Quote of the Day: W.R. Thompson's critique of Darwin's argument in the Origin

My Quote of the Day is by the late Canadian entomologist William R. Thompson, FRS (1887-1972),

[Graphic: "W.R. Thompson," Entomological Society of British Columbia]

onetime Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, and reputedly a creationist (although from dipping into his recently arrived 1937 book, "Science and Common Sense: An Aristotelian Excursion," Thompson seems more likely to have been a God-guided evolutionist).

Thompson was asked by J.M. Dent & Sons to write the 16-page Introduction to its 1967 Everyman's Library edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species," presumably to balance the extremely pro-Darwinian (bordering on hero-worship) Introduction to its 1928 edition, by anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith.

After fairly and accurately summarising Darwin's argument, Thompson then critiqued it, beginning with the following:

"I have tried to include in a necessarily brief summary the most important points in Darwin's argument and have not designedly attempted to weaken the presentation. If Darwin convinced the world that species had originated through evolution by natural selection, it was, I think, on the basis of the arguments I have mentioned. But in a matter of this kind a great deal depends on the manner in which arguments are presented. Darwin considered that the doctrine of the Origin of living forms by descent with modification, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was, for him, of absolutely major importance. Since he had at the time the Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments. The argumentation used by evolutionists, said de Quatrefages, makes the discussion of their ideas extremely difficult. Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favour of the theory. As an example de Quatrefages cited Darwin's explanation of the manner in which the titmouse might become transformed into the nutcracker, by the accumulation of small changes in structure and instinct owing to the effect of natural selection; and then proceeded to show that it is just as easy to transform the nutcracker into the titmouse. The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation has been given. This is the more appealing because of the extreme fundamental simplicity of the Darwinian explanation. The reader may be completely ignorant of biological processes yet he feels that he really understands and in a sense dominates the machinery by which the marvellous variety of living forms has been produced. This was certainly a major reason for the success of the Origin. Another is the elusive character of the Darwinian argument. Every characteristic of organisms is maintained in existence because it has survival value. But this value relates to the struggle for existence. Therefore we are not obliged to commit ourselves in regard to the meaning of differences between individuals or species since the possessor of a particular modification may be, in the race for life, moving up or falling behind. On the other hand, we can commit ourselves if we like, since it is impossible to disprove our statement. The plausibility of the argument eliminates the need for proof and its very nature gives it a kind of immunity to disproof. Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others." (Thompson, W.R., "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," Sixth Edition, 1872, Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1967, reprint, p.xi)

As can be seen, Thompson's critique included the following points that are still relevant in assessing Darwinian evidence and arguments today:

1) Darwinist arguments "depend on the manner in which [they] are presented." Only yesterday I watched an online video called "The Rhetoric of Charles Darwin," by rhetoric of science specialist Professor John Angus Campbell, in which Campbell demonstrated (and I agree) that Darwin was "a rhetorical genius of the first order" (my emphasis). The problem with that however is that the greater the "rhetorical genius" the more likely he can persuade people to believe something which is false, especially if it is what they want to believe!

2) "Darwin considered that descent with modification would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was of absolutely major importance." That is, Darwin knew that common ancestry was not necessarily evolution, because, as Dawkins admits, there were creationists in Darwin's day who accepted common descent, but proposed that God intervened supernaturally in it (which is also my position):

"The Duke of Argyll, for instance, accepted the evidence that evolution had happened, but he wanted to smuggle divine creation in by the back door. He wasn't alone. Instead of a single, once and for all creation in the Garden of Eden, many Victorians thought that the deity had intervened repeatedly, at crucial points in evolution. Complex organs like eyes, instead of evolving from simpler ones by slow degrees as Darwin had it, were thought to have sprung into existence in a single instant. Such people rightly perceived that such instant 'evolution', if it occurred, would imply supernatural intervention: that is what they believed in. .... Darwin perceived this too. He wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish. I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249. Emphasis original)

Darwin knew that fully naturalistic evolution, i.e.:

" the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)

requires a fully naturalistic mechanism. As Dawkins, citing Darwin acknowledges, if there was "supernatural intervention" at "any one stage of descent" then it "was not evolution at all" but "divine creation" (my emphasis)!

3) Lacking "experimental evidence to support his theory" Darwin "fell back on speculative arguments." But then "The argumentation used by evolutionists" includes "Personal convictions" and "simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favour of the theory."

4) But then, "Darwin's" and his followers' "explanation of the manner in which" species A "might become transformed into" species B "by the accumulation of small changes owing to the effect of natural selection" is equally compatible with its opposite, "that it is just as easy to transform" species B "into" species A. So "The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case"(my emphasis)! Therefore, "It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified" but "it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation has been given"!

5) And "This is the more appealing because of the extreme fundamental simplicity of the Darwinian explanation" which "was certainly a major reason for the success of the Origin" because "The reader may be completely ignorant of biological processes yet he feels that he really understands ... the machinery by which the marvellous variety of living forms has been produced" (my emphasis). Add this to Darwin being "a rhetorical genius of the first order" and this is a recipe for what Jesus warned of, "If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit" (Matthew 15:14)!

6) Another "major reason for the success of the Origin" was "the elusive character of the Darwinian argument." Since "Every characteristic of organisms is maintained in existence because it has survival value,"and "the possessor of a particular modification may be, in the race for life, moving up or falling behind" the entire set of possibilities is covered and so "it is impossible to disprove" (or to prove). Indeed, "The plausibility of the argument eliminates the need for proof and its very nature gives it a kind of immunity to disproof" (my emphasis)!

7) In the final analysis, "Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened" (my emphasis). But "as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others" (see above on the blind leading the blind)!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'