in and out of bounds on Creationism

["Mickey Rowe;893-2446" <mrowe@lifesci.ucsb.edu>]

As most of you probably know, we don't tolerate discussions of
Creationism on the dinosaur mailing list.  The main reason for that is
because this list is dedicated to discussions of science.  We have
tolerated several recent messages that have touched on the subject,
though, because they dealt with it historically.  There was a time
when scientists were essentially all creationists, and at that time,
creationism was science.  The following message was rejected by the
listprocessor because it was sent from an unrecognized address (John,
write to me directly if you'd like me to make it possible for you to
write from that address).  I'm forwarding it along directly so that I
can comment... to say that this sort of message is fine in terms of
content.  However, if instead you want to talk about Creationism
beyond the 19th century, you'd better clear it with me or Mary first.
For more information on dinosaur list policy see:

http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~mrowe/dinosaur/administrivia.html

and more specifically:

http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~mrowe/dinosaur/administrivia.html#no_nosc

-- Mickey Rowe     (mrowe@lifesci.ucsb.edu)

------------- begin forwarded message:

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:13:04 +1000
From: John Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au>
Subject: Re: BAD vs. BADD (was: Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions)
To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at, dinosaur@usc.edu

Linnaeus was what I call a limited fixist, and Peter F. Stevens has  
discussed this in detail in

Stevens, Peter F (1994), The development of biological systematics:  
Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, nature, and the natural system. New York:  
Columbia University Press.

Linnaeus believed, at one time in his career at any rate, that the  
bulk of modern genera and species were created by God, but the  
Peloria case suggested to him that some kinds of hybridisation could  
"fill out" the empty territories, completing God's plan. If I may  
excerpt my book ms on species concepts:

However, in 1744 he was forced to allow that some species are the  
result of hybridization, at least in plants, because he thought he  
observed it happening. A species of plant he placed in a genus  
Peloria (from the Greek pelor, meaning monstrosity) was in stem and  
leaf structure part of the Linaria genus, but the flower was clearly  
different (Hagberg 1952: 196f; Glass 1959a). This admission was  
widely known by subsequent writers (e.g., Lee 1810; Gray 1821).  
Still, he thought that genera were real and the possibilities for  
change limited. According to Larson (1967), Linnaeus imagined in the  
Fundamenta fructifications ?that God created one species for each  
natural order of plants differing in habit and fructification from  
all others. These species, mutually fertile, gave birth to as many  
genera as there were different parents, their fructification somewhat  
changed? (p317).

In the Pralectiones (1744), Linnaeus went further:

"The principle being accepted that all species of one genus have  
arisen from one mother through different fathers, it must be assumed:

1)    That in the beginning the Creator created each natural order  
only with one plant with reproductive power.

2)    That by their various mixings different plants have arisen  
which belong to the mother?s natural order as they are similar to the  
mother with regard to their fructifications, and are, as it were,  
species of the order, i.e., genera.

3)    We may assume that plants have arisen within the orders, i.e.  
by genera of one order, may mix with each other. In this way there  
will arise species that should be referred to the mother?s genus as  
her daughters." [quoted in Larson, loc. cit.]

Linnaeus thus employed the Great Chain of Being in a rather unusual  
way. Most ?chainists? accepted what was later called the Principle of  
Plenitude (the lex completio), which stated that God would create  
everything that could be created, since he would not make an  
incomplete creation (Lovejoy 1936; Glass 1959a). This usually meant  
that species graded into each other is a series of varieties.  
Linnaeus instead represented species using the metaphor of countries  
adjoining each other (in the Philosophia botanica ?§77). In his early  
writing, all the territory is pretty much filled ? as he said, nature  
does not make jumps ? but the countries are discrete and distinct  
from one another. In the later work, this strict fixism of the first  
edition of the Systema Naturae has been modified. All hybrids did was  
fill in a rare empty bit of territory in God?s time and plan. The  
borders were set by the genera, and all genera arose from a single  
species created by God. At the end of the 1750s, says Hagberg (1952:  
199), Linnaeus was in a state of perplexity with respect to species.  
In 1755, he published Metamorphosis plantarum, dealing primarily with  
the development of plants, but also with monstrosities and varieties.  
Such later hybrids he called the ?children of time? in an anonymous  
entry in a competition at St Petersburg in 1759 (Hagberg 1952: 201f),  
and also in the Species plantarum (1753, 2nd edition 1762-63), where  
he speculated that a species of Achillea (yarrow, or staunchweed),  
alpina, might have formed from another, ptarmica, ?[an] locus  
potuerat ex praecedenti formasse hanc?? (?Could this have been formed  
from the preceeding one by the environment??, in volume II, 1266 of  
the second edition, quoted in Greene 1959: 134). Hagberg says,  
?Linnaeus never succeeded in pin-pointing his new conception of  
species. But the old one, that formed the basis of Systema Naturae,  
was utterly and irrevocably abandoned.?

Moreover, Linnaeus also noted that species grew differently according  
to the conditions of their locale. Of the genera Salix, Rosa, Rubus,  
and Hieracium, (willows, roses, brambles, and hawkweeds), Linnaeus  
said that their description was problematic because of variability  
(?metamorphosis?) of form in different soils and climates (Ramsbottom  
1938: 200f). Habitat-induced variability will become an issue under  
G?öte Turesson?s investigation in the early 20th century (see below).  
Linnaeus also experimented on propagating a hybrid geranium, with  
success, in 1759 (Ramsbottom 1938: 210f); he believed that maternal  
influences of hybrids affected the ?medullary substance? and  
fructification of plants, but the leaf structure was due to the  
paternal species As time went on, he removed the statement that there  
were no new species from his 1766 edition of the Systema Naturae, and  
crossed out the statement natura non facit saltum from his own copy  
of his Philosophia Botanica. A full account of Linnaeus? various  
pronouncements on species can be found in Ramsbottom (1938).

When Linnaeus was working, European trade and exploration was  
limited. Linnaeus himself classified around 6,000 species of mainly  
Mediterranean and northern European plants, and later animals  
(Stafleu 1971). This was more than had been done before, but still it  
was a fraction of what we know today. His students and adherents sent  
him specimens from around the world, and there was a steady ?trade?  
in specimens between him and other taxonomists and collectors (M?üller- 
Wille 2003). Linnaeus hoped that his system would enable taxonomists  
to list all actual species, but he also knew that his system was  
artificial ? that is, not the pure result of studying the actual  
characters of organisms, but also imposing an a priori scheme on them  
for convenience. He hoped there would be a ?natural? scheme developed  
on the basis of an aggregation of characters, but he was never able  
to do more than a partial sketch of one. In his later work, he set up  
a ?rational? system that allowed for there to be 3,600 genera in  
plants, each of which could generate species through hybridization.  
Although this was supposed to be a ?natural? system (one based on the  
closeness of resemblance of all traits of the organisms and not just  
a single character), in fact he chose just three features of plants  
and restricted the varieties to 60 types of each (hence 603 = 216,000  
maximum of plant species). However, this was fragmentary and in an  
appendix, and not developed further.

On 25/08/2006, at 6:20 AM, David Marjanovic wrote:

>>> After all, Linnaeus was a creationist
>>
>> Maybe not so.
>>
>> "There is overwhelming evidence that Linneaus did not
>> believe in fixity of species."
>
> It's a bit complicated.

-- 
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

------------- :end forwarded message