Arthur O. Lovejoy

Biographical details

Arthur O. Lovejoy Popular Science Monthly (1909)

If the men newly emerged from the odium which was thrown upon Newton's theory of the planetary motions, had rushed forward to turn that odium upon the patrons of the dawning science of geology, they would have been prefiguring the conduct of several of my critics, hardly escaped from the rude hands of the narrow-minded, yet eager to join the rabble against a new and equally unfriended stranger, as if that were the best way of purchasing immunity for themselves.
Source: Wikisource

Arthur O. Lovejoy Popular Science Monthly (1909)

IN this year of the Darwin centenary it is worth while to raise two questions which have, in the mass of literature elicited by the occasion, received less consideration than they merit. At what date can the evidence in favor of the theory of organic evolution—as distinct from the hypothesis of natural selection—be said to have been fairly complete: in other words, how early were the facts and principles from which the truth of that theory is now ordinarily inferred sufficiently known to all competent men of science, to require the inference, even though it was not, in fact, generally made?
Source: Wikisource

Arthur O. Lovejoy Popular Science Monthly (1909)

Men of science of the present generation have perhaps little to learn from a consideration of the reasons which prevented a Cuvier, a Miller, a Sedgwick or an Agassiz from accepting the theory of evolution. But there may still be for us profitable matter for reflection in a consideration of the reasons which prevented a Huxley from finding, in 1846, anything of value in facts and reasonings which thirteen years later he was, with unequalled vigor and skill, proclaiming from the housetops.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature