Due to an overwhelming response (seriously, I do thank those few
lurkers who sent me appreciative notes), here is my next installment
of my series on the Difficulties of Darwinism.
As always, comments and criticisms would be much appreciated!
God bless.
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DIFFICULTIES OF DARWINISM 1.5
1. INTRODUCTION
[continued]
1.4.2. MANY BIOLOGISTS PAST AND PRESENT HAVE NOT FULLY ACCEPTED
DARWIN'S THEORY
Popular book on evolution often give the impression that it is
accepted by all scientists. For example, Isaac Asimov writes that:
"the evidence in favor of evolution is so strong that no reputable
biologist doubts the fact ." (Asimov, 1981, p40). Usually the
vaguer term "evolution" is employed, rather than the more specific
Darwin's theory of evolution, which many reputable biologists do in
fact doubt.
For example, Dawkins while claiming that: "No serious biologist
doubts the fact that evolution has happened", is compelled to qualify
this by immediately adding: "Some biologists, however, have had
doubts about Darwin's particular theory of how evolution happened."
(Dawkins, 1986, pp287-288). The fact is that many biologists (some
of them eminent), both past and present, have not fully accepted
Darwin's theory:
a. BIOLOGISTS OF DARWIN'S DAY DID NOT FULLY ACCEPT DARWIN'S THEORY
Many biologists of Darwin's day did not fully accept his theory.
(i) DARWIN'S OWN "INNER CIRCLE" DID NOT FULLY ACCEPT DARWIN'S THEORY
Even in Darwin's own "inner circle" there was doubt about Darwin's
theory of evolution. Patterson points out that the botanist Joseph
Hooker was "Darwin's oldest confidant in reading all of Darwin's
manuscripts and talking to him solidly since 1840 and yet he remained
unconverted to evolution until 1859" (Patterson, 1981, p14).
Himmelfarb likewise notes that: "The curious thing is that it
[evolution] was accepted most readily by those who knew it least...
it was precisely Darwin, before 1859, who failed to convince his
closest and most sympathetic colleagues, while lesser men were making
converts by the score...if Hooker or Huxley resisted conversion, it
was not because of religious prejudice but only because of
reservations about its scientific validity. Only amateurs who did
not know enough to have such reservations were uninhibited in their
enthusiasm.". (Himmelfarb, 1959, p240)
Historian Bowler points out that there was a lot of "flexibility"
among Darwin's immediate followers, regarding Darwin's theory: "T.
H. Huxley...was never really at home with the details of the
Darwinian mechanism. A. R. Wallace...came to accept that some form
of supernatural guidance has been responsible for human
evolution...Asa Gray, was deeply concerned with the problem of
reconciling selection and design and eventually qualified his support
by accepting supernatural control of variation....even Darwin's
strongest supporters refused to commit themselves totally to
selectionism, and it would be incorrect to suppose that Darwinism
ever achieved the status of a paradigm defining the whole context of
evolutionary thought." Indeed, Darwin himself "...did, in fact,
retreat from his early commitment to selection, and in The Descent of
Man he admitted that he may at first have exaggerated its
powers...Even in the first edition of the Origin he had accepted the
auxiliary roles of Lamarckism and directed variation..." (Bowler,
1983, p28)
(ii) ALFRED RUSSELL WALLACE
Alfred Russel Wallace, the "codiscoverer of natural selection with
Darwin" (Gould, 1981, p38), and "an ardent selectionist who far
out-Darwined Darwin in his rigid insistence on natural selection as
the sole directing force for evolutionary change" (Gould, 1978, p50),
realised that since "Natural selection tends only to make each
organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other
inhabitants of the same country with which it comes into competition.
(Darwin, 1872, p187), it could not account for the human brain.
Darwin's biographer deBeer notes: "Darwin met opposition from an
unexpected quarter, his fellow- discoverer of natural selection,
Wallace himself...In 1869...Wallace came to the conclusion that the
brain of man in its present state could not have been the result of
natural selection ...He therefore claimed that 'an instrument has
been developed in advance of the needs of its possessor since this
put natural selection out of court as the cause of this phase of
human evolution, Wallace concluded that 'some higher intelligence may
have directed the process by which the human race was developed.' "
(de Beer, 1963, p215). Aghast, Darwin replied to Wallace: "I hope
you have not murdered too completely your own and my child." (Gould,
1980, p47). A month later, Darwin wrote to Wallace again,: "If you
had not told me, I should have thought that [your remarks on man] had
been added by some one else. As you expected, I differ grievously
from you, and I am very sorry for it." (Gould, 1980, p47). Wallace
never found an answer to this difficulty and remained a skeptical
Darwinist until his death forty years later. (Macbeth, 1971, p103).
Darwinists usually ignore Wallace's argument, writing off his
apostasy to loss of nerve (Mayr, 1982, p498), or lack of resolve
(Gould, 1978, pp25,50; Gould, 1981, p38). But this overlooks the
fact that Wallace had no problem with man's common descent from
apes-two years after his exchange of letters with
Darwin, he is still mentioned by Darwin in the Descent of Man,
heading a list of "eminent naturalists and philosophers" who maintain
"that man is the co- descendant with other species of some ancient,
lower, and extinct form" (Darwin, 1871, p390). Darwinists also
ignore[ the fact that Wallace later claimed there were other complex
things that natural selection could not produce, such as the feather.
In an interview with a Mr H. Begbie near the end of his life, Wallace
said: "Some one has said that a single feather from a heron's wing is
composed of over a million parts. The quill is socketed, held
together by little contrivances of the nature of hooks and eyes. It
is of a material so light that a finger can twist it out of shape,
but if it gets pierced or separated by any slight blow it becomes
quickly reunited and restored....Evolution can explain a great deal:
but the origin of a feather...this is beyond our comprehension,
certainly beyond the power of accident to achieve" (Wallace A.R.,
interview with Begbie H., "New Thoughts on Evolution", pp12-13, in
Morton, 1924, p81)
(iii) ASA GRAY
Widely regarded as America's greatest botanist (Dupree, 1959, p415),
Harvard professor Asa Gray was an evangelical Christian (Livingstone,
1987, p.xi). His knowledge of plant geographical distribution was
useful to Darwin in writing his Origin of Species (Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1984, iv:691), and though originally opposed to the idea
of the transformation of species (Livingstone 1987, p62), Gray found
that Darwin's ideas helped explain the distribution of North American
plants" (Livingstone 1987, p62). He was one of Darwin's small inner
circle of confidants (Livingstone 1987, p62), being one of the few
persons whom Darwin revealed his ideas on evolution prior to the
publication of the Origin of Species (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984,
iv:691). Gray was a staunch supporter of Darwinism in the United
States, reviewing the Origin of Species and defending it against its
detractors (Himmelfarb, 1959, p266).
Gray readily accepted many aspects of Darwin's theory, including the
transformation of species and the major role of natural selection
(Dupree, 1959, p268). But Gray did not accept the whole of Darwin's
system (Dupree, 1959, p268), and Darwin regarded him as only a
partial adherent (Himmelfarb, 1959, p266). Gray's doubts about
Darwin's theory were threefold. Firstly, it did not explain the origin of
variation. In his review of the Origin, Gray pointed out that the
Darwinian jigsaw had a vital piece missing. Natural selection, he said,
could certainly determine which variations should survive, but "really,
we no more know the reason why the progeny occasionally deviate
from the parent than we do why it usually resembles it" (Gray A.,
"Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection," American Journal of Science, 2nd ser., XXIX,
1860, in Dupree, 1959, 1987, p63). Darwin failed to establish a vera
causa [true cause] for evolution. As Samuel Butler later put it: "The
'Origin of Variation,' whatever it is, is the only true 'Origin of
Species.'" (Butler S., "Life and Habit", London, 1878, p263, in
Himmelfarb, 1959, pp321-322).
Secondly, Gray had deep reservations about the power of natural
selection to craft complex organs, like the eye. When Darwin
admitted in the Origin that, "To suppose that the eye, with all its
inimitable contrivances...could have been formed by natural selection,
stems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Gray
wrote in the margin of his copy, "So it does." Twenty years later, in a
series of lectures he gave in the 1880's, Gray still doubted whether
the sum of many minute variations could produce the eye: "[While] I
see how variations of a given organ or structure can be led on to
great modification, I cannot conceive how non-existent organs come
thus to be...." [Nor] "am I at all helped in this respect by being
shown that the new organs are developed little by little." (Gray A.,
"Natural Science and Religion", New York, 1880, in Dupree, 1959,
pp375-376).
[to be continued]
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Asimov I., 1981, "In the Beginning," Crown: New York.
Bowler P.J., 1983, "The eclipse of Darwinism", Johns Hopkins
University Press: Baltimore MD.
Darwin C., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex",
[1871], Modern Library (bound in one volume with The Origin of
Species), Random House: New York, nd.
Darwin C., 1872, "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition, Everyman's
Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1967 reprint.
Dawkins R. 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker," Penguin: London, 1991
reprint.
de Beer G. 1963, "Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural Selection",
Nelson: London.
Dupree A.H., 1959, "Asa Gray: American Botanist, Friend of
Darwin", Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 1988 reprint.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, Benton: Chicago, 15th edition.
Gould S.J., 1978, "Ever Since Darwin", Penguin: London, 1991
reprint.
Gould S.J., 1980, "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1990
reprint.
Gould S.J., 1981, "The Mismeasure of Man", W.W. Norton: New
York.
Himmelfarb G.,1959, "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution,"
Elephant Paperbacks: Chicago, 1996 reprint.
Livingstone D.N., 1987, "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The
Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary
Thought", Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI.
Macbeth N., 1971, "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason", Gambit:
Boston.
Mayr E., 1982, "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity,
Evolution, and Inheritance", Belknap Press: Cambridge MA.
Morton H.C., "The Bankruptcy of Evolution", Marshall Brothers:
London, 1924.
Patterson C., 1981, "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of
Address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York
City, November 5, 1981.
Copyright (c) Stephen E. Jones, 1998. All rights reserved. This
paper is for debate on the Evolution Mail Reflector internet listserv
only. It therefore may not be quoted outside that listserv without
the written permission of the author, Stephen E. Jones.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------