Fabulous Science - Fact and Fiction in the History of Scientifc Discovery - Oxford University Press

1,501 views

Author : mrblue

First slippage: three journalists reported the session, but none mentioned the Wilberforce ape ancestry challenge and the Huxley rejoinder. Indeed, Huxley had said in previous conference sessions that he was not ashamed to admit his pithacoid ancestry. Second slippage: the `inextinguishable laughter’ from the audience that Huxley, in correspondence, boasted that his retort produced is not reported by the journalists or others who commented on the event. These sources include Darwin’s supporters Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker. Third slippage: the session was not billed as a debate between Huxley and Wilberforce, but as a paper on the historical conflict between science and religion by one Dr John Draper, to be followed by open discussion. The audience expected Wilberforce to speak, but not Huxley, who attended the meeting only on a last minute decision. Fourth slippage: According to a statement in correspondence shortly after the event, Huxley’s argument was not particularly effective or audible to the large audience. Wilberforce was indeed put down, but by botanist Joseph Hooker. The source? Joseph Hooker in a letter to Darwin! Fifth slippage: there is no record of what Wilberforce said, but we do have his review of the Origin that appeared shortly after the Oxford meeting. There he shows himself well acquainted with Darwin’s book. Invoking his ecclesiastical office, he expressly defended Darwin’s right to be heard. He accepted the principle of natural selection, but says that it is a well-known principle of species conservation (by eliminating the maladapted). He argued that Darwin simply recycled the opinions of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Sixth slippage: Wilberforce’s comments on the session express satisfaction that he had met the challenge handsomely. Waller’s conclusion: Huxley’s boastful letter, on which the legend is based, was a `face-saving device’ of a man so immobilized by anger that he couldn’t effectively speak. So Huxley was fibbing. In particular, his contention that Wilberforce engaged in deliberate obfuscation is unfounded. Waller concludes that the audience was fairly evenly divided between the two sides, each confident in its opinion. My own investigation of this debate reached the same conclusion, but with one difference: that it occurred at all, under British Association auspices, was a landmark in the transition to public acceptance of evolution. In that sense, the legend communicates a historical truth, but dressed in the mystique of the Darwin cult.