Wiiliam Whewell was a leading intellectual at Cambridge in the early
19century and gave us the term scientist. He also critiqued Lyell in 1830
and gave him the terms Eocine Miocene and Pliocene for the Tertiary. He was
a devout Christian of evangelical leanings and is only now getting the
recognition he deserves. He was at school at Lancaster Grammar School (6
miles from where I live) with Richard Owen of dinosaurs. The two had a fight
at school and one sufferd a broken nose and I hope it was Owen!!
I am currently reading a book for a book review (this will not be the book
review) but it has application to the current discussion we are having about
why apologists seem to pick and choose what observational data they will
deal with and what data they refuse to accept. THIS IS A SERIOUS CHARGE The
book is William
Whewell's _Of the Plurality of Worlds_ edited by Michael Ruse, University of
Chicago Press 2001. The book was originally published in 1853 and this is a
facsimile reprinting. I need to set the intellectual landscape for this
argument.
Whewell was writing about 9 years after Chambers' _Vestiges_ which was the
first book to really bring evolution into the intellectual landscape (it was
very poorly done so he won few converts). The issue which occupied Whewell's
attention was the problem that astronomy was presenting to Christians at
this time by showing that there were so many worlds. The atheistic argument
WHO PUT FORWARD THIS ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT? CHAMBERS WAS NO ATHEIST BUT A WOOLY
LIBERAL ANGLICAN OF DEISTIC TENDENCIES. HE MOST CLEARLY BELIEVED IN SOME
DIVINE POWER
of the day pointed out that there were lots of stars each of them should
have planets around them, many of those planets filled with intelligent
life.
Whewell in 1833 had agreed that life on other planets was
probable, but after the Vestiges was published, it became perfectly clear
that life on these other planets might be evolved and Whewell changed his
position because he could not reconcile evolution with Christian faith.
Furthermore, the atheistic argument WHO BY? pointed out that each of those
planets
with intelligent life would need their own savior and therefore God would
not see the earth as a special abode or be 'mindful of man'. Why would a God
of a universe full of intelligent life pay any special heed to a small blue
planet circling an otherwise unremarkable star? Whewell chose to take on
this argument in a very fascinating book. While Whewell seems to be correct
that life is rare in the universe, his approach to it was unfortunately
typical of the way apologetical institutions seem to deal with problematical
issues. Looking back on his argument gives us perspective on this approach
and lets us see clearly what RTB and other apologists are doing with
anthropological and evolutionary data clearer. I THINK HERE YOU FAIL
COMPLETELY TO JUDGE WHEWELL BY THE TERMS OF 1850, IF SO YOU WOULD LIKEN HIM
TO POLKINGHORNE AT NOT RTB
Whewell then attacks the concept of life on planets around the nebula (what
we call galaxies) by denying that they are really galaxies or separate star
systems. He did discuss some very good evidence indicating the modern view
was correct. however, he chose to reject that data. Instead of the points of
light telescopes reveal in the galaxies being stars, Whewell claims that
they are comets around a much smaller object.WHAT WAS THE VIEW OF
CONTEMPRARY ASTRONOMERS? GEORGE MURPHY HAS ANSWERED THIS
"And if we suppose a large mass of cometic matter thus to move in a highly
resisting medium, and to consist of patches of different densities, then
some would move faster and some more slowly; but all, in spirals such as
have been spoken of; and the general aspect produced would be, that of the
spiral nebulae which I have endeavoured to describe. The luminous matter
owuld be more diffused in the outer and more condensed in the central parts,
because to the center of attraction all the spirals converge." William
Whewell, Of the Plurality of World's, edited by Michael Ruse, (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 128
And, thus, since we know that life can't exist on a comet, we don't need to
worry about life in the nebula!
Today, there is hardly a Christian who denies that galaxies are actually
star systems, but Whewell denied this IN SPITE OF MUCH EVIDENCE THAT THIS
WAS THE CASE. He didn't believe the sense data! I WOULD LIKE SOMEONE
COMPETENT ON THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY TO COMMENT ON THIS BUT THIS STRIKES ME
AS AN INACCURATE CRITICISM OF WHEWELLHe hypothesized some
improbable situation in order to avoid the impact of astronomical data. He
let his theology drive him to doubt the obvious. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, YOU NEED
TO UNDERSTAND WHEWELL AND CONSIDER HIS WIDE EXPERTISE. THERE IS NO WAY HE
WOULD HAVE MADE SUCH A GLARING BLUNDER. IF HE WAS WRONG ABOUT GALAXIES THEN
SO WERE MANY OTHERS.This approach is much like
the anti-evolutionist who denies transitional forms are transitional forms
because his theology drives him to that position. If one wants to reject
evolution, one certaintly can't accept transitional forms. (see
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm). When we deny sense
data, like Whewell did, we look very silly to future generations of
Christians. AND WHEN WE MAKE DUBIOUS COMMENTS LIKE THIS.
"Intelligence, as we see in the human race, in order to have those
characters which concern our argument, implies a history of intellectual
development: and to assume arbitrarily a history of intellectual development
for the inhabitants of a remote planet, as a ground of reasoning, either for
or against Religion, is a proceeding which we can hardly be expected either
to assent to or to refute." William Whewell, Of the Plurality of World's,
edited by Michael Ruse, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 47
What astounds me in this is that Whewell laid out a perfectly logical and
convincing (to me) case that intelligence must act universally like ours
does, and then he rejects this consequence when it goes against his
preferred point. YOU HAVE NOT MADE YOUR POINT
And this is what concerns me most about Christianity's apologetical
efforts.
We seem to be hidebound to deny observational data while inconsistently
expecting everyone to accept the observational data for the resurrection.
The Bible warns us not to be double minded.
I WOULD SUGGEST YOU FIND OUT MORE ABOUT WHEWELL AND MID 19 CENTURY VIEWS OF
GALAXIES BEFORE CONTINUING WITH YOUR REVIEW.
ALSO DONT JUDGE HISTORICAL CHARACTERS BY OUR OWN IDEAS
MICHAEL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 23 2002 - 11:26:15 EST