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?
Pot, meet Kettle.
This will be a big issue in the 2008 presidential primaries. The MSM will be primed to ask the candidates their views about creationism (or ID, which is the same, but even more dishonest).
That's my prediction. And the creationists -- in their infinite foolishness -- are giving the dems the rope with which to hang us all.
...and died in 1993, an event of whicht he author is unaware. I'm sure Olson didn't say this, at least in the context it's presented. He taught TOE to non-science majors at Berkeley, for heaven's sake.
"there exists, as well, a generally silent group of students engaged in biological pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the current thought, but say and write little because they are not particularly interested, do not see that controversy over evolution is of any particular importance, or are so strongly in disagreement that it seems futile to undertake the monumental task of controverting the immense body of information and theory that exists in the formulation of modern thinking." As to how many had actually deserted ranks, Olson contended that it is "difficult to judge the size and composition of this silent segment, but there is no doubt that the numbers are not inconsiderable." (Olson E.C., in Tax S., ed., "Evolution after Darwin," Vol. 1, 1960, p.523, in Rifkin J., "Algeny," 1983, pp.114-115).
he's clearly talking about Biology students, right, presumably college students.
Stark changed it to this
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.
So the students are now scientists, and the bit about fear of censure is totally made up. And the quote was from an address in 1959.
What a goddamn liar!
I am going to get the original articles, and make an academic fraud complaint to Baylor. This is beyond any reasonable definition of academic honesty.
Give me an example of a creationist or IDer who has proposed any argument not found in William Paley's "Natural Theology", published in 1802.
The last really great scientific opponent of evolution was Louis Agassiz (1807-1873).
I'm afraid you're right.
We need some prominent Republicans to go public as pro-evolutionists but I don't see any likely candidates.
What's the betting that Stark's Olson quote will start to appear verbatim on all manner of creationist websites with no dating or explanation of Olson's evident views on the matter.
I present the challenge to identify one IDer or creationist you won't scoff at. So you respond by saying (I guess) that you scoff at only 20th and 21st century IDers and Cretionists. Is that your final answer?
Well, look at the material we have to work with. In the present thread, we're discussing an article by a creationist professor of comparative religion and sociology, at a major Christian university, who seems to have committed an egregious piece of academic fraud. One would think that having spent a career extolling the need for religion in society, he would himself at least acquired a habit of truth-telling, if only not to discredit his cause by his own actions. Evidently not though.
Doesn't this worry you?
http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/8.24.html
The hardest part of debating creationists is fighting off the immediate rush of contempt, born of the experience that so often the past other creationists have proven to be liars, that the probability is high one's present antagonist will be a liar too.
MR. MORGAN: You are Dr. Stark, is that right?
DR. STARK: Yes.
MR. MORGAN: What is your occupation or calling?
DR. STARK: I am Professor of Sociology and Comparative Religion at the University of Washington.
(Curriculum vitae dated August 1983 of Rodney Stark marked for identification as plaintiff Exhibit 22.)
MR. MORGAN: Let me show you what’s been marked as Exhibit 22, and I will ask you to identify that document.
DR. STARK: Yes, it is my vitae.
MR. MORGAN: How current is your vitae?
DR. STARK: Well, this is 1983. I guess there’s been another book, and I suppose far too many articles.
MR. MORGAN: I will offer that into evidence at this time, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEYRANIAN: Be accepted.
MR. MORGAN: Do you want to tell us something about your education, where you went to college and what degrees you received?
DR. STARK: I got a degree in journalism from the University of Denver, and I have an M.A. and a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.
MR. MORGAN: And the Ph.D.?
DR. STARK: Sociology.
MR. MORGAN: Did you also have some experience in journalism?
DR. STARK: Yes, I was a reporter for the Oakland Tribune and the Denver Post.
MR. MORGAN: Can you tell us what years you did that?
DR. STARK: The Denver Post in the middle fifties, and then I was in the army, and then I was at the Oakland Tribune in `59 and `60, and I think a little bit of `61. That was a very long time ago.
MR. MORGAN: Then did you go to Berkeley?
DR. STARK: Yes. Well, I started at the Tribune, and then after a year of that I started at Berkeley, and then I did both for awhile.
MR. MORGAN: Do you have some particular specialty at the present time?
DR. STARK: Yes, I would have to say that my specialty all along has pretty much been the sociology of religion with particular emphasis, say, in the last period in religious movements.
MR. MORGAN: Can you tell the court generally what is the field of sociology of religion?
DR. STARK: It is anything anybody wants to call it, but as opposed to historians, we are not so interested in a specific group over a long period of time as opposed to psychologists or anthropologists.
There are many things. What is the effect of religion on crime rates, for example, would be a perfectly appropriate set of topics. What is the nature of religious movements, how do they recruit, how do they form, how do they grow, what separates the winners from the losers. That would also be the sociology of religion. What is the implication of Protestantism on the rise of industrialization in western Europe is another classic area, so it goes all over the map.
MR. MORGAN: You have indicated that you were in 1982 and 1983 the president for the Association for the Sociology of Religion. Can you tell the court something about that organization, what it is?
DR. STARK: Well, it is an international scholarly society made up of people who are sociologists in religion.
MR. MORGAN: As president, is that an elective office?
DR. STARK: That is an elective office, and it is largely ceremonial and honorific.
MR. MORGAN: Then you have listed a number of pages of books and articles. I won’t go into those, but I gather that you have written constantly, is that correct?
DR. STARK: It is my disease.
MR. MORGAN: Were you requested to make an evaluation for me of the “Local Church,” its people, and the publications by SCP and Mr. Duddy?
DR. STARK: Yes, I was.
MR. MORGAN: Can you tell the court what you did in that regard? Were you also asked to do something else? Were you asked to review something in the book regarding the use of your name?
DR. STARK: Yes, I was asked to read some pages, which didn’t take very long, that purported to explicate something that I have gotten some, I guess, notoriety or whatever for. It is a theory of conversion that’s been around for twenty years, and I was asked to see if Duddy had reported it correctly and applied it appropriately.
MR. MORGAN: We will get to it again later, but what was your conclusion?
DR. STARK: If a student had ever given me that, a freshman, I'd have flunked him.
MR. MORGAN: Tell the court what you did by way of study of the “ Local Church" and review of the publications.
DR. STARK: Well, to a much less extent than some of the earlier witnesses, I have gone out and met members. I have attended some services. I have been in the Freeman home. I have seen the headquarters in Seattle. I have looked at a lot of TV tape. I have read or read parts of a substantial number of publications by Witness Lee.
MR. MORGAN: Let me go now to the publication. Does The God-Men purport to be a sociological study of the “Local Church”?
DR. STARK: Yes, it does. It says specifically in the very beginning of the book that it has two basic strands that it is going to evaluate: on religious grounds and on sociological grounds.
MR. MORGAN: Can you comment for the court your opinion as to the merit of the sociological study?
DR. STARK: It has none.
MR. MORGAN: Can you tell us why it has none?
DR. STARK: Well, first of all, there is not the slightest effort to have given it any. As was said earlier today, there is no methodology; there is no social science here. No one collected any data. No one tried to formulate any testable hypotheses and see if they were confirmed vis-…-vis what goes on in the “Local Church.” There isn’t a shred of sociology to it. There is the invoking of some sociological trappings
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Why don't we invert the challenge. After all, you seem to be coming from the angle that some ID/creationist arguments are sound so you ought to be aware of some.
You present an IDer or creationist argument that is soundly reasoned, worked out, and backed up by sound mathematics and/or experimentation that actually models the phenomenon that the argument relates to, and which relates to a genuine belief of modern mainstream biological science. Then we'll debate it.
Why don't we invert the challenge
___________________________________________________________
Because I'm businessman with some econ training, not a natural scientist. I know a bit about how argumentation works but nothing about science. I've seen plenty of stupidity from both sides as I've said.
I'm asking you if all those who question evolution are idiots, or frauds or both and so far I guess I have to assume the answer from the evo guys is "yes."
Questioning evolution is fine. Of itself it is not an idiotic or fraudulent activity. Questioning ToE without understanding what it is is idiotic. Questioning ToE with cod-scientific arguments that don't stand up to critical examination (but which are designed to appeal to laymen) is fraudulent. I haven't yet seen an anti-evolution argument that doesn't fall into one of those two camps.
Many creationists who appear to be profoundly ignorant of science and the data come onto these boards and parrot type #2 arguments that they have got from creationist websites and that they plainly don't understand themselves. I don't know whether to characterize that behavior as idiotic, fraudulent, or both.
Doesn't this worry you?
________________________________________________________
No. Because I don't care what the truth is on this. I jsut want to know what it is and I find lots of BS on both sides as I've said. But it bothers me.
If I follow the Olsen thing and you are reporting it correctly and if that is indeed the passage stark is working from then his piece icnludes a downright misconstruction of another persons writings.
I've tried to listen to the evolutionists on this and find them as dishonest as you find the creationists. I've read Dawkins and he is really an ass. He's doing your side no good. His bit about the computer generated insects in Blind Watchmaker is laughable.
I also got a book buy a guy named Tim Berra from Ohio State about the Myth of Creationism. In there he lists some of the direct benefits of evolutionary theory including development of more productive strains of crops. Excuse me? You don't need any knowledge of evolution to develop hybrids. What a Goddam liar as you put it. So how much hay can I make of this. Here I've read two celebrated scientists addressing the issue and they are full of it.
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.
My Uncle was a professor there as well. I will ask if they knew each other. My uncle is a geophysicist.
Not necessarily, the phrase "student of" does not necessarily have to refer to what we commonly think of as students. Reading the entire quote provided by RWP seems to leave open the possibility that the author of the quote is speaking of professionals, not undergrad or grad students.
Just as Robin Yount was often described as a student of the game of baseball, Robin Yount was at the same time a professional baseball player.
The phrasing is odd and it could be that this author distorted the original meaning but I think that is not conclusive.
Excellent. When he is confronted with what he's done, the angels will sing. I applaud you.
Even if you accept that much, the "fear of censure" thing is just spun out of whole cloth - I don't see anything in the original that can even remotely be construed to mean that.
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.