What if Darwin didn't publish Origin of Species?

I'm new here, but I didn't see this posted: A new nonfiction book titled "Darwin Deleted", which explores what would've happened if Darwin died before he published on the origin of species. I haven't read it, but according to this review, the author argues the biggest change would be a more gradual understanding of natural selection, perhaps leading to less conflict between church and science (At least for biology; creationists may have turned their focus on geology instead.) He also dismisses the arguments that Social Darwinism or the Holocaust would've never happened, arguing there were much more significant factors in play in both.

I'll have to wait until I read the book to give a full opinion, but the argument is sound, I think. Darwin, after all, didn't dream up the theory of evolution -- he simply provided the mechanism that explained how organisms evolved. He also was in a much better position than Wallace to promote his ideas. My one quibble is I believe evolution would have remained opposed by fundamentalists -- fights like the Scopes Monkey Trial would have been delayed rather than avoided.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Alfred Russel Wallace had come to the same conclusion as Darwin and was planning on publishing them. Indeed, it was Wallace's letter to Darwin about the concept of natural selection that prompted Darwin to publish in the first place. But Wallace was not as well connected as Darwin within the scientific community, so his book may have been ignored or overlooked, whereas Darwin's work commanded immediate attention.

Moreover, Darwin was a straight-laced, conservative, upper-class gentleman. Wallace was a bit of a crank and a socialist to boot. If Wallace had been the one to publish the concept, the conservative reaction against Wallace could have been stronger and more angry because of the nature of the man doing the publishing.
 
I do not disagree with any part of your argument. Wallace was a brilliant man, but he also was a bit of a crank. Something else to consider: Wallace didn't believe natural selection could account for the evolution of humans, where Darwin, of course, would go onto write a book about that very subject.
 
The biggest difference is that On the Origin of Species had an incredible amount of evidence to support the Darwin/Wallace theory. Without this evidence, in addition to Wallace's work being ignored, we could see evolution research being pushed back decades.
 
IIRC, Darwin was racing with other scientists to publish first, it still would get published, but another name would become a curse word in evangelical circles.
 
IIRC, Darwin was racing with other scientists to publish first, it still would get published, but another name would become a curse word in evangelical circles.

He really wasn't racing to publish: remember, he kept silent for years, only disclosing his theory to a few close friends. Wallace's letter forced his hand. It was only afterwards he raced to get a book out. From what I understand, the author of Darwin Deleted isn't arguing that no one else would have thought of natural selection, just that Darwin probably was decades ahead of anyone else on the subject (Wallace included).
 
Top