BBC HomeExplore the BBC
This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving.



BBC Homepage
BBC Radio
BBC Radio 4 - 92 to 94 FM and 198 Long WaveListen to Digital Radio, Digital TV and OnlineListen on Digital Radio, Digital TV and Online

PROGRAMME FINDER:
Programmes
Podcasts
Schedule
Presenters
PROGRAMME GENRES:
News
Drama
Comedy
Science
Religion|Ethics
History
Factual
Messageboards
Radio 4 Tickets
Radio 4 Help

Contact Us



Darwin - In Our Time
MISSED A PROGRAMME?
Go to the Listen Again page
In Our Time banner
These In Our Time specials on Charles Darwin were broadcast at 9.00am, Monday 5 - Thursday 8 January 2009.
Listen Again to Darwin - In Our Time
Darwin image
As part of Radio 4's Charles Darwin season Melvyn Bragg presented a major series re-assessing Darwin's life and work and asked why Darwin's writing remains such a profound influence on our understanding of the natural world.

You can listen to the series again in the section below.

Programme 1 - 9.00am Monday 5 January 2009
Melvyn tells the story of Darwin's early life in Shropshire and discusses the significance of the three years he spent at Cambridge, where his interests shifted from religion to natural science.

Download the Adobe Flash player to view this content

Featuring contributions from Darwin biographer Jim Moore, geneticist at University College London Steve Jones, fellow of Christ's College Cambridge David Norman and assistant librarian at Christ's College Cambridge Colin Higgins.

Programme 2 - 9.00am Tuesday 6 January 2009
Darwin's expedition aboard the Beagle in December 1831 and how his work during the voyage influenced and provided evidence for his theories.

Download the Adobe Flash player to view this content

Featuring contributions from Darwin biographer Jim Moore, Steve Jones, geneticist at University College London, David Norman, Fellow of Christ's College Cambridge and Jenny Clack, curator of the University.

Programme 3 - 9.00am Wednesday 7 January 2009
How Darwin was eventually persuaded to publish On the Origin of Species in November 1859 and the book's impact on fellow scientists and the general public.

Download the Adobe Flash player to view this content

Featuring contributions from Darwin biographer Jim Moore, Steve Jones, geneticist at University College London, Jim Secord of the Darwin Correspondence Project and Johannes Vogel, Sandy Knapp and Judith Magee, all of the National History Museum.

Programme 4 - 9.00am Thursday 8 January 2009
Melvyn visits Darwin's home at Down House in Kent. Despite ill health and the demands of his family, Darwin continued researching and publishing until his death in April 1882.

Download the Adobe Flash player to view this content

Featuring contributions from Darwin biographer Jim Moore, geneticist at University College London Steve Jones, Darwin expert Alison Pearn of the Darwin Correspondence Project and former garden curator at Down House Nick Biddle.

Audience Reactions to the Series

Darwin and his ensuing ism
I seem to write to this IOT website more than anybody else does and that is because, for me, the programme and site hold the deepest and rarest integrity. The integrity lies not only in the choice and investigation of subjects, but also in the composite picture which is represented. In Our Time's series on Darwin was truly inspiring, revealing so much about this wonderful man and I really congratulate all concerned. However, it is troubling me that the general representation of Darwin's work is almost offensively reductive. The point is - Darwin was an exemplary scientist in one fundamentally important field of science. Science requires specialization - naturally, just as endocrinology, cardiology, dermatology etc relate to specialist areas of the body. However, the human being is a composite entity and so, surely, is science. If we don't marry it up - we don't get a correct picture. We are not doing good science if we compartmentalize beyond the practicality of function. In spite of the gains, I cannot feel that Darwin would be as 'pleased as Punch' as might be imagined because reductionism has isolated his work and created division rather than wholeness not to mention sweeping corollaries. Science knows neither the process nor the context relating to the presence of biology on this earth, never mind the role of consciousness - or for that matter, which gives rise to which....we await the advancement of science. There are obviously huge implications in biblical terms, but as doors have banged closed, should we consider that a baby has possibly been thrown out with the bathwater or the pendulum swung too far in the other direction? If we are merely products of a 'give it with one hand, take it with the other' biology, what do our stories mean? Surely Darwin,in our age, would have an eye on the whole vanguard of science (not to mention philosophy). We could be virtual beings in the minds of virtual beings in the minds of... for all we know. Is love simply a product of the selfish gene? Altruism has now been stretched to fit that role. I cannot believe that Darwin was reductionist by nature except in the necessary focus required for his particular 'vocation'. The IOT series managed to have a healthy and uplifting 'open' rather than 'closed' feel to it so I'm not sure how much of this issue is down to the various 'societies',how much to the media's involvement and how much to the biologists (or certain biologists) themselves. It's not impressive - in fact it rather detracts from the wondrous findings of Darwin. The almost evangelically held belief that nature somehow 'just happens' - which so smugly issues forth from Darwinists in a predictively concomitant way, is a leap of faith larger than the belief in a creative force, which at least has some logic to back it up. There's a most paradoxical medieval mindset operating in those patting themselves on the back. Science based solely on empiricism is quickly becoming anachronistic. I actually think that evangelical Darwinists are guilty of buying into the reductive and most dismissive phrase imaginable "Isn't nature wonderful". Nature is beyond wonderful.....what are the intimations which David Thoreau and Goethe stand for in our society? Darwinist's are possibly cutting off the branch from the tree on which they are sitting. We cannot draw fixed conclusions, we can only take what is revealed inch by dedicated inch along the 'line of time' and try to keep the right questions coming. Conclusions are simply not possible. It seems to me that ironically, all too many scientists,in spite of their goodness and dedication, are working to the detriment of the truest science. Anyway, it's always possible we're missing the point....."Tread softly because you tread on my dreams".... Tread carefully Darwinists. Best wishes and I feel I have to add "apologies".

Darwin
I'm a bit behind in my listening, but wanted you to know that your Darwin series is both exciting and inspiring. Well done. I never miss an episode of IOT or Start the Week. Thank you so much. Rick KennerlyVirginia Beach, VA USA

Darwin Series Was Just Superb
Dear In Our Time Staff:First discovered Mr. Bragg's Story of English TV show, then found his In Our Time podcast. The Darwin series was just outstanding. I would love to see more programs go in depth--(3 or 4 part series).Some ideas would be a) Newton and His Times, b) Why has Britain produced so many notable scholars relative to size of country c)follow up to Story of English-- to include email, blogging etc.I live in tiny town south of San Francisco and I feel so lucky I can listen to your shows halfway across the world.Best,Margot Lowry

Nathan: History of History
The Eurocentricism really has gone to far this time. Starting the program with Herodutus! We normally at least get a few perfunctory comments about Mesopotamia at the beginning. In this context it would have been really good to have something against which the Greek innovations could be contrasted. I realise it would have been too much to ask for the comparable Chinese tradition to get a mention.

Nathan Reynard: Historiography
Well done for trying to cover historiography in such a tight slot - perhaps a short series of would be better for such a massive subject. I would also like to congratulate you for the Darwin series, which was all that good, intelligent radio is about. Wonderful stuff. A thought for a future programme: on the back of Jim Al-Khalil's series 'Science and Islam', why was it that it took the western Renaissance for most of these Islamic scientific discoveries to bear fruit? Indeed, considering how advanced Islamic scholars were when the West was struggling through the Middle Ages, what went wrong?

Darwin
Just to compress everything have to say about Melvyn Bragg's 4 Darwin episodes " They were fantastic" Thank You. If You can ever top this.......well I wont make a bet, because You probably can. Before this I think "The Norman Yoke" was really ne of the best. By the way are normans and vikings the same :-)Soren Hasle Copenhagen Denmark

Darwin
Thankyou, thankyou Radio 4 for a wonderful set of programmes on Darwin's life and work as a truly amazing scientist, which set his theory of evolution in context and evaluated its impact then and in the centuries since and made it thus all the morememorable. As ever with Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time programmes,he researches the subject through engaging, well-informed and enlightened speakers. I also thoroughly enjoyed the series of "Letters to Darwin", which brought the evolutionary theory right up to date and educated my understanding of modern sciences - exciting, and at times, challenging. The fascinating Line Between Life and Death programme of that week, also had links with evolution. As a local to Stoke-on-Trent I am well aware of Darwin's connection with the Wedgwood family - Josiah Wedgwood's daughter Susannah(on horseback in the well-known painting of the Wedgwood Family by George Stubbs) married the son of Erasmus Darwin - the latter being doctor to Josiah. Susannah gave birth to Charles Darwin. As I understand it, Erasmus Darwin and his contemporary intelligentsia { eg the Hunter brothers of Edinburgh,)and George Stubbs himself, were fascinated with comparative anatomy and were feeling around for explanations of life two generations before Charles Darwin, suggesting that he was not only influenced by the liberal,thinking attitudes of his extended family from which he descended, but possibly also by their own searchings for an explanation of life, pinnacled by Charles Darwin's own "Origin of Species". Please lets have other topics, not necessarily scientific subjects , treated to this entertaining and informative richness of linked programmes .

In Our Time - Darwin Programmes
In this bicentenary year, could the BBC please transmit the wonderful film series made in the 1970`s - `The Voyage of the Beagle`.Many, many listeners are unaware of this superb film. It brings Darwin and Fitzroy alive.Have you seen it Melvyn?

Simon Booton-Mander: In our Time Darwin
Although I loved the programmes, it struck me quite early on that the experts invited to contribute lacked one voice, that of Richard Dawkins, whom I take it you realise is the foremost exponent of Darwinism in the country if not the world.It struck me also that this was obviously not an oversight, because to a man on the programmes, they all seemed to be religious Darwinists. I thought at first that the use of the phrase “in Gods Universe” which was used with annoying regularity was used to give a feeling of the Victorian era, but it soon became evident that this seemed to be the consensus of the collective contributors to the 4 programmes.I also counted at least two references to Darwinism being hijacked by Atheists. Darwinism to its logical end is an Atheistic idea regardless of whether Darwin was an atheist or not. It is not possible to co exist with religion on the bases of logic, either your holy books are correct or they are not.

Jane - Darwin
Few thoughts after reading some of the comments. Was non-biological (if multi-faceted) natural selection part of the Wallace/Darwin story? I once knew a word which I wish I could remember - it meant that two seemingly opposing arguments could both be right. This was not in the way a syllogism works or the picture which can be either an old crone or a young woman. It would be useful at this minute. Science can be both black and white requiring an impeccability to understand and bring to light detail of form, function etc. whilst simultaneously, grey, messy and somehow chaotic because of the vast range of influences which the inter- relatedness of phenomena incur - (this is much easier to understand with my mind than to put into words). Add to that the limits put upon interpreting findings because of inevitable paradigmatic thinking, relativism, and also the vast array of 'unknowns', some of which we cannot yet even begin to fathom, and conclusions should surely be very flexible. I've always liked anomalies as they are often, 'though not in all cases, the truth bringers, big clues that there's either 'more to it' or that something's 'off track'. No matter how inconvenient, they should always, but always be given genuine attention. What are the anomalies in Darwinism? Can anybody answer (in a nutshell)? There is so much being attributed to the role and influence of genetics and, whilst they obviously have a crucial function, I think we need to be very careful that we don't become too one tracked. Darwin was a man of truth and his work magnificent. However, it occurs to me that he would possibly be unsettled by the somewhat exclusive claims which are presently being made for his findings preferring his work to be used as a useful contribution to the ever widening and deepening vistas which are unravelled by each generation. It also occurs to me that it is not an automatic corollary that this man, who was wise as well as intelligent, would necessarily be an advocate of genetic engineering. Commendable concept that it is, it is almost certainly only one of many possible ways forward and in truth, it is not hyperbolism to mention Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' - even one phenomenon of nature unaccounted for or one person's fallibility could, potentially, be disastrous. Also, despite the dedicated work of many scientists, vested interests preclude this being pure science or even, necessarily, the best use of science. Absolutely superb programmes. Agree that Goethe would be a great subject. Best wishes to all.

Todd, United States - Darwin
Thank you Mr. Bragg for the outstanding Darwin programs. It was wonderful to have your ability to get speakers to focus on the most important points and quickly move on to the next subject in such an extended format and on such an important and fascinating subject.It would be fantastic to have more of these larger scale shows in the future.

Malcolm Chisholm - Darwin
The differential treatment of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace always amazes me. However, it does allow us the intellectual equivalent of a genetic study of identical twins. Both founded the Theory of Evolution, but Darwin is lauded and Wallace ignored. Why?I went to school in Broadstone, Dorset, where Alfred Russel Wallace lived and is buried. There were no public memorials to him - at least when I was growing up. Yet his contributions to science probably exceed Darwin’s, with “Wallace’s Law”, and “Wallace’s Line”. He published a devastating book in 1907 to refute the very popular ideas of Percival Lowell that a civilization on Mars had built canals there. This was the first detailed, scientific book providing methods to assess the possibility of life of other planets, and Wallace proved conclusively there could be no life on Mars.Some suggest that Wallace is treated the way he is because of class distinctions. It is a lot more probable that Wallace is treated the way he is because he supported what is today called “intelligent design” as well as evolution. Wallace’s final book, published in 1911 is called “The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose”. This title pretty much sums up his position.One other point. Malcolm Chisholm, Holmdel, New Jersey, USA.

Warren on Charles Darwin
Hi,The Charles Darwin series was excellent. I'd love to hear more in depth stuff like this. I do like the series every week, but often it's just like you're getting to the meat of the discussion when you have to stop.This 4 part beastie was perfect.Many thanks to you and your guests.Cheers from Brisbane.Warren Bingham

Ron and Darwin
That was fantastic.Wish it wasn't over.

Scott Martin: Darwin Series
This was absolutely a fascinating series, and quite honestly the best produced, most interesting, entertaining and informative podcast I have yet listened to. Bravo to BBC and Mr. Bragg for an outstanding series. Please give us more like these!

J Allen
the Darwin programmes really got me inside the world of 19th century science. Very, very enjoyable.

T Young: Darwin
Thank you for the Darwin thing. I found it very interesting.

Charles Darwin programmes
These were 4 terrific programmes about Darwin,the way he worked, his family life and the effect ofhis published works. Steve Jones was particularly good

sandra moore ?Darwin
A little bit breathless but good on the whole.Some points needed amplification. eg 1.. Darwin appeared to be cast as the pondering genius gestating his revolution but no mention of Eramus Darwin , his grandfather who , living in the shadow of lichfield cathedral produced an evolutionary theory well known to his grandson and whom he revered and even wrote about.2... no mention of Malthus whose theories of human poulation control ..so shocking in content were deeply part of the "struggle for existence "idea..3..Steve jone"s praise of darwin as "ideal scientist" because as Darwin said "I seem to have a mind which grinds out facts like a mill", says more about mr jones than about true science! it was refuted by steven rose at 845 on "Today" re brain research when he said that there was a vast profusion of facts but no insight into their meaning. IE scince is not only facts but imaginative insight into them4,, unsurprisingly no space at all was given to creationism or intelligent design which i believe mr jones has anathematized in all its forms.yet not all its assertions are beneath consideration merely because some fanatics associate with it for dogmatic reasons.Steven rose would be a worthy undogmatic sort of commentator for a sort of more usual" In Our Time" format on Darwin.5.. it was good to hear one speaker link the "Origin" to annie darwin and her death.. ..very insightful..her grave is near here in Malvern...but this refutes steve jones idea that only the science matters not the scientist, this is surely wrong, and Darwin himself seemed aware of a deadening influence on himself from his" fact grinding" separate from all personality, to which he attributed the loss of all his higher tastes (in his autobiography) music poetry etc. how different from the other evolutionary theorist and scientist Goethe, whose alternative theory of evolution unites where darwins inevitably disperses.not really a surprise that this should be ignored or even wallaces devotion to spiritualism, but even Haeckel who visited darwin more than once, was ignored which makes one feel that the lovable man CD, has, against his humble will been cannonised and sanctified by a british establishment which even includes the church of england maybe.at the close poor melvyn seemed to be expiring in a mound of earthworms!!!!! but for all that an very interesting listen.

Piers Rogers - Darwin
Dear Melvyn et alii,The proposition was: That language originated in the Garden of Eden. The scene: a junior high school in north Florida. The date: the late fifties. I was thirteen at the time, and attacked the proposition by rubbishing the Garden of Eden. The debate dissolved into uproar and, leaving class, I was jostled and threatenend.I had been brought up with Darwinism and it seemed unremarkable, but in 1959 Evolution continued to provoke strong feelings, despite twenty-five years having passed since the Scope's monkey trial.Incredibly, the rancorous continues today. And equally incredibly, until your programmes and despite my performance as a pubescent Huxley, I had no real appreciation of Darwin's genius, nor of the gigantic leap of understanding that Evolution represents.So, thank you all for the enlightenment.

Richard Leigh - DARWIN
I'm still recovering from amazement that the BBC can devote time to serious issues, and that IOT can include no less than 4 programmes on Darwin - wonderful - and that there are such articulate people out there- the description of Darwin's death was very moving. One quote which I recently came across, and would like to circulate: in Ursula Vaughan Williams' book on Ralph VW. " The publication of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin of Species' had shaken the family and the country to their foundations........Ralph (he was 6 or 7 at the time) asked his mother about 'The Origin of Species', and what it meant. She answered 'The Bible says that God made the world in six days, Great Uncle Charles thinks it took longer: but we need not worry about it, for it is equally wonderful either way.'"Carry on the (improbably) good workAll the bestRichard Leigh

Edward Gildea
I'm pretty sure that the statue in prime position at the top of the stairs of the Natural History Museum is that of Darwin's arch-enemy Richard Owen. Not Charles Darwin, as you suggest. Unless they've recently moved him, he is relegated to a spot in the cafeteria. But maybe he gets better attention there!

Brian Oakwell -Darwin
Dear Lord BraggI congratulate you and your team at the BBC for producing a wonderful series of 4 programmes on Darwin this week on R4. Brilliant work. I commend you for this work and many of your other programmes. You are an Educator of the highest order.Some thoughts provoked by your Darwin series-When did the masses start to become aware/ understand about the theory of the Origin of Species?Was there a particular awakening?I did not get a feel for this in your series.Is Darwin's book on worms still in publication? I bought a wormery in 2007. I find them fascinating. In addition they "plough" some great compost!Keep up the great work.Brian Oakwell

Jonathan Griffin, Twickenham - In Our Time: Darwin
As a lapsed biologist, whose career has meandered away from science, I found this week's series on Darwin really rekindled my enthusiasm. Excellent contributors and a thoroughly engaging production. I particularly appreciated the trouble taken to report from specific locations relevant to Darwin's life, which built an atmosphere loaded with the excitement and tensions of his time - thank you!How about revisiting the position of the Plymouth Brethren on evolution referencing "Father and Son" by Edmund Gosse?

Darwin
For an alternative, interventionist view of the origin of the earth's species, Lloyd Pye has some very well informed and intelligent, if rather disturbing, theories online, eg. in the article 'Darwinism: a Crumbling Theory', (and in his book 'Everything You Know is Wrong'). If you are alarmed by Part I, you'll be horrified by Part II. He describes how, although the validity of Darwinian theory is indisputable for the microscale, the fossil record, and our charactistics as humans in relation to our closest primate relatives, simply doesn't support Darwinism on the macroscale. His idea is that the seeding of life was undertaken by visitors to our planet, who subsequently gave it a series of developmental boosts through the era.

Tom Milner-Gulland - Darwin
One thing that bothers me about the evolution of bacteria, irrespective of where they may supposedly have evolved, is that according to Darwinian theory, the mutant organism with the selective advantage will succeed at the expense of the survival of its progenitor. If the progenitor survives and proliferates despite environmental change, there is implicitly no selective advantage for a mutant form. Thus where mutants do have a selective advantage, they must succeed by virtue of geographical isolation. But since it is manifestly obvious that the bacterium, extremophile or otherwise, is immensely versatile from the point of view of adaptation, and, accordingly, is ubiquitous in the earth's planetary environment, the reason for the success of evolutionary bifurcations that lead to advanced lineages is obscure, since any concept of selective advantage, diverging away from the bacterial form, seems to be undermined. One moment we hear from Darwinians that the success of a mutant form is a matter of the weeding out of competitors, and the next we hear that all that is needed is reproductive isolation and niche differentiation. Why should it not be bacteria alone that consume the niche resources? If there is a gradualistic evolution away from the bacterial form, then there is, in principle, competition between progenitor and mutant; but this is not borne out in elimination of bacteria. If Darwinians want to say that there ultimately is no such thing as the exhuative consumption of resources, and therefore no such thing as final competition for them, why don't they just come out and say it? Admittedly, it leaves them with problems: what is responsible for the distinction between the gene pools of the organisms of the new lineage and their progenitor?

Ben Joslin: Darwin.
Stand by for all the superlatives for this series. Masterly, for both novices and those among us who are Darwin junkies.We touched his presence by visiting his study. Then we touched the worm-stone in his garden by which he measured the rate at which worms sink stones, and walked with him,Emma and Henrietta in his garden Down the Long Walk. Spine tingling.

Jane - Darwin
Couldn't possibly follow that with a comment. Instead, I'll go through the day knowing that the ethers are reverberating with these timely programmes. You've performed a real service this week. Bless you and bless you again!!!

Judith Newman - Darwin
I would like to thank Melvyn Bragg and the team for a truly enjoyable series of programmes. They made Darwin a real person and his achievements so relevant to today. I have recently retired and it is a great pleasure to be able to listen to the In Our Time programmes even though I usually don't understand half of them!! Thank you very much, and a Happy New Year to you all. Long may you continue!!Judith Newman

Andrew Coulson --- Darwin
These are very interesting and stimulating discussions, but I do find it surprising that (like the rest of Radio 4’s celebration of Darwin) so much of the material is built up on the propositions that:-- Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is controversial, and-- Darwinism is in conflict with Christianity.I had a completely conventional English education – half a century ago -- in schools both of whose headmasters would have said that all their activities were shot through with the christian ethic -- worshipful assemblies every day, confirmation classes in the chapel, visiting clerics, all that sort of thing. At that time, I could no more have described myself as an 'atheist' than I could have described myself as an 'anarchist'. 'Agnostic' was as far as one could go, respectably --- beyond that would have been regarded as teenage affectation, at best....And there was plenty of other public expression of protestant doctrine on the wireless, in the newspapers, and so on. Never once can I remember any christian spokesman, schoolteacher, anyone whatever, expressing the thought that there might be any conflict between Darwinian evolution and christian doctrine. Never, in the teaching of science, or any other subject, did I ever hear that there was any question about the truth of evolution. I repeat that there was nothing ‘progressive’ about the schools I went to.

Darwin
Thank you Melvyn, for this week's most interesting series on Darwin. The programme was interesting, concise, and covered the key events of Darwins contribution to our understanding of ourselves.Your presentation will raise much needed awareness of what eveolution is all about.Regards. Malcolm and Marie Ferguson-Smith

Anne Wade Origin of species
Wilberforce: surely Samuel, not William.But great as usual.

Darwin
Sirs,I am currently on sabbatical, living out in the frozen sticks on the edge of the Baltic. My tenuous www.link to the morning BBC R4 programs 'today' & 'in our time' provides my v limited contact with the english speaking world that i couldn't live without. I don't usually write these messages but I've just downloaded the Darwin episodes to 'listen again' & with a mind to using for ('compulsory') undergraduate reading & tutorial purposes back at Aberystwyth University (Geography/Earth Science) - these episodes - charting Darwin's public, scientific and personal life are simply outstanding. The level of questioning and amazingly articulate responses from the numerous and varied 'cast' superb & really brings the subject and its insight into the 'scientific method & creativity' plus the genius but also humanity of this man alive. I am especially a fan of Stephen Jones - but I'm biased as he's from my home town. Perhaps he'd grace us with a guest lecture one of these days! Keep up the good work & thank you for an inspirational series.Dr Alun Hubbard

Paul Graves-Brown, Wallace' Theory of Evolution?
In Our Time has largely perpetuated the version of history that downgrades Wallace' contribution to the theory of evolution. Effectively Wallace was sidelined on the basis of the power of class, whereas if there were any justice, his paper on the theory would have been published before Darwin's and we might now be discussing Wallace' theory of evolution.On another point I noticed no discussion of the theoretical roots of the theory; neither the usual reference to Malthus (which has become somewhat suspect) nor the far more important influence of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which Darwin read whilst on the Beagle voyage. The conventional theory of natural selection can in this light be interpreted as a reification of capitalism into the natural World; a point that Kropotkin then tried to counter in his Mutual Aid - an interesting but now largely forgotten work.

Jane - Darwin
Managed to catch today's programme. Brilliant. Some fundamental 'ironing out'. Also process being shown as such a central theme to both biology and science. Can never thank you enough for these wonderful IOT programmes.

Sandra Billington -- Darwin: in Our Time
Not only is it a pleasure to be able to engage with this fascinating, key piece of history -- the pleasure is greater to find it continuing through 4, 3/4 hour programmes.I know there must be a limit even to Melvin Bragg's energy but I hope the message has been received in Radio 4 that its devotees want such meaty, informative, serious subjects.

BrummyDoug - Darwin
please do tell us about Alfred Wallace, his contribution and relationship with Darwin.

Jeremy Collingwood re Darwin 1
Melvyn, You gave a somewhat misleading impression by linking the 39 Articles with the doctrine of the Trinity and transubstantiation. The Trinity is specifically affirmed in Article 1, but transubstantiation is wholly rejected in Article 28.

Soren Hasle, Copenhagen Denmark, Subject..Live or
It is without a doubt a great quality that Your excelent program is live. It gives a fantastic atmosphere. The discussions and talks You hae with Your guests. Thank You and I look forward to all the "In our Time" in the new Year.Happy New Year Soren Hasle. Copenhagen Denmark.

Dr. Peet Morris
I very much enjoyed the first part of the Darwin series. I was so taken with the programme that at one point I was ‘honked’ for sitting at a green light – the first time that’s happened to me for a very long time indeed.

Keith Bannerman : Darwin
Never mind Darwin's bicentenary, what about recognising the equal contribution of local lad Alfred Wallace, intrepid 19th century explorer of Indonesia, who gave Darwin the idea for evolution (whether you subscribe to the theory or not)

    The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites
    Listen Live
    Audio Help
    [an error occurred while processing this directive]

    In Our Time

    Melvyn Bragg

    In Our Time: A companion to the
    Radio 4 series

    The In Our Time Companion, edited by Melvyn Bragg, features a personal selection of episodes from the series. Find out more about the book.


    About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy