Talk:1860 Oxford evolution debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Alfred Newton[edit]

The article as it stands is far too revisionist, and relies too much on Lucas (a protagonist of Wilberforce) and Brooke. They do not consider the evidence of the letters of Alfred Newton, a careful and scrupulous man who was on the committee for the 1860 BA Meeting. Newton's biography by Wollaston is an essential source. Also, Thomson gives no refs at all; two excellent Huxley biographers have underestimated the significance of Newton's letters: Desmond (in Huxley) mentions Newton, but only tangentially; Bibby (who produced a PhD and several biographies of Huxley) seems to have omitted Newton entirely (I have not read the PhD dissertation). Quite extraordinary. Here's the ref:

Wollaston AFR 1921. Life of Alfred Newton: late Professor of Comparative Anatomy, Cambridge University 1866-1907, with a Preface by Sir Archibald Geikie OM. Dutton, NY. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the following reviews all except Newton, and still concludes the traditional account is broadly substantiated:

Jenson, J. Vernon 1991. Thomas Henry Huxley: communicating for science. U. of Delaware Press, Newark. Chapter 3 is an excellent survey, and its notes gives references to all the eyewitness accounts except Newton. The great majority of these accounts do accord with the traditional version.

I have therefore made some changes in the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

J.D. Hooker[edit]

The main evidence for Hooker's effectiveness is Hooker himself. Others noted that Hooker had joined the Darwin supporters, but as to the overall effectiveness of his intervention, that's moot. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No. See Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal (New Series) 12: 275-277 (and perhaps other contemporary summaries, as may be available on Google Books and/or Biodiversity Heritage Library). Huxley's defense is more famous because of Wilberforce's "grandmother" gaffe, but Hooker perhaps even topped it with his tongue-in-cheek remark that, as according to Wilberforce no scientist would defend Darwin, he (as one of the most eminent botanists of his day) "could not presume to address the audience as a scientific authority" but would defend Darwin nonetheless.
Huxley's remark is a bit of a low blow and certainly more memorable to the general public, but to the audience there and then (who were aware of Hooker's scientific credentials) Hooker's quip must have been the more scathing attack on Wilberforce. (Imagine Einstein debating Lenard with "as a mere Jew, I cannot be expected to have any idea of physics, but...")
NEVER RELY ON TERTIARY SOURCES if secondary sources are available! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Darwin a "Professional"?[edit]

As part of its section on "Reaction and Legacy" the article describes Darwin (with Huxley and Hooker) as a "professional" (presumably meaning a professional scientist). But is this strictly true for Darwin? Clearly science was something that he devoted his adult life to and that he approached in an intellectually systematic way -- both aspects of "professionalism." But Darwin was in the fortunate situation of being a man of property, who did not hold a full-time paid position anywhere (his service on the Beagle was not salaried) and never had to rely on his earnings from science (such as his publications) to live on. Nandt1 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I have now taken a crack at redrafting the relevant section of the article on this point. Nandt1 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems a good point, worth trying to find a source for improving this: Sedgwick and Wilberforce were of course clergymen, but Owen was a professional as I recall. Darwin was in a way one of the last gentlemen amateur scholars, but supported Huxley's campaign for a new professionalism in science and science education. Will try to recall where I read something on those lines... dave souza, talk 21:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly an idea that is reflected in parts of Desmond and Moore's Darwin biography. Mine is an old copy from 1994 and I think there might have been later revisions, but see, in particular, their final chapter on the campaign for Darwin's burial in Westminster Abbey. Nandt1 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The version of Desmond & Moore's Darwin that I'm using is the 1991 book as reprinted in Penguin paperback in 1992, the American publication of it in 1994 got a changed title (Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist) but as far as I know there's not been any significant revision to the book. . dave souza, talk 23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I choose[edit]

1. gorilla for my paternal line, 2. chimp for my maternal line. What do you choose? ... said: Rursus (mbor) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You got a choice? The rest of us, we just got a common ancestor. . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Was the argument about evolution or about natural selection?[edit]

An issue the article doesn't seem to cover is that Owen's Edinburgh Review article publicly proclaimed that he was already a proponent of theistic evolution, in a form that rejected Darwin's natural selection for "ordained continuous becoming" – see Bowler 2003, p. 186, also Secord 2000, Victorian Sensation p. 512. So, the argument was more complex than the simple evolution vs. creationism that it seems at first glance. Wilberforce's position isn't clear to me: Darwin and design: historical essay :: Darwin Correspondence Project states that "Wilberforce’s own review of Origin suggests that he was not in fact opposed to transmutation, only to Darwin’s particular explanation for it." . . dave souza, talk 00:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Having a bot make talk page sections for a million dead links seems dubious, but I have fixed the above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)