D'Abrera on Science and Philosophy

[James F Hanlon]

Hello Leps-L members:

As some of you may know, Bernard D'Abrera has some wonderful yet expensive
volumes on Butterflies of the Neotropical Region. These volumes have
excellent photographs of many leps with good identification and short and
general descriptions of individual butterfly locations. There are little to
no references about the natural history or habitats of individual species,
and the volumes generally serve as a good reference for identification only.
However, I always can not help but smile when occasionally I come across one
of his passages, which seem to be coming from out in left field, yet usually
interesting elaboration's of D'Abrera's philosophies about butterflies,
creation vs. evolution etc. So I thought I would share one of those passages
and possibly invoke a new thread.

On page 590 of Volume IV (Nymphalidae) D'Abrera sais with respect to the
Genus Asterope:

"There has been a great deal of speculation (idle and fruitless in this
writer's [meaning D'Abrera's] opinion) about supposed mimetic relationships
between Asterope species and Agrias, based on superficial resemblance's in
appearance between them. This misapprehension has most probably been caused
by subjective over-reaction to the extravagant and spectacular quantities of
the deep primary colors shared by both genera. For one who simply accepts
the existence of a Creator, one of the logical consequences of the
phenomenon of Infinitely Dichotomous Variety is that both divergence and
convergence of form are not only possible, but necessary. The limitations
are not in what is observed - but in the observer. For even the most
impartial of scientific investigations is ultimately anthropomorphically
('to ascribe human characteristics to')slanted. There does not have to be a
humanly comprehensible reason for everything, even if the postulates are
given immunity from metaphysical accountability by being shielded in the
arrogant and rudely inquisitive processes of clinical science. There is
always the consideration admissible in Ontological (The branch of philosophy
that deals with being) thought, but strangely never in so-called nuts and
bolts Biology, that some purely physical effects may have been caused, in
order to have produced three further sequential metaplhysical effects, to
wit, Mystery, Awe, and Humility.  Man does not have to know everything.
Sometimes it is merely sufficient for him to accept, for even if he did know
everything, he would not understand everything, or he would still lack the
wisdom of everything. If, supposing he had even that as well, then he would
indeed be Devine. This of course is the vice of Teilhardism. It is the
prideful hope that technological progress (=Science) will determine and
quantify all Human development (=Evolution) increasing as it does man's
knowledge and understanding until at last he finally attains the Omega Point
of Emergent and Palpable Divinity. Here we see the re-utterance of the
Luciferian cry of "Non Serviam" - "The ultimate Blasphemy; the vain
naturalistic hope for a Heaven-on-Earth, with man as his own god. For my own
part (still D'Abrera's words), the more I study, the more I am forced to cry
out - I simply don't know, and I understand even less!" End of D'Abrera's
passage.

D'Abrera also goes on to say that his passage may well be out of place in
such a scientific publication, and I am not quite sure just where I am
heading with this either, but it struck as something interesting to think
about.

To sum it up, I guess D'Abrera is saying that science can not and should not
vainly think that it can explain everything, but I am particularly
interested to know what you think he means with respect to his comment that
"one of the logical consequences of the phenomenon of Infinitely Dichotomous
Variety is that both divergence and convergence of form are not only
possible, but necessary". I have seen the Asterope species that resemble the
Agrias species and surprisingly, each Agrias and Asterope species, where a
visual mimetic relationship is noticeable, inhabit very specific and similar
 regions. Supposedly the Asterope is the model and the Agrias is the mimic.
I do not know of any studies about the true distastefullness of either
genus.

Any thoughts on this subject.

Jim Hanlon