History of Evolution

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I take it your answer to the question is no.

That wasn't a no, that was the beginning of a more complete answer to your question. You asked a good question and we are appreciating Ophiolites responses.

 

[Job 33:6]

OK. How did Darwin (and others who supported evolution) react to criticism? Did he accept it as fair - or think some was fair and some was not? Did the criticism motivate him to do things he might not have otherwise?

I really don't know. Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with him as a person. Maybe I'll pickup his origin of species book one of these days.

If you're doing some kind of a project or if you're really interested in him and his experiences, that book will probably tell you a lot more about him than anyone here would.

I do have James hutton's "theory of the earth" however. Now that's an incredible read. Like going back in a time machine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know there are other motivations for geology - finding oil and so forth. Plus there's simple curiosity.

But, historically speaking, are you aware of projects motivated by a desire to support evolution? Probably paleontology more so than geology. IOW, did paleontology see significant development because of a push for evolution?

It may have been part of the reason that people went into the science. Does it really matter? Evolution is a fact regardless of the motivation of the people that went into various sciences that support it. By the way, evolution does not refute Christianity. It only refutes those that make the error of reading Genesis literally. There is no real need to do so. I am always amazed that those who believe the Garden of Eden story do not realize that it paints God as the "bad guy" if one can reason logically. The story is bad theology. It can work as an allegory since one does not need to parse such stories endlessly. But if it is "reality" then God is to blame.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

are you aware of projects motivated by a desire to support evolution?

This is an interesting question in many ways. It seems to imply a conspiracy in the form of a group that had already made it's mind up before the statement was made (Darwin's publishing)? I can't decide whether you are looking for a historical series of ideas that led up to Darwin's book or the idea that there was some nefarious collection to support his book. Do you have any evidence of any of these "projects" or even what they might have been?

I think it was more like Newton codifying an incredible number of observations in a simple mathematical way. As someone said, (why didn't we think of it that way before?). Yes there were people who continued with fixity and punctual creation, but for the most part, Darwin's logic made it obvious that there was a much simpler solution.

 

[J_B_]

Here's an illustrative example. At first Mivart's criticism of Origin was taken as fair by Darwin and treated seriously, and directly responded to in a following edition. Later on, Darwin literally said Mivart's review of Descent of Man was unfair.

Mivart was someone Darwin took seriously; Darwin prepared a point-by-point refutation which appeared in the sixth edition of Origin of Species.

Mivart's hostile review of the Descent of Man in the Quarterly Review aroused fury from his former intimates, including Darwin himself, who described it as "grossly unfair".

Interesting. Thanks for the example.

 

[J_B_]

It may have been part of the reason that people went into the science. Does it really matter?

It does if one asked a historical question for the purposes of understanding people's motivations and not for the purposes of supporting, refuting, or otherwise debating the merits of evolution.

But if it is "reality" then God is to blame.

It doesn't bother me if you blame God, but that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[J_B_]

This is an interesting question in many ways. It seems to imply a conspiracy in the form of a group that had already made it's mind up before the statement was made (Darwin's publishing)?

I did not mean to imply conspiracy. Let me fill in the details you seem to be missing. One poster stated that after Darwin published, one criticism was that he needed more data (#49). Assuming the criticism was valid, and therefore the data was sought, it would seem Darwin's publication prompted the seeking.

I don't see why you would insist that an offer to help Darwin seek his data must be a conspiracy, assuming, as another poster did (#80), that even if people were specifically seeking data to support evolution, a good scientist would recognize bad data.

Do you have any evidence of any of these "projects" or even what they might have been?

No. I am asking questions, not promoting specific instances. Is the discussion as superficial as you expected?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does if one asked a historical question for the purposes of understanding people's motivations and not for the purposes of supporting, refuting, or otherwise debating the merits of evolution.



It doesn't bother me if you blame God, but that's a topic for a different thread.

No, no, no. I don't blame God. That is what literalists are doing. Though they do not realize it. This is a test on a person's ability to reason rationally.

 

[J_B_]

No, no, no. I don't blame God.

Yes, I get that. I realize you're an atheist, don't believe in gods, and therefore don't think there are any gods to blame. I was simplifying a longer chain of statements to say that it doesn't bother me if the reasoning you apply concludes a believer would have to blame God. I've blamed God many times for many things.

Whatever you might think of me and my logic with respect to God's culpability; no matter what I might think of you and your logic; it's a topic for another thread. Feel free to invite me to that thread if you are so inclined.

The issue here is the history of evolution and the human role in its development.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK. I'm trying to ask the deeper question. Why did it impress them?

Because it explained the observational data he presented and answered a number of other outstanding questions via a simple and elegant mechanism. It was testable, made fruitful predictions, had a unifying explanatory scope, was parsimonious, and was conservative (consistent with existing knowledge).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Joe: I think we should postpone the launch.
Larry: Why?
Joe: I think it got too cold out last night.
Curly: So? the temperature is back up now, and within acceptable launch perimeters.
Joe: Still, something tells me something isn't right.
Moe: Such as?
Joe: Well, not all the individual parts on the launch pad have had time to acclimate to the warmer temperature yet.
Larry: Fine, let's take a vote.
Joe: But ...
Larry: All in favor of launch, say "aye".
Larry: Aye.
Curly: Aye.
Moe: Aye.
Joe: But ...
Larry: It's settled, chief. Drop it.

A canonical example of management under conflicting pressures (plus fallacies of illicit generalization and ignoring the negative).

 

[AV1611VET]

with "SETI" - same evidence, different

How is SETI an acronym for Same Evidence Different Interpretation? wouldn't that be SEDI?

 

[AV1611VET]

An excellent example of real human behavior that has nothing to do with the scientific method or science or scientists.

They sure got involved in a hurry though, didn't they!?

 

[AV1611VET]

A canonical example of management under conflicting pressures (plus fallacies of illicit generalization and ignoring the negative).

Interesting word choice.

 

[Frank Robert]

OK. How did Darwin (and others who supported evolution) react to criticism? Did he accept it as fair - or think some was fair and some was not? Did the criticism motivate him to do things he might not have otherwise?

Darwin knew that his work would be criticized because of conflicts with Christian beliefs. Is it fair to criticize the progress of science because they are in conflict with religious beliefs?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it fair to criticize the progress of science because they are in conflict with religious beliefs?

As long as said conflicts don't involve Arab-phoning words in the Bible, outright lies, automatically denying things on principle, giving equal airtime to polytheism, spitting on flags and national anthems, denying cause-and-effect, relegating the koine to home-schoolers living in trailer parks, refusing employment based on religious beliefs, calling us and our Redeemer glorified apes, denying that Israel is living in her Promised Land because [insert Bible patron here] never existed, insisting Israel co-exist with Gentiles, and on and on and on ... why on Earth should I have any criticisms with the progress of science?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Interesting word choice.

If equivocation is your thing.

CANONICAL | Cambridge English Dictionary:

"canonical adjective (OF WORK)
considered to be good and important, and worth studying"​

 

[AV1611VET]

If equivocation is your thing.

CANONICAL | Cambridge English Dictionary:

"canonical adjective (OF WORK)
considered to be good and important, and worth studying"​

Oh ... that one! Sorry!

 

[Job 33:6]

It does if one asked a historical question for the purposes of understanding people's motivations and not for the purposes of supporting, refuting, or otherwise debating the merits of evolution.



It doesn't bother me if you blame God, but that's a topic for a different thread.

.


I think that your question is similar to asking why science even exists. Like, why do any scientists seek to discover things?

The answer is probably that people have an interest in understanding ourselves and the universe.

Why did Columbus sail the Atlantic? He had a desire and a predisposition to understand himself and the world he lived in.

I think most people can relate to this. If you're a child and you start digging in soil, or you want to walk around and see what's on the other side of a house etc. It's a natural interest of exploration and discovery that drives much of science. I would think this played a role in Darwin's journey.

Whenever I go out and search for fossils or I study rock formations, it's for similar reasons. I am curious about who I am, what I am, where I came from and where I am now, when I came to be and how I came. to be. And I think these are fair questions for any human being, regardless of that individuals faith.

 

[Estrid]

.


I think that your question is similar to asking why science even exists. Like, why do any scientists seek to discover things?

The answer is probably that people have an interest in understanding ourselves and the universe.

Why did Columbus sail the Atlantic? He had a desire and a predisposition to understand himself and the world he lived in.

I think most people can relate to this. If you're a child and you start digging in soil, or you want to walk around and see what's on the other side of a house etc. It's a natural interest of exploration and discovery that drives much of science. I would think this played a role in Darwin's journey.

The head of the department gave a talk to
the new grad students when we started.
One comment he made that I always remembered-

"Scientists are curious people who love
to learn how things work".

Under that heading we note that for scientists
to be in any way intellectually dishonest is
so totally contrary to their very nature.

Not that a few will not fall into vice, as
I suppose some people cheat at solitaire.

Either one, challenge and joy are gone.