Reflectorites
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:30:07 -0600 (CST), Susan B wrote:
[...]
>To be published in the Kansas City Star, 12 February 2000
>
>Happy 191st, Mr.Darwin
>Charles Darwin - 1809-1882
>
>By Liz Craig
[...]
Thanks to Susan for posting the above.
Here is the actual article in the Kansas City Star (I haven't had the time
to check if it is the same as what Susan posted-hence the reposting.).
My comments are in square brackets
Steve
=======================================================================
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/3774391c.210,.html
[...]
FORUM/OPINION
AS I SEE IT: On Darwin's birthday, his work should be acknowledged
By LIZ CRAIG - Special to The Star
Date: 02/11/00 22:00
Happy 191st birthday, Charles Darwin!
[That Darwinism functions as a replacement religion among some of
his followers is evidenced by them celebrating his *birthday*. What
other scientist gets this sort of treatment?]
You've probably seen the picture -- a grizzled old man with sad, drooping eyes and
skin like a crumpled cotton sheet. But despite his unprepossessing appearance, he's
none other than Charles Darwin, the 19th-century British naturalist whose theory
brought science into the modern era in 1859.
[I hardly think that Darwin can be justly credited with bringing
*science* into the modern era. Biology maybe, but *science*? I doubt
that physicists would agree. Of course if by "the modern era" is meant
the enormously destructive philosophy of materialistic naturalism,
which has blighted the 20th century, then maybe Darwin should get
*that* credit!]
Looking at that picture of the elderly Darwin, who was born in 1809 and died in 1882,
it's hard to imagine the daring young man he once was.
[Looking at a picture of the elderly Steve Jones, "it's hard to imagine the daring
young man he once was! :-)]
At the age of 21, despite his worried father's discouragement, he signed on for an
extended ocean voyage in search of knowledge about the natural world. From 1831
to 1836, during the journey of the H.M.S. Beagle, Darwin observed and collected
specimens in exotic locales around the globe.
As he examined his specimens, he noticed striking similarities between modern
species and fossils of extinct species in South America. And he noticed similarities
between the native plants and animals of the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific and
those in South America.
[This is Darwin's great achievement, for which he deserves a place in Biology's hall
of fame. He discovered *micro*-evolution!]
Over the next two decades, based on his observations and careful study of the
specimens he had collected, Darwin formulated several related theories: First, that
evolution did occur; second, that evolutionary change was gradual, requiring
thousands to millions of years; third, that the primary mechanism for evolution was a
process called "natural selection"; and fourth, that the millions of species alive today
descended from one or a few simple common ancestors through a process called
"speciation."
[It is misleading to claim that Darwin spent "the next two decades"
formulating his theory. The evidence is that Darwin worked at his
"transmutation" theory only sporadically and he did not arrive at a
coherent theory until Wallace sent his theory to Darwin in 1858.
It is also misleading to claim that Darwin proposed a theory "that
evolution did occur". As Burrows points out in his Introduction to the
Penguin edition of The Origin of Species, Darwin's own Historical
Sketch in later editions of the Origin listed over 30 predecessors who
had claimed that "evolution did occur": "The theory of evolution in
biology was already an old, even a discredited one. Darwin, in later
editions of The Origin, listed over thirty predecessors and was still
accused of lack of generosity." (Burrow J.W., "Editor's Introduction",
to Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species", 1985, reprint, p27). Darwin's
contribution (shared with Wallace who Craig simply ignores), was to
propose a *mechanism*, namely variation and natural selection, of
*how* "evolution did occur".
Darwin did indeed claim "that evolutionary change was gradual" and
this has been proved *false*. Craig gets the third right, that "the
primary mechanism for evolution was a process called `natural
selection'" but neglects to mention that Darwin himself virtually
abandoned natural selection towards the end of his life and that today
there are many biologists who do not regard natural selection as "the
primary mechanism for evolution".
Craig's fourth point , that Darwin theorised that "the millions of species
alive today descended from one or a few simple common ancestors
through a process called "speciation" is simply historically false. The
word "speciation" is not in the Origin and Darwin in fact had problems
admitting that species were real. The title "Origin of Species" was in
fact suggested by Darwin's publisher John Murray and a number of
leading Darwinists have admitted that the title was a misnomer because
Darwin never addressed the question of how species originated: "THE
ORIGIN OF SPECIES SAYS very little about the origin of species.
Darwin's full title is on the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life. Yet the book does not document the origin of a single species, or
a single case of natural selection, or the preservation of one favored
race in the struggle for life." (Weiner J., "The Beak of the Finch",
1994, p6)]
Darwin theorized that variation within species occurs randomly and that the survival
or extinction of each plant or animal lineage is determined by its ability to adapt to its
environment. In 1859, he published his theories in a book, On the Origin of Species.
[Darwin did indeed propose that extinction was the flip-side of natural
selection and that it was even more gradual than natural selection. But
this too has been proven to be false. Most extinction occurs in *mass*
extinctions, as David Raup points out. See Phil Johnson's *brilliant
review of Raup's book: "The Extinction of Darwinism. Review of
"Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?", by David M. Raup, Norton,
1991, in The Atlantic, February, 1992. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/raup.htm]
Darwin continued to write on botany, geology and zoology until his death in 1882.
Today he rests among many other distinguished Britons in Westminster Abbey.
[Interesting how Craig ignores Darwin's writings on anthropology, ie. his "The
Descent of Man".]
Contrary to popular belief, Darwin didn't originate the idea of evolution. It was
accepted by many scientists even before the publication of On the Origin of Species.
Darwin's major contribution was organizing and codifying the physical evidence for
evolution in a more comprehensive way than had previously been done. The only
part of his theory that caused much disagreement among his scientific
contemporaries was his proposal of natural selection as the primary mechanism for
evolution.
[This is correct but it partly contradicts what Craig said above].
Darwin's theory has caused more dispute among nonscientists, however. Some
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. The answers he discovered form the framework of modern
life sciences and the basis of research in nearly every branch of science, including
biology, zoology, geology, anthropology and paleontology.
[This is simply false. Darwin's private notebooks reveal him as a
philosophical materialist: "The notebooks prove that Darwin was
interested in philosophy and aware of its implications. He knew that the
primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary
doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism....In the
notebooks Darwin resolutely applied his materialistic theory of
evolution to all phenomena of life, including what he termed "the
citadel itself" - the human mind....In one of his transmutation
notebooks, he wrote: Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you
materialist!..." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", [1978], Penguin:
London, 1991 reprint, pp23-25). And in his The Descent of Man,
Darwin said his *primary* objective was to overthrow the then
Christian doctrine of creation: "I may be permitted to say, as some
excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that
species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural
selection had been the chief agent of change...I have erred in giving to
natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in
having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least
as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of
separate creations." (Darwin C.R., "The Descent of Man", (bound in
one volume with The Origin of Species), nd., pp441-442)]
So today, on Charles Darwin's 191st birthday, take a moment to remember the
daring young Englishman who ignored his father's cautions and embarked on the
adventure of a lifetime. Because of his 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.
[In addition to Wallace, Craig simply ignores the *Christian monk*
Gregor Mendel who discovered genetics which would give him more
right than Darwin to the credit for the discovery of DNA and the
mapping of the human genome, but then that does not fit the hero
myth!]
Darwin's voyage aboard the H.M.S Beagle ended long ago. But because of it,
science's journey of discovery goes on and on.
[This is mythology too, that "science's journey of discovery goes on
and on". That science has made rapid progress in the last 300 years
does not mean it is going to continue making rapid progress. This is
like saying that because a child is half its height when it is 5, it will be
ten times its height when it id 50! Horgan in his "The End of Science"
has pointed out that science is fast running out of major things to go on
a "journey of discovery" with and has forecast that modern science is
entering a period of rapidly diminishing scientific returns.]
Liz Craig is a writer and a fan of science. She lives in Roeland Park.
[What's a "fan of science"? Craig sounds more like a *worshipper* of science,
or at least of Darwin!]
All content (c) 2000 The Kansas City Star
=======================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 17:24:46 EST