“…it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance.”
Darwin Wrote:“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
These quotes are great stuff. But what I’d like to know is - in light of what we know today, compared to what Darwin knew, how would we rewrite his chapter 5 in the Descent of Man
http://www.infidels.org/library/his[…]pter_05.html
Arun worries about how Chapter 5 might be rewritten, but Arun doesn’t show the full range of Darwin’s conjectures on how we alter our own evolution.
For example, after that section Arun quotes, Darwin also wrote this:
Is there any danger of any nation worrying about sending its best off to fight and die? How might Darwin rewrite that today?
Or this:
We can be relatively certain Darwin was opposed to primogeniture – but then, so were Jefferson and Lincoln. Darwin wrote:
Few among the creationists note that Darwin appeared to share their distaste for the Catholic Church, though it may be more fair simply to say that Darwin complained of the evil effects of the Inquisition:
(Just what is Darwin saying?)
And of course, one wonders whether Darwin would change his views on morality’s rise through evolution:
One might also wonder why creationists tend to mine only those few lines from Darwin that may appear to be embarrassing in the light of 21st century morality (to which most creationists themselves do not subscribe), and they don’t present a fair and unbiased listing of the many, many arguments and ideas Darwin actually presented which shows a more rounded and fair analysis of the vast sea of information used in biology and geology.
Your Honor, the defense is leading the witness…
Ed, your question almost answers itself :-) Just look at how creationists have (mis)quoted Darwin’s comments on the complexity of the eye.
Ed Darrell, Me, a creationist? You sure you aren’t paranoid?
I want to know how the whole chapter would be rewritten, not just the one paragraph that I quoted.
Even if we restrict ourselves specifically to the paragraph I quoted, it doesn’t seem particularly scientific, because Darwin in pronouncing what is injurious to the race of man, seems to be uncharacteristically confused about fitness. Vaccinating people against smallpox is injurious to the race of men if the race of men ever had to return to conditions similar to those of a hundred thousand years ago; but is hardly injurious to people of a highly technical civilization.
It simply doesn’t amount to Darwin at his best, and unless you want to treat Darwin like Moses or Jesus, whose word is Law, I would expect that there are many corrections that can be made. If asking about that is to become a creationist, then I think the creationists are correct in talking about “Darwinism”, namely, the uncritical worship of Darwin. Not that the existence of Darwinism reflects on any way on the theory of evolution, but such Darwinists would be an unwelcome ally, IMO, to the science side of the debate.
-Arun
Ed Darrell,
Here, if it will make you feel better, I’ll “quote-mine” Sir Isaac Newton, or paraphrase him rather - Absolute, true, and mathematical time, from its own nature, passes equably without relation the anything external, and thus without reference to any change or way of measuring of time - and say that is wrong. Then you can excitedly jump up and down and claim that I’m an obscurantist trying to deny physics.
When you’ve calmed down, I’ll explain that since I was a physicist, I know the precise way in which Newton was wrong and has been improved upon. Since I’m not a biologist, I don’t know the myriads of ways in which Darwin has been improved upon. Gould’s “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” proved to be too ponderous for me. If Panda’s Thumb is not the right place to ask the question, then say so, and I’ll be gone.
Why should anyone want to? It’s a historical work.
Thanks for the clarification, Arun.
‘Uncritical worship of Darwin’? Who even does that? That’s a classic creationist accusation. Creationists and Fundies in general can only wrap their brains around ‘rival’ schools of thought by categorizing them as religions. So they claim evolutionists ‘worship’ Darwin, in hopes that if they can point out one thing Darwin said wrong, the whole edifice comes crashing down. It doesn’t occur to them that evolution simply develops as we find out more and we’re under no obligation to believe everything Darwin ever said. Science is not a cult of personality.
Darwin has been dead for over a century now. I don’t see why anyone would give a flying fig what he said or didn’t say. Any more than we give a flying fig today that the original US Constitution legalized human slavery (also “not at its best”).
“Uncritical worship of Darwin”? Puh-leeze. The guy’s been dead for a long time. No one cares what he thought.
I agree with Arun that Darwin was not at his best in Descent of Man, at least as sompared to On the Origin of Species.
In Evolution Edward Larson had this to say of it:
Shouldn’t we be arguing about the research, instead of holding poor old Darwin to every one of his 150 year-old words?
The statement was subjunctive; it doesn’t assert that anyone displays uncritical worship of Darwin, but rather it says that, *if* people treat Darwin like a God, *then* it is accurate to say that people treat Darwin like a God. There are grounds for criticizing what Arun wrote, but not by mischaracterizing it.
Indeed. I raised this point, and Arun disappeared.
Satellites? Did Darwin really write this? Satellites as we know them weren’t invented until Sputnik in the late 1950’s so if Darwin used this word was he referring to asteroids or comets?
Darwin refers to natural satellites, such as moons.
This is an inappropriate use of the word “we”.
Update