Die Affäre Max Planck - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig

83(38) A. M. (Buchversion hrsg. von Kutschera): Er [Huxley] stellte Darwins Einsichten und die deremergierenden Fachdisziplin Evolutionsbiologie in der Wilberforce-Huxley-Debatte zumindest zur Zufriedenheitseiner Anhänger, wie sogar auch einiger Kleriker, dar.W.-E. L.: Ob es sich wirklich um Einsichten (zumindest in den Hauptfragen)handelte, dazu gibt es von hochkarätigen Wissenschaftlern Einwände, etwa zuDarwins "Just-so-stories" wie der folgenden von 1859/1998, pp. 141/142, überBären und Wale:"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thuscatching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant,and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bearsbeing rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and largermouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”Prof. Gittleman kommentierte dazu in der New York Times vom 16. Mai1994:"Darwin omitted this story in other editions, but regretted his revision."I still maintain that there is no special difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to itschanging habits" ("More Letters of Charles Darwin," 1903, page 162). "'Darstellung zur Zufriedenheit von Darwins Anhängern': Akzeptiert. Wobeivielleicht noch anzumerken ist, dass generell auch eine ganze Reihe derenglischen Kleriker zur darwinistischen Position, zumindest zur Akzeptanz derallgemeinen Abstammungslehre tendierte. Die häufig zu beobachtendeTypisierung und Gegenüberstellung: hier die rückständigen Kirchenmänner("Gnostiker") – dort die fortschrittlichen Wissenschaftler (Agnostiker) trifft nichtzu. Rodney Stark kommentiert (2003, p. 189):"…Wilberforce's sophisticated review of The Origin remains easily accessible in the Quarterly Review forJuly-October 1860. Nevertheless, the tale of the bishop's comeuppance continues to thrive as a revealing"truth" about the incompatibility of religion and science. It's as though Samuel Wilberforce (who took aparticularly distinguished first in mathematics at Oxford) must have been wrong and a fool because he wasa bishop. Indeed, Lucas has suggested that the "most important reason why the legend grew" is that "it is apoint of professional pride" for "academics . . . to know nothing outside their own special subject." They firmlybelieve that outsiders are necessarily ignorant; hence Huxley "must have succeeded on that occasion." Moreover,"the quarrel between religion and science came not because of what Wilberforce said, but because it was whatHuxley wanted; and as Darwin's theory gained supporters, they took over his view of the incident.””(39) A. M. (Buchversion hrsg. von Kutschera): Es ranken sich noch heute viele Gerüchte um dieseshistorische Ereignis.W.-E. L.: Zum Beispiel die Gerüchte, die uns A. M. oben unter den Punkten(35) und (36) berichtet hat oder das Gerücht, welches Sir Gavin de Beer in derEncyclopedia Britannica (1982, Bd. 5, p. 494) verbreitet, nämlich dass Huxleyals triumphaler Sieger aus der Debatte hervorging (kursiv von mir): "Owen hadcarefully coached Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford, who attacked Huxleyin a patronizing and contemptuous manner over Darwin’s views. Huxley tore thebishop to pieces in his brilliant reply, and the Church of England never againformally attempted to cross swords with science." In zwei Sätzen soviel Gerüchteals wahre Historie auszugeben, ist auch eine Leistung, aber "it makes a goodstory" (siehe Lucas oben).