Re: Darwin's "Creator" (was Re[2]: Hello)

Denis Lamoureux (dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:11:28 -0700 (MST)

Hello Stephen,

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Stephen Jones wrote:

Brian Harper wrote:

> BH>I was really surprised the first time I read this since I had seen
> >the quote containing "by a Creator" so many times. I recall hearing
> >someone say that Darwin inserted this later as a concession to his
> >"critics". Anyone happen to know anything more about this?
>

Stephen responded:

1) > Orgel says that Darwin wrote it under pressure from " the religious
> biases of his time" . . . .

2) > E.O. Wilson in discussing the origin of life has a quote of
> Darwin but no reference . . . .

3) > . . . Gould who pointed out that the first edition of the
> Origin was the best. The remaining six editions were revised by Darwin
> as he tried to compromise with various pressures . . . .

As it is typical of your methodology (though the "gob" volume is not a
great as usual), Stephen, your response is a
re-cycling of the SECONDARY literature. And ever so IRONIC is the fact
that you appeal to those wickedly evolutionary authors whose science you
continually demean. Like them, but for different reasons, you NEED
an inordinately irreligious Darwin as a supporting pillar in
your thesis on origins.

Let me suggest to you that scholarship begins with the PRIMARY
literature. Anybody with a public library card can recycle gobs of stuff
one agrees with. If you were aware of the Darwin PRIMARY literature, then
you would have immediately recognized the classic truckle quote cited
by Wilson:

Stephen writes:

> E.O. Wilson in discussing the origin of life has a quote of
> Darwin but no reference:
>
> "Darwin dismissed the entire controversy as pointless and premature:
> `It will be some time before we see slime, protoplasm, etc.,
> generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to
> public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I
> really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere
> rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well
> think of the origin of matter.' " (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on
> Earth", Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, Mass., 1973, p594)

You will find this quote in "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" (1887) Vol
III: 17. It is a letter to the very anti-religious JD Hooker (29 March
1863). Is it surprizing Darwin "regretted" using the Pentateuchal term
to such a person?

If you, Orgel, Gould and Wilson would read the PRIMARY Darwin literature
you ALL would realize that Darwin was way more theological than the first
generation of amateur historians of science claimed (actually, many of
them were retired/ing scientists steeped in positivism and in need of
writing a positivistic "hagiography" of their patron "saint").

Furthermore, if Darwin really regretted using the Pentateuchal term in the
"Origin of Species" as he state in 1863, why then does he use it 3 times in
the closing pages of "Variation of Animals and Plants" in 1868? He even
uses the third person masculine singular pronoun 3 times with a capital "H"
(ie, He) when referring to the Creator (again with a capital "C").

Let me quote the final two sentences in this 2 volume set in order to
demonstrate the level of theological discourse Darwin was engaged in:

"On the other hand, an ominpotent and omniscient Creator ordains
everything and forsees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with
a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination."
Vol II: 526.

Darwin wasn't just a simple-minded truckler. He was seriously thinking
about the philosophical/theological implications of his theory.
Evidence of this is the fact he could relate his biology to probably the
most difficult debate in theology--the Divine sovereignty/determinism
debate. Read the last three pages of Volume II and Darwin's stonehouse
argument, you'll see its not the work of a truckler.

Stephen, familiarity with the PRIMARY Darwin literature right up to his
death in 1882 will make you realize that the 1863 statement was out of
character for Darwin . . . sort of like the way I get when I deal with you.

As always,
Denis

----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA

Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000

E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca

"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."

------------------------------------------------------------