Lessons from Lysenko for the Creationist/Evolution "Pseudodebate"

On July 31, 1948, Academician Trofim Lysenko delivered the presidential address on "The Situation in the Science of Biology," at the Session of the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the U.S.S.R. The complete address, evoked by the international discussion of the subject of inheritance of acquired characteristics, can be found at Lysenko Address if you don’t mind letting marxists electrons into your computer.

In 9 sections plus "Concluding Remarks" [Comments added by the poster are in [ ]. Most of the skipped sections are either of difficult verbiage, typical of communistic propaganda and therefore make little sense, or are not germane or are repetitive.]

"Agronomy deals with the living bodies – plants, animals and microorganisms. A theoretical grounding in Agronomy therefore must include knowledge of biological laws." [No problem here, except the addition of microbes. A short introductory section]

"The appearance of Darwin’s teaching, expounded in his book, The Origin of Species, marked the beginning of scientific biology. The primary idea in Darwin’s theory is the teaching on natural and artificial selection." [now it gets interesting]

[Lysenko quotes that great biologist Friedrich Engels on the three great discoveries, cell, energy transformation, third, evolution as expounded by Darwin. You must not only feed the workers, but ya’ gotta’ feed the bigwigs, too. The political basis of Soviet biology was the writings of Engels, who, of course, knew squat about biology].

"…Marxism, while fully appreciating the significance of the Darwinian theory, pointed out the errors of which Darwin was guilty [these boil down to a criticism that Darwin was not "materialistic" enough. I think this means "applied" or "practical" in this case and that Darwin introduced into evolution "reactionary Malthusian ideas". He quotes from Darwin’s Life and letters of Charles Darwin that shows that after reading Malthus, Darwin got his initial ideas for evolution. Apparently Wallace was also influenced by Malthus].

[There follows 2 paragraphs that are primarily propagandistic with more words of Engels. There is much criticism of Darwin for "theoretical errors" and then a bunch of Soviet scientists are mentioned, those that were strict Darwinists and those who are best described as "fence sitters". No bad words, but Schmalhausen, Zavadovsky, Zhukovsky are singled out as ones who"…prejudice the creative development of its scientific core"]

"Darwinism, as presented by Darwin, contradicted the idealistic philosophy, and this contradiction grew deeper with the development of the materialistic teaching. Reactionary biologists have therefore done everything in their power to empty Darwinism of its materialistic elements. [… good words for Timiryazev, a neo-Lamarckian, and then some really bad ones for the emerging gene based heredity supporters]. "… did all they could to vulgarize Darwinism, to smother its scientific foundation. The most glaring manifestation of such vulgarization of Darwinism is to be found in the teaching of August Weismann, Gregor Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan, the founders of modern reactionary genetics." [This section is a sleeper. Lysenko takes a few slaps at his opponents. He praises Darwin, while at the same time condemning him for his idealistic philosophy contradictions. It isn’t until later that those contradictions are spelled out – the main one being the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Praise followed by criticism for not being Lamarckian. The more I read this section the more I think he only praises Darwin as the originator of scientific biology, because to not do so would not have gotten him anywhere. Darwin was accepted, and so Lysenko had to accept him too, but what he really espoused was plain old Lamarckian "science" and would have been happy forgetting Darwin.]

"Weismannism, followed by Mendelism-Morganism….was primarily directed against the materialist foundations of Darwin’s theory of evolution"

"Weismann named his conception Neo-Darwinism, but, in fact, it was a complete denial of the materialistic aspects of Darwinism. It insinuated idealism and metaphysics into biology."

"The materialist theory of evolution of animated nature involves the recognition of the necessity of hereditary transmission of individual characteristics acquired by the organism under the conditions of its life; it’s unthinkable without recognition of the inheritance of acquired characters." [Weismann asserts "not only is there no proof of such a form of heredity, it is inconceivable theoretically … thus war was declared against Lamarckian principle of direct effect of use and disuse, the strife of Neo-Lamarckians and the Neo-Darwinians, as the two disputing parties have been called" – Weismann, The Evolution Theory, 1904. Lysenko continues to pound on the "materialist" theory of evolution. The problem is that Darwin totally rejected Lamarck. So how can Lysenko/USSR accept Darwin without accepting any of its basic concept and conclusions (the one thing that they seemed to accept was that species change)? Lysenko quotes Weismann extensively, and the quotes appear to be accurate. Looking back, we know that at that time (1904) the gene theory of heredity was new. But at the time of this address (1948) the gene theory of heredity was not only well established, but Morgan had a Nobel Prize in 1933 for showing that heredity was located on the chromosomes. Lysenko was totally wrong, and he knew it. Still in the world of the USSR, truth was easily pushed aside].

"According to this theory, characters acquired by plant and animal organisms cannot be handed down, are not inherited"

"…they call the Michurinian trend in agro-biology Neo-Lamarckian, which, in their opinion, is absolutely faulty and unscientific. Actually it is the other way round."

"…well-known Lamarckian proposition, which recognize the active role of external conditions in the formation of the living body … are by no means faulty … they are quite true and scientific."

"We, the representatives of Soviet Michurinian trend, contend that inheritance of characters acquired by plants and animals … is possible and necessary." "The Mendel-Morgan teaching … can cite no evidence to prove its point." [This was in 1948, the evidence was overwhelming by then. Creationists have been saying the same thing for a 150 years. If you don’t like the facts, ignore them].

[Full blown attack on Morgan, Weismann and Mendel and the Soviet colleagues, A.A. Malinovsky, N.P. Dubinin and M.M. Zavadovsky. Ends with]: "The Mendelian-Morganists have thus thrown overboard one of the greatest acquisitions in the history of biological sciences – the principle of the inheritance of acquired characters." Section 5. The Idea of Unknowability in the Teaching on "Hereditary Substance".

[He attacks the theory of mutations "cannot be predicted as a matter of principle". Next, I.I. Schmalhausen gets fried.] " The Mendelian-Morganists cling to everything that is obsolete and wrong in Darwin’s teaching" [3 pages of attacks on Schmalhausen – I have been unable to find out much about this man].

[Lysenko launches a full scale attack on the gene/chromosomal theory of heredity. It was 15 years after Morgan’s Nobel Prize, so Lysenko had to know that genes were well established. However, because, allowing gene based heredity meant Lamarckism was incorrect, he attacks the theory. He reserves special mention for Dubinin, who was elected to the American National Academy of Science (at least I think it’s the same Dubinin {fruit flies})

[This is a long section, full of assertions, and very short on facts, typical of Lysenko.]

"Changes in the conditions of life bring about changes in the type of development of vegetable organisms. A changed type of development is thus the primary cause of changes in heredity." [Lysenko latched onto Michurin, because the use of non Soviet scientists was not politically acceptable. It appears that no one asked Michurin, they just used him. In addition everyone conveniently forgot that just before his death (1935), Michurin accepted the gene theory of heredity. Another convenient oversight.]

[There were still some biologists in the USSR that were resisting Lysenko. Here he makes a plug that all new students get the Michurian method and be prevented from being polluted with the gene theory of heredity. Anybody want to take a crack at "dialectical materialism"?]

[A summing up with a lot of political stuff.] "The Weismannists and their followers who deny the heritability of acquired characters, are not worth dwelling on at too great length. The future belongs to Michurin."

"Our Academy must work to develop the Michurinian teaching. In this it ought to follow the personal example of interest in the activity of I.V. Michurin shown by our great teachers – V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin."

[There were still some who resisted Lysenko, even at this height of his power. The Concluding Remarks are noteworthy only in this statement]: "The question is asked in one of the notes handed to me what is the attitude of the Central Committee of the Communist Party to my report. I answer: The Central Committee of the Party examined my report and approved it."

Trofim Lysenko Lysenko Bio . A good historical account of the events can be found at Historical Note . Note Dr. Sheehan appears to be a Marxist, but is a good enough historian to give the basics of the Lysenko affair. She, however, glosses over the costs of Lysenko in the number of scientists that were executed, imprisoned or otherwise fried. These facts may be in the full version of her book, but are not in this blurb. She also neglects to mention the number of people that died as a result of Lysenko taking over agriculture in the USSR. And since Mao also accepted Lysenko, the number of deaths is certainly in the millions. Soviet agriculture was a total disaster and certainly several million died as a result.

Thomas Hunt Morgan Morgan Bio (Nobel Prize winner, 1933 for showing that heredity is chromosomal)

I.I. Metchnikov Metchnikiv Bio . (1908 Nobel Prize in Immunology at the Institute of Pasteur)

The first thing to do is read Sheehan’s summary of the history of Lysenko. That, by itself, should be very chilling. In there is this quote from Lysenko: ‘"It is better to know less, but to know just what is necessary for practice." He also was inclined to enunciations of the wildest voluntarism: "In order to obtain a certain result, You must want to obtain precisely that result; if you want to obtain a certain result, you will obtain it .... I need only such people as will obtain the results I need". Older scientists were, of course, horrified at such talk, so utterly alien to the habits of mind in which scientific method was grounded.’ This mindset was both ruinous and similar to Creationist way of seeing things. "I want it to be a certain way, and by God, that’s the way it will be. If we work hard enough and pray hard enough then it will be that way. In the meantime I will ignore the mountain of facts that say otherwise." I actually worked for a man who operated just this way. He ended up on trial for defrauding Uncle Sam on some contracts he obtained.

This problem is compounded by the entrance of politics into science (Google "When Politics Trumps Science", the WSJ just had a editorial on this the other day concerning Global Warming.) Leftists rags are having a field day (example see: Battle for American Science Leftist Rag Discovers Creationists ). But the worst attacks come from lower level elected officials (elected school boards, both local and state wide (Kansas), where scientifically illiterate people attempt to change science into that which it is not. Lysenko set the USSR back 50-100 years in biology. What will be the loss because of Kansas? It may be little and it may be great. But the impetus is there to kill science. Science is not political. It is a body of thought based on experimentation. It has its own integrity and its own policing. Mistakes are quickly pointed out and expunged. Science is also not national. The best science has always been done in environments where there is less political influence. That is one of the reasons why America has led in science for so many years. If Kansas squashes evolution, what will be next? Cosmology will also suffer because it contradicts Genesis. And then at least some aspects of Geology will also suffer. How can the U.S. maintain its lead in science and technology if its children are taught that science is false? The answer is, of course, that it won’t. The Kansas trend is toward a theocracy. The US will become another Iran and there will literally be blood in the streets and mass graves.

Ever wonder why so many things that are not science call themselves “Science”? Science has a reputation for rigor and rooting out falseness and maintaining facts. Progress cannot be built on false information. It will crumble. Sooner or later, the false information will be found out and exposed. Then the edifice can be rebuilt with a firmer base (read “The 7 Percent Solution” from Feynman’s book Surely You’re Joking, Mr, Feynman). Creationists never bother to understand this self-correcting nature of science. So that’s why things Like “Social Science” get started and “Political Science” and “Behavioral Science”. The biggest joke is “Creation Science” – glomming onto the word “Science” in order to tear down Science. It would be funny, if the consequences were not so frightening.

“I would now like to turn to a third value that science has. It is a little less direct, but not much. The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty – some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a deep and strong struggle; permit us to question – to doubt – to not be sure. I think it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus lose what we have gained. Herein lies a responsibility to society.” (From “the Value of Science”, an address given in 1955 to the National Academy of Sciences by Richard Feynman, included in his book What Do You Care What Other People Think?).

Patrick Henry does not think a modern day Lysenko could arise in America. And maybe he is right. However, Lysenko was a simple agronomist in Azerbaijan. The political climate and the incredible progress of Evolution brought about an opportunity that he grasped and played to the end. At that end several million people paid with their lives and hundreds, if not thousands, of Soviet era scientists were hounded, arrested, tried and some executed. His Michurinian science was false and he either had to know it or just ignored it for expediency. He used the USSR’s political system to redefine science for his own ends and those who opposed him were crushed. Several of those crushed were “Posthumously Rehabilitated” by the USSR Supreme Court (another one of those jokes that is not really funny). Science corrected Lysenko, as science always does, but the soviet agricultural system was set back 50-100 years and still has not fully recovered.

Denial of reality, I always though was a leftist affliction, but the actions of PH’s lovely ladies in Kansas shows that it can infect the right also. History is replete with examples of wishful thinking killing people. I hope the United States is strong enough to push aside this newest effort of denying reality. If not I will weep for my children and grandchildren since they will pay the price, not I.

Lysenko had to tear down the existing structure of Biology in order to gain power. His attacks on the Neo-Darwinian soviet era scientists follow the same strategy that the Creationists are using to attack evolution: Ignore facts, dismiss evidence that damages your point of view, and attempt to change the definitions so that no one can understand what is really happening.

Creationists and Lysenko had ostensibly different reasons for their actions, but the methods and the goals are exactly the same. And in the end, I think their goal are the same: political power.

You all may say that "it can't happen here", but I beg to differ. It can happen here. When Sinclair Lewis wrote "It Can't Happen Here", he saw the cracks in our society that could lead to a big sellout. And it happened with The League of Forgotten Men and the fundamentalist Christians. We should all be worrying.

There are literally mountains of evidence supporting evolution

Nice switcheroo. Mountains of evidence is not mountains of proof. If you have proof that humans evolved from apes it would be big news. You don't. You have some evidence which you find compelling. You have conjecture, which you find convincing.

What you don't have is proof. You believe it happened, but you can't prove it happened.

I suggest you read the Feynman quote. Scientists never speak of absolute "proof", only that evidence "supports" such and such. However, I am not surprised that you ignore this. It doesn't fit the way you want things.

You know, many of us evos spend a lot of time in the darkness of our opponents. I read Creationist stuff, vainly looking for something new, or even interesting. I go to marxists sites, but they are whimpering too much now. I will even troll DU periodically (it is a very pitiful thing to behold). That is why I have Lysenko's book in my "Enemy Corner" of my bookshelf, along with Hitler and Marx and some others. Why? KNOW THINE ENEMY.

I invite you to read PH's list of links and read Darwin. By your comments, you certainly don't know what they say. Shouldn't you KNOW THINE ENEMY?

BRAVO!

The parallels betwen Lysenkoism and modern anti-Evolutionism, as you have outlined here, are stunning.

Your Certificate of Merit and Appreciation from DarwinCentral will be on it's way to you shortly.

We'll take this one step at a time for you.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are supported by evidence.

In science, a theory is never proved, but either supported by the evidence or not supported by the evidence. A theory that is contradicted by the evidence is called "falsified," or disproved. To restate, theories in science may be disproved, but they can never proved, by definition.

Evolution is supported by much evidence, and there is no known evidence that would disprove it.

Therefore, evolution is a scientific theory. If evidence is ever provided that would disprove it, it will be abandoned by science, and fame and fortune will accrue to the person who disproves it.

I don't know if you want to ping the whole list, or just some of the usual characters.

An excellent article. Tough slogging, but that's because Marxist terminology infects the issue. There are several Lysenko wannabes in the US right now, wanting to revise science for their own ideological agendae. In Kansas it's not Marxist; but in the case of global warming it definitely is. In each instance of pseudo science, the political activity is based on an anti-rational impulse. I'm cranking up the ping machine ...

Darwinism, as presented by Darwin, contradicted the idealistic philosophy, and this contradiction grew deeper with the development of the materialistic teaching. Reactionary biologists have therefore done everything in their power to empty Darwinism of its materialistic elements.

So, the communists were trying to expunge "materialism" from the Soviet Union. They also tried to expunge spirituality. It makes me wonder exactly what they expected people to hold on to--neither a belief in this world nor the next. No wonder alcoholism was so rampant in the USSR.

Lysenko launches a full scale attack on the gene/chromosomal theory of heredity.

The effects of Lysenko's teaching (or whatever you can call it) are still felt today. Russian science is in bad shape. I trained a Russian graduate student. He does not want to go back to Russia, because he won't be able to do science there, because the whole infrastructure for supporting basic research isn't there. (He's still a socialist through and through. I tried to help him overcome it, but I can't do everything...)

Ever wonder why so many things that are not science call themselves “Science”?

That's actually easy. It's for agenda, money, or both. It's alarmingly easy for a conman to learn a few scientific terms, thereby making himself sound like he's talking science when he's really spouting nonsense. People fall for it for several reasons. They don't trust the "mainstream." They don't know the first thing about science or the scientific method, and have the belief that science is way too difficult and arcane for them to even begin to understand. A person who doesn't know science, but who lacks the belief that science is too hard for ordinary people to understand, or that the scientific method is incomprehensibly complicated, is perfectly capable of applying logic to determine if a claim is plausible or not--for instance, upon hearing the claim that so-and-so developed a 100% successful cure for cancer, in his basement, without any research facilities, medical training, or clinical trials, would be skeptical. The conmen, whether idealogical, greedy, or both, can spot the gullible from a mile away.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.