From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Riggs and Gould
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:05:48 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Sep9.203758.15156@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber) writes:
>In article <1311@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>	"This debate (between Julian Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce of the
>>Anglican Church) focused the world's attention on the real and deep issue of
>>Darwin's century - science versus religion. Huxley's victory was a pivotal
>>moment in the battle for science and reason against superstition and dogma."
>
>	Yes. Science versus superstition and dogma. NOT the bible. Can't
>you understand the difference?

	It should be noted that the words in quotations are Gould's, not mine.
Mr. Gould is, at best, ambivalent about the subject of the content of 
superstition and dogma inherent in religion. One of my purposes in selecting
some of the quotations was to highlight the ambivalence. Read below...

	Before continuing, however, I'm a bit surprised that attention has not
yet been drawn to the factual error that I made in my explanatory blurb
above, which lies in parentheses. The debate was between T.H. Huxley and
Wilberforce, not Julian. Of course, everyone was too polite to point this 
out :) (So I'm an idiot...)

>
>>	"I knew from preliminary browsings that the official tale was a
>>reconstruction made by Darwin's champions some quarter century after the 
>>fact. Amazingly enough (for all its later fame), no one bothered to record
>>the event in any detail at the time itself. No stenographer was present. The
>>two men exchanged words to be sure, but no one knows what they actually
>>said, and the few sketchy reports of journalists and letter writers contain
>>important gaps and contradictions. Ironically, the official version has been
>>so widely accepted and unchallenged not because we know its truth by copious
>>documentation, but rather because so little data exist for a potential
>>challenge."
>
>	Challenge to you Mr. Riggs. I have read this essay so I think
>I know what this paragraph is about. Since YOU posted this quotation, I want
>YOU to tell us what it's talking about.
>	What is 'the official tale' referring to?

	Gould maintains that T.H. Huxley's family doctored the account of
his exchange with Wilberforce so as to make him appear more heroic and
to make Wilberforce look like an ignoramus. At least that is my interpretation
of Gould's interpretation. The details are there for anyone who wants to go
read and make up his/her own mind.

>	What is 'the event' referring to?

	It is my fault for not pulling in enough context to make
this self-explanatory. I will try to be brief:

	The "event" refers to a debate which took place in 1860 at Oxford,
at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. One
item to note is that there was no formal organization to the *debate* which
was conducted adjoining a lecture "on the intellectual development of Europe
considered with reference to the views of Mr. Darwin." It was simply an open
free-for-all argument, and as Gould points out in his article, no formal
minutes or any other detailed written account was made.

	It has occured to me, (and I would imagine others who have read this
article) that the method Gould uses to critique the Huxley's account of the
*debate* is the same as used by biblical scholars/critics in evaluating the
Gospels. Thus does Gould implicitly attack the scientific canon at the 
same time as he attempts to bridge the gap between religion and science in this
article. 

I presume that this is the underlying point that Rob Zuber would like to make
(or if not, it should be - it is hard enough making arguments for my own 
point of view without also having to shoulder the burden of stating the *other
side's* viewpoint as well). In fact, I do not agree with Gould's essential
thesis, with which he concludes the article, quoted below:

	"But no battle exists between science and religion - the two most 
separate spheres of human need. A titanic struggle occurs, always has, always
will, between questioning and authority, free inquiry and frozen dogma - but
the institutions representing these poles are not science and religion. These
struggles occur within each field, not primarily across disciplines. The
general ethic of science leads to greater openness, but we have our fossils,
often in positions of great power. Organized religion, as an arm of state power
so frequently in history, has tended to rigidity - but theologies have also
spearheaded social revolution. Official religion has not opposed evolution as
a monolith. Many prominent evolutionists have been devout, and many churchmen
have placed evolution at the center of their personal theologies. Henry Ward
Beecher, America's premier pulpiteer during Darwin's century, defended 
evolution as God's way in a striking commercial metaphor: 'Design by wholesale
is grander than design by retail' - better, that is, to ordain general laws of
change than make each species by separate fiat."

("Bully for Brontosaurus", p 400)


	Thus does Gould preserve the cherished intellectual separation of
science and religion, while allowing for the freedom of each discipline to
adjudicate its differences internally, without messing with the turf of
other disciplines. This comes naturally to Americans, with our political
traditions of federalism, checks and balances, and the separation of
powers, political traditions which reinforce our civil liberties. But,
as Alan Bloom points out in "The Closing of the American Mind", there
are older, more elemental intellectual traditions, traditions which we
ignore at our peril. I ascribe the vehemence of many of the responses
in this debate to our fear of losing ground to such traditions. It would be
well worth noting, however, that one of the facts in Henry Ward Beecher's
career is that he provided financial support to John Brown, who used the
money to attack the Federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry in 1859. This 
event made the American Civil War inevitable, with the resulting loss of
life, together with the achievement of Beecher's goal of abolishing
slavery. Such were the fruits of "America's premier pulpiteer during 
Darwin's century". Call me what you will, but I'd take "Soapy Sam" 
Wilberforce any day (and twice on Sunday).


	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins