Passion for Collecting. Some thoughts.

I can not say I have much in common with Charles Darwin (1809-1882). The weight of his research has not only lasted 150 years (one of the two celebrated anniversaries this year with the publication of On the Origin of Species), but it has spawned all manners of research, far beyond his imagination. However, unbeknownst to me (at least I never put the two occurrences together before, until recently), we do share a passion at least in methodology.
In his Autobiography, he writes about this passion for collecting. “I will give proof” he writes “of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! It ejected some intensely acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one” (p. 21).
The use of the mouth as temporary storage containers likely has been 're-invented' many times. Since my earliest days collecting fossils, the sites that contain hundreds if not thousands of little bone and teeth fragments (called microsites) has always been exhilarating. Little pieces of the past just sitting there, each one likely representing a different taxonomic beast from the other bone fragment just inches away. Collecting these sites means literally crawling the surface on your stomach, watching out for cacti and other intrusions, your face just inches away from the ground. For me, because of strained sight, retaining as much focus as possible without the distraction of putting each little fragment into a plastic vial, I just pick up the fossil fragment, retaining focus on the ground for the next bit, and put it in my mouth. I do this until the site is fully scoured, or I need to finally regurgitate cheek-fulls of saliva coated fossils into a vial. Unlike Darwin, however, I have never put anything poisonous into my mouth, but that is not to say that over the years a few relatively modern gopher bones did get wedged between cheek and gum.
I reminisce about this because this year marks both the birth of Charles Darwin (the second of the anniversaries), and of his publication. I ponder the breadth of his idea, and how it has influenced all manners of life, from medicine, art, philosophy, literature, and of course all the various avenues of science. But a recent article in the New York Times has clearly stated, we have to separate Darwin from evolution. That Darwin created the modern idea [for in fact evolution is much older than Darwin], pulling together a mass of information (his zeal for collecting was knowledge base, not just life's trophies), and since then, since the publication in 1859, evolution has evolved. It has answered, through the endeavors of the scientific community all over the world, many of the questions that Darwin could not answer. Genetics, DNA, ecology, further fossil discoveries, have all enhanced the theory of evolution. Science has moved beyond Darwin. Thus “Darwinism” is a misnomer. As the New York Times article states “”Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates ... And “isms” [like Marxism, Fascism] are not sciences.” What Darwin did was solely science.
So the question is, do we “kill” Darwin for the sake of evolution? Can evolution overcome the social connotations of Darwinism if we leave the old man behind? Or do we take the effort to educate ourselves, appreciating the distinction between the historical aspects of Charles Darwin [despite my hagiographical tendencies], and the current understanding of evolutionary theory? Do we make the effort?
The diversity of places, institutions, large and small, that are celebrating the Darwin anniversaries can be found at www.darwinday.org. Take note, however, besides the obligatory biographies of Darwin, many will highlight the current developments in evolutionary theory. Many will illustrate the separation between Darwin, and evolution, utilizing local examples, and the scientists responsible for that particular research. “Darwinism” rarely comes up. When it does, it is often in a social context (depending on which insitution is presenting the respective event), or in fractured light of those who have little sense of what science is. Often in the guise of “creationism”, they lack the "zeal" of collecting - specimens or knowledge - and understanding.