Now that we know what Darwin did and didn't say, we are going to look at some of the critics who didn't accept his argument when it first came out. The exchange (not really a debate) at Oxford between Darwin's supporter Thomas Huxley and his critic, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce has become an iconic moment in the historical narrative of the Darwinians. But since we have only partial accounts of what Huxley, Wilberforce, and others said at that meeting, we should actually read some of the views of the critics. Unfortunately for us, the critics were Victorians, like Darwin, and they did not appreciate the irony in Polonius's "brevity is the soul of wit." So we will assign half of you to read the critical review of The Origin by Wilberforce, and the other half to read the defense of Darwin by physicist John Tyndall, whom you met earlier in the history of climate science.

After you have finished the slog, post your analysis of the relationship between science and religion in the critique or defense of Darwin that you read.

Come to class ready to discuss in what sense and how you think Darwin's model of natural selection challenges religious belief. We are not going to give you further detailed guidance on this issue, because we want to work it out "from scratch."


Thursday, 14 November: The Monkey Trial

OK, your reward for slogging through all that Victorian verbal frippery is some good old-fashioned American fun: You get to read about the 1925 trial in Dayton, Tennessee, when John Scopes was tried for the misdemeanor of teaching evolution. There is a great source: University of Missouri Law Professor Douglas Linder's Scopes Trial Page. You are welcome to dink around all over this page, but pay particular attention to Linder's introductory essay and to the trial accounts by Marxist critic Marcet Haldeman-Julius and by the great American cynic and gadfly H.L. Mencken. Keep in mind that these are not the reports of objective observers, and be looking for prejudices on their part, a topic that we will come back to in the writings of Michael Ruse later on.

When you have finished all this, you have a choice of two posting options, by 7 a.m. on Thursday, 14 November, post at least 400 words on oneof the following topics:

• In his speech on the Scopes Trial 75 years later, legal scholar Douglas Linder talks about "a longer and much older controversy between Science, which follows the facts wherever they lead it, and Religion (or at least some religions) that assume the infallibility of holy texts." Knowing what you know now about science, do you think Linder is accurate to say that science "follows the facts wherever they lead it"? Why or why not?


• In 1965, when he was in his 60s, John Scopes wrote that "I believe that the Dayton trial marked the beginning of the decline of fundamentalism. Each year--as the result of someone's efforts to better interpret what the defense was trying to do--more and more people are reached. This, in conjunction with the labor of scientists, educators, ministers and with the dissemination of the results of their efforts through books and news media, has retarded the spread of fundamentalism.
  
  "But most importantly, I feel that restrictive legislation on academic freedom is forever a thing of the past, that religion and science may now address one another in an atmosphere of mutual respect and of a common quest for truth. I like to think that the Dayton trial had some part in bringing to birth this new era."
  
  Why do you think this has proven not to be the case?