rationalskepticism.org

DavidMcC wrote:

... there is a considerable debate as to whether Darwin "ripped off" Wallace's ideas ...

I don't see how that would have been possible, given that Wallace's ideas were based on "intelligent evolution". The website below is a typical pro-Wallace site:
http://www.erasmuspress.net/Publications_3.html

Though based upon very different formulations of natural selection, the Wallace/Darwin dispute as presented by Flannery shows a metaphysical clash of worldviews coextensive with modern evolutionary theory itself – design and purpose versus randomness and chance.

So, it's hardly likely that Darwin "ripped off" Wallace's ideas. Also, Wallace's ideas were NOT equivalent to Darwinian natural selection at all.

Hi David!

Thanks for the response. I have not read Flannery -- though despite my distaste for ID proponents books I may well make an exception and buy this one and review it as it appears to make a historical case on what is essentially a historical question. There is a very good but short critical review on the "a simple prop" blog which makes clear that the book is pushing an ID agenda -- in fact Dembski write the introduction. The review is here http://blog.jmlynch.org/2009/12/31/wall ... ent-design, and the blog looks really good, I'll follow it now. as it chronicles the current fight against ID and YEC being taught as science in the USA.

Now did Wallace believe in ID? In simple terms, no. Some have argued he believed in Theistic Evolution, but I actually think that is wrong as well. The site linked in the original post by me above is the best archive of Wallace's writings on the web, and there we find an entry on Wallace and ID which read as follows...

Question: Did Wallace believe in intelligent design?

Answer: No, no, and no. Assuming that i.d. essentially amounts to nothing more than a new name for Creationism, that is. Don’t fall for the facile understanding being promoted by some agenda-driven observers who argue that, just because Wallace was a spiritualist and believed that “higher intelligences” were influencing events here on Earth, that he also believed in miraculous, non-law-based kinds of Godly intervention. Read his own words on this matter here. Wallace did increasingly lean toward a model of natural processes invoking final causes, but this is quite another matter: even the relatively conservative thinker August Weismann was willing to entertain views of final causation (see S352), as long as these did not rely on vitalist or creationist assumptions. Are those who explore Gaian models and the various versions of the anthropic principle being accused of i.d. tendencies? Well, what Wallace was thinking about in some ways closely approaches these lines of thought–only he added to the mix the notion that “higher intelligences” might also represent an integral element in the way the large-scale program of evolution plays out.

So yes Wallace had some strange ideas, and Darwin was a bit uncomfortable with his Spiritualism: in fact when the Darwin household participated in a seance Charles as I recall retired ot bed with a headache fo fear he would be convinced of Spiritualism, and was delighted when his brother was seriously unimpressed by a second seance after his first positive impression. I could have it wrong,m but you can look up Darwin's account in the Darwin Correspondence archive online. You can also read his correspondence and immense respect for Wallace the scientist, and full admission of his influence and support of Darwin's work.

Now I noted that I did not think that Wallace was a Theistic Evolutionist. He does seem to have had some teleological ideas, but they are actually sort of reverse teleology - moving towards a final outcome, with discarnate (dead) human spirits guiding the process. I'm not sure at all that Wallace believed in Divine Intervention - my feeling based on reading his work is that he may like many spiritualists of the period have been essentially atheistic, seeing the world in terms of natural forces, and his spirits were not supernatural but were natural entities bound by natural law and part of the closed system of the Universe. I could well be wrong -- but if i am right it puts him more in a Hegelian tradition, or even something akin to Blavatsky's Theosophy or various other 19th century spiritualistic groups than ID or Theistic Evolution. Actually I think the closest analogy is to Huxley, who proposed a "higher teleology" underlying Evolution, and was plain in his writings that the work of Darwin had no repercussions at all for the question of ultimate purpose or theism: Huxley however dis not believe in Special Revelation, a God revealing himself to man, or in miraculous suspension of the laws of nature as far as i can follow his thinking in Agnosticism.

In all these cases what we believe we know today is always horribly distorted by the nonsense of the last 50 years. Myths have sprung up - indeed the first set were growing by the end of the 19th century, like the famous Wilberforce - Huxley debate exchange -- and people have horribly distorted the history and development of scientific questions to promote philosophical, religious and atheist agendas. Last night I was reading a biology text book on Evolution for an undergrad course I'm doing for fum - I won't name it, but this 2011 book has shocking errors in the historical material, and repeats uncritically a number of myths. The reason I won't name it is because I don't think it matters all that much -- because this is an undergrad Biology textbook, not a historical one, and the Biology in it is really first rate - but it really will teach you some utter bollocks in passing about Lamarck, Darwin, Huxley and Lysenko that no modern historian of science would accept, but which are all popularly believed by intelligent educated people.

So yep, agenda driven people will misrepresent what Wallace believed, just as most people don't understand at all what Darwin actually believed, and ultimately it may not matter. As I always say, what we know now would be surprising to Darwin - the modern evolutionary synthesis owes as much to Mendel of course, and far more to the decades of work that have followed. Still if you want to read one of my iconoclastic essays on Darwin from the old forum on the myths that have arisen around him, my essay Damning Darwin is here --

http://jerome23.wordpress.com/2010/01/0 ... f-science/

I'll address the influence of Wallace on Darwin's work and the rip off claims in a later post - there is serious academic debate, but I'm not particularly convinced either way for reasons given in my previous posts (it does get a good mention in the infamous text book though, which properly credits ARW as co-creator of Natural Selection in Evolutionary Theory).

Always a pleasure to discuss history, even in the Biology forum! Do have a look at my essay if you have time, it may surprise you. And thanks for chatting about his - most people just fall asleep when I get involved in talking about these things, so it's always wonderful to find someone interested!

j x