Talk:St. George Jackson Mivart

Name

Although George Jackson Mivart is listed as "St. George Jackson Mivart" in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, the "St." gives the implication that he was canonized a saint by the Catholic Church. Currently I am removing the "St." from his name until a better way of mentioning his extended name is found. JBogdan 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: The point is not that Mivart was canonized (which of course he was not). The point is that his parents named him after St. George. They get to decide what his name is, not you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.80.155 (talk • contribs)

I think it would be best, then, to have a section discussing his name and establishing that referring to him as "St. George" is not an indication that he is an officially recognized saint. I think this would be a good compromise position between the two of you. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

contradiction

The article says in paragraph 1, sentence 5 that his book Genesis of Species was written "in an attempt to disprove Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection" In paragraph 1, sentence 10, it says "Though admitting evolution generally, Mivart denied its applicability to the human intellect." DGG 18:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the issue: Mivart accepted the fact of evolution, as did most naturalists in the decades after Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species." What he doubted was that natural selection was the primary mechanism by which evolution takes place. A good discussion of these issues appears in Bowlers' "Evolution: The History of an Idea" and Young's "The Discovery of Evolution." So compelling were Mivart's arguments that Darwin spent a dozen or so pages addressing some of them in the sixth edition of "Origin." 129.15.127.254 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Daniel Dickson-LaPrade

No excomunication but interdict

It has been a matter of discussion if cardinal Vaughan (catholic Archbishop of Westminster) really excommunicated Mivart. Contrary to Gruber's allegation, a more accurate work on the subject shows that he did not (in Artigas M., Glick Th. F., Martinez R. A., (2006) Negotiating Darwin. The Vatican confronts Evolution (1877-1902), John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 236-269, esp. pp. 267-269.), especially because a ferendae sententiae excomunication must be unquestionably declared to take effect. Vaughan considered Mivart as one the most distinguished Catholic writers and scientists. Actually, Vaughan's condamnation was carefully written and never used the word "excommunication", but "Inhibition of Sacraments" (circular letter to his priests dated january 18, 1900), which is more like an Interdict.

Moreover, Mivart works' prohibition in the Index was limited to three articles on "Happiness in Hell" (published in Nineteenth Century Journal in 1892-1893, stating that sorrow may evolve to some happiness in hell), which had nothing to do with evolution theory. Finally Mivart also wrote in the january 1900 issue of Nineteenth Century, an article ("The continuity of Catholicism") considered by many christians as scandalous about the generation of Jesus Christ.

So it may be interesting to correct the assertion in the article, using for example in the presentation "he ended up being condemned by both parties."

Phdalleur (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)