A summary of this article appears in Reaction to Darwin's theory. |
A fact from 1860 Oxford evolution debate appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,613 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 30, 2009, June 30, 2010, June 30, 2011, June 30, 2014, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, June 30, 2019, and June 30, 2022. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Also, the following reviews all except Newton, and still concludes the traditional account is broadly substantiated:
I have therefore made some changes in the article. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
1. gorilla for my paternal line, 2. chimp for my maternal line. What do you choose? ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
England, Richard (June 28, 2017). "Censoring Huxley and Wilberforce: A new source for the meeting that the Athenaeum 'wisely softened down'". Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science. The Royal Society: 20160058. doi: 10.1098/rsnr.2016.0058. ISSN 0035-9149. – the abstract notes further details shown in the Oxford Chronicle's report, but the article is paywalled. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1860 Oxford evolution debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The article said that historians have high uncertainty regarding the actual words of Huxley and Wilberforce in the debate. In fact, historians consider the actual stories (do you claim monkey ancestry through your grandmother or grandfather? / i think its honorable to be related to a monkey than you) to be entirely fabricated, and I clarified the lead with a ref. 64.229.115.87 ( talk) 18:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Dave souza: Well, Dave, you've undid my edit and I am going to need some justification. I changed the phrasing from "there is uncertainty" of the words to "historians reject it as a later fabrication". You claimed this is "exaggerated" language. Well, it's not, it's more accurate language.
"It is indeed impossible to know exactly what went on in the Oxford Natural History Museum that summer day, and much of the story as it has come down to us is a fabrication." (Source: ed. Ronald Numbers, Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion, Harvard, 155)
At the very least, it's clear that the use of the term "highly uncertain" is simply wrong -- it's simply unknown, entirely, and most of it is a fabrication. The article, as it is, simply fails to explain that. 64.229.115.87 ( talk) 05:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A summary of this article appears in Reaction to Darwin's theory. |
A fact from 1860 Oxford evolution debate appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,613 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 30, 2009, June 30, 2010, June 30, 2011, June 30, 2014, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, June 30, 2019, and June 30, 2022. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Also, the following reviews all except Newton, and still concludes the traditional account is broadly substantiated:
I have therefore made some changes in the article. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
1. gorilla for my paternal line, 2. chimp for my maternal line. What do you choose? ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
England, Richard (June 28, 2017). "Censoring Huxley and Wilberforce: A new source for the meeting that the Athenaeum 'wisely softened down'". Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science. The Royal Society: 20160058. doi: 10.1098/rsnr.2016.0058. ISSN 0035-9149. – the abstract notes further details shown in the Oxford Chronicle's report, but the article is paywalled. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1860 Oxford evolution debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The article said that historians have high uncertainty regarding the actual words of Huxley and Wilberforce in the debate. In fact, historians consider the actual stories (do you claim monkey ancestry through your grandmother or grandfather? / i think its honorable to be related to a monkey than you) to be entirely fabricated, and I clarified the lead with a ref. 64.229.115.87 ( talk) 18:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Dave souza: Well, Dave, you've undid my edit and I am going to need some justification. I changed the phrasing from "there is uncertainty" of the words to "historians reject it as a later fabrication". You claimed this is "exaggerated" language. Well, it's not, it's more accurate language.
"It is indeed impossible to know exactly what went on in the Oxford Natural History Museum that summer day, and much of the story as it has come down to us is a fabrication." (Source: ed. Ronald Numbers, Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion, Harvard, 155)
At the very least, it's clear that the use of the term "highly uncertain" is simply wrong -- it's simply unknown, entirely, and most of it is a fabrication. The article, as it is, simply fails to explain that. 64.229.115.87 ( talk) 05:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)