Fact, Fable, and Darwin, Part 2

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'm finally getting around to reading the article. It seems even worse than the first part, but that may only be because I know more about the history of science and the Darwinian controversies than I do about modern biology per se.

Stark's standards of scholarship are abysmal. There's so much in this relatively short text that is distorted, blatantly wrong, or stupidly hyperbolic that I could just about start anywhere. Take the discussion of the Huxley-Wilberforce encounter, for instance:

"I was happy enough to be present on the memorable occasion at Oxford when Mr. Huxley bearded Bishop Wilberforce. ... Then [Wilberforce] 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 ... 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.

EVERY distinguished biography and EVERY popular history, eh? Blanket assertions of this sweep rarely survive much scrutiny. Even if this one were not wildly wrong (which it is) consider, just on the face of it, what an intemperate and incautious claim this is for a supposed scholar to make. The Darwin literature runs to many hundreds of volumes. Has the Sociologist Stark justified this broad assertion by surveying even a fraction of it? Apparently not.

I was fully aware of multiple and varying accounts of Wilberforce's and Huxley's 1860 exchange at Oxford solely from reading the standard sources which Stark claims suppresses them. I found nothing new when I later came across quibbles and debunkings from antievolutionists, at lest until today. Although I've read extensively on Darwin, the Darwinian controversies, and associated figures, I was until now unfamiliar with the specific account Stark quotes! I do have a copy of Irvine's Apes, Angels, and Victorians, the one example Stark provides, but only dipped into it enough years ago to decide that it was a popularization not using the best or latest sources and not worthy of my time. Apes, Angels actually uses Huxley's Life and Letters for most of the details, but uses the above for the crucial quotes from both Wilberforce and Huxley.

If anyone is curious, here's the full cite for Stark's "A Grandmother's Tale's" (apparently so titled because it contained other reminiscences, that is the "Grandmother" appears to be the author, not Huxley's ape ancestor as mooted by Wilberforce): Macmillan's Magazine, LXXVIII, no. 468, Oct. 1898, pgs. 433-4. Here's a good article that gives a longer and seemingly complete quotation of the relevant passage, and much else besides: Lucas, J. R. ``Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter'', The Historical Journal, 22, 2 (1979), pp. 313-330. Scroll down to the bottom and note that Lucas participated (as the Bishop) in a recreation of the Wilberforce-Huxley encounter with Darwin scholar Janet Browne. There are links to his preparatory notes and a "semi-transcript" of the recreation.

Most of my library is packed away, but so you don't have to rely on my recollections I clambered into the attic to root around and pull out a few relevant volumes.

I only have one biography of Huxley, Mario A. Di Gregorio's T.H. Huxley's Place in Natural Science (Yale Univ Press, 1984). It's coverage of the Wilberforce encounter is as follows (in total, the ellipses deleting concatenated material addressing other issues) from page 151:

Huxley is widely thought of as ... the man who defeated the church at Oxford ... [This] point overstates what really happened at Oxford; historians are now aware that there is no reliable account of the Oxford clash between Huxley and Wilberforce [two footnotes to scholarly works on the correspondence of Hooker and biographical writings of Huxley].

One strike for Stark.

Adrian Desmond and James Moore's Darwin certainly qualifies as a "distinguished biography," and is my personal favorite. Their discussion of the Oxford meeting runs eight pages, 492-499. Here's a bit from the beginning (emphasis, italics, added, but the 'scare quotes' are in the original):

Every potential triumph was now talked up by the evangelical Darwinians. Feeling themselves beleaguered, they needed visible gains. Thus it was that a witty bit of repartee on Saturday 30 June 1860 ... was destined to be blown out of all proportion to become the best known 'victory' of the nineteenth century, save Waterloo.

In general this account deflates the mythological and triumphalist account that Stark falsely characterizes as universal. There are fourteen footnotes, many listing three and four distinct sources, both original sources and scholarly works, NOT including "A Grandmother's Tale's".

Strike two for Stark.

Janet Browne's is one of the major Darwin biographies. Unfortunately I only have the first volume which concludes well before 1860. Anyone have the second? Browne is a careful and important scholar of Darwin, and in spite of her recent participation as a stand in for Huxley in the recreation with Lucas, I'd bet a fair sum that she offers a fair account that takes in all sources.

Next in the stack I pulled from the attic is Charles Darwin's own autobiography but the Wilberforce incident is not covered.

Next up is Darwin: A Life In Science by Michael White and John Gribbin (Dutton, 1995). This is another book I collected (cheap at a used book store) but never bothered to read as Gribbin is not a Darwin specialist. Gribbin's account of the Oxford clash, pages 221-24, comes the closest yet to Stark's fraudulent characterization. But even Gribbin, who openly favors the view that Wilberforce was shamed and Huxley triumphant, notes several times that others disagree. His sole footnote cites the Lucas paper I link above.

Gribbin does use the more extreme version of Wilberforce quote -- wherein Wilberforce asks whether Huxley's ape ancestry was on his grandfather's or grandmother's side of the family, disparagement of grandmothers being course and shocking in the Victorian context. (Other contemporary accounts suggest Wilberforce less offensively referred to Huxley's own belief in ape ancestry without bringing grandmothers into it. Still other accounts don't mention any apish comments being related specifically to Huxley's ancestry.) But, although of similar type, Gibbin's quotes do not appear to come from "A Grandmother's Tale's".

In short the reader is clearly informed that Gribbin is offering a traditional account that is disputed.

This should be strike three, but I'll be very charitable and give Stark a foul instead.

Next up is Richard Milner's delightfully eclectic The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for Its Origins (Facts On File, 1990). The first listing of "Wilberforce" in the index leads to the entry on John Lubbock, where it is simply noted that "Lubbock gave a long, effective defense of Darwinism using evidence from embryology" at the Oxford meeting.

The next listing for Wilberforce is the entry "MILITARY METAPHOR: 'Warfare' of Science vs. Religion". Here Milner, despite being an enthusiastic evolutionist, takes an opposite tack from the scientific confrontationalism that Stark dogmatically attributes to his ilk. Citing (evangelical Christian) James R. Moore's The Post Darwinian Controversies (an excellent work that I also retrieved from the attic, but maybe more on it in a later message) Milner pours water on the heated rhetoric often associated with science and religion issues, pointing out that many leading scientistists, including many evolutionists, were "believers in traditional Christianity," that "the vast majority of early naturalists and geologists were actually Churchmen themselves," that those who unveiled the records of ancient life were pursuing the aim of "reconciling the geological record with the Bible," and so on.

Wilberforce also makes a brief appearance in the entry for Roderick Murchison, wherein it's noted that the Bishop gave a speech in 1849 honoring the eminent geologist and declaring him, to hurrahs from all assembled, the "modern King of Siluria" (for the geologic system, The Silurian, which Murchison identified and named) as he had so greatly extended the realm held by the ancient king Caractacus.

However in coming to Milner's entry "OXFORD DEBATE: 'Darwin's Bulldog' vs. The Bishop," and despite having elsewhere noted that such confrontations were not representative of relations between science and religion, and having depicted Wilberforce as a booster of modern science, here Milner give us only the triumphalist version of the event. Wilberforce is depicted as "overconfident" rather than mendacious, but we get the "grandmother" version of his question, we get Huxley responding "calmly" (his own account, although others, including Darwin's close friend Hooker, who was on-stage, have the effectiveness of his response marred by excessive agitation) and we have the room "rebound[ing] in laughter" (the closest, btw, any of these accounts come, including Apes, Angels to Stark's false assertion that "every writer tells how the audience gave Huxley an ovation").

Now if we evaluate Stark's actual claim, that "every distinguished biography of Darwin and of Huxley, as well as in every popular history of the theory of evolution" invokes "this marvelous account" -- "A Grandmother's Tale's" published decades after the event -- then he has been consistently wrong by the evidence of my own library, for even Milner does not detectably use the 1898 magazine blurb. (He has no footnotes, but seems to be using original if selective sources such as Huxley's own contemporary account.) However I've been applying a more reasonable standard than Stark's own, and simply asking whether each book offers only the triumphalist version of events (Huxley triumphant, Bishop shamed) and suppresses sources that suggest it may have been otherwise, or whether the book includes or at least acknowledges a fulsome range of the divergent contemporary accounts that exist in the historical record.

On this ground, with the count at two strikes, Stark finally gets a base hit with Milner. But based on this sample, randomly chosen from the books I had to hand, it's pretty clear that Milner will strike out before he gets a runner in.

Other specific claims by Stark about the Oxford meeting, or how it has been presented, will be examined in a later message when I have the time. We will find that Stark's mythologizing and slovenly, biased scholarship is at least as bad as what he (often falsely in the universalism of his denunciations) accuses others of.

I could, and possibly will, time permitting, tear this mess apart on other counts as well. It is an utter load.

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.