The root of the problem

Lately I have been a bit fixated on the arguments over evolution & creationism in America during the beginning of the 20th century (see here and here). As a result of further digging, I came across a few more resources that raise some interesting questions.

First is a short article from the Theological Monthly published in 1922. Entitled "Is Darwinism Still Popular?" the piece attacked scientists and members of the media who ridiculed folks like William Jennings Bryan for their belief in creationism. Much of it would sound awfully familiar to anyone acquainted with the present creation vs. evolution arguments, but one particular passage struck me;

Now the fact of the matter is that many expert anthropologists, biologists, and geologists have for several years discarded these [Darwin's] theories. We wish to quote from some of these: Prof. William Bateson, former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, declared at Toronto, December 28, 1921, that it was impossible for scientists any longer to agree with Charles Darwin's theory of the origin of species. 'There was no evidence of any one species acquiring new faculties, but that there were plenty of examples of species losing faculties. Species lose things, but do not add to their possessions. . . . Variations of many kinds, often considerable, we daily witness, but no origin of species.' Dr. William Hanna Thompson, president of the New York Academy of Medicine, says: 'The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists as absurdly inadequate, owing to its principle's being wholly negative. Selection of any kind does not produce anything.' James Orr, distinguished Scotch professor, who has gathered 'the latest views firsthand,' states: 'The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead.' "

As I have remarked before, after reading Peter Bowler's Eclipse of Darwinism and other resources, it appears that there was some confusion about evolution by natural selection during the first half of the 20th century. Different authorities preferred different evolutionary mechanisms, orthogenic and neo-Lamarckian ones being among the most favored. The debate over the importance of natural selection appears to have played into the hands of the creationists, as speeches like Bateson's supplied them with ammunition to fire at any evolutionary concept.

Other scientists recognized the danger of Bateson's statements right away, and H.F. Osborn issued a response to them in the journal Science. Bateson was incorrect on several points, but Osborn could not defend Darwin without equivocation. Osborn relegated natural selection to subsidiary role; he thought evolution proceeded in a neo-Lamarckian way. Even so, it seemed more important to put forward a united front establishing the fact of evolution than confuse the public with an argument about evolution without Darwin.

The root of the problem was not how evolution happened or the progression of fossil mammals, but whether or not evolution applied to humans. Every other aspect of the argument was secondary to this point. As reproduced in Science, William Jennings Bryan once said;

The only part of evolution in which any considerable interest is felt is evolution applied to man. A hypothesis in regard to the rocks and plant life does not affect the philosophy upon which one's life is built. Evolution applied to fish, birds and beasts would not materially affect man's view of his own responsibilities except as the acceptance of an unsupported hypothesis as to these would be used to support a similar hypothesis as to man. The evolution that is harmful -- distinctly so -- is the evolution that destroys man's family tree as taught by the Bible and makes him a descendant of the lower forms of life.

This was Bryan in 1922. His popular 1904 speech, "The Prince of Peace," reveals a different man; one concerned about the implications of evolution but not so direly opposed to it. He said;

I do not carry the doctrine of evolution as far as some do; I am not yet convinced that man is a lineal descendant of the lower animals. I do not mean to find fault with you if you want to accept the theory; all I mean to say is that while you may trace your ancestry back to the monkey if you find pleasure or pride in doing so, you shall not connect me with your family tree without more evidence than has yet been produced. ... Go back as far as we may, we cannot escape from the creative act, and it is just as easy for me to believe that God created man as he is as to believe that, millions of years ago, He created a germ of life and endowed it with power to develop into all that we see to-day. I object to the Darwinian theory, until more conclusive proof is produced, because I fear we shall lose the consciousness of God's presence in our daily life, if we must accept the theory that through all the ages no spiritual force has touched the life of man or shaped the destiny of nations. ... But, I repeat, while I do not accept the Darwinian theory I shall not quarrel with you about it ; I only refer to it to remind you that it does not solve the mystery of life or explain human progress.

Say what you will about Bryan's arguments, at least he was a more eloquent speaker than the fundamentalists we so often hear from today.

The picture that emerges from these selected quotations is one of confusion. During the beginning of the 20th century scientists were argued amongst themselves about the primary mechanisms of evolution and creationists essentially used "evolution" and "Darwinism" as synonyms. In this way the quotes of non-Darwinian evolutionists could be used to attack evolution in general, as in the public mind it was most closely associated with Darwin. "Evolution" and "Darwinism" were words that everyone seemed to be familiar with but defined in different ways, which ultimately muddled the public row over evolution and its implications.

[Image: The skeleton of an orangutan and a human compared. From Orr's Circle of the Sciences (1854)]

[Like what you see here? Then vote for me in the 3rd Annual Blogging Scholarship contest!]