Reply to comment

Last semester I took a Victorian Literature course here at Bryn Mawr in which we studied George Elliot's "Mill on the Floss". "Mill on the Floss" was published a year after Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and thus incorporates many aspects of evolutionary theory. When discussing evolution my Victorian Literature professor, Kate Thomas, told us that the term "scientist" had only evolved after the publication of "On the Origin of Species". Prior to this all science was known as natural history. To me, history implies a story. So how can science not be a story if its very origin is a form of history? I don't think that science and literature have ever really been seperate fields and never will be.