Andrew Crosse - A New Genesis?

In 1836 a sensation ran throughout the land. Had Andrew Crosse, using just an electrical current and a few samples of rock, created a new species of insect; "acarus crossii"? Many protested at the impertinence of a man to claim such a thing, to claim to have the power hitherto held only by God himself. What sort of man was this?

Andrew Crosse was born on the 17th of June 1784 in Somerset. He became fascinated with electricity, and was bright enough (and well off enough) to attend Oxford.

His parents died young leaving him responsible for their estates. In his spare time he began to experiment with electricity and his experiments became quite sophisticated. Some were so grand the villagers near by began to refer to him as 'the thunder and lightning man", some began to grow suspicious of what he was up to in his secluded manor.

But the experiment that drew the most attention was one perform in 1836. During an electrocrystallization experiment (Crosse's favourite type) he observed something odd. A "perfect insect, standing erect on a few bristles which formed its tail" had appeared right in the middle of his experiment and over the next few days they began to move. Within weeks there were hundreds of these insects and they moved around seeking shelter just as you'd expected any normal insect to act.

Crosse happened to mention the incident to some friends and published the results with the London Electrical Society. A local paper picked up the story and it soon spread to the nationals and even to Europe. Just as the press now can barely understand science (their reporting on the LHC was close to criminal in the high level of errors and misinformation, I might make errors but I'm not being paid to write for a national newspapers... they are!) the press then got the story a little mixed up. The people of our great country, in a grand tradition that continues to this day, got things mixed up and the inevitable death threats and outlandish accusations (such as Crosse causing a local crop failure) followed. They accused him of playing God and insulting the beliefs of the Christian nation of Britain. He went into hiding at his manor to avoid further trouble.

Of course Crosse had never claimed to have created life. He in fact attributed the emergence of the insects to a contamination of his experiment with insect eggs. Other later critics agreed with his assessment (although sadly many have not done their research and unfairly join his detractors in accusations of insanity against Crosse, little realising he was the first person to disown himself from the press' claims).

So... Andrew Crosse didn't create life... did he?

I'll leave you with this quote from wikipedia...

Other scientists tried to repeat the experiment. William Henry Weeks took extensive measures to assure a sealed environment for his experiment by placing it inside a bell jar. He obtained the same results as Crosse, but due to the controversy that Crosse's experiment had sparked his work was never published.

Scepticism

Reading this interesting article reminds me of the importance of scepticism. Sceptics are derided a lot across all fields of paranormal research, ufology and the various "weird science" studies. This is a shame.

Scepticism should be the default position of any serious researcher or interested observer. Belief in something one cannot prove without doubt should always be diluted by a healthy dose of scepticism.

I do not believe there is a God, especially a God as represented by organised religion. Now I will never confront someone over their belief in whatever they like unless they state that belief as a certainty. Due to the odd nature of some of the scriptures of organised religions such unreserved faith is a dangerous thing.

The same can be said for some evolutionists. I believe in evolution, and I believe it can be proven based on the evidence available to us today. However I also suggest that should NEW information appear contrary to the theory of evolution it should be considered and if necessary a new theory formulated. That is called science. My belief in evolution is no less strong than my belief in gravity but I don't state either as 100% fact, for to do so would be to express arrogant confidence in the infallibility of human knowledge. And I know that human knowledge is... limited. Just take a look around you next time your in a crowd and you'll see quite a few idiots who would lend support to that assertion.

Next time you claim something to be true remember that you may not be correct. That is a healthy thing to keep in mind, and might give you a different viewpoint on a situation perhaps revealing something you might have missed previously.