Portrait of Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882), Biologist

Creator/Photographer: Ernest Edwards, London. (Photographic company)


Medium: Medium unknown


Date: prior to 1882


Collection: Scientific Identity: Portraits from the Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology - As a supplement to the Dibner Library for the History of Science and Technology's collection of written works by scientists, engineers, natural philosophers, and inventors, the library also has a collection of thousands of portraits of these individuals. The portraits come in a variety of formats: drawings, woodcuts, engravings, paintings, and photographs, all collected by donor Bern Dibner. Presented here are a few photos from the collection, from the late 19th and early 20th century.



Repository: Smithsonian Institution Libraries



Accession number: SIL14-D1-09

  • Craig Jenkins PRO 7y

  • kd1s PRO 7y

    I am so pleased that Darwin's Origin Of Species is being found to be more and more accurate every day. Evolution is real. Look around you and you can see it if you look carefully enough.
  • RussellDornan PRO 7y

    You don't even need to look carefully - a fleeting glance at life on this planet and you will be rewarded with countless examples of evolution in action! OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE! lol, it's true...
  • Alan Millar 7y

    Or right here on flickr: archaeopteryx - a feathered bird with fingers, a bony tail and teeth. Part dinosaur, part bird. From so long ago it's turned to stone.

    It couldn't have been clearer even as a child.
  • Bruce McAdam 7y

  • Tim O'Connor PRO 7y

    I retouched this photo to remove the ink marks and bump the contrast a bit.
    Portrait of Charles Robert Darwin (Retouched) by -oAk-
  • Alan Millar 6y

    An assertion is a claim that isn't backed by evidence. Like, "I invented the question mark." or "all life was created as it is now, in an instant, by a supernatural force."

    Evolution is backed by evidence, like gravity and germ theory, and hence, it is not an assertion.

    The evidence was well known before Darwin. He simply showed how it all fitted together. Since then, mountains of evidence have come to light that support his idea. No evidence has contradicted the theory. But the details , the mechanisms behind evolution, have been forced to change because of new evidence - something that science allows, but faiths do not since they are not based on evidence but... faith.

    To say that evolution claims that "everything came from nothing," demonstrates clearly that the person saying it has not even read a rudimentary summary of the theory. So we can therefore safely doubt any claims about evolutionists made by that person.

    It's very telling that most opponents of Darwin's idea have no idea what it is.
  • Alan Millar 6y

    Another popular myth among those who carefully avoid reading any real science. By "theory," scientists do not mean the normal sense of "an interesting speculation." They mean "an explanation that fits all the known facts."

    Germ theory is a "theory." In every case of a particular kind of disease, Tuberculosis, for e.g., they found a particular bacterium. If they put that bacterium in another person, they too developed Tuberculosis. Thus, they reasoned, the bacterium caused the illness.

    It's "only a theory" though, so if a doctor says your bronchitis is caused by evil spirits and sinful thoughts, you no doubt believe him. The rest of us would check to see if he had a medical license and report him.

    "Theory" in, "The theory of evolution," is not used in the everyday sense by scientists.

    Darwin developed a theory (in the scientific sense) which fitted - and still fits - all the known facts regarding observable conditions of the natural world, the fossil record, the distribution of species, embryonic similarities, etc..

    Now the study of genetics has only made his theory impossible to doubt for anyone who actually reads about how it all works - rather than those who get their information from anti-evolutionists inventing nonsense about "something from nothing." "My grandfather wasn't a monkey." And "why is there no crocaduck?" among other laughable absurdities.

    If you're not prepared to so much as read a popular introduction to evolution by a scientist, how can you be so dead set against it?

    Many religious people understand and accept evolution. It says nothing about the existence or not of God. And evolutionists clearly don't believe they are immortal - as you rather bizarrely seem to suggest.

    Once again. How can you argue against it, when you have no idea what it is?

    You claimed that evolutionists claim that something came from nothing. They don't - ever.

    You claimed that evolution is only a theory - implying that scientists are only speculating, and aren't really sure - that's applying an everyday definition of theory that scientists are not using when they call it a theory.
  • RussellDornan PRO 6y

    Just believe what you want to, Dissenting. Why bother arguing? If you can't be swayed by hard evidence and rational thought then no one will ever get through to you.

    Blissful ignorance must be nice at times - I can see the temptation in it but luckily I have more integrity.
  • Colin Purrington 6y

    It's great to be able to see the veins in his hands.
  • Nam Le PRO 5y

    Nice pic!!!!!!!!!
  • Alan Millar 5y

    @dissenting - Sweeping generalisation? Not at all. You used the "it's only a theory," and "believe in nothing" creationist nonsense. Therefore you are a creationist and scientific illiterate (although the two are synonymous). There's no getting around that. It's like if you said 1+1 =7 and I called you innumerate.

    It's not a generalisation, it's a fact that you've demonstrated in plain view.

    It's simply astonishing that such baseless, clueless, hogwash has managed to confuse half the world about evolution.
  • WeiSiGuo2011 4y

    @ dissenting - I see what you did there. Your whole argument against evolution rests on the "it's just a theory" concept. @ thecaveofthedead tells you that you are using the word theory in it's everday sense, not it's scientific meaning.

    Ed Pearlstein explains this well, "A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another."

    Thus scientists use the word theory to mean something very close to fact. Evolution is supported by massive amounts of supporting evidence - can you say this of your religion?
S Search
Photo navigation
< > Thumbnail navigation
Z Zoom
B Back to context