Was John Wesley an Evolutionist?

[joshua 1 9]

This quote has been attributed to John Wesley:

"There are no sudden changes in nature; all is gradual and elegantly varied. There is no being which has not either above or beneath it some that resemble it in certain characters, but differ from it in others. … From a plant to a man … the transition from one species to another is almost insensible. … The ape is this rough draft of a man; an imperfect representation which nevertheless bears a resemblance to him, and is the last creature that serves to display the admirable progression of the works of God! There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape."

Wesley was born in 1703 and lived 100 years before Darwin.

 

[Look Up]

On the face of it, Wesley seems merely to be describing similarities and differences he observes between "beings" or "species," particularly between "man and the ape." Granted Darwin was not the first to propose naturalistic evolution, yet unless further evidence from Wesley's written record can be garnered, the quote would seem to say no more than observations of similarities and differences which the Creator worked in His creatures. Where do you find the above quote?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where do you find the above quote?

http://anotherhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/john-wesley-evolutionist.html

 

[DogmaHunter]

This quote has been attributed to John Wesley:

"There are no sudden changes in nature; all is gradual and elegantly varied. There is no being which has not either above or beneath it some that resemble it in certain characters, but differ from it in others. … From a plant to a man … the transition from one species to another is almost insensible. … The ape is this rough draft of a man; an imperfect representation which nevertheless bears a resemblance to him, and is the last creature that serves to display the admirable progression of the works of God! There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape."

Wesley was born in 1703 and lived 100 years before Darwin.

It seems as if the dude sees humans as being "perfect" and apes, like a chimp, as "imperfect".
From an evolutionary perspective, that is off course nonsense.

 

[Look Up]

http://anotherhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/john-wesley-evolutionist.html

Thank you for the citation link, though I do not find your original (OP) quotation at the linked-to page.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This quote has been attributed to John Wesley:

"There are no sudden changes in nature; all is gradual and elegantly varied. There is no being which has not either above or beneath it some that resemble it in certain characters, but differ from it in others. … From a plant to a man … the transition from one species to another is almost insensible. … The ape is this rough draft of a man; an imperfect representation which nevertheless bears a resemblance to him, and is the last creature that serves to display the admirable progression of the works of God! There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape."

Wesley was born in 1703 and lived 100 years before Darwin.

If that quote is actually accurate and he said it, he most certainly is not an evolutionist. More like he views other animals as being practice for god before making humans, which is an interesting idea that I haven't seen before... in Christianity, that is. I've seen it in other religions, though.

 

[lesliedellow]

This quote has been attributed to John Wesley:

"There are no sudden changes in nature; all is gradual and elegantly varied. There is no being which has not either above or beneath it some that resemble it in certain characters, but differ from it in others. … From a plant to a man … the transition from one species to another is almost insensible. … The ape is this rough draft of a man; an imperfect representation which nevertheless bears a resemblance to him, and is the last creature that serves to display the admirable progression of the works of God! There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape."

Wesley was born in 1703 and lived 100 years before Darwin.

Evolutionary ideas were floating around in the eighteenth century, prior to the time of Darwin.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Evolutionary ideas were floating around in the eighteenth century, prior to the time of Darwin.

I am sure evolutionary theory goes back at least 2500 years. The theory is just not as developed as it is now.

 

[Hank77]

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/a-compendium-of-natural-philosophy/

Couldn't find that specific quote but it is likely to be here somewhere. Wesley's father was a member in a gentleman's society with others such as Issac Newton and John Locke. I can see how he could be inspired to try to understand the relationship between natural science and God's work and creation.
I think he saw a progression of the species from the simplest of forms to that of man, but not what we would call evolution today. That's not to say that he wouldn't have agreed with it either.

 

[joshua 1 9]

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/a-compendium-of-natural-philosophy/

Couldn't find that specific quote but it is likely to be here somewhere. Wesley's father was a member in a gentleman's society with others such as Issac Newton and John Locke. I can see how he could be inspired to try to understand the relationship between natural science and God's work and creation.
I think he saw a progression of the species from the simplest of forms to that of man, but not what we would call evolution today. That's not to say that he wouldn't have agreed with it either.

Wesley says: "the difference is not extremely great, between man and other animals." This sounds like a statement an evolutionist would make.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wesley says: "the difference is not extremely great, between man and other animals." This sounds like a statement an evolutionist would make.

Linnaeus describes something similar:

"It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form',[note 7] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History.[note 8] I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus#Systema_Naturae

I think most men who were somewhat acquainted with the science of the times had come to realize that there was some sort of connection between men and apes. This caused some to even question the fixity of species, including Linnaeus later in his life. These were probably the first inklings of what could be described as the earliest forms of a modern evolutionary theory. Several iterations were needed (e.g. Lamarck) before Darwin and Wallace both stumbled onto the important mechanisms of natural selection and lineal inheritance.

 

[Astrophile]

Evolutionary ideas were floating around in the eighteenth century, prior to the time of Darwin.

For example, in the mind of Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802). (He was Charles's grandfather.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

This quote has been attributed to John Wesley:

"There are no sudden changes in nature; all is gradual and elegantly varied. There is no being which has not either above or beneath it some that resemble it in certain characters, but differ from it in others. … From a plant to a man … the transition from one species to another is almost insensible. … The ape is this rough draft of a man; an imperfect representation which nevertheless bears a resemblance to him, and is the last creature that serves to display the admirable progression of the works of God! There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape."

Wesley was born in 1703 and lived 100 years before Darwin.

Sounds like he was flirting with the general idea... although he gets a lot of it wrong. He saw a pattern, but assumed that humanity was the end result.

 

[Loudmouth]

For example, in the mind of Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802). (He was Charles's grandfather.)

For me, the interesting part of the whole episode is that both Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both stumbled upon the same theory at the same time, completely independent of one another. A common acquaintance of the two found out that Wallace was about to publish the very same theory of evolution that Darwin had been working on, but for a longer stretch of time. They agreed to publish their work at the same time, with Darwin begrudgingly agreeing to publish before he thought he was ready. As it turned out, Darwin's book was very well written and fleshed out more of the theory than Wallace's publication which led to Darwin's popularity today.

What this shows is that all of the accumulated science up to that point was clearly pushing towards this theory. It was only a matter of time before someone put it all together, and in fact 2 guys did put it together at about the same time.

 

[Papias]

Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both stumbled upon the same theory at the same time, completely independent of one another. .........What this shows is that all of the accumulated science up to that point was clearly pushing towards this theory. It was only a matter of time before someone put it all together, and in fact 2 guys did put it together at about the same time.

Yes, this happens often in science - we see the same for aluminum refining, internal combustion engines, and dozens of other examples. When enough data accumulates, people (being pretty similar to each other) figure of what reality is pretty routinely.

.... Darwin's book was very well written and fleshed out more of the theory than Wallace's publication which led to Darwin's popularity today. .

Yes, but I also don't think we can ignore simple class privilege. Darwin was well-connected, from a respected, wealthy, well-to-do family. By comparison, Wallace was a poor nobody from the wrong side of the tracks. Everyone involved did well in my view because Wallace got any credit at all, in those elitist times.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sounds like he was flirting with the general idea... although he gets a lot of it wrong. He saw a pattern, but assumed that humanity was the end result.

Some people speculate that: Arminianism was The Father of Darwinism.

 

[lesliedellow]

Some people speculate that: Arminianism was The Father of Darwinism.

I'm not exactly sure how that works.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some people speculate that: Arminianism was The Father of Darwinism.

Some people speculate about aliens who kidnap cows. Doesn't make it true.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm not exactly sure how that works.

Calvinists seem to be the people that take the most issue with Darwin.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Some people speculate that: Arminianism was The Father of Darwinism.

Ok... so what?