Three years before Mivart had mistreated George Darwin in a review of works by Taylor and Lubbock on primitive man (Quarterly review, July 1874) – Huxley, Hooker et all acted to distance Mivart from Darwin’s inner-circle. I agree with you that this action didn’t prevent Mivart in any way from continuing to work and publish as an anatomist, but these people did their best to prevent Mivart to join some prominent English scientific organizations.

Mivart described his June 15th, 1869 painful experience (to dissent from Darwin) this way:

“After many painful days … I felt it my duty first of all to go straight to Professor Huxley and tell him all my thoughts, feelings, and intentions in the matter without the slightest reserve, including … the theological aspect of the question. Never before or since have I had a more painful experience than fell to my lot in his room at the School of Mines on that 15th of June 1869. As soon as I had made my meaning clear, his countenance became transforme as I had never seen it. Yet he looked more sad and surprised than anything else. He was kind and gentle as he said regretfully, but most firmly, that nothing so united or severed men as questions such as those I had spoken of.”

Quoted in GRUBER, J. W. A conscience in conflict – The life of St George Jackson Mivart. Columbia University Press, New York, 1960, p. 36-37.

Huxley’s letter to Joseph Hooker:

“I have been reading Mivart’s book … and the devil has tempted me to follow up his very cocky capsuling of Catholic theology based as he says upon Father Suarez. So I got some of the old Jesuit’s fólios out of the Library here and have been revelling in scholastic philosophy and catholic theology with the effect of discovering that Master Mivart either gushes without reading or reads without understanding. … I am sorry … as Mivart is clever and not a bad fellow but he allows himself to be insolent to Darwin and I mean to pin him out. Only fancy my vindicating Catholic orthodoxy against the Papishes themselves.” Ibid, p. 87.

Huxley publishes his article ‘Mr. Darwin’s critics’ in Contemporary Review, 1871, in Darwiniana, New York, 1896, p. 120-186.

Darwin’s letter to Huxley:

“Your letter has pleased me in many ways to a wonderful degree. I laughed over Mivart’s soul till my stomach contracted into a ball, but that is a horrid sensation which you will not know. … It quite delights me that you are going to some extent to answer and attack Mivart. His book, as you say, has produced a great effect…”

In GRUBER, op. cit, p. 87-88.

Hooker wrote to Darwin:

“I return Huxley’s article which I have read with all the admiration I can express. What a wonderful Ensayist he is, and incomparable critic, and defender of the faithful. Well I think you are avenged on your enemy.’

In GRUBER, op. cit., p. 90.

Mivart’s mistake was to quote and criticise an article by George Darwin on matters of eugenics. This act of freedom of speech led to Mivart’s being EXPELLED (I couldn’t resist) from Darwin’s inner circle, although Mivart went to great lengths attempting to fix this ‘unpardonable sin’ against Darwin’s young son.

Huxley and Hooker and other men used their position of academic power to ostracise Mivart. Several times, the last one in 1888, they succeeded in preventing Mivart to be elected to the Athenaeum Club. See GRUBER, op. cit., p. 112-114.

I am aware of your entry on Mivart in The Dictionary of 19th Century British Scientists.

By the way, do you know why all the letters exchanged between Mivart and Darwin are not available online?

But as I said, you should already know that as it’s been known since Gruber’s biography of Mivart. See my entry on Mivart in The Dictionary of 19th Century British Scientists for more if you need refreshing on the issue. The best entry point is, of course, Darwin’s own correspondence on the issue.

Why Darwinians still behave this way in the Academia against Darwin dissidents?

Unsubstantiated creationist talking point #45 in a series of three billion. You can do better.

By the way, Mivart’s critique of the role of Darwin’s theory of natural selection in the origin of species was my thesis subject in 2008.

St George Jackson Mivart (the Victorian anatomist and one of Huxley’s protegé) had a harshy treatment by the Darwinian inner-circle (with Darwin’s approval) preventing him to join scientific organizations and to advance his academic career. Are you endorsing this abject behaviour?

Whatever gave you the idea that I would be endorsing that? (Other than the fact that your pro-ID sympathies would want that to be the case).

Impressive

A third rate book saleman! You claim the answer is in the bible and then say that one has to acquire your book to find out where. Why? You just need to give a bible reference, I have quite a large collection in various languages.

And one with an extra-large scale if he intends on writing more.

There is a story that when Galileo first invented his telescope, he told some monks that he could prove the earth moved around the sun, and the huddled outside covering their eyes and refusing to enter. They were not good Christian thinkers. If Thomas Aquinas (maybe you’ve heard of him) had been there, no locks would have been strong enough to keep the big man away from the telescope. He would have been only too eager to see what the world had to say. He was a good Christian thinker.

If you want to be a good Christian thinker, Mr. Parsons, you would do well to emulate men like Aquinas (the 13th century’s great champion of reason) and not men like the monks afraid of the telescope. Look at what science has to say, and try to understand it for what it is before you attack it. If God gave man a mind, he meant him to use it.

I completely agree with the remarks made earlier about IDr’s and YEC’s. Far too often they lambaste the man instead of understanding his words, or fail to carefully consider science’s progress away from its early formulations. I suppose its an easy mistake to make, but it’s polemical and not scientific.

To Mr C. David Parsons, dude, stop quoting from the bible. Bible is written BY HUMAN. Bible is a guidance to life, YES, BUT It is not a science proven evidence to anything. The content in the Bible has been twisted by the Church for ages that no body would really know how it really happened in the past.