Liz Craig:
>Some people have been
>troubled by what they see as religious and
>sociological implications in it. But Darwin avoided
>such speculations. He was not a theologian or a
>sociologist, but merely a scientist seeking to know
>how the world's incredible variety of plant and animal
>life came about.
"At some future time, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes... will not doubt be exterminated. The break will
then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as
the baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the
gorilla. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 201 (Princeton University
Press 1981).
Just studying plants and animals, eh?
>Because of his [Darwin] work, we have
>learned of the interconnectedness of life on earth,
>advanced to new frontiers of knowledge in medicine and
>technology, discovered DNA and mapped the human
>genome. The adventure he began in the 19th century
>continues in the 21st, as we explore new ways to
>improve health and quality of life.
Darwin's work did indeed help us to learn the interconnectedness
of life on earth. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with discovering
DNA or mapping the human genome. And it has contributed very little
to advances in medicine and technology. Like most romantic
revisionists, Craig is seriously confused.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 23:41:38 EST