|
| |
Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3 Chapter 29 HISTORY OF THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY Part 1
"When the theory of evolution was first thought of as an explanation of the family resemblances of plants and animals, it was only a reasonable guess. But by the time it was developed in its present form by the English biologist, Darwin, in 1859, it was no longer just a guess. It was a scientific law proved by many lines of evidence." —*Irvin Adler, How Life Began (1957), p.18.
How did evolutionary theory arise? Where did it come from? We could easily fill a book this size with information in answer to these question. Since there are many other good sources which do just that, we will here focus on certain special men of the 18th through 20th centuries, who led out in initiating, defending or repudiating evolutionary concepts. Certain important events and books will also be noted. INTRODUCTION—Here are some formulas: The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order. The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures. The above two formulas can enable inanimate objects to make themselves; the exception would be "man-made" things, such as automobiles or buildings. Such things as wooden boxes with nails in them require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is made by accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need materials to begin with. How did all this nonsense get started? Here is a brief overview of the modern history of evolutionary theory: 1 - BEFORE THE 20TH CENTURY MEN WHO LAID THE FOUNDATIONS—The basis of modern science was laid by careful researchers, a majority of whom believed in the creationist view of the origin of the universe, our planet, and life. These men were brilliant, yet they believed in creation not evolution. Someone will reply, "Well, we have brilliant men today who are discovering many things." Let me say that it is not difficult for intelligent men to go to universities with large libraries and lots of teachers, obtain doctorates, be hired by firms or educational institutions, enter multimillion-dollar laboratories endowed with private and government grants, and be given an abundance of time to make new discoveries.
Such men were the leaders in science; we today are the followers. We are talking about such men as Newton, Agassiz, and Kelvin. And those men were generally creationists. "Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?" —Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, (1952 ed.), pp. 389-370 Newton was the father of modern science and the pioneer in optics].
PIONEERS OF MODERN SCIENCE—Here are the men who made the fundamental discoveries and inventions that our modern world is based upon:
Lord Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology Sir Humphrey Davy (1778-1829): thermokenetics
Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery
Gregor Mandel (1822-1884): genetics Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination and immunization
John Ray (1627-1705) natural history
Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686): stratigraphy Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519): hydraulics Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902): pathology John Woodward (1665-1728): paleontology LINNAEUS—For example, Carl Linn (Carolus Linnaeus; 1707-1778) did that which others had tried and been unable to do. He classified immense numbers of plants and animals in relation to their similarities to one another. But amid all this work, he was a solid creationist. In view of all the evidence about species before him—and he was the founder of the science of taxonomy (plant and animal classification) it was clear to him that plants and animals were in definite subdivisions that had not arisen from one another.
Linnaeus recognized that variation was possible within a species, but was not always sure where one species left off and another began. Some of his "species" were actually sub-species. His Systems Naturae was first published in 1835. PALEY—William Paley (1743-1805) was a thinker of the 18th century who, in his 1802 classic, Natural Theology, argued that the kind of design that we see in the living world points clearly to a Designer. A design, he said, requires a designer. He was, of course, right.
Yes, there were brilliant men back in those early days, but gradually a new breed of "scientists" sought leading roles in the scientific community. These were men who made few discoveries, but instead obtained their laurels by inventing astounding claims. BUFFON—*Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) once said that there were only six great men in all history—and he was the sixth. Born into a wealthy home, he was able to obtain a lucrative position as director of the Jardin du Roi (Royal Garden) in Paris. Since he was not able to improve on the work of Linnaeus-or even do as well, he spent his time ridiculing the classifications of Linnaeus. Although he did not use the word "evolution," it is said that he laid the foundation for modern evolution in systematic botany and zoology. He was the first to theorize that, on a broad scale, spades originated from one another. Much to the delight of the shallow sophisticates in Paris, he also theorized that 75,000 years ago, the earth had somehow been torn as a chunk out of the sun. Then the moon tore out of the earth and flew up into the sky and began circling it. Such vacuous statements brought him still greater admiration. Exactly 100 years later in 1879, *George Darwin, son of *Charles Darwin, took that statement and again urged it on the scientific community. LINNAEUS' SYSTEMA NATURAE This is an early edition of Linnaeus' Systema Naturae. It was the first published attempt to classify the Animal Kingdom by logical reference to the outer form of the animals. The book is opened to the cat family. The handwritten notes on the facing page are additions and corrections by the author's son.
LAMARCK-*Buffon died a year before the French Revolution began. In 1793, *Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744—1829) was appointed head of the same Jardin du Roi. He was moderately successful as a scientist, while his personal life was a disaster (with a mistress, several wives, and a legacy of poverty to his children). Lamarck was heavily influenced by his teacher, Buffon, and like him had a rich imagination. Lamarck's primary contribution to science was the error of "Inheritance of acquired characteristics." This is the idea that if you lose your leg in an accident, your son will be born with only one leg. At first ignored, his theory later became known as "Lamarckism" and for a time became the bedrock of evolutionary theory. In 1809 he published Philosophie zoologique, showing Lamarckism to be the basis for evolutionary development. In his book, he explained that the giraffe obtained its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches, and birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. He also denied any past catastrophe (i.e., the Flood), and urged the theory of "uniformitarianism." Most evolutionists today are ashamed of the fact that the theory of uniformitarianism comes from Lamarck. (They are also ashamed of the fact that, in later years, *Charles Darwin renounced "natural selection" and embraced "Lamarckism" as the means by which biological evolution occurred.) (For more on Lamarckism, see chapter 13, Natural Selection; for more on uniformitarianism, see chapter 17, Fossils and Strata.) Eventually Lamarckism was scoffed at, but it had its part in paving the way for Darwin's errors. Is Lamarckism correct? It sounds good, but it is an error. In 1891, August Weismann (18341914), a well—known German biologist of that time, disproved it. More on this shortly when we discuss Weismann. Cuvier-In contrast with the shallowness of Buffon, Linnaeus and Cuvier were brilliant researchers. Both were creationists, instead of imaginative theorists. Cuvier was a French Protestant at a time when it was dangerous to be one. Founder, and comparative anatomy and paleontology director of Jardin des Plantes in Paris, Cuvier became the world's leading expert at identifying fossils from a single bone. In a large book he published in 1812 (Recherches Sur les ossement, etc.), he taught creationism, and satisfactorily explained the fossil record to be the result of the Genesis Flood. (However, he did include earlier catastrophes in his theory. Nordenskiold in 1928 corrected the error common in many textbooks that Cuvier is said to have taught that God recreated the world after each catastrophe. Cuvier never taught that.) As a result of years of careful analysis of thousands of fossils, he believed that species did not change into one another. Cuvier's views dominated French science for the remainder of the 19th century. Now we will turn our attention from the continent of Europe to Britain. ERASMUS DARWIN-*Erasmus Darwin (17311802) was *Charles Darwin's grandfather. In 1794 Erasmus published a book (Zoonomia) in which he outlined a theory of evolution which anticipated Lamarck's ideas and even the theory of natural selection. His book was popular among liberal thinkers, but did not otherwise have a wide influence. If it were not for the importance of his grandson (whom he heavily influenced although they never met), we would not even mention him here. HUTTON —*James Hutton (1726-1797) was a Scotch geologist who urged uniformitarianism, declaring there never had been any catastrophes earlier in history. In his book, Theory of the Earth published in 1795, He said that the bent and twisted rock strata containing fossil remains, could best be explained as merely the result of calm, peaceful years—many millions of them. He said the answer was uniformitarianism: "the present is the key to the past." This sounded pretty good, since few people back then knew much about the past. CHAMBERS—*Robert Chambers (18021883), a Scot, wrote one of the very first popular evolution books in all of Britain. The intriguing part of this is that he obtained his ideas from spirits! Chambers was a spiritualist! Fifteen years before *Darwin's Origin of the Species was published, Chambers published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844. His point was that all species had gradually developed according to natural laws, without the help of a Creator. The book was very popular, but no one knew who wrote it, for Chambers authored it under the name "Mr. Vestiges." Vestiges of Creation profoundly influenced some younger men who were later to lead out in the evolutionary cause with *Darwin. This included *Alfred Russel Wallace, co-founder of the evolutionary theory that Darwin published. *Wallace was also deeply Involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate Paper, which Darwin stole and printed under his own name. (More on this later.) (In chapter 3, Origin of the Solar System, we learned that *Swedenborg, originator in 1734 of the nebular hypothesis (the theory accepted by nearly all modern evolutionists that loose gas in outer space swirled into planets and stars), said he obtained the idea while in a seance!) LYELL—*Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was, with *Charles Darwin, the most Influential evolutionist of the 19th century) They both had no scientific training, but did have lifelong inherited wealth so they could spend their full time promoting evolutionary concepts. Drawing his inspiration from Hutton, Lyell carried the idea even farther. He inherited wealth, but because he had poor eyesight and a speech impediment, he spent his time as an amateur scientist and writer. Although lacking any scientific background, in 1826 at the age of 29 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. It is said that he had three qualities of interest to the Society: wealth, excellent writing ability, and an interest in evolutionary geology. His beliefs stemmed from reading Lamarck and Hutton's books. He traveled extensively over Europe and the British Isles, searching for evidence to support Hutton's theories. The slow formation of beaches fit in well, but he also found contorted and upturned rocks. These he applied his imagination to, developing tortured theories to explain the tortured rocks. Whenever there was a problem, Lyell resolved it by saying it was due to the "imperfection of the geologic record." Lyell recognized that the theologians in England would fiercely oppose him if he stepped too far, so he theorized that the Genesis Flood was only a local flood in the Near East. This satisfied the clerics. Uniformitarianism ("all things continue as they were from the beginning") was the basis of Lyell's speculations. He published his 3 volume book, Principles of Geology, in 18301833, and it became the basis of modern geologic theory.
Lyell's emphasis, obviously, was small forces making slow, gradual changes over long periods of time. Yet a major catastrophe had occurred only 15 years earlier, when Mount Tambora near Java exploded in 1815. This tremendous explosion, larger even than that of Krakatoa in 1883, was mentioned by Lyell in his book, but explained away as a matter of little consequence—in spite of the fact that 10,000 dormant volcanoes exist all over the world.
Lyell got some of his information from *William Smith (1769-1839). Nicknamed "Strata Smith" by the Britishers, he was a land surveyor who dug canals for a living. As he worked, he took notes of rock strata and fossils he dug through in England and Scotland. He told Lyell some of what he had found, and Lyell adapted it to fit into his theory. Everything—strata, lakes, oceans, canyons, glaciers—was said to be the result of slow, calm, natural processes extending over long ages of time.
In October 1841, Lyell visited Niagara Falls in New York. Niagara Falls originally started just above the present village of Queenston, Ontario. Gradually a channel had eroded so that Niagara Falls is now seven miles from Queenston. When did the water begin falling over that escarpment? This would help date the Flood! From people in the area, Lyell learned that the falls were eroding about three feet a year. Lyell changed it to one foot a year, and did a simple math calculation. The result was that Niagara Falls has been flowing for 35,000 years! But Lyell did not tell the truth. When he put this report in s later edition of his book, it turned many people toward evolutionary theory. We now know that four to five feet a year is the actual erosion rate of Niagara Falls. On this basis, if rain had always fallen as it does now (with no massive Flood in the past to more quickly erode it), the falls would only be 7-9,000 years old. Lyell's book, first published in 1830-33, became the standard work on geology for over a century. In 1848, Lyell was knighted and became "Sir Charles." The tile made his book even more influential. At the time when Lyell wrote, the words "mutability," "transmutation," "development," and "progression" were being used by liberal thinkers as evolutionary terms. Lyell was careful to avoid all such words. On paper he carefully maintained the unchanging species, in order to keep peace with the religious leaders in England and Scotland. But, secretly, he urged *Charles Darwin to write his book. Next to the publication of his own book, Lyle's most influential activity was his friendship with Charles Darwin. He led out in getting Darwin to write a book that would fully proclaim the idea that species evolved from one another. He wanted Darwin to do that which he himself did not have the nerve to do: openly publish against creationism.
WALLACE—*Alfred Russel Wallace (18231913) is considered by a number of historians to have been the one who developed the theory that Charles Darwin published. *Darwin's friends, *Lyell and *Joseph Hooker, carefully worked out circumstances to enable *Darwin to pirate *Wallace's findings and publish them under his own name. Like *Lamarck, *Wallace came from poverty, had many difficulties in his life, and was rather quickly forgotten after he died. After doing surveying work for a time, at the age of 25, he went with a friend in 1848 to the South American jungles to collect rare insects for collectors in England. There was good money in this, for wealthy people liked to purchase biologic collections. After four years in the jungle, much of it spent alone, on the return trip the ship he was on caught fire and sank—taking with it his four-year collections. He then went to the Malayan jungles alone and spent eight years amassing more material. Arriving back in 1862 at the age of 39, he made a small fortune on the collections, but invested it unwisely and promptly lost it all. Fearful that Wallace might reveal the "borrowing," when Wallace was 58 Charles Darwin intervened and obtained for him a small pension of 200 pounds a year. This helped relieve his poverty a little. The same year, Darwin spent 223 pounds just on meat for his own family, and 23 years earlier, Darwin had stolen Wallace's material and published it under his own name, obtaining the royalties that should have gone to Wallace. Lyell recognized that Wallace's material needed to go out under Darwin's name, since Darwin was socially accepted because of his wealth,—even though neither one had gone to college. Wallace was poor and was known to be deeply involved in spiritism and séances. He had been initiated into the black arts by natives in the South American jungles. (Darwin had been introduced to spiritism during his five-year trip on the Beagle, but this involvement was not publicly known.) Wallace was also an advocate of phrenology and some other peculiar ideas. In 1875, Wallace came out fully for spiritism, and, interestingly enough, also for another stepchild of evolutionary theory: Marxism. (More on Marxism as an outgrowth of Darwinism in chapter 33, Evolution and Society.) In 1855, while in Sarawak, Malay, Wallace wrote a paper, On the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species, in which he set forth the principle points of evolution, except for how the species change. He was not able to figure how this happened, which should come as no great surprise for no one since his time has ever really figured out how it could have happened either. Wallace said that the species changed in some manner by which one species descended from another in a manner which we cannot prove today. THIS is exactly what modern evolution teaches. In February 1858, while in a fever on the small island of Temate in the Molaccas, this man, guided by spirits, conceived the idea that the species changeover occurred by "the survival of the fittest." What Wallace did not recognize is that "survival of the fittest" proves nothing for evolution. Put eight dogs on a desert island with only a little food. Which dog will survive the longest? The fittest. Which one was that? The one that survived the longest. We have here circular reasoning. And that last dog; what about him? He was still a dog to his dying day; he did not change into a goat, or a cat, or a lion. The phrase, "survival of the fittest," says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it. In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" as different ideas, but by his sixth edition in 1872, he decided they both meant the same thing, and he wrote that "survival of the fittest" was the "more accurate" of the two. Since then, biologist have for decades used the term "natural selection" instead, since the other phrase indicates savage living and is obviously circular in reasoning. A few days after the fever subsided, Wallace wrote his Ternate paper, with the term "survival of the fittest." (Historians tell us, however, that Wallace obtained the phrase from *Herbert Spencer, who initially coined the phrase. Here was the long—sought-for key. Wallace wrote that this was the mechanism by which evolution accomplished its work. Upon seeing the paper, Lyell immediately had a copy sent to Darwin. The date was June 1858. Darwin instantly set to work and wrote feverishly to get his book into shape. He put together scraps of this and scraps of that. He used a yardstick to make his measurements. The heap of odds and ends was published a year later under the title, On the Origin of Species. Even this title was taken from Wallace's Ternate paper, but Wallace's name was only referred to casually three times in the book. In 1980, *Arnold C. Brackman, in his book, A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallace's material. Although Wallace stood with Darwin on the evolution of plants and animals, he differed on the evolution of man. Wallace's view was that "the unseen spirit world" had guided in the development of mankind. CHARLES DARWIN—Here are three statements that serve as a fitting introduction to this brief biography of *Charles Darwin:
*Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth, and was able to have a life of ease. In 1876 he wrote his autobiography, but it, as well as his correspondence, was heavily edited by his son, *Francis, at the urging of Charles' widow, Emma. It was not until 1958 when an unexpurgated edition was published by Darwin's grand-daughter, Lady Barlow, that it was discovered that Francis had removed 6,000 words. In addition, some key correspondence of Darwin's (for the years 1856-1859) had long been omitted, but in 1961 this was found in some old notebooks—among the private papers of Charles Lyell. All of this will be found in Brackman's book, A Delicate Arrangement. As a young man, Charles helped his physician father for two years as an unpaid assistant, by mixing herbs and chemicals. He also learned some diagnosing methods. This was later to be the preparation for his lifework of trying to locate evolutionary processes. Two years of medical school at Edinburgh University was enough for him. He did not like the profession. It was the only scientific training he ever received. His father decided to send the young man off to Cambridge prep school for theology training, so he could obtain a profitable income upon graduation. After three years he obtained a B.A. in 1831.
Darwin's father still did not know what to do with him. Charles seemed to have no incentive in life. But just then, a friend of Charles at Cambridge (John Henslow) learned that the H.M.S. Beagle would be sailing in December on a five-year exploratory trip around the world. Through the influence of wealthy relatives, young Darwin was given the position of official scientist (at that time called "naturalist") for the ship. His unpaid task would be to collect rock and wildlife samples. Some of his most memorable experiences concern the very short time that the ship stopped at the Galapagos Islands. There he saw the little finches, which in later years would be called "Darwin's finches." Thinking back on it all, he would later decide that they had evolved, and were all different species. Yet all were varieties of a single finch species (see chapters 13 and 15, Natural Selection and Species Evolution, for more on Darwin's finches.) For additional information see the appendix topic, " 2 - Darwin's Expedition — and Illness." Upon arriving back in England, he spent two years writing an account of the journey. Charles was counseled to select a wife from "superior" stock, so he married his first cousin. This would agree with Lamarck's views, which Darwin thought highly of. But such close marriages can express mutant genes, resulting in physical and mental disorders in the offspring. And so it happened to Charles' own children. One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his six sons became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth. DARWIN'S BOOK—in spite of the fact that his grandfather, *Erasmus Darwin, fathered two illegitimate daughters. Charles always admired him. Grandfather Darwin was the one who had written the two-volume Zoonomia, which made him well known in England at that time. Charles later had a German translation of Erasmus' book published. In Zoonomia, the kernel of evolution was clearly spelled out. Gradually Charles was to decide that expanding on the same idea in a book of his own might make him famous as well. On January 11, 1844, Darwin revealed his plan to publish such a book in a personal letter to *Joseph Hooker, a lifelong —friend.. But the years passed, and Darwin dawdled at the task. He was full of theories, but he could not find in nature the evidence he needed. Learning of Alfred Wallace's ideas from the papers he had sent from Sarawak and Ternate, *Charles Lyell and *Joseph Hooker told *Charles Darwin in 1858 to drop his plan for a "big book"—and get something into print quickly, utilizing *Wallace's ideas and those of *Asa Gray (both were safely out of the way, with Wallace in the Malayan jungle and Gray in America). In what they described in personal correspondence as a "delicate arrangement," it was arranged that a paper by Darwin was read to the Royal Society, while Wallace's was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to finish up his book. Darwin's book, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, came off the press on November 24,1859. The very title reveals the viciousness of the underlying concept; a concept which was to lead directly to two of the worst wars in the history of mankind (see chapter 33, Evolution and Society). The word, "evolution," appears nowhere in the first edition; Darwin used it first in his Descent of Man (1971), and in the 6th edition of Origin (1872). However, "evolved" is the last word in all editions of Origin. "With a book as with a fine day," Darwin wrote to Huxley in 1863, "one likes to end with a glorious sunset," as he had tried to do with Origin's concluding paragraph. In it he portrays the "grandeur" of thinking we are all descended from worms.
When it came off the press, Adam Sedgwick, one of the leading geologists of England, and the one who befriended young Darwin years before and introduced him to the subject, wrote this:
Sedgewick recognized the problem: the book was heavy on theory and light on fact. "Induction" is reasoning from facts to theory. Charles instead decided to reason from theory to facts, without having found any. In preparation for the book, Darwin read scientific papers, talked with people, reminisced about things he had seen while on the Beagle, and did some homemade experiments. And that is about it. He wrote letters asking such odd questions as "At what age do nestling pigeons have their tail feathers sufficiently developed to be counted?" and "Did you ever see a black greyhound (or any sub-breed) with tan feet and a tan coloured spot over inner corner of each eye? I want such a case, and such must [emphasis his] exist because theory tells me it ought." In his "scientific notebooks" we find comments like these: "Strong odour of negroes — a point of real repugnance." "My father says, on authority of Mr. Wynne, the bitch's [female dog's] offspring is affected by previous marriages with impure breeds." "The cat had its tail cut off at Shrewsbury, and its kittens had all short tails." This is science? Darwin was a scientist? Far from it. Darwin would ask people for their opinion on various matters, and write their answers down as scientific facts.
In his frenzied search for evidence of evolution, Darwin analyzed the color of pigeon feathers, talked to farmers, and chased after bugs. Here is a humorous incident from among his amateur ramblings:
For the scientific book that was to revolutionize the modern world, Darwin used these scientific instruments: a yardstick that the rest of his household used; a simple microscope (compound microscopes bothered him); a seven-foot rod for measuring plants (made for him by the village carpenter); a scales of poor-quality for weighing; a chemical balance that he and his brother used in the shed when he was 16; a badly-graduated apothecary's glass; two micrometers that, after publication, he learned gave different readings from each other. It was also later learned that he converted from inches to millimeters by aid of a figure from an old book—which was inaccurate. Darwin was not a professional scientist, but an amateur—and one doing poorer quality work than most in his time. When Darwin's book was taken by Lyell to the printer, John Murray, he read it and was doubtful of its scientific value and its sale value. Murray asked the editor of the highly-respected Quarterly Review for his opinion. The reply was that Darwin ought to write a book on pigeons and that would give him the fame he wanted. At the same time, Darwin himself was fearful to see the book go into print, and told Murray that he wouldn't mind if it didn't. When the printer's proofs were sent to him, Darwin took the opportunity to rewrite whole sections. In his first letter to Lyell after the book had gone to press, Darwin confided:
Contrary to the statements of evolutionists that "it was completely sold out the first day," Darwin's book had very slow sales for both its first and second editions. Darwin's Origin of the Species was something of a laughing stock among knowledgeable scientists, but it had what some of them wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So in spite of its imperfections they tried to capitalize on it. But even today Darwin's book is an embarrassment to the scientific world. It is rare that you will find it in the bookstores.
1- Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. 2 - Repeatedly he said that his book was "only an abstract" and that "a fuller edition" was soon to be published which would contain the scientific support lacking in this one. Although he later wrote other books, that "fuller edition" of Species, was never printed. The reason is simple enough: try as he might for the remainder of his life, he could find no such proof. No one since has found it either.
support of his positions, but wee are never told who those authorities were. 4 - When he did name some eminent person, it was usually information from personal letters, or opinions passed on to him by third parties about what they thought so-and-so said. 5 - He almost never quoted a scientific publication, but instead just gave the expert's name. 6 - From time to time, he would mention that "tot lack of space" he would not give the source of a point. Yet the book itself had over 200,000 words, and scientific sources would have added only a few pages. 7 - Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his Ideas were prominent: "It might have been,," "maybe," "may perhaps;" "but if this has occurred;" "probably;" "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was "Let us take an imaginary example," 8 - He would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact with the words, "as we have already demonstrated previously." Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events, and then conclude by assuming that that proved the point. 9 - He relied heavily upon stories, instead of facts. Confusing examples would be cited, and the impression is given that he was trying to confuse the reader. Maybe he was too confused to know what he was doing. 10 - He would use specious and devious arguments. Much time would be spent suggesting possible explanations of why the facts he need were not available. This was a pattern especially used in trying to explain away the gaps in the fossil record. Here an example of his reasoning: Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species so species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!
Strange notions were also to be found in Darwin's book. We have already mentioned some of them. Here are a couple more: Darwin was unable to explain the origin of variations. The best he could come up with was a variation of Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, which he called panpenesis. According to it, an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ, gemmules would drop out of the organ, and the gemmules would travel to the sex organs where they would affect the cells No, you will not find that idea in any scientific work today; scientists are ashamed of the fact that it comes from Darwin. They are ashamed of a lot that came from Darwin, and they are ashamed of the fact that, in the century of research from his time to our own, they have not come up with anything better.
Would you like to know more about Charles Darwin's amazing book? Here are three good sources: (1)*'Norman McBeth, Darwin Retried (1974); (2)*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959); (3) *Arnold C. Brackman, A Delicate Arrangement (1980). It is of interest that a careful scientist, *W.R. Thompson, wrote an introduction to the 1956 reissue of Darwin's Species Thompson's introduction was a scathing attack on Darwin's book.
(More information on *Haeckel and *Huxley will be given later in this chapter.) In 1971 another reissue of Species came out. For this one, the evolutionist, *L. Harrison Matthews wrote a new introduction. In it he stated that "much of Professor Thompson's criticism of Darwin's theory is unanswerable." Matthews then proceeds to add more damaging facts to the already damaged case.
What a situation! We have here the book that is the basis of evolutionary theory, yet the book is little better than worthless as far as its scientific accuracy is concerned—even in the estimate of evolutionists! Yet this is the book that is supposed to be the bedrock and proof of evolutionary theory! And what has followed that book? a century of more confused theories, fallacious comments, reversed positions, clever hoaxes, ignorant statements, inaccurate "proofs," and scientific heresy. Upon his death in April 1882, *Charles Darwin was, by parliamentary petition, placed in Westminster Abbey, where he lies near the tomb of Isaac Newton. *Charles Lyell was already there, and soon thereafter, his other evolutionary friend, *Joseph Hooker was buried in that place of highest honor in Britain. It is well known that *Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences, but the following reveals that Darwin was a self-taught expert at destroying faith in the Bible:
Some of the readers of this book will be members of a church. Are there men in your denomination who are using "slow and silent side attacks" to destroy your faith and your loved ones' faith in God and in the Bible? Before concluding this section, it is of interest that certain men in history have deeply hated God, and then, engaging in spiritism, have been used of Satan to produce evil teachings that have destroyed large numbers of people, or engage in warfare that annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of men like *Sigmund Freud and *Adolf Hitler. It is not commonly known that *Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by natives. He took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. It was after his return to England that he feverishly began researching and working with others in an effort to destroy faith in God. Satan not only entered his mind, but affected his body as well.
Another strange fact is that, in later years, Darwin would sadly remark that he could no longer appreciate beautiful music. He went to his death under a depression that he could not shake. For additional information see the appendix topics " 2 - Darwin's Expeditions — and Illness." MENDEL—Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a creationist who lived and worked near Brunn, Czechoslovakia (now Brno, Czechoslovakia). He was a science and math teacher. After reading about the confusion, errors, and misrepresentations of Darwin, it is refreshing to again view a scientist at work. Instead of trying to gain the limelight by spouting great theories, the true scientists are those who quietly work to learn truthful facts about nature, and by those facts improve life for us all. Mendel bred garden peas and studied the results of crossing various varieties. He began his work in 1856 and concluded it within eight years. In 1865 he reported his research in the Journal of the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science. The journal was distributed to 120 libraries, including some in England and eleven in the United States. The ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1892, Vol. 12, p. 426) mentioned his article. Yet his research was totally ignored by the scientific community until someone finally made an issue of it in 1900. It was not that his studies were unnoticed; they just were not wanted. By the late 1800s, leaders in science were moving into the Darwinian orbit. This is an example of what was to follow for over a century. Scientific facts that did not fit into the evolutionary theory were frequently quietly set aside. His experiments clearly showed that one species could not transmute into another one. A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. Mendel's work laid the foundation for modern genetics. His discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for species evolution. From time to time, evolutionists peer at that wreckage, then hurry away to dream up new theories that might somehow put the pieces back together. Mendel's work is of such monumental importance, that we provide several quotations here regarding his contribution:
Genetics began with the work of Gregor Mendel, and the study of genetics was to become a basic factor in overthrowing evolutionary theory. Yet, oddly enough, *Darwin's peculiar theories have for over a century overshadowed Mendel's careful research. For more on Mendel and his research, see an appendix section on chapter 10 (DNA and Protein). PASTEUR— Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) made major contributions in chemistry, medicine, and industry. From 1849 onward, he did most of his research. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment which disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Life does not arise from non-living materials. This experiment was very important for, up to that time, a majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. We discussed spontaneous generation in greater detail in chapter 9, Primitive Environment. Though evolutionists do not care to admit it, without spontaneous generation, it would be impossible for plants and animals ever to have originated apart from a definite act of Creation.
THE ORGUEIL METEORITE—The history 0f evolutionary advance is full of hoaxes. It is of interest that one of them occurred about the time that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. It was hoped that if life could not originate on earth through spontaneous generation, perhaps the public could be fooled into thinking that plant and animal life came from outer space!
As we turn the pages of the "advance" of evolutionary thought, we are continually confronted with frauds. SPENCER—*Herbert Spencer (1 820-1903), along with certain other men (*Friedrich Nietzche, *Karl Marx, *Sigmund Freud, *John Dewey, etc.) introduced evolutionary modes and morality into social fields (sociology, psychology, education, warfare, economics, etc.), with devastating results in the 20th century. (See chapters 33-34 for much more on this.) Just as it was the spiritist, *Wallace, who devised the basic (but erroneous) evolutionary mechanism which *Darwin pilfered. So it was *Spencer, another spiritist, who initially came up with the name "evolution," and gave the term "survival of the fittest" to *Wallace and *Darwin.
In later years, even the leading evolutionists of the time, such as *Huxley and *Darwin, became tired of the fact that *Spencer could do nothing but theorize, and knew so little about science or real-life facts. HUXLEY—*Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) was the man *Darwin called his "bulldog." Huxley thought that skepticism was the answer to all of mankind's problems. In the latter part of the 19th century, while Haeckel labored earnestly in the cause on the European continent, Huxley was Darwin's primary advocate in England.
HAECKEL—*Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) obtained degrees in both medicine and zoology, and taught in the University of Jena, Germany, for 44 years, from 1861 to 1909. He became the most zealous advocate of Darwinism on the continent during the 19th century. For additional biographical information on *Haeckel, see chapter 22 (Vestiges and Recapitulation). Haeckel outlived many of the 19th-century evolutionary spokesmen, and early in the 20th, he founded the Monist League, in order to purify Germany. He said his nation was on the brink of social disaster unless it: "brought itself into harmony with the laws of biology" by ridding itself of inferior races. (More on this in chapter 33, Evolution and Society). GRAY—*Asa Gray did not figure prominently in the European development of evolutionary theory, although he contributed some speculations which, along with those of *Wallace, *Charles Darwin plagiarized. We mention Gray here because, at the time when Darwin was writing his books, Gray was the leading evolutionary promoter in America. A botany teacher at Harvard University, Gray spent his time lecturing and writing on behalf of the evolutionary cause. Asa Gray also has the distinction of being the first leading theistic evolutionary advocate in America. Asa Gray was Presbyterian, and found that he could more easily inculcate his teachings in the minds of others by calling them "creationism." Yet, as do modern Protestant and Catholic theistic evolutionists, he taught as "Christian principles" the evolutionary basics: no Creation Week, long ages for earth's history, geological theories are more reliable than scientific facts or statements in Genesis, etc. At that time Harvard University, under the leadership of *Charles W. Eliot as president, led out in proclaiming evolutionary theory to the intellectuals of the nation. Other American colleges soon followed in its wake. THE X CLUB—There was a special secret society in London which worked to further evolutionary thought, and suppress scientific opposition to it. It was powerful; all scientific papers considered by the Royal Society were first approved by this small group of nine members. Working through its members and their contacts, it also had a powerful influence over other leading British scientific associations.
THE OXFORD DEBATE—In June 1860, only seven months after the publication of *Darwin's Origin of the Species, a special meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science was held at Oxford University. That meeting marked a major turning point in England, just as the 1925 Scopes Trial In the United States would be the turning point in North America. Scientific facts had little to do with either event; both were just battles between personalities, and finally won by evolution through ongoing ridicule afterward. It was generally agreed that this new theory would be the major topic of discussion at the upcoming meeting. Two of the listed papers to be discussed were to be in defense of Darwinian theory. Bishop Samuel Wilberforce was the Anglican bishop of Oxford University, an able mathematician, professor at Oxford, and a powerful public speaker. He decided he must be present to speak in opposition to evolution. *Thomas Huxley, *Darwin's "bulldog," had tirelessly lectured in the cities of England in defense of Darwin's theories, and also attended. He had not planned to be there that day, but *Chambers, the spiritualist was impressed to find him and tell him he must attend. At the Saturday, June 30,1860 session of the meeting, a major address was to be given on the effects of Darwin's views on Europe. It was expected that Wilberforce would speak, and the place was packed with more than 700 people. Then Wilberforce arose and for more than half an hour he vigorously attacked evolution. His presentation was outstanding and the audience was apparently with him. But then Wilberforce turned and rhetorically asked Huxley a humorous question; Huxley stood to his feet and made a play on words which brought so much laughter from those in attendance, that, oddly enough, the cause of evolution was afterward considered a foe not to be challenged.
At Huxley's remark, the entire room went wild, with some yelling one thing and others something else. Admiral FitzRoy, the captain of the Beagle who had sailed with *Darwin for five years, stood up, waved a Bible aloft and shouted over the tumult that it, rather than the viper he had harbored on his ship, was the true and unimpeachable authority. An in-depth analysis of that debate will be found in Richard Wrangham's article in the March 1980 issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly. BEECHER— *Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) was the leading liberal preacher in America in the 1870s. Extremely popular, he set himself to the objective of bringing together Christianity and evolutionary theory, without antagonizing worldly Christians. He said that, since it was inefficient for God to make all the species separately, He let them all evolve from bacteria and worms over millions of years. Speaking from the Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, New York, he was acclaimed "the most admired man in America after Abraham Lincoln." Then the man who said we are only animals was caught in adulterous relations, and the resulting sex scandal destroyed his career. The affair was with the wife of his best friend, Tifton, who then took him to court. During the civil suit, *Beecher vacillated, gave evasive and inconclusive testimony. The newspapers of America carried the story. CHALLENGER DISCOVERS THE TRUTH ABOUT FOSSILS—Another example of ignoring evidence contrary to evolution, similar to that accorded the Mendel article, occurred in 1872-1876 when the British ship HMS Challenger took part in a four-year scientific expedition of ocean-bottom dredgings to examine sediments and find fossil specimens, One of its discoveries was that no fossils were forming on the bottom of the ocean. No fossils are forming on land or in the sea, so how could uniformitarianism explain the gradual production of billions of fossils in thousands of feet of sedimentary strata throughout the world? Yet this discovery by Challenger was quietly set aside. Theories and hoaxes favoring evolutionary theory were proclaimed; facts refuting it were—when found—kept hidden. BATHYBlUS HAECKELII Here is a microscopic view of that intriguing little sea creature with many heads and nuclei: Bathybius , which became famous from 1868 to 1876. —until the discovery was made that there was no such thing. Careful examination by a competent expert revealed that the small circles were exoskeletons of tiny sea creatures caught up in the muck from the ocean bottom. They were surrounded with gelatinous gypsum precipitate, produced by alcohol poured in as a preservative.
THE MONERA—Here is another example of not revealing the truth to the public. Did you ever hear of Bathybius haeckelii? This astounding microbe, dredged by the hundreds from the bottom of the sea by Challenger, proved evolution to be true! The Darwinists leaped for joy. They named the odd creature after the leading evolutionary promoter on the continent. Earlier, in 1866, *Haeckel had predicted that shapeless blobs of protoplasm ought to be found which had no nuclei, but instead reproduced only by fission. That same year he named the not-yet-found microbe the monera (The present writer suspects that Haeckel's friends had already found it in bay dredging, and he then gave his prediction that it would someday be found.) Two years later, Huxley said the monera had been found in mud samples dredged up from the depths of the North Atlantic, and he proudly named the new creature in honor of Haeckel (Bathybius haeckelii; *Haeckel's deep life). The evolutionists were jubilant and published the news widely. A year later, *Thomson wrote:
Excitedly, the scientists of England sent out the Challenger to find more evidences of evolution. Back in those days, living samples were dropped into jars of strong alcohol to preserve them for later study. This was also routinely done with the mud samples. Mud would be placed in a jar, some alcohol would be poured in as a preservative, and later the mud would be taken out and examined in the hope of finding tiny animal life. In 1875 a chemist on the Challenger discovered that B. haeckelii was nothing more than a chemical precipitate of sulphate of lime (gypsum)! It formed when the seawater and mud was mixed with alcohol. But his discovery was carefully hidden from the public, although it was reported in the Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Science and at the Royal Society the following year. A French scientist, A. deLapparent, in 1878 unveiled the deception for what it was, but his article was never translated into English until N.A. Rupke did it in 1971—and exposed the fraud. Why were not the evolutionists honest enough to expose the matter during the previous 93 years? Evolution is a shrewd deception, and only repeated deceptions can maintain it.
WEISMANN—*Lamarck's notion of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics" was ruined by the careful research of August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914). Weismann, a German biologist, cut off the tails of 901 white mice in 19 successive generations, and each new generation was born with a full-length tail. His final report stated that no reduction in tail length had occurred, and that the final generation had tails not one whit shorter than the first. In 1883 he reported that the germ cells, which were eventually to produce sperm or ova, separated from the embryo at an early stage and remained relatively unspecialized. This was another evidence for his theory of "continuity of germ plasm." He decided that the germ cells had an independent existence from that of the rest of the body, and therefore all environmental effects would not influence the germ plasm. Of course, we now know that certain factors (such as nuclear radiation and X-rays) can affect the germ plasm, but, for the most part, Weismann was correct. His discoveries, along with the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin, doomed the theory of *Lamarck. Yet it was Lamarck's discredited theory that *Charles Darwin eventually returned to as the mechanism by which evolution occurred. These are startling facts, but you will never find them in books on evolution. Instead, you will come across statements like the following, indicating that evolutionary theory was clearly, solidly proven by 1859, and that established theory, in the form in which Darwin stated it, has remained the hallmark of science!
2 - 1900 To 1950 DE VRIES— *Hugo de Vries (184&1935) was a Dutch botanist, and one of the three men who, in 1900, rediscovered Mendel's law of heredity. One day while working with primroses—he discovered a new species! At least he thought he did. This made the headlines, and even more people joined the ranks of the evolutionists. DeVries had found a new variety (sub-species) of the primrose, and thought he had found a "new species." He theorized that it had suddenly sprung into existence as a "mutation." Could mutations be the answer? Perhaps THIS was the long-sought-for key to change from one species to another. You may recall that, in chapter 14 (Mutations), we learned that mutations cannot produce evolution for (1) they never produce new species, and (2) "99 percent of them" are harmful. (To be on the safe side, scientists say "99 percent," but, in reality, they have never found ONE mutant that was not harmful.) But De Vries did not know all this and he was exultant. Here was a new species of flowering plant and the mutation that had caused it was beneficial and not harmful. He called the new plant a "mutant." He theorized that new species "saltated"—are continually springing into being from time to time. So his idea is called the saltation theory. No thoughtful geneticist today believes this is now occurring; the facts are too obvious. Immediately research began in various places with plants and fruit flies. In 1914 de Vries' theory was shot down by *Edward Jeffries, who discovered that de Vries' primrose was just a variety of primrose and not a new species (see "Mutation Myth," in Science-39, April 3, p. 488). Decades later it was discovered that most plant varieties are produced by variations in gene factors and only rarely by mutations. Those caused by gene variations are equally strong; those caused by mutations are always weaker and do not survive as well out in the field. As for the fruit flies, literally hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit flies have been produced and observed in scientific laboratories. (After being born, the fruit fly reaches maturity in only 12 days! After that, it reproduces constantly for months. And each of its offspring are ready to mate in another 12 days, producing still more generations.) This raising of fast-reproducing fruit flies by scientists has continued on, year after year, in ever-increasing numbers of laboratories throughout most of the 20th century. Actually, all those fruit fly generations would be equivalent to millions of years of human generations. Yet (1) the fruit flies never change into anything else; they always remain fruit flies. (2) Mutational changes induced in them by X-rays or chemicals are always harmful in some way. You have just completed Chapter
29 HISTORY OF THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY Part 1 Chapter 29 HISTORY OF THE
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY part 2 |
