St George Mivart
•
0 likes•940 views
talk given at the history of science society annual meeting, november 2009
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to St George Mivart
Similar to St George Mivart (20)
More from John Lynch
More from John Lynch (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
St George Mivart
- 1. St. George Jackson Mivart: Theistic Evolutionist and Darwinian Outcast? john m. lynch
- 4. St George Jackson Mivart 1827 - 1900 1845: Converted to Catholicism 1851: Called to the Bar 1858: Fellow of the Zoological Society 1862: Fellow of the Linnean Society 1862: Lecturer at St Mary’s Hospital
- 8. St George Jackson Mivart 1827 - 1900 1869: “Difficulties of the Theory of Natural Selection” Month 1869: VP Zoological Society / Fellow of the Royal Society 1870: “On the use of the term homology” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.
- 10. On the Genesis of Species “Affinities of the animal kingdom, or even the Mammalian class, can never be represented by the symbol of a tree. Rather, I believe, we should conceive the existence of a grove of trees, closely approximated, greatly differing in age and size, with their branches interlaced in a most complex entanglement.”
- 11. On the Genesis of Species “‘Natural Selection’ acts, and indeed must act, but that still, in order that we may be able to account for the production of known kinds of animals and plants, it is required to be supplemented by the action of some other natural law or laws as yet undiscovered.“
- 12. Effect on Darwin Mivart has “collected all the objections which have ever been advanced by he and others against the theory of natural selection ... and has illustrated them with admirable art and force” but I still “never before felt so strongly convinced of the general truth of the conclusions”
- 13. Alfred Russell Wallace “The arguments against Natural Selection as the exclusive mode of development are some of them exceedingly strong, and very well put.... Though [Mivart] uses some weak and bad arguments, and underrates the power of Natural Selection, yet I think I agree with his conclusion in the main.”
- 15. Quarterly Review on Descent “The assigning of ‘natural selection’ to a subordinate position, is virtually an abandonment of Darwinian theory; for the one distinct feature of that theory is the all- sufficiency of ‘natural selection.’”
- 16. Quarterly Review on Descent “Man is not merely an intellectual animal, but he is also a free moral agent, and, as such … differs from all the rest of the visible universe by a distinction so profound that none of those which separate other visible beings is comparable with it.”
- 17. CD To Hooker, Sept 16th 1871 “[Mivart] shows the greatest scorn and animosity towards me, and with uncommon cleverness says all that is most disagreeable. He makes me the most arrogant, odious beast that ever lived. I cannot understand him; I suppose that accursed religious bigotry is at the root of it. Of course, he is quite at liberty to scorn and hate me, but why take such trouble to express something more than friendship. It has mortified me a good deal.”
- 23. On George Darwin (1874) • “Mr. George Darwin proposes that divorce should be made consequent on insanity, and coolly remarks that, should the patient recover, he would suffer in no other respect than does anyone that is forced by ill-health to retire from any career he has begin [!]; ‘although, of course, the necessary isolation of the parent from the children would be a peculiarly bitter blow.’ Elsewhere he speaks in an approving strain of the most oppressive laws, and of the encouragement of vice in order to check population. There is no hideous sexual criminality of Pagan days that might not be defended on the principles advocated by the school to which this writer belongs” (p. 70)
- 24. Later Life 1876: Honorary doctorate from Pius IX 1882: VP Zoological Society 1885: “Modern Catholics and Scientific Thought” 1892: VP Linnean Society / “Happiness in Hell”
- 25. Productivity 1864 – ‘75 1876 – ‘1900 Scientific Articles 38 40 Scientific Books 4 10 Periodical reviews etc 20 122 Other books 0 9
- 29. THH to CD 1880 “Has Mivart bitten [Butler] and given him Darwinophobia? It’s a horrid disease and I would kill any son of a that I found running loose with it without mercy. But don’t you worry about these things.
- 31. Could he have been a “Darwinian”?
- 32. Letter to Cardinal Vaughn (1900) “All of us, however submissive to authority, must in the last resort, rest upon the judgment of our individual reason. … It is now evident that a vast and impassible abyss yawns between Catholic dogma and science, and no man with ordinary knowledge, can henceforth join the communion of the Roman Catholic Church if he correctly understands what its principles and its teachings really are, unless they are radically changed.”
- 33. North American Review 1900 “After mature reflection and many struggles, I had come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church must tolerate a transforming process of evolution, with respect to many of its dogmas, or sink, by degrees, into an effete and insignificant body, composted to ignorant persons, a mass of women and children and a number of mentally effeminate man.”
- 34. Letter to anonymous friend 1900 “The various articles and few books I have written have always represented my convictions at the time as accurately as I could represent them … I have no more leaning to atheism or agnosticism now than I ever had; but the inscrutable, incomprehensible energy pervading the universe and (as it seems to me) disclosed by science, differs profoundly, as I read nature, from the God worshipped by Christians.”
- 35. St. George Jackson Mivart: Theistic Evolutionist and Darwinian Outcast? john m. lynch
Editor's Notes
- “Great as were Dr Mivart’s scientific attainments and career, we think that he will be remembered – and that for a long time – for his strenuous, pathetic, illogical, yet noble attempt to reconcile the authority of his Church with the conclusions of his scientific conscience. … There is something tragically memorable in Dr Mivart’s long suppression of his doubts, their final outburst, his terrible break with his Church, and his death without atonement, though assuredly not without honor.” The Tablet (1900) “His scientific work, was however, limited by his religious creed. Perhaps had he been less dominated by preconceived ideas he would, with his industry, have achieved something more striking than anything that can be claimed for him.” Athenaeum 1900
- excommunicated for his evolutionism – seduced by Jesuits akin to Judas
- only turns up as minor character to greater plot – Desmond – Last biography is 50 years old. Probably the leading Catholic scientist in England of his day some questions: did he fall or was he pushed? why did he fall from grace twice? could he have been a darwinian?
- No formal anatomical training yet supported by Owen & THH
- philosop club w/ JT & THH
- 1863 1864: MIV: Speaking about 1864 & Huxley’s classification of humans w/ primates “In this contention I was, of course, in complete accord with Professor Huxley, as I was in accord with him generally, for though I had not accepted Darwin’s theory of ‘natural selection,’ I was neither its opponent nor convinced it was untenable.” (19th Cent, 1897; p. 992)
- Sends to CD – by 1870, CD was calling on M in London By 1868 has doubts and sees independent origin of primate classes
- DIFFICULTIES Anonymous in the Catholic Month – FRS June 3rd (THH supported) – expresses doubts to THH June 15th “kind and gentle” CD is actually calling on MIV in London Opposed to use of THHs Man’s Place in Nature Owen’s views - Lankester replies to homology (THH)
- FIVE MINUTES IN?
- JAN 1871: CD to Francis D – “I complain of his incessantly speaking as if I trusted exclusively to natural selection … Mivart speaks in many places as if I entirely ignored the direct action of external conditions.” CD to Hooker – MIVs work will harm natural selection but not evolution which is “infinitely more important” CD regrets that their views differ so much MIV notes that CD’s views are leading to religious decay. CD accuses him of allowing religion lead him. MIV denies. CD apologizes stressing that evolution is more important than NS FEB: CD visits MIV APR : Miv holds differnce to be one of philosophy, not science MAY: CD plans cheap edition of Origin to respond
- Offers new chapter in ORIGIN 6 (1872): “He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force or tendency into, for instance one furnished with wings, will be most compelled to assume, in opposition to all analogy, that many individuals varied simultaneously. It cannot be denied that such abrupt and great changes of structure are widely different from those that most species apparently have undergone.... To admit all of this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science.”
- ARW: “The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man” (IN Contributions, 1871) - Response to lecture by Huxley – the “spiritualistic approach” was “utterly barren and [lead] to nothing but obscurity and confusion of ideas.”
- Wright NAR Sends to CD in June, CD funds publication in Sep (via John Murray). CD sends MIV a copy!!! Contrary to Janet Browne, CD was considering publication before the appearance of a review by MIV that would displease him.
- Appears JULY
- Quote Darwin against Darwin – internal inconsistencies HALF WAY SLIDES – TEN MINUTES?
- MIV: The aim of Genesis was “to show that the Darwinian theory is untenable and that natural selection is not the origin of species. This was and is my conviction purely as a man of science, and I maintain it upon scientific grounds only.” (Reply of 1874)
- JAN 1872 – in a seven day exchange, CD breaks off correspondence with MIV – accuses MIV of misrepresenting him As Adrian Desmond notes, CD was being oversensitive. And there things sat by 1872.
- Last work on primates – a popularization – approved of by Wallace – other popularizations in future CAT, TYPES OF ANIMAL LIFE, etc Distinguish between “doctrine of evolution” and “Darwinism” Proposes dual origin of Old and New world Monkeys with convergence due to environment Notes swing to acceptance of “brute origin of man” The totality of human nature can only be comprehended with the aid of the philosopher and psychologist
- Notes “chimeric” nature of Homo – leans more to Orang – claims NS cannot explain. Wallace does not comment in his 1874 review Any reaction by CD and THH to MAN AND APES is overshadowed by what happens next.
- GD had suggested divorce should be made easier to prevent transmission of inferior traits CD reopens correspondence in dec 74, closes in jan 75. THH rebukes MIV (and withdraws) Hooker threatens to remove him as Secretary of the Linnean (1880) CD draws Wallace and Tyndall into the fray.
- This was, he claimed ober 25 years later, “a sharp criticism of a school of thought not … a reflection on personal character.” In GENESIS Mivart had noted the ‘intolerance and narrow-mindedness of some of those who advocate [Darwinism], avowedly or covertly, in the interest of heterodoxy’ – but that’s not what did him in. This was personal not scientific. But did it affect his science?
- 1882 CD dies (8 years later) 1883 Attmpts Atheneum – Galton, Spencer & Huxley wd oppose 1885 Reunites w/ THH 1888 second attempt at Athen opposition of HOOKER
- While Mivart suffered a little, he still continued to publish and rise within the biological community He decided to shift into theology.
- FIVE MINUTES LEFT ??????
- With the body taken care of, MIV looks at the mind. Spencer’s psychology (1874 – 79) Romanes’ Mental Evolution in Humans -> ORIGIN OF HUMAN REASON (1889)
- Kingsley – Acknowledged Mivs system as allowing God’s action to be detected Butler– Evolution Old & New – Lamarckism from MIV – BL will mention
- Wallace - Man THH: saltational and NS / Gray: directed / many were agnostic about NS “a Darwinian of sorts” ?
- Hull – YES as the term was so broad Bowler – NO as he would have had to have given up so much Could he have become “a darwinian of sorts”? Me? Well perhaps we should look at what he would have had to give up – his religion was as important as Grey’s was.
- Theistic? Deistic? Pantheistic? Spinoza & Einstein
- MIV was a liberal not doctrinaire – he believed in letting the science speak. No condemnation by church for his evolutionism but instead condemned by Darwin. Not a conflict between science and religion but between personalitiies. Scientific disagreement gave way to personal one. A clash of personalities. The Darwinians joined in because of their fealty to CD. It’s really hard to like CD through all of this. MIV ended an evolutionist (if sorts) and outcast (of sorts). He was also, I feel, a POPULARIZER. Whether he was ever a DARWINIAN may depend on how we see that term.