Celebrating Darwin
Rob Price

When all is said and done, 2008 should be a memorable year .

Not only is it the first year in history both a woman and a man of color made credible runs for the U.S. presidency, it's the year historians of science will celebrate as the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's announcement of the theory of natural selection.

Perhaps the two principal candidates for the presidency should be made aware of that coincidence. Their response could tell us a lot about their relationship with the modern scientific community, a relationship that would impact their understanding of such diverse issues as global warming, nuclear power and stem cell research.

Darwin's theory of natural selection tries to describe organisms undergoing an evolutionary process that over time gives some organisms natural advantages within the context of the surrounding environment. Those organisms reproduce, giving birth to organisms with similar advantages over competing organisms. Eventually the weaker organism succumbs to the stronger and a new, stronger, species of organism is established in the natural world.

A recent article in The New York times lays out the story of how that idea came into circulation, climaxing in a presentation July 1, 1858 at the Linnean Society in London. Darwin, according to writer Olivia Judson, had been considering the idea of evolution for about 20 years. In 1844, he wrote a short article on the subject, but it was never published (Darwin wanted it published in the event of an "untimely death," Judson writes). Then, in June of 1858, Darwin received by mail a manuscript by Alfred Russel Wallace in which Russel - no slouch in the scientific theory department - outlined his own ideas regarding evolution and natural selection. Darwin helped arrange for a meeting of the Linnean Society, at which Wallace's manuscript was read out loud, accompanied by selections from Darwin's 1844 article.

The meeting was considered unexceptional at the time; at the end of the year, the Linnean Society president wrote, according to Judson, an amusingly obtuse observation noting: "The year which has passed has not…been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize … the department of science on which they bear."

But the meeting galvanized Darwin into writing the book that would change history: "The Origin of Species" was published the following year and established the theory of evolution as the principal explanation for why species of organisms differ from each other.

"The Origin of Speicies" also changed our understanding of the fundamental relationship between humankind and the natural world. As Judson writes, "Perhaps most importantly, the 'Origin' changed our view of ourselves. It made us as much as part of nature as hummingbirds and bumblebees… We too acquired a family tree with a host of remarkable and distinguished ancestors."

The fact that Darwin was not the first person to conceive of a theory of evolution is not terribly important. "The Origin of Species," Judson notes, was so vast and detailed in its range, its sheer density established Darwin as the founder of modern biology. "He uses every form of evidence at his disposal," she writes. "He observes, argues, compares, infers and describes the results of experiments he has read about, or in many cases personally conducted."

In the best scientific tradition, Darwin continued rewriting "The Origin of Species" after its initial publication, refining his work as new knowledge regarding species emerged. He published six editions in all, and it's interesting to imagine his reaction to the 20th century discovery of DNA - the actual transmission mechanism for evolution he could only imagine.

Darwin's theory of evolution may have changed the way biologists regard the human organism, but these days the majority of Americans have the impression the theory is a deeply flawed understanding of human life because (1) it's only a theory, and (2) it omits God from the conversation. As Americans, we know full well we live in an economic world, in which the price of gasoline responds to economic forces such as supply and demand and commodity speculation. We are less comfortable with the fact that each of our various cells contains a long molecule of nucleic acid that controls how each cell reproduces itself whenever it divides.

Yet this science is as crucial to our quality of life as the cost of pumping oil. It informs our understanding of diseases such as cancer. It guides our decision to travel through outer space. It should certainly govern our development of a national energy policy that reduces carbon emissions.

It's just the sort of thing our presidential candidates should be talking about. As Hillary once said, "Let the conversation begin!"