Login

Join for Free!
112476 members


A myth of biology debunked

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

A myth of biology debunked

Postby gamila » Fri May 15, 2009 4:10 pm

There is a myth of biology that when Darwins theory of natural selection was first presented it was attacked from religious perspectives. This comes about from the classic debate between Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford and T. H. Huxley. on the on 30 June 1860

A BBC's programme on Darwin was shown,* how Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford, attempted to pour scorn on Darwin's Origin of Species at a meeting of the British Association in Oxford on 30 June 1860, and had the tables turned on him by T. H. Huxley

he myth runs

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
In this memorable encounter Huxley's simple scientific sincerity humbled the prelatical insolence and clerical obscurantism of Soapy Sam; the pretension of the Church to dictate to scientists the conclusions they were allowed to reach were, for good and all, decisively defeated; the autonomy of science was established in Britain and the Western world; the claim of plain unvarnished truth on men's allegiance was vindicated, however unwelcome its implications for human vanity might be; and the flood tide of Victorian faith in all its fulsomeness was turned to an ebb, which has continued to our present day and will only end when religion and superstition have been finally eliminated from the minds of all enlightened men.


this is all myth
the facts are Wilberforce attacked Darwinism on scientific grounds with the support of most scientists of his day

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
The Athenaeum correctly42 reports, 'The most eminent naturalists assembled at Oxford' were on Wilberforce's side.


http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
Five weeks earlier Wilberforce had written22 a review of Darwin's Origin of species, which was published in the July issue of The Quarterly Review.23 His speech was a condensed version of the review.24 Two passages of the review are of crucial importance, and show that Wilberforce, contrary to the central tenet of the legend, did not prejudge the issue. The main bulk of the review25 is given over to an entirely scientific assessment of Darwin's Theory. We may not like his conclusions, he says at the outset,


further

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
. At the beginning of The Athenaeum report we read `The Bishop of Oxford stated that the Darwinian theory, when tried by the principles of inductive science, broke down. The facts brought forward, did not warrant the theory.' Wilberforce's scientific criticisms are then reported, and finally: `Mr Darwin's conclusions were an hypothesis, raised most unphilosophically to the dignity of a causal theory. He was glad to know that the greatest names in science were opposed to this theory, which he believed to be opposed to the interests of science and humanity

He alluded to the weight of authority that had been brought to bear against it - men of eminence, like Sir B. Brodie and Professor Owen, being opposed to it, and concluded, amid much cheering, by denouncing it as degrading to man, and as a theory founded upon fancy, instead of upon facts


Darwins views where


http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
What he was really arguing for was a hypothesis that each species had gradually developed from some simpler one, and the Survival of the Fittest as a partial explanation of how this had happened.


To this Wilberforce presented scientific evidence

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
Wilberforce claimed that the hypothesis was false and that the explanation failed to account for some crucial facts. In the review he devoted six pages30 to the absence in the geological record of any case of one species developing into another. Darwin had felt this to be a difficulty, and had explained it away by reason of the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Subsequent discoveries were soon to vindicate Darwin, and to fill in the stages whereby many different species had evolved from common ancestors: but in 1860 it was fair to point out the gaps in the evidence, and to argue that Darwin had put forward only a conjectural hypothesis, not a well-established theory.


http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html

Wilberforce was making three points. First that over the course of human history there was no evidence of any new species developing; secondly that selective pressures, while admittedly having an effect, did not cause a change of species; and thirdly that the phenomenon of the sterility of hybrids told strongly in favour of the fixity of species. As regards the first point we now know that Wilberforce is wrong; but on the other two points he was right. Dogs, horses31 and pigeons have been selectively bred for thousands of generations, yet different breeds not only remain mutually fertile, but are liable to revert to type. Obvious changes in the phenotype are less significant than Darwin claimed, and species are genetically much more stable than he had supposed. Even if the family resemblances between different species were fully recognized, it still would not follow that they had evolved from one another.

Unless and until Darwinians could produce an explanation of how organisms of one species could eventually evolve into those of another, which also accounted for hybrid infertility and reversion to type, it was a fair criticism to say that Darwin had not offered a causal theory but only, at best, a hypothesis



Darwin even addmitted Wilberforce's criticisms where accurate

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html

Darwin himself thought Wilberforce's criticisms fair or at least faceable. `I have just read the "Quarterly" ' he wrote to Hooker in July, 1860. `It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the "Anti-Jacobin" against my Grandfather ... '33. A letter to Lyell on 11 August is significant:'... This morning I recommenced work and am at dogs; ... By the way, the Bishop makes a very telling case against me, by accumulating several instances where I speak doubtfully; but this is very unfair, as in such cases as this of the dog, the evidence is and must be very doubtful.'


Wilberforce points out a logical problem with Darwins view of new species coming from an antecendent species


http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
Once we have established the fixity of species, as Wilberforce thought he had, then the principle that the progeny are of the same species as the parents becomes a strict logical equivalence relation, and any putative chain of descent from one species to another must have a broken link somewhere. It is quite fair to put this in the form of a challenge, and to ask Huxley where he would have us locate the break, pointing out the absurdity of supposing either our near ancestors non-human or our remote ancestors human



thus the myth is debunked
based on the science of his times Darwins theory was shown to be wrong-not from religion but from science it self

for those who want to read 4 reasons why natural selection is wrong click this link

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf
'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG'
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby alextemplet » Fri May 15, 2009 9:50 pm

but in 1860 it was fair to point out the gaps in the evidence, and to argue that Darwin had put forward only a conjectural hypothesis, not a well-established theory.


The key words here being "in 1860".
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: A myth of biology debunked

Postby AFJ » Sun May 17, 2009 9:20 pm

I did not see this, but I believe the BBC unfairly presented the debate. The reason is that the BBC is presenting 1860 to a 2009 audience, which is use to professional scientists. In 1860, many people had a profession and researched science as an interest or hobby. Yes, many professors did science research, but many of those professors were theologians, or had studied to be parsons, pastors, and priests. But as far as getting government grants to do research--I believe im correct in saying that as late as 1860 this was not happening anywhere as close as it does today--if at all.

The separation of church and state issue was not so established in stone as it is today either. By the way the phrase was written in a letter of Thomas Jefferson, it is not in the constitution. The constitution says that "congress shall make no law establishing" a state religion. The lawyers then won cases using this letter and established precedences to litigate the principle into our culture.

That said, it is unfair to present the bishop as some kind of uneducated, close-minded, outdated neo-inquisition type (as the media often does) seeking to shut Darwin and Huxley down. He was most likely just as educated in science as they were.

Again, the culture of the day saw many ministers and priests who were researchers. It is more the liberal theologians' rejection of the authority of scripture in the church that gave the atheists and agnostics the advantage over public opinion and in our education system.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm


Postby biohazard » Mon May 18, 2009 7:17 am

Congratulations Gamila! You just debunked the blasphemous myth that is natural selection and showed that evolution theory is just a fairy tale!! And not only did you that, but you managed to do it with argumentation from the year 1860! You truly showed them nasty evolutionists who is who! You are my hero!! I bow in awe beofre thy mighty wisdom.

I'm speechless...
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: A myth of biology debunked

Postby gamila » Mon May 18, 2009 12:00 pm

but I believe the BBC unfairly presented the debate


this raises 2 questions
1 why did the BBC lie about the debate ie perpetuate a myth
2 why does science lie about the debate ie perpetuate a myth

Science has its own bible full of its own nyths

for those who are interested there is another similar myth science perpetuates and that is the Galileo myth- like Wilberforce the church at the time presented scientific arguments to show Galileo was wrong -try your google skills the evidence is on the net
but science and the media choose to lie about that and present this myth

the myth
the pretension of the Church to dictate to scientists the conclusions they were allowed to reach were, for good and all, decisively defeated; the autonomy of science was established in Britain and the Western world; the claim of plain unvarnished truth on men's allegiance was vindicated, however unwelcome its implications for human vanity might be; and the flood tide of Victorian faith in all its fulsomeness was turned to an ebb, which has continued to our present day and will only end when religion and superstition have been finally eliminated from the minds of all enlightened men.


Feyerabend's considered views on science. He wrote:

Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits.
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby alextemplet » Mon May 18, 2009 3:29 pm

gamila wrote:for those who are interested there is another similar myth science perpetuates and that is the Galileo myth- like Wilberforce the church at the time presented scientific arguments to show Galileo was wrong -try your google skills the evidence is on the net
but science and the media choose to lie about that and present this myth


So are you suggesting that Galileo was wrong when he supported Copernicus's claim that the sun is the center of the solar system?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: A myth of biology debunked

Postby gamila » Tue May 19, 2009 3:25 am

So are you suggesting that Galileo was wrong when he supported Copernicus's claim that the sun is the center of the solar system?

i am saying if you read the post
the church attacked him on scientific grounds according to the science of the times he was unscientific-go do a google and find out for yourself
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: A myth of biology debunked

Postby AstusAleator » Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 am

until I see .org, .edu, or .gov at then end of your links I'm not going to even bother with them. (unless it's like JSTOR.com)

OK I lied, I actually checked out Gamahucher Press.

"Founded in 1995 GAMAHUCHER PRESS is an independent publisher in the genres of COMPARATIVE RELIGION, POETRY, EROTICISM and PHILOSOPHY"

HMMMMMMMMMM
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Tue May 19, 2009 5:58 am

Goodness! :roll: I simply cannot believe the lies you keep throwing at us! Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the word that even comes close to being accurate. Until you can provide us with some real science to back up your absurdity, this isn't even worthy my time.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: A myth of biology debunked

Postby gamila » Tue May 19, 2009 7:54 am

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the word that even comes close to being accurate. Until you can provide us with some real science to back up your absurdity, this isn't even worthy my time.

if you are to lazy or to scared to google on Galileo church debate
fine -try key words galileo church unscientific

perhaps you can answer my two questions
1 why did the BBC lie about the debate ie perpetuate a myth ie wiberforce huxley
2 why does science lie about the debate ie perpetuate a myth ie wiberforce huxley
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby biohazard » Tue May 19, 2009 11:23 am

Now, there's a real scientist's answer when asked for scientific evidence: "Go google" :D
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: A myth of biology debunked

Postby gamila » Tue May 19, 2009 11:57 am

Now, there's a real scientist's answer when asked for scientific evidence: "Go google

you obviously think only your text books hold the truth
a little more life experience and you will realise you can find truth in a sewer if you know what you are looking for
just look at all the texts books over the last hundred years most now just contain old myths


i notice none of you budding scientific geniuses are game to answer my 2 questions

1 why did the BBC lie about the debate ie perpetuate a myth ie wiberforce huxley
2 why does science lie about the debate ie perpetuate a myth ie wiberforce huxley
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron