Thomas Huxley, Darwin's Bulldog

Thomas Henry Huxley is known to history as "Darwin's bulldog" for his powerful advocacy of Darwinian thinking while Darwin's ideas were being attacked and even ridiculed by those in the entrenched  religious and academic establishments of 19th century Britain.

In this episode, contributing editor Slainte na Zdorovya argues that evolutionary thinking, although it has been widely accepted in the world of natural science, is still facing stiff opposition from many modern intellectuals in the social sciences and humanities, who still believe that intelligent-design thinking, with themselves as the intelligent designers, still applies outside of the natural sciences, and that without the guiding hand of these designers, motivated by good intentions, Earthlings will not be able to achieve social order and good outcomes.  

We believe the paradigm is shifting away from intelligent design thinking and towards evolutionary thinking, as evidence and logic continue to pile up in support of the new way, and that Earthlings should feel grateful to Huxley and his ilk for creating the momentum.

Transcript

Thomas Huxley

 Good day to you, and welcome to Fascinating!  I am your host Rik, from Planet Vulcan.  My ongoing mission on Planet Earth:  to plant seeds of a way of thinking, a way that is based on an understanding of evolutionary processes, with the ultimate aim of helping to sustain and increase the momentum of Earth’s long arc towards prosperous and happy societies, founded on ideals of liberty and justice.

 Contributing editor Slainte na Zdorovya has prepared an essay on the intellectual contributions of the 19th century Earthling Thomas Henry Huxley, a brilliant scientist in his own right, and incidentally the grandfather of Aldous Huxley and Julian Huxley.

 Thomas Huxley is known to history as “Darwin’s bulldog” on account of his promotion of Darwin’s work on the theory of evolution by natural selection, and for defending the theory against attacks by medievalist thinkers.

 Slainte writes:

 In 1860, less than a year after the publication of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”, Oxford University hosted an evolution debate which created a turning point in the public perception of Darwin’s theory.

 The defender of the traditional creationist view in this debate was Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, and Huxley defended Darwin’s theory.

 Samuel Wilberforce (1805–1873) was an English bishop and influential churchman, best known for his role in 19th-century religious and scientific debates.

 The son of William Wilberforce, the famous abolitionist, Samuel rose through the ranks of the Church of England, eventually becoming the Bishop of Oxford and later of Winchester. A skilled orator and prolific writer, he was deeply involved in debates about theological and ecclesiastical issues of his time.

 Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895) was a prominent English biologist and anthropologist.  Born on May 4, 1825, in Middlesex, England, Huxley had limited formal education; but he apprenticed in medicine and later served as an assistant surgeon on the HMS Rattlesnake during its voyage to Australia and New Guinea from 1846 to 1850. During this expedition, he conducted significant research on marine invertebrates, which garnered him recognition in the scientific community

 After returning to England, Huxley became a leading figure in said scientific community, holding positions such as Professor of Natural History at the Royal School of Mines. He was instrumental in promoting science education and played a key role in professionalizing British science. 

 Huxley was the one who coined the term "agnostic", to describe his philosophical stance on the limits of human knowledge regarding the existence of gods.

 The debate between the two men occurred during a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Oxford University's Museum of Natural History. The room was packed to overflowing with scientists, clergy, and curious onlookers. 

 Darwin himself wasn’t there - he was unwell - but his ideas were at the center of the storm.

 No transcript of the debate has survived, but many of those in attendance related what they heard and observed.

 Wilberforce reportedly gave a witty and scornful speech against Darwin’s theory. The moment everyone particularly remembered is when he allegedly turned to Huxley, and sarcastically asked whether he, Huxley, had descended from an ape on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's side.

 Huxley adeptly turned the tables, and replied with words to the effect that, “If the question is whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather, or a man highly endowed by nature, and possessing great means and influence, and yet who employs those faculties for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion – I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape”.

 The audience loved it. Eyewitnesses said there was an uproar of cheers, laughter, and applause. While Wilberforce may have been expecting to embarrass the scientific side, Huxley’s calm, sharp reply won admiration and gave evolution a major boost in public opinion.

 The debate was only the beginning of the controversy surrounding biological evolution that started with the publication of the Origin of Species, but it marked a meaningful shift – the modern science movement was claiming a stronger seat at the table, even against powerful religious figures and an entrenched academia. And Huxley’s role in persistently advancing scientific claims made his nickname, Darwin’s bulldog, very well-earned.

 Let’s take a closer look at the medievalist intelligent design thinking of Bishop Wilberforce, and attempt to draw some parallels between his religious version of intelligent-design thinking and the more modern form of intelligent-design thinking, where so many of today’s intellectuals seem to believe that they, and not some deity, are and always were, the intelligent designers.

 The then-prevailing creationist view can be summarized as follows:

 Wilberforce believed that all species were created by God, individually and purposefully, more or less in their present form. He rejected the idea that species could evolve from one another through natural processes occurring over the generations.

 Species were seen as immutable - created with specific traits and roles, and all fitting into a grand pattern. The notion that one species (like humans) could evolve from a completely different one (like apes) was, to Wilberforce, both scientifically suspect and theologically offensive.

 He believed that humans held a special place in creation, made in the image of God.  The idea that humans shared a common ancestor with apes was seen as degrading, and incompatible with Christian teachings on the soul, morality, and divine purpose.

 Wilberforce, along with many other theologians at the time, did not believe in a “young Earth” only a few thousand years old, but he did believe in a creation that happened more recently than would have allowed for the amount of time required by Darwinian evolution, which would be hundreds of millions of years.

 Wilberforce dismissed natural selection as an unguided, mechanistic process incompatible with divine providence. He believed in a designed and purposeful world, where variation was minor and orchestrated by God.

 What about today’s crop of medievalist intelligent-design thinkers, who have for the most part rejected the theism espoused by Wilberforce, and who claim to agree substantially with Darwin’s theory as it applies to biological evolution, but who have only taken baby steps away from the idea of intelligent design when it comes to the functioning of the evolved and evolving superorganism we call the socioeconomic system?  And who cannot quite let go of the idea that complexity in general requires a guiding hand if chaos and bad outcomes are to be avoided, and that this guiding hand must be motivated by the good intentions of people who think like they do?

 Wilberforce’s view rested on the belief that complexity requires a designer - that order and function in the natural world couldn’t emerge from blind processes like natural selection. 

 In the same way, many modern thinkers - especially in political theory, economics, or social planning - often assume human systems must be deliberately engineered by experts, rather than emerging organically through decentralized, evolutionary processes.  Without such engineering, they believe, only chaos, and not order, could emerge.

 A few key parallels between Wilberforce and his intellectual heirs:

 Belief in Rational Design vs. Emergent Order:

 Wilberforce: Argued that observed biological complexity could not possibly evolve, and required intentional creation.

 Modern Designers: Argue that the organized complexity of what we observe in society can only be explained as a consequence of intentional design and control by “someone”.  They believe that social complexity requires deliberate rational planning and governance structures.

 Skepticism of Bottom-Up Processes:

 Wilberforce distrusted the idea of evolution as chaotic and purposeless.

 Many modern intellectuals distrust decentralized, evolutionary forces like markets, cultural shifts, or digital meme culture, because they seem messy, unpredictable, and hard to control.  They seem that way because they are that way.

 Wilberforce believed in the idea that homo sapiens sapiens exists separate and apart from the rest of the natural world, a little lower than the angels. 

 Modern intellectuals likewise believe that humans are not subject to the same natural laws, such as scarcity and supply & demand, that govern other species, and are endowed with the ability to create their own reality – that anything which can be imagined can be socially constructed.

 Fear of Loss of Control or Purpose:

 For Wilberforce, Darwin’s theory threatened the idea of a moral universe governed by God.  How could man possibly find meaning in his existence without a divine plan and their place in it?

 For modern "designers," evolutionary social forces threaten the ideal of rational mastery – the idea that we can and should shape, or navigate our way towards, specific structural goals, and employ whatever means may be necessary to create and maintain the proper societal structures.

 Dismissal of Spontaneous Order Theories:

 For Wilberforce, first and foremost in his dismissal of the idea of spontaneous order was the need to maintain his belief in intelligent design by a creator who had promised him eternal life in paradise.  With that as a primary motivation, it is not difficult for anyone to concoct objections to the science which leads to support for the idea of spontaneous order.

 Scientific thinkers like Friedrich Hayek (in economics), Herbert Spencer (in sociology), or even Darwin himself emphasized the power of trial and error, feedback loops, and emergence. 

 Many modern planners see such a thing as inefficient or even dangerous, preferring a kind of "social intelligent design".

 A large and growing preponderance of evidence continues to undermine the idea that top-down planning and deus ex machina style intervention is even workable, let alone preferable to laissez faire. 

 Unless you are willfully blind, you must acknowledge that abundant experience with economic planning and regulation, and comparison of the outcomes of planned and/or highly regulated economies with the outcomes of more lightly regulated market economies, leads to the conclusion that planning and regulation are dead ends – solutions looking for a problem. 

 And it’s so easy to explain what we see, if we just remind ourselves that planners and regulators do not understand, and consistently underestimate, the amount of complexity they always encounter.

 Order in the real world emerges more effectively and more efficiently in the absence of a visible guiding hand.  It’s simply delusional to believe that real-world complexity can be managed by intentional intervention.  In the real world, the guiding hand is invisible; and there is also an invisible foot that will trip you up if you try to substitute your own hand for the invisible hand.

 Why is this all such a big deal?

 It’s a big deal because of the mischief that the actions based on this error produces in the real world, which is well-nigh impossible to overstate.  

 Any familiarity at all with complexity theory leads anyone with a functioning brain to the conclusion that it would take superhuman powers to design and control such a complex thing as an economy, as repeatedly demonstrated by the consistent failure of attempts to create planned economies during the twentieth century.

 Mischief stems from clinging tenaciously to the idea that everything has been designed by and is being run by someone or a group of someones, and that to create a better world we first need to wrest power from the hands of the someones, after which WE will design and run everything, and will use our power to fulfill our good intentions.

 And at this point in the script, hilarity is supposed to ensue, but doesn’t.  Because there aren’t any someones, and we do not need to assume their existence to explain the order that has naturally emerged.

 But not to worry:  the mischief-makers just judge themselves by the intentions behind their exercises of power, and not by any bad results, and which can be and routinely are blamed on supposed opposition by the someones.

 Thanks to Slainte for this essay about a particularly fascinating Earthling and his early contributions to the success of evolutionary thinking.

 I invite you to have a listen to the next Fascinating! podcast and a look at the next video on our YouTube channel.  You can find access to all podcasts and videos on our web page, fascinatingpodcast.com.

 Please recommend Fascinating! to your friends if you find the lessons from nature in these essays personally valuable.

 Theme music:  Helium, with thanks to TrackTribe.

 Live long and prosper.

 Practice the art of winning without defeating anyone.

 Savor your experiences.

 Treasure your memories.

 Anticipate a happy and rewarding future.

 And respect nature’s wisdom.