Darwin

[bluetrinity]

I am sure this was mentioned somewhere before, but someone told me that Darwin rescinded his evolutionary theory on his death bed. Is this true?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Nope. That's a myth that just refuses to die.

http://answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Even if it was true, so what. If Einstein had recanted his theories of special relativity and general relativitiy would that make them any less correct (after nearly a century confirmation of relativity continues to come to light through modern telescopes and cylclotrons).

Charles Darwin was not the first to propose that evolution occured, that had been done decades before he set sail on the Beagle by people like Lemark and Robert Grant. Darwin, along with Wallace, were merely the first to come up with evidence that made evolution more then just speculation.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:46 PM bluetrinity said this in Post #1

I am sure this was mentioned somewhere before, but someone told me that Darwin rescinded his evolutionary theory on his death bed. Is this true?

What Darwin was reported to have said was:  "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done."

If it were true that does not mean he denyed his theory. Just the way he presented it.

Darwin aways admired the morality of the new testament. He admired the christian morality in his wife and in his friends.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

 

[Mr Buddhist]

Darwin was a Christian. (I think.) He said that because of all the trouble that publishing his theory of evolution had caused him. He nearly didn't publish it at all.

 

[webboffin]

Then someone else probably would of published the idea. Darwin was probably not the first to think of it.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 03:31 AM Mr Buddhist said this in Post #5

Darwin was a Christian. (I think.) 

He started out a christian, he believed everything in the Bible was true. He was a student of natural theology, but somewhere along the way he began to reject that theory of creation and began to accept the theory of evolution and natural selection.

He always believed in the moral teaching of Jesus though. He never rejected christianity as a moral belief.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 07:32 AM webboffin said this in Post #6

Then someone else probably would of published the idea. Darwin was probably not the first to think of it.

He was not the first to think of it. But he thought a lot about evolution, natual selection and survival of the fittest. He wrote a lot and his books were widely read.

He thought that maybe his name would live on for a while after he had died, but I doubt if he had any idea he would be as popular as he is, so long after his death.

I am sure it would have upset him, if he knew how much trouble he stired up and how many problems he has caused. If he had known where it was all headed, I am sure he would have tried to maintain some sort of damage control. But he could only deal with the objectives people were throwing his way at the time.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:31 AM Mr Buddhist said this in Post #5

Darwin was a Christian. (I think.) He said that because of all the trouble that publishing his theory of evolution had caused him. He nearly didn't publish it at all.

First, as Pete noted, it's a myth. Darwin never said anything of the kind.

And yes, at the time published Origin, Darwin was a theist, altho somewhat doubtful about Christianity.  Later Darwin became agnostic for personal reasons.

And Darwin delayed in publishing, mostly because he allowed "perfect" to get in the way of "good enough". That is, there was always one more piece of data that he wanted to get.  He was working on his magnus opus -- Natural Selection -- when Wallace sent him a preprint of his paper on natural selection.  That caused Darwin to get off his duff and forget "perfect".

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:42 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #7



He was a student of natural theology, but somewhere along the way he began to reject that theory of creation and began to accept the theory of evolution and natural selection. 

The irony here is that Origin is firmly within natural theology.  Remember, natural theology is not just creationism.  Natural theology is figuring out how God created by looking at nature.  Newton's Laws of Motion are also natural theology.  That natural selection and evolution are firmly within natural theology is demonstrated in the Fontispiece of Origin  and this passage:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."  pg. 449.

That, John, is pure natural theology.

What Darwin did with natural selection was remove the Argument from Design as "proof" of the existence of God.  Of course, Christian theologians were delighted with this, because Special Creation was causing them all "kinds" of problems.

 

[bluetrinity]

It looks like many people build some solid viewpoints on a healthly dose of half knowledge, speculation and pre-judgements when it comes to Darwin's theory, as is the same with Chrsitianity incidentally. I don't want to fall into that trap. What are some of the best books that explain exactly Darwin's theory and any subsequent improvements/additions etc.? I am not looking to be converted, just informed. Any ideas anybody?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:30 AM bluetrinity said this in Post #11

It looks like many people build some solid viewpoints on a healthly dose of half knowledge, speculation and pre-judgements when it comes to Darwin's theory, as is the same with Chrsitianity incidentally. I don't want to fall into that trap. What are some of the best books that explain exactly Darwin's theory and any subsequent improvements/additions etc.? I am not looking to be converted, just informed. Any ideas anybody?

Here's a good reading list:

Origin of the Species (of course)
Evolution by Mark Ridley
Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma.  These are textbooks and will tell you everything you wanted to know, and some you had no idea of, about evolution and the evidence behind it.
Cells, Embryos, and Evolution by John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner
Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett (ignore Dennett's atheism and concentrate on his discussion of Darwinian selection)

 

[Doubting Thomas II]

I would add Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is".

You might also check out Richard Dawkins's books. What lucaspa said about Dennett above also applies to Dawkins. Both men draw conclusions from the scientific evidence to support their atheism. Strictly speaking, this is unwarranted since science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of a deity. Being an atheist myself, I happen to be in their camp, but there is nothing in their work (much less in the various fields of biology) that necessarily precludes the position of a theistic-evolutionist, which is also a coherent position to affirm.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:45 AM Doubting Thomas II said this in Post #13

I would add Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is".

You might also check out Richard Dawkins's books. What lucaspa said about Dennett above also applies to Dawkins. Both men draw conclusions from the scientific evidence to support their atheism. Strictly speaking, this is unwarranted since science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of a deity. Being an atheist myself, I happen to be in their camp, but there is nothing in their work (much less in the various fields of biology) that necessarily precludes the position of a theistic-evolutionist, which is also a coherent position to affirm.

I almost put Mayr's book on the list, but decided that Futuyma and Ridley covered everything in it but in more detail.  However, that said, it is an excellent introduction before you tackle Futuyma and Ridley.

I'm glad you qualified Dawkins.  I think Dennett does a better job of explaining natural selection.

I disagree with your "strictly speaking". It is "absolutely".  Agreement with the extrapolated worldview doesn't help shade the "unwarranted".  It is absolutely impermissible for scientists to state their personal worldview as though it is a conclusion of science.  We have been very sloppy about this is in the past, mostly because we considered ourselves as speaking to fellow scientists, and we automatically filter out the personal statements.  But more and more, it is the general public that is being addressed, and they don't have that training to separate personal extrapolations from the science.  So we must be very, very careful to label our personal opinions as personal opinions.  (Which you have done admirably in your post).

I notice that Dawkins has apparently received the message; his remarks in the last couple of years have been remarkably toned down and his latest book -- Climbing Mt. Improbable -- doesn't have the religous polemics.

And yes, theistic evolution is a coherent position.

 

[DNAunion]

Doubting Thomas II:

I would add Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is".

You might also check out Richard Dawkins's books.

DNAunion: Personally, I wouldn't recommend Dawkin's books for someone trying to learn about evolution. He spends little time explaining the underlying concepts of evolution.

I don't know the original person's level of knowledge, but I have seen "Dummies/Idiots" books on evolution at my local book store. Don't knock them - those series of books can teach novices quite a bit (I've several on various topics and found them very informative). A person could probably learn a lot more about evolution by reading a "Dummies/Idiots" book than from reading Dawkins.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Actually, the best buy might be an introductory, general biology college text. I don't know about other universities, but at mine, they don't check ID (I'm not a student anymore - I'm a tutor and I can buy any book I want, as long as I have MONEY! - that's what they care about).

You'd probably get at least one full chapter on evolution, with every word being focussed and meaningful (unlike a Dawkins book) - as well as plenty of charts and graphics that reinforce and help explain the material. And if there was something you didn't understand related to evolution (perhaps something about Mendelian genetics), you could just skip over to that chapter and read up on that topic. In fact, you'd have a valuable reference on all things biological: cellular structure and function, cellular energetics, ecology, evolution, etc.

And if someone couldn't grasp something, I am sure that people here or at another discussion forum would be glad to help out (just have to phrase the question right - if you go to Infidels and ask a biology question and it is phrased anti-evolution in the least, you can expect to be welcomed the way the Iraqi misinformation media claims the coalition forces were: "Not with flowers, but with bullets").

 

[Cantuar]

I found "The Blind Watchmaker" to be very good; I'm still surprised how much there is in it. Having said that, I'd agree with the Mayr recommendation; it's shorter and more accessible than the ones Prof recommended, so there's more of a chance that an interested nonspecialist will actually get through it. Mind you, Futuyma and Ridley are very good too - the latest edition of Futuyma is expensive, though. I got a copy of the second edition second hand, which made the price bearable.

Also, for stuff about dating and the age of the Earth, the book "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple is good, if a bit technical, but that might be more specialist than you're looking for.

 

[Cantuar]

if you go to Infidels and ask a biology question and it is phrased anti-evolution in the least, you can expect to be welcomed the way the Iraqi misinformation media claims the coalition forces were: "Not with flowers, but with bullets"

That's not fair! If people go along there genuinely interested in learning, the regulars will take a lot of time and trouble. It's when people go there with the "evolution is a satanic lie - yah!" type of attitude that they get greeted in kind.

 

[WinAce]

Generally, even those types of posters are merely greeted with hilariously snide remarks, not insults per se.

 

[chickenman]

haha, I love your signature winace

classic