In a world awash with crime-show dramas, media-amplified sports, and video gaming, one of the most important traditional forms of high culture—namely, poetry--appears nearly dead. Among the adverse forces killing poetry among the intellectual elitepreviously involved in writing and reading poetry, few are more potent than science. Yet in his Autobiography, Darwin bewailed his loss of the sensibility that had made poetry a joy to him in his youth. Darwin explained this loss as the consequence of a fixation on science that had turned his mind into a "machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts." Unlike Darwin, however, Alfred Wallace (co-discoverer of natural selection) retained a love of poetry all of his life.Why did one great scientist lose his love of poetry while another great scientist known for his work in the same field did not? A foray into my own poetry—as well as that of Poe, Whitman, Wordsworth, Keats, et al.-- indicates that poets themselves understand that poetry can survive only by resisting scientific claims of omniscience and by opening lines of thought a utilitarian science can never offer.