The philosophical Conflict Between Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

According to the two-track model of scientific progress, we can look back on the history of science and in light of what we now know to be true or proven. This allows us to make a decision on whether past scientific theories and hypotheses have either been “right” or “wrong” and whether they have advanced scientific knowledge. Those ideas that have contributed to what we today accept as scientific fact are “right track” ideas, while those that have been proven wrong (or are said to be “anti-scientific – like religion for example) are said to be on the “wrong track.” In keeping with the notion of “right” and “wrong” tracks of science, the comparison of the scientific and religious views of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace illustrate this model (The Open University, 2005). Darwin and Wallace lived contemporaneously, knew each other well, shared theories, and even presented papers together in which they publicised their theories on evolution - however there was much disagreement between the two philosophically, especially towards the end of Wallace’s career.

Wallace and Darwin grew up in different worlds. Darwin was born in 1809, the son of a wealthy doctor, and had a public school education and graduated from Cambridge, whereas Wallace had only a rudimentary education and was, for the most part, self-educated. He attended lectures, made use of libraries and mixed with people that were able to quell his scientific curiosity. He immersed himself in ‘scientific novelty’ such as mesmerism, phrenology and this could have been the basis for his willingness to embrace spiritualism later in life despite rubbishing religion early in his career (The Open University, 2005).

Alfred Russel Wallace was born in 1823, in Monmouthshire, Wales. He moved to London in his teenage years. Here, he spent a lot of time at the “Hall of Science”, where the political values he had for most of his life were formed. He trained as a land surveyor and went to work in Wales with his brother William. Wallace's youth was spent living within the abject poverty of the rural Welsh. Being exposed to the farmers’ plight and witnessing the Rebecca uprising gave weight to Wallace's socialist political values. The Rebecca uprising meant that he was out of work ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Darwin set sail on the HMS Beagle and, in 1833, encountered native South Americans in the Amazon. Darwin perceived native people from other lands as "barbarians," whereas when Wallace encountered people from the same region, he was less negative, seeing these people in a more positive light than Darwin. He saw them as well adapted to their environment (The Open University, 2005). This is an example of the differing ways of thinking employed by the two scientists.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were both evolutionists, and initially their primary work was in this field. Even though they both had theories on evolution, they were not always in agreement, and in fact it wasn’t until Wallace had proposed his own evolution theories that Darwin was motivated to publish his famous work “On the Origin of the Species”. But, by the time Darwin had published his work, Alfred Wallace had begun to believe that the evolution of the human mind had to take place in the supernatural realm rather than the physical, and he commenced his investigation of spiritualism (The Open University, 2005).

For Wallace, this was a drastic departure from the science of natural selection and evolution, but it could be called a logical one, given the high levels of interest in spirituality in the nineteenth century, and the influence of events that had taken place in Wallace’s life. Wallace had come to believe that the mind was a spiritual entity separate from the physical body, and that the mind had supernatural powers and these had been witnessed by him personally (The Open University, 2005).

This marked the beginning of a theoretical break between Darwin and Wallace, and is an interesting point when the two-track model is considered in context. Wallace was moving down the “wrong track”, and Darwin continuing on the “right track”. This break was complete when Wallace followed his argument on spiritualism with the suggestion that while evolution of both body and mind was fact, it’s occurrence was impossible without the guidance of a higher power, and declared it impossible for natural selection to have produced the human mind. His argument was that there were more resources available within the human brain than was necessary for survival in man’s environment. To the “right track” scientists, who believed that an explanation for everything lay in knowledge of natural law, this was considered as much “wrong track” as the opinions of the Anglican clergy who explained everything by deferring explanation of events, origin of animals and man’s discoveries to “God” (The Open University, 2005).

Wallace's new-found interest in spiritualism caused considerable tension between Darwin and Wallace, as their beliefs now could be considered diametrically opposed and is good example of the two-track model of scientific progress. His repeated and open proclamations of these beliefs caused significant damage to his scientific reputation, even with formerly close colleagues such as Darwin himself (The Open University, 2005). Perhaps this is because Wallace made the “error” of going down the wrong track spiritualist path, whereas Darwin overcame a philosophical and religious struggle with creationism before publishing his book.

With hindsight, and considering the two-track model, Darwin’s evolutionary theories could be perceived as “right track”, and Wallace’s perceived as “wrong track”. Given Victorian political and social influences, Wallace was considered an “outsider” to the discipline of science due to his socialist and spiritualist ways of thinking. Darwin’s theories did not allow for the prospect of a creator or higher power steering evolution, while Wallace was eventually adamant that evolution could not have occurred without one.