Darwin's Historical Sketch by Johnson Curtis N.;

Author:Johnson, Curtis N.; [Johnson, Curtis N.;]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780190882938
Publisher: OxfordUP
Published: 2019-09-15T00:00:00+00:00

Owen’s 1860 Review of Origin

Owen read Origin of Species soon after it first appeared in November 1859 and was commissioned by the Edinburgh Journal to write the review that appeared in April 1860. The fact that it was published anonymously is in itself not too surprising; anonymous reviews of new scientific contributions were not uncommon in that age. But because the review made no disguise of the author’s extreme disdain for the book, its being published anonymously only increased Darwin’s negative reaction. He could have little doubt the author was Owen. At that point he realized Owen’s earlier friendly gestures toward Darwin must have been insincere and hypocritical.

From a structural point of view, Owen’s review follows conventional lines. He opens with a few polite comments about Darwin’s earlier works, particularly the Journal of Researches and the meticulously empirical eight-year study Darwin undertook on barnacles. He then turns to his high expectations for Origin and his subsequent disappointment at its lack of solid empirical foundation—with the exception of a few original observations on social insects and geographical distribution of species through hitherto unrecognized means of transport of seeds and animalcules. (Darwin referred to these morsels as “small praise.”)

This polite gesture is followed by a brief review of other transmutationist theories—those of Lamarck, Vestiges, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (unnamed), and Buffon, faulting all of them alongside Darwin as being deficient in empirical proof and faulting Darwin for failing to acknowledge their anticipation of his theory. The review concludes with some self-promotion (not uncommon in Owen’s writings) about his own speculations about “possible” modes of transmutation (thus admitting the possibility of species transformation), but not committing himself to any particular version.21 Here he seems to be faulting Darwin for overlooking or ignoring previous works by “the leading naturalists” of the time, in particular Owen himself. The final sentence, somewhat incongruously, is a quote from Linnaeus: “classis et ordo est sapientiae, species naturae opus.” In other words, while human wisdom identifies classes and orders of biological organisms, species are the work of nature, not of arbitrary human classifications. Not nominalism but essentialism is the way of nature. This sentiment speaks against transmutation.22

When we probe the review more deeply, however, a different logic emerges—or rather, a lack of any discernable logic in terms of argument development. Owen instead is chafing at Darwin’s perceived deficiencies on three separate scores and launches volleys against them sporadically and haphazardly. What is clear in all of them is that Owen holds a personal animus against Darwin and Darwinism, and this, more than academic or scholarly concerns, is the real driving force behind the entire review.

The first is that Darwin’s work is “speculative” and lacks adequate empirical grounding. He forces us to make leaps of faith without the evidential foundation necessary for supporting shaky assumptions and even more dubious conclusions. Second, and related, Darwin confuses two entirely different questions: whether “law” governs the unfolding of biological organisms through time (Owen agrees with Darwin that they do), and what the nature of that

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.