Posted on 02/11/2005 9:29:29 PM PST by restornu
When The Origin of Species was published it aroused immense interest, but initially it did not provoke antagonism on religious grounds. Although many criticized Darwin's lack of evidence, none raised religious objections. Instead, the initial response from theologians was favorable. The distinguished Harvard botanist Asa Gray hailed Darwin for having solved the most difficult problem confronting the Design argument – the many imperfections and failures revealed in the fossil record.
Acknowledging that Darwin himself "rejects the idea of design," Gray congratulated him for "bringing out the neatest illustrations of it." Gray interpreted Darwin's work as showing that God has created a few original forms and then let evolution proceed within the framework of divine laws.
When religious antagonism finally came, it was in response to aggressive claims, like Huxley's, that Newton and Darwin together had evicted God from the cosmos. For the heirs of the Enlightenment, evolution seemed finally to supply the weapon needed to destroy religion. As Richard Dawkins confided, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
Atheism was central to the agenda of the Darwinians. Darwin himself once wrote that he could not understand how anyone could even wish that Christianity were true, noting that the doctrine of damnation was itself damnable. Huxley expressed his hostility toward religion often and clearly, writing in 1859: "My screed was meant as a protest against Theology & Parsondom ... both of which are in my mind the natural & irreconcilable enemies of Science. Few see it, but I believe we are on the Eve of a new Reformation and if I have a wish to live 30 years, it is to see the foot of Science on the necks of her Enemies."
According to Oxford historian J. R. Lucas, Huxley was "remarkably resistant to the idea that there were clergymen who accepted evolution, even when actually faced with them." Quite simply, there could be no compromises with faith.
Writing at the same time as Huxley, the leading Darwinian in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, drew this picture:
On one side spiritual freedom and truth, reason and culture, evolution and progress stand under the bright banner of science; on the other side, under the black flag of hierarchy, stand spiritual slavery and falsehood, irrationality and barbarism, superstition and retrogression.... Evolution is the heavy artillery in the struggle for truth. Whole ranks of...sophistries fall together under the chain shot of this ... artillery, and the proud and mighty structure of the Roman hierarchy, that powerful stronghold of infallible dogmatism, falls like a house of cards.
These were not the natterings of radical circles and peripheral publications. The author of the huge review of The Origin in the Times of London was none other than Thomas Huxley. He built his lectures on evolution into a popular touring stage show wherein he challenged various potential religious opponents by name. Is it surprising that religious people, scientists as well as clerics, began to respond in the face of unrelenting challenges like these issued in the name of evolution? It was not as if they merely were asked to accept that life had evolved; many theologians had long taken that for granted. What the Darwinians demanded was that religionists agree to the untrue and unscientific claim that Darwin had proved that God played no role in the process.
Among those drawn to respond was the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, who is widely said to have made an ass of himself in a debate with Huxley during the 1860 meeting of the British Association at Oxford. The relevant account of this confrontation reported: "I was happy enough to be present on the memorable occasion at Oxford when Mr. Huxley bearded Bishop Wilberforce. The bishop arose and in a light scoffing tone, florid and fluent, he assured us that there was nothing in the idea of evolution. Then turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey? On this Mr. Huxley ... arose ... and spoke these tremendous words. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for an ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth. No one doubted his meaning and the effect was tremendous."
This marvelous anecdote has appeared in every distinguished biography of Darwin and of Huxley, as well as in every popular history of the theory of evolution. In his celebrated Apes, Angels and Victorians, William Irvine used this tale to disparage the bishop's snobbery. In his prize-winning study, James Brix went much farther, describing Wilberforce as "naive and pompous," a man whose "faulty opinions" were those of a "fundamentalist creationist" and who provided Huxley with the opportunity to give evolution "its first major victory over dogmatism and duplicity." Every writer tells how the audience gave Huxley an ovation.
Trouble is, it never happened. The quotation above was the only such report of this story and it appeared in an article titled "A Grandmother's Tales" that was written by a non-scholar in a popular magazine 38 years after the alleged encounter. No other account of these meetings – and there were many written at the time – made any mention of remarks concerning Huxley's monkey ancestors, or claimed that he made a fool of the bishop. To the contrary, many thought the bishop had the better of it, and even many of the committed Darwinians thought it at most a draw.
Moreover, as all of the scholars present at Oxford knew, prior to the meeting, Bishop Wilberforce had penned a review of The Origin in which he fully acknowledged the principle of natural selection as the source of variations within species. He rejected Darwin's claims concerning the origin of species, however, and some of these criticisms were sufficiently compelling that Darwin immediately wrote his friend the botanist J. D. Hooker that the article "is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly." In a subsequent letter to geologist Charles Lyell, Darwin acknowledges that "the bishop makes a very telling case against me." Indeed, several of Wilberforce's comments caused Darwin to make modifications in a later revision of the book.
The tale of the foolish and narrow-minded bishop seems to have thrived as a revealing "truth" about the incompatibility of religion and science simply because many of its tellers wanted to believe that a bishop is wrong by nature. J. R. Lucas, who debunked the bishop myth, has suggested that the "most important reason why the legend grew" is, first, because academics generally "know nothing outside their own special subject" and therefore easily believe that outsiders are necessarily ignorant, and, second, because Huxley encouraged that conclusion. "The quarrel between religion and science was what Huxley wanted; and as Darwin's theory gained supporters, they took over his view of the incident."
Since then the Darwinian Crusade has tried to focus all attention on the most unqualified and most vulnerable opponents, and when no easy targets present themselves it has invented them. Huxley "made straw men of the 'creationists,'" as his biographer Desmond admitted. Even today it is a rare textbook or any popular treatment of evolution and religion that does not reduce "creationism" to the simplest caricatures.
This tradition remains so potent that whenever it is asked that evolution be presented as "only a theory," the requester is ridiculed as a buffoon. Even when the great philosopher of science Karl Popper suggested that the standard version of evolution even falls short of being a scientific theory, being instead an untestable tautology, he was subjected to public condemnations and much personal abuse.
Popper's tribulations illustrate an important basis for the victory of Darwinism: A successful appeal for a united front on the part of scientists to oppose religious opposition has had the consequence of silencing dissent within the scientific community. The eminent observer Everett Olson notes that there is "a generally silent group" of biological scientists "who tend to disagree with much of the current thought" about evolution, but who remain silent for fear of censure.
I believe that one day there will be a plausible theory of the origin of species. But, if and when that occurs, there will be nothing in any such theory that makes it impossible to propose that the principles involved were not part of God's great design any more than such a theory will demonstrate the existence of God. But, while we wait, why not lift the requirement that high school texts enshrine Darwin's failed attempt as an eternal truth?
I have found you "directed mutation" stuff. Barry Hall and John Cairns. If you have access to Futuyma's 3rd edition this is discussed on p 285.
Basically the experiments are in serious doubt. Hall used a transposon as one of the mutations that needed to be reverted (directed). Unfortunately the experimental set up required the cells to grow on salicin. It required 2 mutations to get there. But while waiting for the mutations to occur the cells were in a state of starvation, and their particular IS tended to "jump" a lot faster during starvation.
While the results are not totally discredited, some new experiments will be required to revive this at this time (Genetics 120:887 for the original article).
Am I right in surmising that Hall's doubtful results are one of the main pillars of Spetner's thinking?
The micro-macro argument IS addressing the fossil record--to dismiss it, in the usual creationist manner: on the grounds that humans haven't been able to create goldfish from zebras in a lab, therefore, humans can only prove that micro-evolution happens. There is nothing new here, except yet another clever--a' la Behe and Dembski--blizzard of tech patter and obtuse mathematics to drive laymen away from discerning how threadbare the meat of the argument is.
He seems to make this question as obscure as possible, but here's a quote from the reference in post #83 where he describes his work. You can take "evolution A" and "evolution B" to refer to micro and macro evolution, despite the handwaving.
The distinction between these two meanings of evolution is often ignored by those defending neo-Darwinian evolution, but the distinction is critical. The claim is made for Evolution A, but proof is often limited to Evolution B. The implication is that the observation of Evolution B is a substantiation of Evolution A. But this is not so. Since Evolution A is not observable, it can be substantiated only by circumstantial evidence. And circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved. Neo-Darwinian theory (NDT) is generally accepted to be that theory. The thesis of my book is that NDT cannot account for Evolution A.
The author is deliberating being misleading. Theories of evolution prior to "Origin of Species" were almost entirely formulated on religious grounds.
Professor Richard Owen was one of Darwin's critics. One example of his antomical theories:
However, Owen did not believe that his archetype was anything like an ancestor to the vertebrates. Rather, the archetype represented an idea in the Divine mind, which also "foreknew all its modifications."
Sounds like modern Creationism/ID to me.
An intro to the Professor is here.
Don't bother reading the book before you make your final verdict on the arguments. That will help ensure that people who don't already "get it" see you as a credible source. /sarcasm
On musing about it, I think this requires a bit more of an answer. The extra fillup that S has added to the argument here, is that God had to intervene to whip up a new macro-species from DNA rather than to whip up a new macro-species from scratch each time. That doesn't seem like a significant distinction to me, nor does it seem particularly new. We've been bickering within biology for years about how long it apparently takes to do stuff, and how long it ought to take to do stuff--without a felt need to throw up our hands in dismay, any more than fossil gaps produce this effect.
There are an infinite number of things I will never get around to reading, that are a good deal more important, and for which there is a good deal more credible vouchsafing available, than this one. I'm sorry this makes you feel pouty, but there isn't a great deal of help for it, and just in general, I would suggest that my failure to jump through whatever arbitrary hoop a creationist who seems to demonstrate some affinity for several of the least convincing standard arguments, holds up for me, isn't likely to have much long term impact on my credibility. While your capacity to denigrate those who refuse to engage in debate, however tenuous and scientifically disreputable the issue, is well-demonstrated here--it does not really constitute a significant argument.
Here are the two most obvious reasons I don't consider this a serious enough argument to read the book... donh Post 126
Maybe your quick decision to accuse me of something I don't do (and haven't done on this thread) tells me something about the integrity of your assessments of others you read and disagree with. After all, I'm committed to dealing with reality, not some some preconceived projection thereof.
You vastly overrate your level of adult courtesy. I'll confine myself to reminding you of other equally disparaging remarks you've made to me on this thread:
They are coming from different perspectives and having what looks for all the world like an honest debate. Eeeegads, imagine that.
I'm not looking to prove evolution wrong, I'm not looking for its worst proponents, I'm looking for the best, and none of them address the best arguments of the ID side. At least not that I've found.
If you don't wish to be addressed in a contempuous manner, I respectfully suggest that you reciprocate.
They are coming from different perspectives and having what looks for all the world like an honest debate. Eeeegads, imagine that.
I'm not looking to prove evolution wrong, I'm not looking for its worst proponents, I'm looking for the best, and none of them address the best arguments of the ID side. At least not that I've found.
So at that time, I had no reason to be disrespectful
From the available evidence, you don't give the appearance of a person who can tell when they are being disrepectful. I commented, quite reasonably, on a pointer--given to me by you--to an explanation, by the author, of what is in the book. And in response, I commented upon it, and gave you, I thought, quite clear and detailed reasons, which I don't recall you particularly responding to, why I wouldn't be reading it, addressing what appears to be the central technical point of the argument, as explained by the author.
It appears to me to be the case that you vouchsafed an argument from the book, I explained in fairly concrete terms why the arguement is not considered new, or pursuasive by me, or the biological science community, and I don't recall seeing a detailed counterargument--just the annoying contention that if I don't read this book cover to cover, I've, in some vague manner, become intellectually dishonest.
If you think this book provides a telling counterargument, than let's hear it, if not, then let's not be mistaking nebulous allegations of intellectual impropriety regarding my not jumping thru whatever time-consuming hoops you raise for me to jump through, for a technically sound argument.
It appears to me to be the case that you vouchsafed an argument from the book, I explained in fairly concrete terms why the arguement is not considered new
Well, how very fair-minded. All actions have consequences, and all opinions have implications. If you wish to have a discussion that rises to the level of seriousness of drunken late nite high school bullsession, than you are right on the money. However, you have stumbled onto a forum that takes it's conversation more seriously than that, as a general rule.
If we accept that you are ferreting out rhetoric virtue in this quest, that carries with it some interesting freight. it suggests that both sides of this discussion have dragged in meat of relatively equal intellectual sustenance upon which to feast. In every schoolboard meeting across the country right now, regarding science textbooks, the creationists are striving 'til they sweat blood to create exactly this impression. If the astrologists and the flat-earthers were doing the same thing, the issue would be a little clearer to schoolboards, and so would the problem with your supposedly fair and neutral quest for dialog.
This is not a democracy, The two sides of this discussion are not on equal footing due to some high school decorum rule of rhetorical manners. The one side is scientists, speaking in the language of science, about issues that they are extremely, and uniquely qualified to handle, and doing so with an excruciatingly high standard of honesty, self-criticism, and care, and the other is theologens with a demonstrated, extremely careless attitude toward believable facts, and a well-understood predisposing agenda, putting up an extremely thin pretense of being scientists, on the basis of a handful of well-educated cranks, that does not automatically buy them equal time at the scientific table--the only table scientists are any more qualified than anyone else to talk at.
Creationists are making a concerted assault on what science currently believes with these ID arguments--which are rediculously thin--not because they are necessarily wrong, but because they are necessarily lacking in the meat and potatoes of science--incontrovertable, tangible positive material evidence--and lacking in the other important touchstone of such evidence as is available: falsifiability. (If I insist the something I don't presently understand happened because aliens with incomprehenisble powers intervened--how do I then set up tests or predictions regarding what the next incomprehensible act will be?)
Acting as if creationists in ID clothing and and scientists were being bulky and childlike because one or the other refuses to sit at your table a play by your rules where the implication is that their positions are of roughly enough equal intellectual merit as to make discussion fruitful is, in itself, an opinion that I may attack quite reasonably, on intellectual grounds. Furthermore, amongst adults, I should reasonably expect to be able to do so without being castigated for it by someone who thinks he has arrogated to himself the warrant to establish such equality without the need of putting up an argument, instead of bleating and gnashing about fairness.
So, my suggestion is...make a real argument, or give up; your stance strikes me as unduly patronizing and proudly incompetent, and I think you should find a forum where fairness counts for more than precise argumentation. They abound; you won't be lonely.
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.