Orwell Was Off by Three Years

As a centennial celebration in 1981, the British Museum of Natural History opened a new exhibit on Darwinism that was remarkably open-minded as to the established nature of Darwinian evolution. It pointed out that Darwinism is not strictly science because the theory depends on logical deduction rather than direct observation and experimentation. It challenged certain "verities" of evolution such as the inclusion of Homo erectus in modern man's chain of descent. The upshot of the exhibit was to acknowledge the importance of Darwinism while leaving open the matter of its certainty.

In order to understand what happened next, we have to become acquainted with the concept of cladism. This is a theory of biological classification that assumes no species can be identified as the direct ancestor of another species. Obviously, this directly challenges one of the main tenets of Darwinism as usually formulated, that of common ancestry. Even so, the theory caught on in several circles (including museums and textbooks). Critics of the BMNH exhibit accused the organizers of being cladists, complaining that cladist literature is full of derogatory statements about stalwarts of Darwinism such as Mayr, Simpson, and even Darwin himself.

So, it comes as no surprise that once the news got out about the museum's new approach to evolution some leading biologists in the United Kingdom had conniptions. One of the fiercest critics, L. B. Halstead, went so far as to accuse the organizers of being Marxists [hold that thought]. The main bone of contention seems to have been that the museum had aired dirty laundry--it had publicized doubts about Darwinism discussed up until then only in professional circles. The controversy also revealed that scientific opinion on the matter of Darwinism was not by any means uniform. A lengthy argument-by-correspondence ensued in the pages of Britain's premier journal of science, Nature. The editors of Nature also weighed in repeatedly with editorials that attempted to nuance the discussion. One leading article bore the title, "How True Is the Theory of Evolution?" that itself touched off a storm of criticism by implying that Darwinism is actually a metaphysical (philosophical) system sustained partly by faith.

Faith?! Anything but that!