History of Evolution

[AV1611VET]

But again, all it is from you is just post hoc logic. You have shown nothing that says that Solomon knew about evolution.

Darwin's Favoured Races transitioned evolution from "prescience" to "science."

I clearly stipulated "prescience evolution" in Solomon's time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin's Favoured Races transitioned evolution from "prescience" to "science."

I clearly stipulated "prescience evolution" in Solomon's time.

But you showed nothing that mentions Solomon talking about evolution. You are using post hoc logic to describe something that does not exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

From people that studied the Bible.

That explains it -- thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you showed nothing that mentions Solomon talking about evolution.

That's why I said "and concluded" ...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's why I said "and concluded" ...

Yes, by using post hoc logic on something that doesn't say what you claim it does.

 

[J_B_]

If there's something in there makes you feel I could answer what is on your mind, please ask.

I suppose we could give it a try.

What would you say was the key to the acceptance of Darwin? And how long did it take for that acceptance to reach the tipping point?

FYI, I'm not looking for trite answers like, "They accepted Darwin because the science was sound" or "It took until Bronze Age beliefs finally crumbled". Rather, I'm curious what made Darwin unique and why that uniqueness resonated.

 

[Ophiolite]

I suppose we could give it a try.

What would you say was the key to the acceptance of Darwin? And long did it take for that acceptance to reach the tipping point?

FYI, I'm not looking for trite answers like, "They accepted Darwin because the science was sound" or "It took until Bronze Age beliefs finally crumbled". Rather, I'm curious what made Darwin unique and why that uniqueness resonated.

That's a good question. I haven't considered that consciously before. I should give it some thought, but a couple of provisional observations (subject to later amendment).

• The fixity of species, which had been a widely held concept for centuries, was increasingly open to question. (Although evolution of a kind had been proposed by Socrates and others.) Thus there were a substantial number of scientists who already suspected evolution was a reality. Darwin provided them with a mechanism.
• Further evidence of this are the hypotheses postulating evolution. As I noted earlier Erasmus Darwin and Lamark are examples of this.
• An important clue that led Darwin to his conclusion were the writings of the Reverend Thomas Malthus on population. I suggest (currently with no supporting evidence) that since this work was widely known and greatly admired it would have offered a painless introduction to Darwinian theory.
• Yet another indication that "the time had come" for the theory to emerge was that Wallace independently came up with a practically identical idea, thereby pushing Darwin to publish a brief summary, in conjunction with Wallace's paper.
  
• An interesting point is that while acceptance of the theory by most of the scientific community came rapidly, it fell out of favour at the turn of the century. Evolution was still fully accepted, but now the cause was attributed largely to mutations. Natural selection was seen as superfluous.

Oh, and I should add, the science really was sound and that did no harm. Thomas Huxley, Darwin's Bulldog, remarked when informed of the theory “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that”.

Anyway, give me a few days to fish through my library and return with a fuller and more accurate picture.

 

[J_B_]

Anyway, give me a few days to fish through my library and return with a fuller and more accurate picture.

Of course.

I should add, the science really was sound and that did no harm.

I mentioned it merely because it is self-evident that those advocating a position think it is sound. Bringing that to the fore as the definitive answer does nothing to promote understanding IMHO.

However, since I mentioned it, it's fair enough for you to make a brief reply. Now that it's done, I hope we can move on.

Yet another indication that "the time had come" for the theory to emerge was that Wallace independently came up with a practically identical idea, thereby pushing Darwin to publish a brief summary, in conjunction with Wallace's paper.

Indicators to be sure, but maybe only the canary in the coal mine. I can accept there is some truth to the idea that Malthus and others were preparing the way for the prophet, but for the most part that only kicks the can down the road. In order to get at the root of it, I would be required to ask: Then why Malthus?

The fixity of species, which had been a widely held concept for centuries ...

Was it? That's not a challenge to your statement, but an honest question. A recurring feature of theology has been that what was supposedly accepted for centuries had actually gone largely unspoken. It wasn't until the challenge manifested that theologians felt the need to codify said belief.

An example would be the Council of Trent, when, as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, the RCC articulated many positions that had hitherto been only assumed. Due to the gradual nature of history, it's a tricky matter for Roman Catholics to pinpoint where many of these doctrines are expressed in the Bible. But one must be careful with double-edged swords, as Protestants have the same problem with some of their doctrine.

So, was the fixity of species a codified principle, or an unspoken assumption only written down after the challenge was raised? It would be an interesting rabbit hole if you have further resources on the topic.

An interesting point is that while acceptance of the theory by most of the scientific community came rapidly, it fell out of favour at the turn of the century. Evolution was still fully accepted, but now the cause was attributed largely to mutations. Natural selection was seen as superfluous.

Kudos, as here we have one of the details that sparked my OP. You didn't list Theo Graebner among the opponents of evolution, so maybe you are unfamiliar with him. You might want to check his work, for example Evolution: An Investigation and a Criticism.

Graebner was a Lutheran theologian and a polemicist, so I'm not claiming his writings would be given any scientific credence. Plus I'm sure they will seem out of date. But I thought he did a decent job of summarizing the evolutionary theory of the day. I was also surprised to see him promoting Intelligent Design in the 1920s; I didn't realize it predated Dembski by that much.

Regardless, he made much of the turmoil present within the discipline of biology - the "falling out of favor" you mentioned. I'm interested in knowing the background better, and getting a fuller, circumscribed view of it rather than just one opinion.

 

[Ophiolite]

Was [the fixity of species a widely held concept for centuries]? That's not a challenge to your statement, but an honest question. A recurring feature of theology has been that what was supposedly accepted for centuries had actually gone largely unspoken. It wasn't until the challenge manifested that theologians felt the need to codify said belief.

Just a quick thought on this part of your post.
In my earlier post almost all my statements were summaries and thus, necessarily simplifications. A slightly more nuanced statement might read, in the two or three centuries leading up to publication of On the Origin of Species the conventional view was that species were fixed. There were certainly dissenting voices over this period, but this underlying noise accelerated in the first half of the 18th century, ranging from uncertainty to outright opposition.

I've been reflecting on what is involved in giving you a thorough answer and it is substantial. I'm quite happy to put in the effort, since it will give me a focus and a way of organising my thoughts on the subject. It will, however, take longer than I initially had in mind. Your question above has intrigued me, so I want to confirm that my take, as summarised in the paragraph above is a sound one, or determine what it should be.

You didn't list Theo Graebner among the opponents of evolution, so maybe you are unfamiliar with him. You might want to check his work, for example Evolution: An Investigation and a Criticism.

Useful. I don't think I had heard of him.

I can accept there is some truth to the idea that Malthus and others were preparing the way for the prophet, but for the most part that only kicks the can down the road. In order to get at the root of it, I would be required to ask: Then why Malthus?

My interim answer to that is that Malthus was an example of the writers and naturalists who were providing "preparing the way", in the sense of altering the perceptions of professional and layperson alike. Perhaps a more pertinent example would be "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" by Robert Chambers published in 1844, It reviewed the concept of transmutation of species and was popular and well received. I shall provide further examples and discuss the nature and extent of their impact.

Edit: I should note that there was a distinct difference between Europe and the USA in terms of acceptance of Darwin's theory. The driving force for this difference was the greater proportion of fundamentalist Christians in the USA. But neither in Europe, nor in North America was the opposition only from this source. For example, Richard Owen, the distinguished British palaeontologist and anatomist. He accepted evolution, but rejected Darwin's view of mechanism. (I could get sidetracked here, because Owen is an intriguing character who has been, perhaps, ignored because he wound up on the wrong side of the argument.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

That explains it -- thanks.

Why trust those that make the error of interpreting the Bible literally?

 

[Estrid]

Is anyone familiar with the history of evolution? Not the scientific field of study, but the history of the people behind it - both those for and against.

Are you a creationist coming in under the radar?
What is your purpose?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why trust those that make the error of interpreting the Bible literally?

So I won't end up saying stuff like this:

It still fails since Solomon, as least as told in the Bible, appears to be largely fictional.

 

[J_B_]

Just a quick thought on this part of your post.
In my earlier post almost all my statements were summaries and thus, necessarily simplifications.

Understood.

I've been reflecting on what is involved in giving you a thorough answer and it is substantial.

Yeah, I can imagine. I have to admit feeling guilty that you're going to all the work. I'm glad you have a motivation of your own for doing it. I'll try my best to do justice to your efforts.

Useful. I don't think I had heard of him.

I felt it only fair to mention what prompted my thoughts in the first place. You may have noticed my motivations are already being questioned. In truth it is merely a historical curiosity. Regardless of my views or how biologists currently view evolution, new ideas often travel a rocky road to acceptance. The story interests me and that's all there is to it.

To me it seems Darwin was missing a key piece necessary to the acceptance of evolution. The missing piece he needed didn't come until later with Watson & Crick (and others I'm sure). So why did people reject what came before, yet they accepted Darwin? Why were they willing to accept Darwin when that piece was missing? I feel I'm missing some critical nuance in the story.

Maybe an example would help. I feel the same about the contribution of Diffie and Hellman to public-key cryptography. They didn't publish a solution. They published an idea ... wouldn't it be cool if ... It was only later that RSA found the solution. In my mind, then, RSA is the much bigger deal. I get how amazing their contribution is. Not so much with Diffie and Hellman. Heck, I have all kinds of cool ideas. Why can't I publish them and get awards, accolades, and recognition while leaving actual solutions for those cool ideas to other people to work out later?

 

[J_B_]

Are you a creationist coming in under the radar?
What is your purpose?

That's a loaded question, so I'm going to answer in parts.

I'm not a creationist as you probably think of it. I'm not YEC ... or OEC for that matter. I'm not a theistic evolutionist either. My view being only my own, there isn't a label that could be used to classify me. With that said, I believe God created all that is, which includes life. I don't accept evolution in it's entirety.

I'm not "coming in under the radar". I've made no attempt to hide anything. That you're not familiar with my views doesn't mean I'm trying to hide them. We can have a discussion on my views in a separate thread if you're so inclined, but I don't want that discussion to derail this thread.

I have several degrees, one of them being in history. One of the things a historian is taught to do is study the history of things he disagrees with as honestly as he can. That's my purpose. Whether or not I agree with evolution is beside the point. I can have a respectful conversation about things I disagree with. If @Ophiolite ever feels I'm getting snarky or step over the line (things that, admittedly and unfortunately, I sometimes do), I invite him to let me know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I won't end up saying stuff like this:

So you prefer to be wrong.

 

[Estrid]

That's a loaded question, so I'm going to answer in parts.

I'm not a creationist as you probably think of it. I'm not YEC ... or OEC for that matter. I'm not a theistic evolutionist either. My view being only my own, there isn't a label that could be used to classify me. With that said, I believe God created all that is, which includes life. I don't accept evolution in it's entirety.

I'm not "coming in under the radar". I've made no attempt to hide anything. That you're not familiar with my views doesn't mean I'm trying to hide them. We can have a discussion on my views in a separate thread if you're so inclined, but I don't want that discussion to derail this thread.

I have several degrees, one of them being in history. One of the things a historian is taught to do is study the history of things he disagrees with as honestly as he can. That's my purpose. Whether or not I agree with evolution is beside the point. I can have a respectful conversation about things I disagree with. If @Ophiolite ever feels I'm getting snarky or step over the line (things that, admittedly and unfortunately, I sometimes do), I invite him to let me know.

Thanks for the response. Of course there's
a great variety of creationist views. My guess was
correct, and there's nothing unusual about a sneak
attack. Good that you are bettervthan that.

No hostility was intended in my q., just curious.

We noted you sound educated. A bunch of us here
do have advanced degrees and it makes for better
discussion than the "how come still monkeys"
garbage.

" The history of things I disagree with" is an
Interesting thought. Not sure I get what it is to
you. I will examine that approach for myself.

We all stand at risk of the vice of snark, and
It's well to at least strive against it.

No wish to derail your thread, though
I will note that disagreeing with ToE
inevitably is for religious reasons, as no
contrary data exists, despite all the claims.

If you want to do a thread on that, a respectful
discussion might be productive.

Anyway, i will bow out as I've nothing to
contribute here other than to say that in China
acceptance of ToE was simple
enough as there were no religious obstacles.

 

[Job 33:6]

I suppose we could give it a try.

What would you say was the key to the acceptance of Darwin? And how long did it take for that acceptance to reach the tipping point?

FYI, I'm not looking for trite answers like, "They accepted Darwin because the science was sound" or "It took until Bronze Age beliefs finally crumbled". Rather, I'm curious what made Darwin unique and why that uniqueness resonated.

Darwin was also familiar with geology. And as far as I'm aware, was also influenced by figures like James Hutton.

James Hutton being the author of the theory of the earth and basically the original founder of old earth geology. Or more commonly just known as geology by anyone but YECs.

Hutton was influenced by observations at siccar point, at an angular unconformity, a structure that appears to display deep time.

It took decades, if not centuries further for geological societies to gather and to begin truly conducting "science" through systematic investigation and observation. Once ideas of geology came to convince geological societies and experts, then after scientists became familiar with the information, these ideas could then further pour out in regular society.

YECs often times criticize Darwin, drawing monkey caricatures, and talking about how he was a Nazi who promoted eugenics. What they don't talk about is the body of scientists that came before Darwin that opened the door for his discoveries.

Without an understanding of deep time, I'm not sure Darwin would have made sense of evolution as he did.

 

[Estrid]

So you prefer to be wrong.

Let's not derail the thread.

 

[J_B_]

No hostility was intended in my q., just curious.

OK.

No wish to derail your thread, though
I will note that disagreeing with ToE
inevitably is for religious reasons, as no
contrary data exists, despite all the claims.

If you want to do a thread on that, a respectful
discussion might be productive.

I'll leave that to you. I can't see that I have anything to gain from it, but I'm willing to give it a try if you wish.

Anyway, i will bow out as I've nothing to
contribute here other than to say that in China
acceptance of ToE was simple
enough as there were no religious obstacles.

China's religious heritage has always been perplexing to me. As I studied each area of history, I challenged myself to learn to think like the people I was studying. Chinese history was the most challenging for me in that regard.

 

[Estrid]

OK.



I'll leave that to you. I can't see that I have anything to gain from it, but I'm willing to give it a try if you wish.



China's religious heritage has always been perplexing to me. As I studied each area of history, I challenged myself to learn to think like the people I was studying. Chinese history was the most challenging for me in that regard.

Seems there'd be great point in learning where
one is misled by ideology, but that's me.

China's culture and history confuses me too.

I was raised atheist but we burned ghost money etc.,
so - perplexed by my perplexity.

Anyway back to your thread and I hope no less- worthless
will disrupt or derail.
Hope you find what you are looking for.