Darwin was not a biologist (talk)

You could read hundreds of pages of Darwin’s work and easily come to the conclusion that he was a geologist. But a different selection of readings would convince you he was a biologist. In truth, he was neither and both. I’m giving a talk this weekend for the Humanists of Minnesota that will explore what Darwin really was: An experimentalist, a part time anthropologist, a natural historian and most impressively, an integrative thinker of the likes rarely to be seen again for a century after he lived. My talk will draw heavily on Darwin’s own work and provide a sampling of some of his more interesting and compelling findings.

The talk will be at the Nokomis Community Center, on Saturday, February 18th, at 10:00 AM

More details here. See you there!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn

3 thoughts on “Darwin was not a biologist (talk)

  1. Mr. Darwin referred to himself as a geologist in his account of the Beagle voyage, and spilled quite a bit of ink describing his geological observations. Those parts added a great deal to this reader’s enjoyment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.