• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why didn't Linneus ideas cause an outcry?

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
11,216
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Darwin wasn't the first to claim we descended from apes. Linneus was well before. 50 years. He correctly identified humans as being a primate and placed us within that family.

Why wasn't there an outcry about it? I can't recall I've ever read anything about that. All the outcry seems to focus on Darwin?
 
Darwin wasn't the first to claim we descended from apes. Linneus was well before. 50 years. He correctly identified humans as being a primate and placed us within that family.

Why wasn't there an outcry about it? I can't recall I've ever read anything about that. All the outcry seems to focus on Darwin?

Linneaus didn't explicitly state that humans were descended from apes or even shared a common ancestor; he simply placed them in the same taxonomic order. To us it probably seems obvious that such a thing implies a relatively recent common ancestor, but in Linnaeus't time the point was probably subtle enough to escape the notice of the Church.
 
Linnaeus was from the generation of naturalists who spent their life cataloging and describing life forms, which was a time consuming pursuit. It was obvious to lump animals into groups based on physical similarities. Man looks much like an ape and chimpanzees are smaller apes, and so on. None of this challenged Holy Scripture.

The problem Darwin caused for the religious of his day, was not so much that man descended from some ape-like creature, but that the time span required for this process, was totally contrary to the creation story from Genesis. This was occurring at the same time that geologists were recognizing that many visible natural structures, which had been attributed to the flood of Genesis, could not be explained by the erosion effects of a 40 day flood. Darwin's work came at a time when Natural History as interpreted through Scripture was being challenged on all fronts. The religionists had already conceded to astronomy and Natural Selection as an engine of creation was seen as an even greater threat to the validity of Scripture as an explanation of the natural world.
 
Linnaeus was quite close to what might have developed into an evolutionary theory. He found a strange looking flower, and named it “Peloria” (Greek for 'monster'). We now can understand it as a mutation of Linaria vulgaris. The mutation falls in a different class in his system than the normal flower, so he began speculating that new species can emerge in Nature.

However, theological censorship told him not to speculate about the possibility that new species can arise after Creation.

Linnaeus continued to write on the possibility of new species through hybridization, but didn’t mention or work on Peloria any more. A pity; a Linnaean ToE would have been more than a hundred years before Darwin.

Article in English: http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/04/the-linaria-story/
For Swedish readers: http://fof.se/tidning/2007/1/blomman-som-kunde-gjort-linne-till-darwin

I got interested in this mutation when I found one in my garden last year. A pity the poor things won't reproduce.
 
Back
Top Bottom