Reflectorites
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:53:40 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
>SJ>"...in the earlier editions of my 'Origin of Species' I perhaps
>>attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival
>>of the fittest. ... 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, though largely aided by the
>>inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the
>>surrounding conditions. ... Some of those who admit the principle
>>of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when
>>criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence
>>if 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 and Selection in Relation to
>>Sex," [1871], bound in one volume with "The Origin of Species",
>>nd., pp.441-442)
>>
>>Note that Darwin says his *primary* goal was religious (i.e.
>anti-creation)
>>and his secondary goal was scientific (i.e. natural selection).
PR>Typical nonsense. Darwin says nothing of the sort here.
>
>It's obvious what he says (but then you probably didn't read it, the
>commentary was copied from an apologetics book).
What "commentary" and what "apologetics book"? It is in Darwin's Descent
of Man.
PR>He says he's
>doing two things : destroying the "dogma" of creation, and to
>show natural selection was responsible.
Even that would be good enough. Paul confirms Darwin put "destroying
the `dogma' of creation", *first* and "to show natural selection was
responsible" second.
And what was a *scientist* doing "destroying the `dogma' of creation"? All
Darwin needed to do was present the evidence of his findings together with
a scientific hypothesis no greater than sufficient to account for the observed
facts.
But Paul should read it again. Darwin says "I had two distinct objects in
view; *firstly*, to shew that species had not been separately created ..."
(my emphasis). That says that Darwin's *primary* goal was anti-religious.
And Darwin's final comment shows that even if he exaggerated the power
of natural selection, he would have been satisfied in having achieved his
primary goal, which was to have "...done good service in aiding to
overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
I don't expect that Paul and I will agree on this (because he rightly
realised that this would be too damaging for an evolutionist to admit), so
we shall have to agree to differ on it.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ridicule is a popular and political tool but not a scientific tool. If you want
to challenge a thesis, you do it with facts and science." (Douglas K.,
"Taking the plunge," New Scientist, Vol. 168, No. 2266, 25 November,
2000, pp28-33, p.33. http://www.newscientist.com/nl/1125/taking.html)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 18:01:19 EST