Evolution and the Middle Ages

[Ahriman238]

Because some things combine randomly in my mind. I was thinking about Game of Thrones recently, and what ideas/innovations one could bring to a medieval society, and then I read some creationist screed.

In some corners, evolution is still hotly contested, pretty much exclusively on religious grounds. What I was wondering is how much of that is the context of 20th Century fundamentalism. If Darwin had lived and printed centuries earlier, would evolution be embraced by a hereditary nobility that relies on the idea their blood makes them superior? Or with religion a fundamental force in people's lives would he have gotten the Galileo treatment?

[Sea Skimmer]

European nobility would oppose evolution. The idea predisposes that someone else could improve their blood line to replace that which has already been chosen by god! This means they aren't as special as they were before and more at risk to being overthrown by some kind of peasant revolt based on the idea that those who work hardest are best for evolution ect...

Evolution is probably more compliant with Chinese ideas on noble rule, as that was based on the idea of a mandate of heaven which could be revoked.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't see why evolution would appear to the Church any more than astronomy did. They were pretty earnest about maintaining a very specific and very strict story about the universe and not open to anything even remotely challenging to that story.

[SpottedKitty]

In some corners, evolution is still hotly contested, pretty much exclusively on religious grounds.

Mmm, maybe. A lot of it seems to be misunderstanding how science works, and misunderstanding what Darwin's book actually said. It doesn't help the confusion that actual modern ideas of how evolution works are considerably developed from Darwin's original concept — remember, he had no way of knowing about DNA and the fiddly little mechanisms inside all living cells. He had no idea how it worked; like Mendel, he could only observe what it did and speculate.

Or with religion a fundamental force in people's lives would he have gotten the Galileo treatment?

Darwin's fear of exactly that was one of the reasons he didn't publish years before he did. It wasn't until Wallace sent him an essay covering very similar ground that he really got to work on his theory.

[Eleas]

I don't see why evolution would appear to the Church any more than astronomy did. They were pretty earnest about maintaining a very specific and very strict story about the universe and not open to anything even remotely challenging to that story.

Astronomy had several adherents in the Church. Most scientists during that time were convinced that God had made the world, but wanted to know how it had been made. Rationalization is a powerful thing: the main objection to Darwinian evolution on part of the Church was not that creatures evolved, because that was just fine: God might have set up that very system and the Bible was in many societies (including the Middle Ages) understood to be allegorical. The real and irreconcilable problem a religious society had with Darwinian evolution was that it proved nature to be uncaring.

[SpottedKitty]

Astronomy had several adherents in the Church.

Still does, to some extent; e.g. at one point there were a surprising number of astronomers who were Jesuit priests, or vice versa.

[Eleas]

Astronomy had several adherents in the Church.

Still does, to some extent; e.g. at one point there were a surprising number of astronomers who were Jesuit priests, or vice versa.

Yes, that was poorly phrased. What I meant was that a lot of churchmen were scientists, and that (within the limits of their discipline) they by and large did the best they could. They were convinced the Universe was a creation that could be understood through rational analysis (and, yes, faith), and since most of it was uncharted it was hard to find something that conclusively challenged the Faith. Indeed, symmetry and order was interpreted as God's hand.

[Zaune]

Come to think of it, Gregor Mendel was a churchman as well.

Hmmm... I wonder how history would have changed if someone had described the theory of Mendelian inheritance a couple of centuries earlier?

[madd0ct0r]

given that Mendel's work was promtly forgotten and not used for a few hundred years, perhap nothing?

[Ziggy Stardust]

given that Mendel's work was promtly forgotten and not used for a few hundred years, perhap nothing?

Try 40 years. Mendel's research was in the 1850s and 1860s, and was rediscovered by 1900, at least.

Hmmm... I wonder how history would have changed if someone had described the theory of Mendelian inheritance a couple of centuries earlier?

Honestly? I suspect not much. After all, Mendel wasn't the first to NOTICE these patterns of inheritance, he was simply the first to systematically and scientifically study them. Domestic plants and animals had been genetically engineered (i.e. bred in specific ways to accentuate specific traits) at that point for hundreds and hundreds of years. As I recall, the concepts of "dominant" and "recessive" traits were first described by an Arab physician in the 12th century (might be slightly off on that). Philosophically, one of the reasons nobody really went into great depth trying to study it was that there was a prevalent belief that this inheritance only extended to superficial traits (like flower color or what have you), and that all species had a "fixed essence" that was independent of any hereditary factors.

[Thanas]

The priests who made up the academy in the time of Leon and Castille were very tolerant, the heritage of using arab and ancient Greek/Roman texts.

This - contrary to popular belief - is also why Columbus got in trouble, because his calculations were known to be wrong (and the academy was actually right, only America saved Columbus from catastrophe).

I see no reason to think that some form of evolution would not be accepted there, even if evolution would be viewed to be driven by divine grace.

[biostem]

The problem, IMO, is that historically, it was various religious institutions that funded most "scientists" and higher education. Usually, this was in the interest of furthering their own power or influence. Even if Darwin had made his discoveries early in history, those findings would likely either be suppressed or we would be persuaded/forced to alter his findings to comport with the religious teachings of the day.

The only way I could kind of see this working out in his favor would be if some independently rich and powerful noble or nation/city-state was interested in breaking away from said religious influence, and endorsed Darwin's findings as evidence that there was no original sin, and people need not submit to their rule/teachings.

[Irbis]

Astronomy had several adherents in the Church. Most scientists during that time were convinced that God had made the world, but wanted to know how it had been made.

Not really. Discovering anything that didn't agree 100% with Bible was heretical and often had very sad end - see Giordano Bruno, for one. Copernicus, like Darwin, waited with publishing his work, except in this case he waited until his death so Inquisition couldn't reach him. Even so, very first words of his work are 'nothing of this is true, it's just interesting model that allows for easier computations of celestial motions' as publishers were scared of printing it otherwise...

I have a feeling being scientist then required ability to tune off doctrine or strong doublethink and not a lot of these people would be very religious if they were alive today.

The priests who made up the academy in the time of Leon and Castille were very tolerant, the heritage of using arab and ancient Greek/Roman texts.

Tolerant? As in when?

I seem to recall from history lessons that unified Spain purged completely first Moors, then expulsed all Jews under strong Church urging, leading to strengthening of both Italy and Poland where they settled. Before that, you had reconquista and numerous local pogroms of Muslims and Jew populations alike, again, thanks to Church - I'd struggle to call the inventors of harshest Inquisition in Europe 'tolerant' in any way.

If you mean earlier, in the era of divided kingdoms, León and Castille were sparsely populated backwaters that despite grandiose names were barely on level of baronies and counties of other kingdoms. They could have been tolerant all they wanted due to influence of Andalusia, almost nothing culturally or scientifically significant happened there anyway.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I see no reason to think that some form of evolution would not be accepted there, even if evolution would be viewed to be driven by divine grace.

This right here. The medieval mind does not have a conception of cells, or how cells work, but it does fundamentally understand that children are the products of whatever their parents bring to the hereditary table. Variation would simply be conceptualized as either a product of the Fall of the World, or capricious divine grace.

Not really. Discovering anything that didn't agree 100% with Bible was heretical and often had very sad end - see Giordano Bruno, for one. Copernicus, like Darwin, waited with publishing his work, except in this case he waited until his death so Inquisition couldn't reach him.

Sure, but that was during the counter-reformation. Prior to the protestant reformation, the church was much more lax on scientific matters and how they interacted with church doctrine. Even St. Augustine repudiated biblical literalism--particularly where the text of the bible contradicts what may be determined through experience and reason.

It was not until the protestant reformation that the church leadership, fearing a threat to their own power and authority that in previous centuries did not exist, cracked down on natural philosophy. Prior to that, they were primarily concerned with enforcing core church doctrines like transubstantiation of the eucharist etc.

I seem to recall from history lessons that unified Spain purged completely first Moors, then expulsed all Jews under strong Church urging, leading to strengthening of both Italy and Poland where they settled.

That is because Isabella and later the Spanish Habsburgs were special malignant snowflakes. The church had absolutely nothing to do with those expulsions which were organized and ordered by secular authorities. The dominicans who assisted in the spanish inquisition did so in violation of numerous papal bulls condemning the practice, and did not act with the sanction or authority of the Holy See.

[Irbis]

This right here. The medieval mind does not have a conception of cells, or how cells work, but it does fundamentally understand that children are the products of whatever their parents bring to the hereditary table. Variation would simply be conceptualized as either a product of the Fall of the World, or capricious divine grace.

Wasn't main problem with evolution and reason why Darwin waited 20 years before publishing his work the fact that according to Christian doctrine species were immutable as perfect God work? Granted, I am not expert on pre-XII century Christian beliefs and while it's possible that some thinkers influenced by earlier Greek or Muslim works went away from rigid interpretation of the doctrine it was definitely a rarity later. I'd even say they did not adhere to doctrine as it wasn't even fully formed yet and you had multiple competing schools, allowing for outliers. Something that was no longer the case in times of Hus and Luter, very much pre-reformation.

Sure, but that was during the counter-reformation. Prior to the protestant reformation, the church was much more lax on scientific matters and how they interacted with church doctrine. Even St. Augustine repudiated biblical literalism--particularly where the text of the bible contradicts what may be determined through experience and reason.

And like above, wasn't Copernicus problem that according to Christians, skies were perfect and immutable God work, clashing with what he wrote, and only later observations of Nova stars and comets finally forced people to rethink old dogmas?

I am not sure if I would blame his hesitation on counter-reformation alone. He lived in Poland, country which was relatively tolerant in that era (rabid fanaticism was to come two centuries later) and both Church Inquisition and religious disputes were relative rarity here. Doubly so in region where he lived - Royal Prussia was autonomic land of Teutonic Knights who decided to secularize and break away from Church by converting to protestantism. If Copernicus had second thoughts in one of the places farthest away from reach of the Pope, the offence must have been great indeed.

That is because Isabella and later the Spanish Habsburgs were special malignant snowflakes. The church had absolutely nothing to do with those expulsions which were organized and ordered by secular authorities. The dominicans who assisted in the spanish inquisition did so in violation of numerous papal bulls condemning the practice, and did not act with the sanction or authority of the Holy See.

Wasn't Inquisition organized by Torquemada after Pope's agreement? Just as reconquista was urged for and backed by succession of Popes? Sure, he might have went too far in the end, but I wouldn't read too much in the disfavour of one Pope seeing what things the office condoned during the time.

As for secular authority, wasn't Spanish monarchy almost convinced to cancel the Alhambra Decree before being pushed by priests to not do so? Or was it disproved recently? In any case, calling administration of deeply religious monarch 'secular' is not IMHO warranted as these people even without asking did mostly what the Church wanted. At best the Inquisition washed its hands like Pontius Pilate did while watching secular powers execute its will.

[Thanas]

Irbis, I think the main problem here is your infamiliarity with the highly diverse and rich culture of scholarship that existed in spain. Was there church repression? Yes. But there was also the school of Salamanca, great humanists like Francisco de Vitoria. These formulated the theory that:

The School of Salamanca reformulated the concept of natural law: law originating in nature itself, with all that exists in the natural order sharing in this law. Their conclusion was, given that all humans share the same nature, they also share the same rights to life and liberty. Such views constituted a novelty in European thought and went counter to those then predominant in Spain and Europe that people indigenous to the Americas had no such rights.

They also postulated that morality was not dependent on conscious knowledge of or recognition of the Christian God by oneself and therefore Pagans would not be considered evil per se. And biology and the sciences were accepted - the first description of the pulmanory system was done by a spanish scholar of this school.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wasn't main problem with evolution and reason why Darwin waited 20 years before publishing his work the fact that according to Christian doctrine species were immutable as perfect God work?

Oh god no. The scientists of his time were mostly doctors and churchmen, and they already accepted that life changed. His predecessors Lamarck and von Humboldt did not have to deal with that hurdle. He was afraid of being accused of Atheism, then a crime, because he would effectively be coming out as a Materialist. He was afraid of this to a somewhat irrational extent actually.

Something that was no longer the case in times of Hus and Luter, very much pre-reformation.

The likes of Hus and Wycliffe directly challenged core tenants of church doctrine and challenged its secular power and religious authority. That is the difference. The doctrine of original sin for instance does not and never did require a literal reading of genesis. If presented correctly a rudimentary theory of evolution (and it would be rudimentary) would not challenge that.

And like above, wasn't Copernicus problem that according to Christians, skies were perfect and immutable God work, clashing with what he wrote, and only later observations of Nova stars and comets finally forced people to rethink old dogmas?

No. He was not persecuted by church authorities at all, actually. His ideas did not catch on very well, but he was not persecuted.

There is a difference between church persecution, and an idea just not catching on.

If Copernicus had second thoughts in one of the places farthest away from reach of the Pope, the offence must have been great indeed.

He was probably more afraid of academic criticism. He was challenging more than a rather secondary church doctrine, but also the prevailing orthodoxy of literally every astronomer on earth. He did have some correspondence with the vatican on the subject:

Nicholas Schönberg, Cardinal of Capua,
to Nicholas Copernicus, Greetings.
Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you, and also to congratulate our contemporaries among whom you enjoyed such great prestige. For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe; that the eighth heaven remain perpetually motionless and fixed; and that, together with the elements included in its sphere, the moon, situated between the heavens of Mars and Venus, revolves around the sun in the period of a year. I have also learned that you have written an exposition of this whole system of astronomy, and have computed the planetary motions and set them down in tables, to the greatest admiration of all. Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject. Moreover, I have instructed Theodoric of Reden to have everything copied in your quarters at my expense and dispatched to me. If you gratify my desire in this matter, you will see that you are dealing with a man who is zealous for your reputation and eager to do justice to so fine a talent. Farewell.

His book was only banned later in 1616, in the Roman Inquisition as part of the counter-reformation.

Wasn't Inquisition organized by Torquemada after Pope's agreement?

Under military duress. Basically, spain threatened to withdraw military support from the vatican (because the turks were at that point looking like they might invade italy) if the pope did not consent. He reluctantly agreed, tried to publish a papal bull to stop it, spain threatened to withdraw military support again and just go ahead with a secular inquisition anyway, so the papacy published another papal bull that basically turned everything over to the spanish crown and washed its hands of the whole sordid affair by 1483. Torquemada was appointed Grand Inquisitor by the pope at the request of the spanish crown as part of this process.

As for secular authority, wasn't Spanish monarchy almost convinced to cancel the Alhambra Decree before being pushed by priests to not do so?

Sort of. The priests in question convinced the spanish throne to prosecute an inquisition, but they did this on their own initiative. The spanish crown then did so with a certain... vim and gusto...

[jwl]

On the note of Spain vs the Vatican, does it really matter who was organizing what? Spain was part of the middle ages too.

[Alyrium Denryle]

On the note of Spain vs the Vatican, does it really matter who was organizing what? Spain was part of the middle ages too.

Yeah, but what matters is "what will the church do?"

While literacy (in the local vernacular, not necessarily latin) was more common in the middle ages than is popularly believed (even moreso in the england as I recall, because the common law legal system encouraged more citizen litigation etc), very few people were classically educated outside the clergy and legal profession (who may or may not have also been clergy). There were some, and there were more in some places (Italy comes to mind), and almost all of those were educated by--you guessed it--clergy.

So if the church repudiates an idea, it is likely not to be learned by a large number of the educated class. Books are unlikely to be copied etc, and the idea will die a quiet death.