Replies

No, it is Asa Gray. Look at the dates. It is from Darwin's early period, before he wrote his studies on Domestication. Decades earlier than the thinking of Fiske and Darwin. Notice how the author of the article, from our secular friends studying Marx at the same time, fasten on Gray and ignore Fiske who was also a professor at Harvard, but at a later date. Doubtless Gray was not a black Republican either, but most likely an advocate of Webster, though this shouldn't be too hard to ascertain. The parting of the ways with Gray would have come over the relevant passages to race in Descent.

It is well worth noting that Asa Gray retired in 1873, the year Fiske published his Cosmic Philosophy. Interesting to note also that Fiske includes a very extensive list of those who he felt contributed to the understanding of Darwin's theory in that age, and that Asa Gray is nowhere mentioned. Interesting too to note that although Fiske was a student at Harvard in 1863 when he first found a copy of 'Origins' in the bookstore in Harvard Square, it was not part of his curriculum. It would be interesting to see if Gray ever taught anything on Darwin, but I doubt it.

'Origins' was nowhere near as profound in it's impact on religion and philosophy as was Descent, and this is clearly reflected here. The work of Darwin only really begins to show up after the Civil War, when suddenly everyone from Alexander Stephens to Stanton begin to let slip comments that are meant to establish that they have read him. But then, the true measure to which Darwin's Christian notions about race were understood and accepted are reflected in the reconstruction, and the answer was not much.

Asa Gray is more likely in the ID camp, which is the in the line of Newton's clockwork universe, where the maker builds it, winds it up and walks a way. Not found in Fiske, and no found in Darwin's last works, which you said you have not read.

No, it is Asa Gray. Look at the dates. It is from Darwin's early period, before he wrote his studies on Domestication. Decades earlier than the thinking of Fiske and Darwin.

Decades earlier? Well, lessee, Darwin's correspondence with Fiske covers 1871 to 1880, with 15 letters, whereas Darwin's correspondence with Asa Gray extends from 1854 to 1881, with, I dunno, looks like around 200 letters (around 300 records, but some are letters about Gray, rather than from or to him).

Furthermore, it's not apparent (from the very brief descriptions in the Darwin Correspondence Database) that any of the Fiske letters cover the topics of design, theistic evolution, and the like. They may well have covered those topics as well, but seem to have primarily been thankyou's for books and articles shared, or notices that Fiske would be in England and plans to meet.

By contrast, well... I'd have to do more research on exactly when Gray and Darwin's long discussion of evolution, design and theism rounded up, but it continued at least into the 1860's, hardly "decades" before Darwin and Fiske may have discussed such matters. And of course, over all, the much briefer Fiske correspondence falls fully within the total period of the Gray corresondence.

Finally, as late as 1876 -- right in the midst of the Darwin/Fiske correspondence, and a year after the 2nd edition of the all important (in your mind) Variation was published -- Darwin wrote to his freind Hooker that:

Asa Gray's directed variation would make natural selection superfluous.

Clearly Darwin had not changed his mind by that point, nor is there any evidence that he did subsequently, that God is NOT the "immediate source" (as you and Fiske would have it) of variation or selection.

You are just wrong. You have substituted Fiske's interpretation of Darwin for Darwin's own views. Now, it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Fiske's interpretation of darwinism is better, or in some manner preferable, to Darwin's own interpretation. I might (or might not) agree with you about that; but it is an entirely different matter to thoroughly confuse the views of the two men, and to make Darwin a creature of his interpretor Fiske. This is what you are doing, and I'm not letting you get away with it.

Doubtless Gray was not a black Republican either

Well, I don't know Grays views on race in detail, but I'd guess they were decidedly liberal. He was a strong opponent of the scientific racism of the day (e.g. Josiah Knott, Samuel Morton, Louis Agassiz, etc) although this may have been because he saw these works as apologies for slavery. Gray was a very passionate abolitionist (as was Darwin). Their shared glee at the start of the Civil War -- which both immediately saw as a war against slavery, long before Lincoln came to see it so -- was almost unseemly.

As an abolitionist, Gray was most certainly a Republican.

The parting of the ways with Gray would have come over the relevant passages to race in Descent.

You surmise incorrectly again. Gray reviewed Descent favorably, and their friendship and correspondence continued through the rest of their lives.

Interesting to note also that Fiske includes a very extensive list of those who he felt contributed to the understanding of Darwin's theory in that age, and that Asa Gray is nowhere mentioned.

An odd oversight on Fiske's part. Gray reviewed all of Darwin's books prominently and favorably, led the debate against Darwin's primary opponent in America, Louis Agassiz, incorporated evolutionary theory deeply into his own botanical studies, and wrote one of the more widely read popular books on evolution: Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism (1876).

It would be interesting to see if Gray ever taught anything on Darwin, but I doubt it.

You're batting a thousand. Gray not only taught evolution to his own students, and probably before anyone else in America did so, but he also was also the first to include evolution in textbooks. (Gray's botany textbooks and manuals, written for both children and adults, were far and away the most popular and successful of the late 19th Century.)

The work of Darwin only really begins to show up after the Civil War

Uh, DUH! The Americans were a tad preoccupied with slaughtering each other.

Asa Gray is more likely in the ID camp, which is the in the line of Newton's clockwork universe, where the maker builds it, winds it up and walks a way. Not found in Fiske

Did you even read that ASA article I linked for you? Gray's views were similar to Fiske's, in viewing design as due to ongoing supervention by God of the smallest details of nature, in contrast to Darwin's view that design -- if it existed at all -- was only to be found in "general laws".