The Flat Earth Myth

[Agonaces of Susa]

Each new area of knowledge explored by science reduces the territory once occupied by gods.

That is absurd.

Witness Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Or do you deny the existence of planets?

You are running out of places to hide your God.

The universe is infinite so your belief is laughable.

 

[Febble]

Well, from what I can gather from your quotes (I don't have access to the source, unfortunately) he is, in his characteristic polemical fashion, pointing to the science vs religion debates of the 19th century, that were, in part, triggered by Darwin's writings, but also, the discoveries of geologists like Lyell. It was a period of huge upheaval in the way people thought about cosmology (just as the 16th century was), and it sounds like a mistaken idea of pre 16th century ideas about the spherical earth may have been part of the debate (which is interesting - I didn't know that).

But the myth is certainly not a "cornerstone" of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Ironic that Stephen J. Gould says otherwise.

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Darwinian revolution directly triggered this influential nineteenth-century conceptualization of Western history as a war between two taxonomic categories labeled science and religion. White made an explicit connection in his statement about Agassiz (the founder of the museum where I now work, and a visiting lecturer at Cornell). Moreover, the first chapter of his book treats the battle over evolution, while the second begins with the flat-earth myth." -- Stephen J. Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack, Late Birth of a Flat Earth, 1995

But he's NOT saying that the myth is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory! It isn't, and Gould isn't saying it is. What possible relevance could it have? Darwinian theory does not depend on the idea that people in the 19th century thought that people in the 15th thought that the earth was flat!

It's perfectly possible that people who accepted Darwin's view, also believed that "myth", but that doesn't mean that it has anything to do with Darwin's view, and certainly nothing in evolutionary biology rests on it!

For a start, I've known about Darwinian evolutionary theory for over half a century, and it's the first time I've even come across evidence that any of the 19th century debate about science vs religion featured this myth

You've never heard a Darwinist say that people that the Earth was flat?

I take it from that you've never actually read the Asimov paper.

Um, the Asimov paper does not say that people in the nineteenth century thought that people in the 15th thought the earth was flat, nor does it say that people in the 15th century thought the earth was flat. It does say that the Sumerians (who lived very much earlier than the 15th century) were among the first to figure out that it wasn't.

Which is true AFAIK

But nothing in Darwinian evolutionary theory depends on it being true. I've known biologists believe that they left gas on when they didn't, but that doesn't undermine Darwinian evolutionary theory

The reason Darwinian evolutionary theory is not a "fairy tale" isn't because everyone who has every accepted it is infallible about everything else, but because it is massively supported by consilient evidence from multiple domains of science.

ETA: 50 posts! Now I don't have to edit out links and images! Yay!

 

[Nabobalis]

I don't understand what the point of the op was. Could you explain?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

But he's NOT saying that the myth is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory! It isn't, and Gould isn't saying it is. What possible relevance could it have? Darwinian theory does not depend on the idea that people in the 19th century thought that people in the 15th thought that the earth was flat!

So why did White make the Flat Earth is second chapter?

It's perfectly possible that people who accepted Darwin's view, also believed that "myth"

How long did it take you to figure that out?

Um, the Asimov paper does not say that people in the nineteenth century thought that people in the 15th thought the earth was flat, nor does it say that people in the 15th century thought the earth was flat. It does say that the Sumerians (who lived very much earlier than the 15th century) were among the first to figure out that it wasn't.

Which is true AFAIK

Source?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I don't understand what the point of the op was. Could you explain?

Do you know what the Darwinist Flat Earth Myth is?

 

[Febble]

So why did White make the Flat Earth is second chapter?

I don't know. I haven't read White. I do know that Darwinian evolutionary theory does not depend on it though. I don't see that it has any connection whatsoever. Darwinian theory is a biological theory, not a shape-of-the-earth theory.

It's perfectly possible that people who accepted Darwin's view, also believed that "myth"

How long did it take you to figure that out?

I didn't figure it out at all. I just accept that it's perfectly possible. I really do not see your point, nor what you think Gould's point is.

Um, the Asimov paper does not say that people in the nineteenth century thought that people in the 15th thought the earth was flat, nor does it say that people in the 15th century thought the earth was flat. It does say that the Sumerians (who lived very much earlier than the 15th century) were among the first to figure out that it wasn't.

Which is true AFAIK

Source?

I can't recall, offhand. I think I first learned about it in the British museum. But it's not especially important - certainly not key to Asimov's point. What we do know is that people, over the millenia, have steadily refined their estimate of the earth's radius, from infinite (i.e. flat) to present day measurements (still being refined, and, of course, constantly changing, slightly). Who do you think first figured out that the earth was spherical?

 

[sandwiches]

Ironic that Stephen J. Gould says otherwise.

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Darwinian revolution directly triggered this influential nineteenth-century conceptualization of Western history as a war between two taxonomic categories labeled science and religion. White made an explicit connection in his statement about Agassiz (the founder of the museum where I now work, and a visiting lecturer at Cornell). Moreover, the first chapter of his book treats the battle over evolution, while the second begins with the flat-earth myth." -- Stephen J. Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack, Late Birth of a Flat Earth, 1995

He doesn't say that. He's talking about the 'wars' of science versus religion and he mentions two examples from White's books: The war of science regarding evolution and the one regarding the flat earth.

Nowhere does it say or imply that flat earth is the cornerstone of evolution.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't know. I haven't read White. I do know that Darwinian evolutionary theory does not depend on it though. I don't see that it has any connection whatsoever. Darwinian theory is a biological theory, not a shape-of-the-earth theory.

White's books are about the war of science versus religion. How science has had to fight religion when it's come to flat earth and now evolution.

 

[Nabobalis]

Do you know what the Darwinist Flat Earth Myth is?

No.

 

[Febble]

There doesn't seem to be one, just an apparent error/myth on behalf of someone who seems to have been an early Darwinist.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I don't know. I haven't read White. I do know that Darwinian evolutionary theory does not depend on it though. I don't see that it has any connection whatsoever. Darwinian theory is a biological theory, not a shape-of-the-earth theory.

Please read the Gould essay before you opine.

No wonder you are lost.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

No.

Please read the Gould essay before you opine.

This is a thread about the Gould essay.

If you haven't read it stay out of the thread.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

There doesn't seem to be one, just an apparent error/myth on behalf of someone who seems to have been an early Darwinist.

LOL.

The Asimov paper you told me about proves there is one.

Please read it.

In it, the Darwinist Asimov promotes the Darwinist Flat Earth Myth.

 

[Febble]

Please read the Gould essay before you opine.

No wonder you are lost.

Do you have a link to the essay? I could not find it online.

But whether I read it or not, I can tell you that Darwinian evolutionary theory, whatever Gould says, or not says, has got nothing to do with the shape of the earth, or when people figured out it was spherical.

It is a theory about the diversification of life, and it rests on the simple truism that when things replicate with variance, variants that replicate better will be replicated more.

That's it. It's a theory about biology and biological diversity. Not a theory about the shape of the earth. Or even the age of the earth.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Do you have a link to the essay? I could not find it online.

It's posted in this thread.

But whether I read it or not, I can tell you that Darwinian evolutionary theory, whatever Gould says, or not says, has got nothing to do with the shape of the earth, or when people figured out it was spherical.

Gould says the Flat Earth Myth was primarily perpetuated by Darwinists for Darwinist motives. That is his point.

It's a theory about biology and biological diversity. Not a theory about the shape of the earth. Or even the age of the earth.

If that's true, then why do Darwinists like White and Asimov need to lie and perpetuate the Flat Earth Myth in order to make their case for Darwinism?

 

[Febble]

It's posted in this thread.

What, the whole essay? I could only find quotes. I've been looking for the source. Can you link to the post please?

Gould says the Flat Earth Myth was primarily perpetuated by Darwinists for Darwinist motives. That is his point.

Well, if he says it, it may or may not be true. Gould isn't infallible. Nonetheless whether or not that's what he says, it doesn't make your Flat Earth Myth a cornerstone of Darwinian evolutionary theory. It isn't. The theory isn't about the shape of the earth, or about theories about the shape of the earth. It isn't even about the age of the earth.

If that's true, then why do Darwinists like White and Asimov need to lie and perpetuate the Flat Earth Myth in order to make their case for Darwinism?

Asimov did no such thing. If he is wrong that the Sumerians were the first to figure out that the earth was spherical, then it's a mistake, not a lie. But you haven't provided any evidence that it's even a mistake. And even if it wasn't, who discovered it is irrelevant to his point, which is that the model has got increasingly less wrong over time.

 

[Freodin]

It's posted in this thread.

For Febble: there is a link at the buttom of the OP.

Gould says the Flat Earth Myth was primarily perpetuated by Darwinists for Darwinist motives. That is his point.

I read the article... and he never does say anything that can even remotely be interpreted as that. The point he makes is that people like White and Draper use Darwin´s then new theory and the opposition of the Church against it as evidence for their "struggle between religion and science" views.

 

[Febble]

For Febble: there is a link at the buttom of the OP.

Duh, thanks! I'll read it now.

 

[Febble]

Thanks! No, Gould says absolutely nothing about "the Flat Earth Myth" being a cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. Gould of course was a great promoter of Darwinian evolution, so it would make no sense for him to knock away a cornerstone! He was also a promoter of the idea that religion and science need not be at odds but could occupy "non-overlapping magisteria".

And he is in some parts saying essentially what Asimov is saying - that it is a mistake to see categorical distinctions where there are continua, which is interesting from the man so often quoted as promoting "punctuated equilibrium" in place of "gradualism". Even gradualism is relative

Ah, well, I'm very glad to have read the source, thanks. It's a nice essay.

But it doesn't seem to say what Agonaces of Susa seems to think it says.

 

[sfs]

But it doesn't seem to say what Agonaces of Susa seems to think it says.

That's true of most things that AoS quotes.