Talk:1860 Oxford evolution debate

Alfred Newton
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:
 * Wollaston AFR 1921. Life of Alfred Newton: late Professor of Comparative Anatomy, Cambridge University 1866-1907, with a Preface by Sir Archibald Geikie OM. Dutton, NY.   Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the following reviews all except Newton, and still concludes the traditional account is broadly substantiated:
 * Jenson, J. Vernon 1991. Thomas Henry Huxley: communicating for science. U. of Delaware Press, Newark. Chapter 3 is an excellent survey, and its notes gives references to all the eyewitness accounts except Newton. The great majority of these accounts do accord with the traditional version.

I have therefore made some changes in the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

J.D. Hooker
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)
 * No. See Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal (New Series) 12: 275-277 (and perhaps other contemporary summaries, as may be available on Google Books and/or Biodiversity Heritage Library). Huxley's defense is more famous because of Wilberforce's "grandmother" gaffe, but Hooker perhaps even topped it with his tongue-in-cheek remark that, as according to Wilberforce no scientist would defend Darwin, he (as one of the most eminent botanists of his day) "could not presume to address the audience as a scientific authority" but would defend Darwin nonetheless.
 * Huxley's remark is a bit of a low blow and certainly more memorable to the general public, but to the audience there and then (who were aware of Hooker's scientific credentials) Hooker's quip must have been the more scathing attack on Wilberforce. (Imagine Einstein debating Lenard with "as a mere Jew, I cannot be expected to have any idea of physics, but...")
 * NEVER RELY ON TERTIARY SOURCES if secondary sources are available! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Darwin a "Professional"?
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)
 * Seems a good point, worth trying to find a source for improving this: Sedgwick and Wilberforce were of course clergymen, but Owen was a professional as I recall. Darwin was in a way one of the last gentlemen amateur scholars, but supported Huxley's campaign for a new professionalism in science and science education. Will try to recall where I read something on those lines... dave souza, talk 21:29, 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)
 * The version of Desmond & Moore's Darwin that I'm using is the 1991 book as reprinted in Penguin paperback in 1992, the American publication of it in 1994 got a changed title (Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist) but as far as I know there's not been any significant revision to the book. . dave souza, talk 23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I choose
1. gorilla for my paternal line, 2. chimp for my maternal line. What do you choose? ... said: Rursus ( m b o r k³ ) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You got a choice? The rest of us, we just got a common ancestor. . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Was the argument about evolution or about natural selection?
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)

Dead link
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!


 * http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/biographies/samuel-wilberforce/samuel-wilberforce.html
 * In 1860 Oxford evolution debate on 2011-05-25 02:06:56, 404 Not Found
 * In 1860 Oxford evolution debate on 2011-06-01 23:06:17, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a bot make talk page sections for a million dead links seems dubious, but I have fixed the above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Chronicle
– 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)

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211074654/http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/brooke/ to http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/brooke/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Uncertain or fabricated?
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)

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)
 * Hi, there's quite a lot in the article about this as discussed by various sources, it's clear what was said is highly uncertain as the various contemporary accounts don't support later retellings. Your edit failed as it said "the stories regarding what Huxley and Wilberforce actually said are considered to be later fabrications by historians." Any "fabrications" or misremembering was by the participants in the ensuing debate, not by "historians". . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Dave, I think you misunderstood the words. The phrase "considered to be later fabrications by historians" clearly isn't saying the historians fabricated anything, it's saying that the accounts are considered to be later fabrications by historians, as in historians think the surviving accounts are responsible for misrepresenting what actually happened. I personally don't see how that can be misunderstood.


 * Anyways, your mentioning of what the sources in the article say prompted me to take a look myself. There are 3 ref's for the statement that what was said is highly uncertain. In fact, they all appear to be consistent with the source I already gave -- that the accounts are essentially fabricated (hence, simply calling them 'uncertain' is misleading -- it fails to convey that most of it is intentionally made up). The second ref, this paper, says "Only Owen Chadwick strikes a note of caution, observing that the account given of the incident in Wilberforce's biography seems hardly consistent with an overwhelming defeat, and maintaining that the received account must be a largely legendary creation of a later date." It goes on to refer to the surviving accounts as "legend" several more times. The second source says "It is the kind of story that would have to be invented were it not true. Actually, it probably was invented –at least in part. One answer to the question why this celebrated exchange occurred at all is that it didn't – or at least that the legend is deeply misleading. Scholars who have tried to piece together what really happened have been frustrated by the paucity of contemporary comment and its lack of unanimity." With the third source, I only have limited preview on Google Books so just can't tell it's conclusion. Combine that with the source I gave earlier, historians seem pretty clear that the surviving knowledge of the events is largely fabrication. 64.229.115.87 (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As the quote says, "Scholars who have tried to piece together what really happened have been frustrated by the paucity of contemporary comment and its lack of unanimity." So, if they don't know what really happened, that's uncertainty. Some aspects of the legend may have been misremembered or embroidered, but wrong to imply the whole thing was fabricated. Also, in English the wording The phrase "considered to be later fabrications by historians" is very ambiguous, and is easy to read as stating that alleged fabrications were made by historians. . .  dave souza, talk 11:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well. Since all the sources agree that fabrication was made, if perhaps not everything, how bout something like "historians have concluded much of the surviving accounts have been fabricated"? This should also clarify, to your satisaction, the ambigity of implying historians were responsible for the fabrication.64.231.43.14 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)