact acknowledge the limits of human knowledge and also his statement regarding the origin of life that “by some wholly unknown process-it is mere rubbish thinking at present, of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.” This statement though simple was profound. I interpreted this statement, as life could have originated by a Supreme Being because matter was always here. A God could therefore also have always been here who created the first organism from which humans descended (although I do not believe humans decsended from animals).

Submitted by Triniboy on Friday, September 25, 2009, at 8:41pm

Dion Lacey

1. The exhibit highlighted Darwin’s theory of “natural selection,” presenting and using a variety of his works expanding throughout his twenty years of research on this topic. The exhibit stated that Darwin challenged the popular belief of his time that organisms change by adapting to their given environment. Darwin did not accept the adaption of an organism to their environment but rather certain environments favor certain organisms, therefore, they would have a higher rate of survival and pass on those traits. The exhibit was very helpful in understanding Darwin’s explanation of the origin of species in that it first presented the foundation from which he developed it. One display presented Jean-Baptiste Lamark (1744-1829), a French naturalist who argued that “animals strove to adapt to the needs of their environments” which resulted in changes that created more complex forms. This was an earlier form or of or evolution in its developmental stage. This piece helped me to understand that Darwin was not solely responsible for the doctrine of evolution. The exhibit also displayed Darwin’s editorial or revision stage, written letters to his friends, etc. The exhibit made Darwin’s theory plain and simple; he argued the origin of species rather than the origin of life itself.
2. Describe how a specific book or object on display (other than the chart on the wall from Chapter 4) illustrates, or provides background for, a specific passage in the Origin of Species. Make sure to cite that passage.
An Essay on the Principle of Population by T. R. Malthus (1766-1834) argued that human population grew faster than the available food supply, leading to the struggle for resources. The display stated that Darwin read this particular work in 1838 and used it to support his theory that plants and animals or that organisms in general who are best adapted to their environments survive. The basic idea of Darwin’s research is “survival of the fittest” but more specifically Darwin himself states “[a] struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive; there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them” (Darwin 116-17). Darwin stated that the struggle for existence is a result of the high rate at which all organic beings increase. Each organism must struggle for existence, all can not survive, and otherwise the world could not contain them.
Darwin’s theory on survival of the fittest was strengthened by the work of Malthus and finally Darwin states “[o]wing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive” (115).
3. Explain why a specific display intrigues you, annoys you, or tells you something new and unexpected.  One option for this question: Evaluate how and how well the steampunk artwork contributes to the exhibit.
The display that demonstrated similarities between human and animal emotions was the less intriguing. The argument did in fact repel me further away from accepting the theory that humans descended from an animal. Although it was precieved as evidence, it is a weak argument. The display presented the argument that human emotions, including moral and aesthetic principals and intelect descend from animals. The display conluced these relationships as conrete proof that humans have an animal ancestry. Although humans and animals clearly have similar mental traits and muscular structure, I do not believe this argument valid enough to conculde humans’ desceneded from an animal. Unless we someone was alive to see a single organism reproduce or change into thousands of species over time, this argument will never be factual.
Another display that was interesting and did challenge me to change my perception of Darwin’s research was the display that housed the second edition of the Origin of Species. It revealed that Darwin did not address the origin of life. In addition, that he inserted the word “Creator” which was said to not nessarily a refernce to a Supreme Being or God but was a reference to the unknown. Given that it is unknown, it could still be God. I found it interesting that Darwin did in fact acknowledge the limits of human knowledge and also his statement regarding the origin of life that “by some wholly unknown process-it is mere rubbish thinking at present, of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.” This statement though simple was profound. I interpreted this statement, as life could have originated by a Supreme Being because matter was always here. A God could therefore also have always been here who created the first organism from which humans descended (although I do not believe humans decsended from animals).

Submitted by Brittany Divens on Monday, September 28, 2009, at 9:17am

Brittany Divens
Professor Hollister
Mosaic II
September 28, 2009

1. Evaluate the exhibit as a whole. What case does it make, and how and how well does it make it? What are your reactions? How helpful is it in understanding the Origin of Species?

The exhibition makes the case for the origin of species as propounded by Charles Darwin by putting on display original material from Darwin himself. It is thus titled ‘Dialogues with Darwin’. These historical materials include original letters and handwritten manuscripts, as well as works by other scientists on the same theme as Darwin. I was amazed by the air of authenticity of the early documents that were used in the original attempts to convince the public of the soundness of the theory of evolution. As this is the focus of the exhibition besides the contribution of Art, it is of more historical significance than an attempt to explain or justify the theory before present-day viewers.

2. Describe how a specific book or object on display (other than the chart on the wall from Chapter 4) illustrates, or provides background for, a specific passage in the Origin of Species. Make sure to cite that passage.

The big idea presented in ‘The Origin of Species’ is that of natural selection. One of the objects on display is a poem titled ‘Temple of Nature’ written by Darwin’s grandfather. The role his grandfather played was very significant in shaping Darwin’s thoughts to carry out the freemasonic mantle of establishing a dubious theory to deter people from belief in God. The poem describes how a species “could gradually transform itself into a new one”. Darwin however, propagated the belief in natural selection, describing it a “preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations”.

3. Explain why a specific display intrigues you, annoys you, or tells you something new and unexpected. One option for this question: Evaluate how and how well the steampunk artwork contributes to the exhibit.

Darwin writes in chapter 14 entitled ‘recapitulation and conclusion’, “There is grandeur in this view of life with it several powers, having been original breathed into a few forms or into one…” It is this ‘grandeur in this view of life’ that is taken up as the theme for the section of the exhibition on ‘Histories of Life: Searching for Order’. Although Darwin’s context for using these words is to support his own ideas, he is right in so far as saying that “from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved”, but ascribes this happening to chance rather than to God who really holds the ‘grandeur view of life’ as evident by His beautiful creation.

Submitted by Christine Schultheiss on Monday, October 05, 2009, at 12:37am

Section 034
I found the exhibit itself (by which I mean the academic parts) to be interesting and quite enlightening, both as a reflection of the science of evolution and as a commentary on Darwin’s life altogether.  Unfortunately, I did not find the artwork, commissioned by the society and created by Laramée, to contribute at all to this collection of artifacts from Darwin’s work, life and time.  In fact, a part of me felt as though Laramée’s work almost mocked Darwin.  Her absurd invented notebooks, describing speculations on the dreams of plants and the memories of stones, were insulting in their insinuations that Darwin could have created such absurdity and that modern Darwin scholars could have taken them seriously.  I found her art to be unattractive and overly abstract merely for abstraction’s sake.  Going into the exhibit, I had hope that I could indeed discover that fine art had a place in science; unfortunately, if it does, this fact was not communicated to me by this exhibit.

Submitted by blamb482 on Monday, October 05, 2009, at 12:54am

Tapping the largest Darwin archive outside of Cambridge, the American Philosophical Society’s “Dialogs with Darwin” exhibit presents a chronological record of scientific inquiry, mapping the development of evolutionary thought before and after the publication of “On the Origin of Species.” An effort to establish a conversation cutting across time and ideology, the exhibit adds context and meaning to these often divisive works.  Complementing the exhibit’s many paper documents is Eve Andre Laramee’s Luminous Darwin: The “Lost” Notebooks of Charles Darwin.” Sitting heavily on the periphery these four artistic works reflect the Victorian aesthetic, capturing the era’s dual fascination with science and technology.  Laramee’s intricate and detailed pieces illuminate, expand, and challenge the intellectual core of the work of Darwin, his contemporaries, and acolytes. 

Several themes underlie Laramee’s work, connecting her pieces with those displayed in the exhibit.  Authenticity, history, and memory are central to these works.  In an interview with critic Ana Finel Honigman, Laramee describes history as “a soft text masquerading as a hard text[,]” something interpretive and fluid disguised as something authoritative and definitive.  Through this lens, “Luminous Darwin” challenges the work of Darwin, and others, displayed
throughout the exhibit. 

Evoking the golden age of museums, the dark, hardwood cases and etched glass that hold her artifacts co-opt the legitimacy of these institutional trappings.  Part fact, mostly fiction, these exhibits suggest a thin veneer of scientific legitimacy.  Coupled with the books and images in “Dialogs with Darwin,” one gets a sense of an ever-shifting scientific status quo.  What is “factual” one day can become pseudoscience the next. 

Laramee’s displays are a fantastic combination of scientific fact and technological conjecture, serving as a kind of what if.  What if plants and stones are a repository for a unified biological history?  What if we could extract it?  What if we could look inside a cell and uncover its ambition and desire?  Would we shape it?  What if we could visually translate the thoughts of plants and stones?  What would they look like?  These questions, in many ways the core scientific inquiry, are asked and, to varying degrees, answered in “Luminous Darwin.”

In Case #3, “The Dreams of Plants,” Laramee expands Darwin’s examinations of plant movement deeper, moving from external to their subconscious.  The “Device to Record the Movement of Plants During Dreaming” consists of three pieces – a vacuum chamber to extract the dreams of plants, a device to capture the dreams using glass and oily smoke, and a magic lantern to view the dreams in electric motion and kaleidoscopic color.  Like us, plants dream of themselves and of their history, liberated and growing, orderly and chaotic, primordial and eternal. This fascination with history and memory, manifesting in natural world, is present across Laramee’s works.

Uniting Darwin’s rational inquiry with Laramee’s interpretive artist works provides a fascinating alternate history, while reinforcing the tenuous and malleable nature of “fact.” Furthermore, the APS exhibit illustrates the intellectual value of combining art and science, the interpretive with the rational.  “Luminous Darwin” restores wonder to the museum exhibit – something which has become dully familiar to most – using traditional aesthetic terms.  The exhibits goal, to place Darwin’s ideas in conversation with historical and contemporary ideas, is fulfilled through the addition of Laramee’s beautiful and challenging objects.  “Dialogs with Darwin” returns the conversation to its foundation in the 19th and 20th century, while expanding the 21st century conversation.  Hopefully, the APS’s effort will spur more nuanced discussion of the theories and influence of a much maligned man. 

Ben Lamb
Mosaic 852-34
Jonathan Pappas

Submitted by tub51463 on Monday, October 05, 2009, at 6:19pm

I was actually quite disappointed with this museum.  I was expecting a lot more, not just books in every case.  Although I found one thing very interesting, I felt the museum did not have much to offer.  The one thing I learned was that Darwin did not NOT believe in God.  His theory actually still allows God to be in the picture.  After much thought, I’ve come to believe this most—evolution does in fact exist, but it is God that prompts the evolving.  My favorite part of the museum, however, was definitely the post-it notes.  I thought that was a great way of getting the viewers to think a little and leave some feedback.  Many of them were clever and made me chuckle, but there were also a ton with actual thoughts and theories of one’s own there.  It was the most interesting and enjoyable part of the museum.  In fact, I spent 95% of my time there reading the post-it notes.

Submitted by Sidra12 on Monday, October 05, 2009, at 11:35pm

When I learned of Darwin’s theories of the awareness of nature I wondered how he thought he could ever retrieve this information. I became even more confused as I first skimmed the small exhibition room. Eve Andree Laramee is quoted saying that her aim is to, “try to draw attention to areas of overlap and interconnection between artistic exploration and scientific investigation.” She captures and recreates the fascination and wonder of science of the Victorian Era. Laramee illustrates the theories of Darwin using modern technology crafted with the feel of the Victorian Era. She makes the art pieces relevant his works. The ideas are abstract but the art work clearly expresses the theories and brings them to life. This art makes the science come alive because it is interactive and three dimensional, not just words, scientific jargon and equations. The science and the art come together and explain each other. Three cases exhibit nature’s perception through the perspectives of plants, stones and animals. Dreams, memories and lenses are extracted through these imaginary devices. At first glance of the cases, it looked as if the devices were crafted by Darwin himself. The pieces reflect his ideas about nature and animals being alive and having perception. Darwin is quoted saying, “It is a truly wonderful fact…that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other.” No case shows this more than The Device to Extract Memories From Stones. There is a small shell centered by spokes in a wheel connected to copper wires, connected to an industrial press, connected to another copper wires connected to a lantern. Looking through the copper hand crafter lantern one can view a psychedelic video of volcanic eruptions and terrain repeat as if it is a memory. It connects to Darwin’s idea that nature is aware and perceives and remembers. I think he had a truly scientific and abstract mind. Having a device that could actually extract those memories from the beginning of time would be remarkable. I found this connection of modern art and science to be new and refreshing mainly because I’ve only seen anatomical drawings or sculptures of nature but not actual art.

Submitted by sabine brauckmann on Sunday, October 11, 2009, at 12:42pm

Dear American Philosophical Society,

a remarkable exhibition, I really liked to click back and forth through the exhibits.

However, the exhibit ‘Baer diagram’ is not entirely accurate.

The diagram is a drawing by Martin Barry himself whereby Barry interpreted Baer’s table of the developmental history of animal classes [see Baer 1828. Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere, vol. 1, p. 225.]

Barry’s diagram and Baer’s table differ significantly, e.g. Baer puts pigs and cows above us humans as their development is more complicated than ours.

What I did miss here is an exhibit to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who wrote in 1809:

“I do not wish to say [..] that existing animals form a very simple and evenly nuanced series, but I say that they form a branching series irregularly graduated which has no discontinuity in its parts, or which, at least, if it is true that there are some [discontinuities] because of some lost species, has not always had such. It follows that the species which terminate each branch of the general series are related, at least on one side, to the other neighboring species which shade into them.”

Sabine Brauckmann
Science Center
Tartu University Library
Estonia

Submitted by Lauren M on Friday, October 16, 2009, at 5:11pm

I found the exhibition to be extremely informative, interesting and well-presented. Not only do I have a more thorough understanding of Darwinian theory but also gained insight into other theories which were derived from, related to or attempted to refute it. I also came to the overall conclusion that science can at times be a blessing and a curse depending on how individuals use it. For instance scientists like Charles Darwin, Gegor Mendel, Thomas Hunt Morgan, Sewall Wright and many others were able to use science to explain many of the mysteries of life that previously baffled the human race and this subsequently led not only to advancement in scientific knowledge, but also to improvements in medecine, social analysis of civilizations,technology, psychology and many other professional fields. In this way science proved to be beneficial and useful because their hypotheses of evolution, genetics, heeredity and other phenomena proved to be accurate and also did not promote negative or partial biases.
However when I observed other factors and theories that resulted from Darwinian thinking, it made me aware of how dangerous inconclusive and biased scientific studies can be. An example of this is evident in the works of Charles Davenport, Louis Aggassiz and J.C Noth. Davenport proposed a theory of human selection that led to the rise of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century which sought to preserve “desirable” human traits by controlling human mating and implied that social tendencies such as “genius” and “criminality” could be passed from generation to generation like eye color. Eventually many scientists began to oppose this theory due to its lack of conclusive evidence. Darwin himself was rumored to have his prejudices but thought that controlling human breeding in that manner was not only ineffective but immoral.
J.C Noth and Louis Aggasiz’s theories implied that different humans were distinct species, associated with different climate and fauna and that different regions gave rise to spearately created species. Both of these theories greatly contributed to racial prejudice and subjugation and Darwin mainatined that all humans descended from one common ancestor. These examples show how misguided scientific thinking can have serious social effects and how different theories can be manipulated by scientists to perpetuate a certain perspective. Similar modern examples are the controversies regarding genetic cloning and human testing and they all raise the following questions: Where is the line that separates good and evil in medical ethics? How far is too far?

Lauren McClean
Mosaic II
Section 17
Temple University

Submitted by Steven.Wilson on Friday, October 23, 2009, at 10:18am

I enjoyed my visit, the pieces were very interesting, but i expected it to be a lot larger space wise.

Submitted by Joseph Masi on Tuesday, November 10, 2009, at 6:23am

I believe evolution is all to real, in fact I find that even today I see some evolutionary changes. I saw a show and it had women who didn’t know they were pregnant on it, on to this day it is becoming an increasing way to have a baby, even if it is unknown to the mother. But I see more and more of pregnant women acctually continuing work and other day to day activites, even if told to relax. So maybe our species is getting rid of the entire way of over baring pregnancies and making it simpler.

Submitted by sonni on Friday, January 22, 2010, at 3:53pm

re: teaching biology and evolution
I’m a retired HS Biology teacher (NYC and Phila). My reply to all the interesting comments I read is that any science incl.
Biology cannot be understood without studying concepts. Rote memory is soon forgotten. Concepts are retained in your thinking processes for the rest of your educated life. The concept of the theory of evolution is critical for understanding living organisms, their biochemical make-up, their relationships to other organisms & their environment, their inherent abilities such as a change in behavior to survive. Throughout the year of Biology, I presented the facts of life to my classes by asking in different ways the same concept- There are sudden traumatic changes to the environment such as disease, fires, earthquakes, floods, etc. What does the organism living in the community of life there do? What are their only options for each living organism? It did not take long before every hand was up with the response- move away, struggle to live with their arsenal of inherited adaptations or die. That is basically Darwin’s Theory or explanation of the remarkable diversity of life or origin of species on planet Earth.

Submitted by Tasha A. on Saturday, February 06, 2010, at 1:24pm

I went to the American Philosophical Society on Thursday, the 4th.  Even before I arrived there, I knew that the entire exhibit would likely have to do with Evolution.  I came with so many presumptions; and what I later learned were misconceptions.  I already knew that Darwin was a highly controversial topic today in America.  Something of a dispute amongst Fundamentalists and those who denounce the idea of a higher creator.  What really grabbed me was how much both sides were led by fallacies in their processing Darwin’s life and work.
I’m not sure if it is because I am more of a people person than a scientist, but after looking at the many books, hearing about his life, and analyzing the numerous displays of artwork inspired by Darwin, I kept going back to the same place in the exhibit.  There were sticky notes displayed all throughout from past visitors such as myself.  We were encouraged to display what we gathered from the exhibit.  Two sticky notes stuck out to me the most: “Darwin=God, signed Jesus”, the second was “ Darwin forgives Jesus.” This was basically what everyone shared, collaged onto the walls of the exhibit. 
I had a great conversation with the woman that worked at the APS and was telling us everything about the exhibit, along with another IH professor.  They were explaining to me that Darwin never once mentioned the word “evolution” in his book Origin of Species, nor did he ever discuss humans and their process of natural selection.  The irony is how much he is blamed in both spectrums of theological appreciation, for these suggestions.  Another thing that I found astonishing, and likely most astounding was that the theory of evolution does not suggest that we came from present-day primates but rather, we share a common ancestor now extinct. 
The IH professor along with the woman at the exhibit were saying that it was still possible for people to believe in both the theory of evolution as well as The Bible.  They said that many of the people that believed in The God of Christianity appreciated the Genesis creation story as a metaphor.  Wow!  Admittedly, I had never thought of this before.
This exhibit never mentioned God or anything anti-God (well directly at least, by my interpretation).  The exhibit was really about the person, Darwin.  It seemed as though the students/visitors ignored the exhibit and just stuck with that in mind.  I absolutely understand that Darwin is somewhat the center of the great disagreement on the existence of The Divine.  Did everyone realize that Darwin himself was considering being a part of the church for a while?  As was said by the woman at the exhibit, it is unknown as to whether or not he discontinued his pursuit because he became agnostic.  We do know that his wife was very religious.
The last thought that came into my head as I read a sticky note reply to another sticky note that read, “...or Jesus forgives Darwin” was this:  Why would God need to forgive Darwin for looking into natural selection or science.  It’s humorous because it’s almost as if Darwin went behind God’s back and figured things out that God intended to keep a secret! How paradoxical is that?  I happen to be a Theist myself and that one sticky seemed to be the biggest insult to The God of Christianity, written by a Theist.

Submitted by MexilombianX90 on Wednesday, February 10, 2010, at 1:53am

Eve Andree Laramee drawing’s of Darwin, in my opinion, did not really catch my attention. The art was good, it just did not give me the spark to want and see it. I am not an art major, or an artsy person and that might be why it did not illuminate fascination on me. I do see and understand what she was trying to do. Darwin does not give the impression that he was into art. Darwin did though have sketches of species he discover and did experiments on. I assume that is a scientist’s way of making art. To give Laramee credit, tried and I am sure she did her best to capture what Darwin was envisioning. To give Laramee credit, it must have not been easy to create that artwork. Science is not an easy subject to draw on, in my opinion. But Laramee is a skilled artist. According to her website, “Eve Andrée Laramée has been exploring the mutable, triadic relationship between art, science and nature for over twenty years.” Laramee has a good track record in the field of art. Laramee has made relationship between art, science and nature for over twenty years. Laramee work has been exhibited not only throughout the United States and in Europe, but also almost all over the world. I would not be surprised if she has done work for all of the other Darwin exhibits around the world. A fascinating thing I saw at the museum was those television hat was setup. That instantly caught my attention, I thought it was going to be like a documentary but instead it was like looking through a microscope of what looked like a small organism developing. The exhibit people talked about how Darwin had similar ideas as Gregory Mendel, the father of genetics. One of the exhibits was about genetics. I remember learning bout that material back when I was in High School, it brought back good memories. Another fascinating piece of art was with a strange looking pigeon. It was in an exhibit, I do not remember what the description was about, but the pigeon had the normal attributes bird has, but had the built of a human. I do not know exactly where Laramee was going with the picture, but maybe she was suggesting natural selection. Even though this bird looks humongous, it might not have been in reality and it died off. The one curious thing I would like to know is if she completely believes Darwin’s theory. I guess I might never know for sure.

Submitted by Melissa Q on Wednesday, February 10, 2010, at 2:17pm

1. Although the exhibit is small and quaint, it is filled with Darwin’s vast knowledge and an overwhelming number of other scientists’ support. The exhibit is split into five different sections starting out with Darwin’s trip on the Beagle and ending with his later works and how they affect the future generation. In all, I believe that every single piece in this exhibit served as a helpful guide to understanding Darwin easier. This place was filled with maps, published books, field notes, and hand written letters to other scientists who supported his theory; do to the outstanding amount of evidence, I think that this exhibit is able to persuade its viewers into believing Darwin’s views. Every single glass case was filled uncovered more knowledge than the last. I found it fascinating that Darwin collected a multitude of evidence (pictures of barnacles, studies of fossils, colorful drawings of mountain ranges, etc) before presenting his findings because he knew that his ideals could (and would) change the way people thought about our existence. More specifically, it was nice to see a wall with writing on it titled “Correcting Misconceptions about Evolution”. There are many people who have misread or overanalyzed Origin of Species and believe that Darwin claims such outrageous ideas as “humans evolved from apes” or “all organisms progress from less evolved to more evolved”. Both of these claims are wildly taken out of context; the exhibit clears up these fallacies by using Darwin’s textual evidence.
2.  In one of the glass cases I saw a hand written copy of the title page of Darwin’s Origin of Species. The APS written description below states that Darwin sent his friend, and fellow Scientist, Lyell a draft of this title page. In the letter, he states that he was a fan of the term “natural selection” because it echoed the term “artificial selection” which was a popular phrase at that time; this term described dog or pigeon breeders that controlled their animals mating. The idea of “artificial selection” has a lot to do with Darwin’s theory of “methodical selection” which occurs when “…eminent breeders try…, with a distinct object in view, to make a new strain or sub-breed, superior to anything existing in the country” (40). The idea of “natural selection”, however, is very different. Natural Selection occurs when the environment has a direct correlation with how an organism lives or dies; another term for this idea is the “struggle for existence” (not to be confused with the idea of “survival of the fittest” in which Darwin never mentioned”). He states that “natural selection” occurs in such instances when there is, “…[a] preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variations” (81). All of these ideas supported Darwin’s theory of variation.
3.  The one thing I found most fascinating in this exhibit was the actual copy of the second edition to his book Origin of Species. A section of the last sentence read, “…from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” (427). Underneath the quote, the museum wrote that this is the only time Darwin has only used the word “evolved” in his entire book; more importantly, the word “evolution” was never mentioned . I thought that this so fascinating because, today, the word “evolution” is synonymous with “Charles Darwin” when, in fact, he never mentioned it. He believed that organisms has the ability to change throughout a long period of time, but he preferred the terms “variation” and “natural selection” in order to explain to the readers how this process came about. I also thought that it was pretty interesting that his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, believed that organisms had the ability to change. He, however, used the word “transformed” which meant that one creature could change into another one completely. Thankfully, Charles Darwin saw the impossibility in his grandfather’s argument; I still think it was fascinating that he and his Grandfather believed in the same basic notion.

Professor Hollister
Mosaic 2
February 8, 2010

Submitted by jazzy76 on Wednesday, February 17, 2010, at 11:14pm

Jazz
APS Blog

1.  The overall tour was somewhat rushed and not clearly explained. However, I took the time to find out things for myself and was happy I did. Darwin’s work was and is a piece of art that no one can take away from him. The fact that he took time out to go on different voyages when it was easy for everyone to go on a boat, collect evidence, studies them and shared them with the public when he was comfortable in doing so, took a lot of love for his work and patience. Darwin made sure that he had enough evidence to back up his theories because he did not want to give false information thus mislead his readers. All of his exhibits proved that he was true to his work and took great pride in doing so.

2.  In T.B Tegetmeir 1816-1912. Pigeons: Their Structure, Varieties, Habits and Management. London George Routledge 1868 showed that Darwin was impressed by how mating individuals with desired traits over multiple generations could produce many different varieties from a single ancestor. This meant that when two pigeon mate it doesn’t necessarily mean that the offspring is going to look like the parents also they might have different shaped beaks, have different colored feathers, might eat different food, fly etc
(Origin of species, pg 85).

3.  The Device to Extract memories from stones invented in 1879 was very intriguing to me because of the design which was very well created it seems by hand. This devise had about 10-20 arrows that made a circle pointing towards the rock which was in the middle It was also interesting to see with my own eyes what they did to extract memories from stones to measure the subtle morphological differences in mineral matter. This devise was also used to measure the bumps on the skull to allegedly determine personality trait. Moreover, it showed the skill of the inventor and his creativity back in 1879.

Submitted by nickb on Monday, February 22, 2010, at 7:56am

.  I really enjoyed this exhibit, though it was not your usual museum experience.  This was not the type of collection that could just be looked at casually.  I found myself methodically reading each piece of information, and trying to progress logically through the different sections.  I love anything old, so I particularly enjoyed seeing all these books including a copy of the Origin of Species from the first run of publication.  Other highlights were the collection of illustrations from Darwin’s work, the collection of books which showed previous and contemporary explanations of creation and evolution, and the post-it note boards by the door.
I was impressed by the depth of information presented in this exhibit.  It certainly wasn’t “dumbed down” or superficial.  It was probably a little too serious for the casual observer.  I was glad that I had just read the whole book, or else I think a lot of it would have seemed obscure.  If there were more rooms dedicated to this subject, I think it would have worked to have the first main room devoted to an account of the Beagle’s voyage and a very clear explanation of Darwin’s theory.  I think the exhibit assumed a lot of knowledge.  However, the cards below each book were very well written and interesting.  I thought the art was kind of lame, first of all because it looked like “the lost notebooks” were real because of how they were presented, which was confusing.  The other stuff was clever and well-made, but- juxtaposed with works of great science which took thousands of hours of research and travel- they seem kind of silly.  The exhibit did well by giving a lot of context to Darwin’s work, which makes his accomplishments seems that much more profound.
2.  One exhibit that was particularly interesting was the collection of books by scientists who had influenced Charles Darwin.  Lyell, Lamarck, Malthus, Paley, and Humbolt were all grouped together which really provided some context to his thinking.  In particular, the work of Malthus seems to me to be a pretty big deal.  He was essentially writing that we have a precarious situation on our planet, and that humans and animals would definitely feel population checks and struggles because of our geometric rate of increase.  This is the underpinning of Darwin’s whole theory.  He refers to it in chapter 3, “The Struggle for Existence.” He writes that without bearing this idea in mind “the whole economy of nature, with every fact on distribution, rarity, abundance, extinction, and variation, will be dimly seen or quite misunderstood.” I would like to read Malthus’ work further, though I know some of his dire predictions have been foiled by man’s use of agricultural technology.
3.  One intriguing part of the exhibit was the part about cirripedia, or barnacles.  Darwin’s attention to the small picture was just as important as his attention to the big picture.  In fact, this is probably what made all the difference in his work.  Other scientists and thinkers had come up with explanations of our origins, but they were more based on faith, conjecture, and creativity than systematic observation.  Haeckel, Aggasiz, and Gould most likely all had keen minds, but they may not have had the impassionate scientific eye of Darwin, nor the open-mindedness to take results for what they were, not how they could be used to describe God or bring attention to themselves.  I believe the big picture can be found in the small picture, and the barnacle book is an example of it.  Darwin apparently said when he finished writing it, “I hate a barnacle as no man ever did before.” He was obviously driving himself a little insane with his attention to detail. But, as the display said, it gave him much credibility as a naturalist when published, and it also produced some important insights.
Darwin writes about the origin of the sexes in his book.  He seems to say that the sexes were not originally in different bodies, but that life started out as hermaphrodites.  This concept is in line with the argument for a common origin, but it goes one step further.  Apparently Darwin found evidence of the breaking off of one gender from the other in a barnacle.  The display says that he found “little husbands” inside the barnacle shell, whose purpose was probably solely the fertilization of the female which took up the bulk of the space inside.  To Darwin, this was a missing link between hermaphrodites and differentiated sexes.  I like this aspect of the museum.  Many pieces are presented which are like “Aha!” moments for Darwin.  Reading through each case of books, one can feel the same sense of discovery that Darwin must have felt with each new piece of evidence gathered.  Likewise, the geologic and naturalist work that he was doing on the Beagle foreshadows the coming epiphany, so it’s fun to see examples of what he did before it all came together.  Overall, this exhibit gave me a better sense of Darwin the man.  His broad knowledge, attention to detail, and willingness to share credit with Wallace and share ideas with other scientists gave him the necessary attitude to practice really good science, unbiased by a need for the limelight or deference to any authority other than observable truth.

Submitted by switch to consciousness 2012 on Wednesday, March 03, 2010, at 3:31am

Survival group against God?? LOL. Good luck with that. Truth is, no one knows the exact time this will happen except the man upstairs, however, I firmly believe that there are people placed here by God that post the warning signs and it’s up to you to take heed.
[url=http://2012earth.net
]stop frighten
[/url] - some truth about 2012

Submitted by tuc22032@temple.edu on Sunday, March 07, 2010, at 12:35am

Rogina Kamel
Humanities II

Ethics in my opinion is having moral values and believe that someone goes, by such as doing good, bad, or evil work. I agree with the idea of natural selection and it makes a lot of sense to me that not all humans have the same traits that can make them survive; only those who are successful and are able to cope with the environment and have the right heritable traits for their current environment can survive and reproduce successfully, and therefore they become the dominant group. Darwin paints an optimistic picture of how nature operates and it is easy to realize that by analyzing his views. I completely agree with the fact that many of trees, animals and such have been modified to look like the way they look right now. Also they all had to start from somewhere and that beginning will call it the parent species and from that they develop more and more into their own different kinds with more different shapes and sizes. In my opinion Darwin is not responsible for social Darwinism, because his main theory I believe is that those who are fit to live in the environment will be able to survive but those who aren’t wont; that does not encourage the idea that those who are strong and successful should live or should not. He was mainly going around the idea of someone being able to survive depends on such and such traits and if they have a certain physical traits that will help them to survive; he did not pose his opinion upon who should or should not survive, he was only studying the case.  I strongly dislike Malthus views and how he links the fact that god would not want people to help poor and that the needy should not live. He definitely does not know what he is talking about and he does not know his material enough, because if he would have read the bible carefully he would have seen that god is love and he loved to help those who are in need and he himself encouraged us to do so by saying love your neighbor as yourself. God also did many miracles in the bible and has provided the poor with food and healed the sick. So for the fact that Malthus is arguing that we should not help those who are in need because that is what god would have wanted, I do not respect him or his views because he is not saying the truth and he does not know what he is really talking about.  I do believe that theorist can use ideas that appear to be unethical but yet remain free of moral taint. In order for a theorist to propose a theory he/she must study the issue for a long time and they also need to provide proves of why his/her theory is proven to be so. In general theorist only study and prove whether their theory is proven correct or not; their theory does not necessarily depend upon their opinion, it is and should be only fact or factual information and so therefore theorist should not be blamed for unethical theory unless it is not proven to be so.

I thought that many of the sections of the exhibit were very interesting to look at. One of the sections in particular which is located on the left hand side of the exhibit, as I recall, I found it to be very fascinating for me. This section of the exhibit shows how Darwin studied the face features and feeling and compared those face features from animals to humans and how when someone looks worried and scared their face reaction or bone structure looks very much similar to animals. In this section also a couple of pictures were being compared from monkey to human and their bone structure and reactions looked very fascinating to even think about and to compare. The exhibit was very helpful and interesting and it helped me to understand much of Darwin’s theories and ideas because it shows pictures, books, and some of his own hand written information. I also enjoyed how they have different sections in the exhibit about genetics, feelings and so on.

Submitted by J on Sunday, March 07, 2010, at 5:54pm

The APS exhibit was something I was on the fence about. I did not feel that this really talked about the ethical battle that Darwin’s theories are. It felt more like a tribute to his work more than anything. Our tour guide, for example, was clearly knowledgeable. She took us around the entire room explaining what the hand-written letter said and showed us the fake “lost journals” that were on display.  But she did not tell us about his turmoil with many of his time period nor did she explain why many religious figures still dam his theories. I will whole-heartedly agree that the exhibit helped me understand his theories better. There were a few causes that explained social Darwinism, a belief that spawned from his ideas. The museum also showed amazing illustrative theories about how he thought animals evolved from one another. The museum really let us explore what Darwin was trying to get at, but I would have found some context helpful. Why did he believe this/ who else of his era backed his sometimes-strange beliefs? Did his work ostracize him from family, friends or colleagues? There were still a few questions after leaving that exhibit, but overall I did enjoy my experience.

Submitted by PhillDoc on Thursday, March 18, 2010, at 2:37am

Cool story as for me. I’d like to read a bit more concerning that topic. Thnx for giving this material.

Submitted by UFCRuleZ on Friday, March 19, 2010, at 3:53am

It was extremely interesting for me to read this blog. Thanks the author for it. I like such themes and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read more on that blog soon.

Best wishes

Submitted by Babi Hammond on Monday, April 12, 2010, at 4:38pm

I think there’s an error in the caption for the image of Richard Owen’s plate of skeletons. Owen didn’t have four archetypes--he thought all vertebrates were from a single archetype (the fish-looking thing at the upper right of the diagram). There’s a close-up of it, and a brief description of Owen’s theory, here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/owen.html

Submitted by Mister on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, at 9:51pm

The overall case that is made in the Darwin Exhibit is that all species have descended from one parent species. The exhibit focused on how strong Darwin’s argument was, providing many forms of verification of his ideals. I feel that the exhibit most certainly made its case. With every one of Darwin’s theories, there was another theory either against or for his theory and parallels were drawn. The exhibit also showed the strengths of Darwin’s argument by showing that he used the evidence and facts of those before him. Darwin used the arguments of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, and William Paley, written archives from both men were present. By visually showing the work of others related to Darwin, this strengthened his argument. This does in fact help me to better understand Darwin’s idea of natural selection. Seeing the work of others allows me to have a bit more background on Darwin’s theory.

Submitted by bruder on Sunday, April 18, 2010, at 7:18pm

Being able to see these seminal works and correspondence in Darwin’s own hand left me spellbound. Having this material on display right “down the street” makes one realize how fortunate we are to live in this city that was, for a long time, the most civilized in the western hemisphere.