Posted on 06/03/2009 8:42:23 PM PDT by gobucks
Charles Darwin’s discovery of evolution is common knowledge but Darwin the person is barely known. Even on his 200th birth anniversary this year — he was born in England on Feb. 12, 1809 — much has been said about his works but little about his inner life of contrasts.
Darwin loved the natural world from childhood. He roamed the wilderness to study insects while neglecting Greek and Latin, the essential subjects. He said of his schooling, “I was considered by all my masters and by my Father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect.”
Sent to medical school at age 16, he quit after seeing an operation on a child. Anesthesia was not yet introduced, and frightened patients stayed awake while surgeons sawed through their legs. His father was upset with him for leaving medicine, as fathers are when their offspring disappoint them. Charles was warned that he would be a disgrace.
He then went to Cambridge University to be a minister. There he found a mentor who would change his life, the Rev. John Henslow, a botanist. He and a geology professor taught Darwin how to observe and interpret nature’s ways.
After Cambridge, while Darwin was pondering entering the ministry, Henslow recommended him as a naturalist for a British survey ship, HMS Beagle, which planned an around-the-globe voyage. Darwin’s father was opposed, calling it a waste of time, but Charles prevailed with the help of his maternal uncle.
After four years, in 1835, the Beagle landed in the Galapagos Archipelago in the Pacific. What Darwin saw there changed our concept of biology. For millions of years, the animals and birds in these isolated islands had evolved in their unique way to survive and propagate. And they had no fear of humans. How and why did these creatures become the way they did? These questions germinated the idea of evolution in Darwin’s mind.
At 29, Darwin married Emma Wedgwood, his first cousin. The marriage saved his life. Emma was 30. An educated woman, she spoke French, German and Italian. And despite their differences in belief — she was a devoted Christian while he turned agnostic — she read Darwin’s papers before they were sent out. Emma, however, is not given the recognition she deserves for supporting her husband’s works, and accepting the demands of his almost constant illness. Moreover, she bore 10 children; the last one, born when she was 48, had Down syndrome.
Darwin’s favorite child, Annie, died of tuberculosis when she was 10. His anguish expresses a father’s loss and his deep love for a child: “Her face now rises before me ... her whole form radiant with the pleasure of giving pleasure ... her dear face bright all the time, with sweetest smiles. ... We have lost the joy of the household, and the solace of our old age.” This loss, some say, turned him into an agnostic.
Darwin’s radical idea — evolution of species over millions of years — starkly contradicted the doctrine on creation. Fearing the church’s hostile reactions, he waited about 20 years before publishing his seminal book, “The Origin of Species,” in 1859. The book transformed science and human thought forever.
Though zealots impede teaching evolution in school, some churches now believe that evolution is compatible with faith. Zealotry diminishes both religion and science.
Why is Darwin universally remembered while other original minds have remained obscure? It’s not just because of his big idea on evolution and change. After all, the idea was not his alone. Another naturalist, Alfred Wallace, came to the same conclusion as that of Darwin. Even philosopher Heraclitus said 2,500 years ago, “There is nothing permanent except change.”
What has kept Darwin alive is the power of his observations and his writings. He has integrated diverse fields of knowledge — including geology, zoology, botany, marine biology, horticulture, animal husbandry and history — to make compelling points for evolution.
We are part of nature, not above it. The poetic conclusion of “The Origin of Species” pictures our kinship to nature: “Contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and ... reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other ... have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
I'm a poet.
Note that this combines a scientific view, "an ocean in your blood", and "the rest of you is mud" -- since dust and clay, plus liquid, produces mud ...
... along with a spiritual component, or several; "... inside your spirit ... a gift from up above ..."
Clearly, my thinking is ...
... um ... chaotic.
I'm a poet.
A common misperception.
It assumes that an individual is incapable of deciding right or wrong, ethical or unethical, and prudent or imprudent, without having Jiminy Cricket harping in his ear.
Not true.
The unnecessary breaking of glass is a wrong action. Why? Because it invites the occurrence of future harm to unknown individuals. It could even bring harm to the one breaking the glass.
Essentially, if you can't undo it, don't do it.
It's a kind of ethical, or practical standard for behavior.
Mindless destruction of resources is stupid, in addition to being wasteful. Why squander what could be of benefit if the circumstances change?
And these are rules that can benefit an individual in a society of only one. How much more beneficial could such actions become in a more crowded venue?
Some of us drive as though we own the road. But the more practical thing to do is to be cooperative.
The idiot who drives aggressively in a pedestrian-crowded parking lot seems unaware that in minutes the roles will be reversed, and he may become the selected prey of a vengeful driver in his own turn.
Most bad behavior is just another word for stupidity.
Poets are not noted for being "chaotic thinkers."
Is "Jiminy Cricket" your code phrase for Jesus Christ? Is He your Enemy?
Let's for the sake of argument say that an individual is capable of deciding right or wrong. According to what standard does he discriminate right and wrong? That is, how does he tell the one from the other?
That's close. "Jiminy Cricket" is my code phrase for "Jiminy Cricket".
"Is He (Jesus) your Enemy?"
He's my older brother.
"Let's for the sake of argument say that an individual is capable of deciding right or wrong. According to what standard does he discriminate right and wrong?"
See post 122. And don't be stupid.
Post 122 does not give any indication of a “standard.”
"Essentially, if you can't undo it, don't do it.
It's a kind of ethical, or practical standard for behavior."
All of the other plot lines, yours and theirs, require a deconstruction of some sort - whether physical or not.
Beyond that it appears the conversation is becoming apples and oranges.
You are coming from the novelist/poet's side, evidently with a lot of scifi tagged to actual scientific theory (e.g. Star Gate.)
betty boop and I are coming from the math, science and philosophy side.
From your lips to God's funny-bone.
you: From your lips to God's funny-bone.
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying], Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. – Psalms 2:1-5
God's Name is I AM.
Do you deny God?
We're neighbors.
If that were really your standard, or rule, then you wouldn't be able to do anything, NicknamedBob. For the simple reason that there isn't a single thing that you could ever do that can be undone by you.
What kind of "standard" is that?
I love what-if stories, and I have often wondered what the world would be like today if Charles Darwin had stayed in medical school or had gone into the clergy like he’d planned. Would someone else have come up with the Theory of Evolution?
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
And that's the truth, NicknamedBob. So will you answer my dearest sister in Christ's question: "Do you deny God?" For if you do, what common ground do we have to stand on in order to engage in rational dialog on any issue?
If you find this remark perplexing, the fundamental insight is from the great mathematician and philosopher René Descartes: The idea of God is the most fundamental idea there is; and all other ideas, including the idea of the ego, or self, necessarily depend on this one primary idea (e.g., for their intelligibility and truthfulness).
"... there isn't a single thing that you could ever do that can be undone by you. What kind of "standard" is that?"
It works for me.
One of my acquired skills and inclinations is an ability to repair things. Normally, after I have repaired something, I have no reason to undo the repair.
My philosophy is to try to make the world a better place. Would you have me undo that?
This concept is not markedly dissimilar to Davy Crockett's "Be sure you're right, then go ahead."
What if you're wrong? You certainly won't be able to undo it. Much better to be right, then you won't have to worry about undoing it.
How? And in what way?
Oh, and by the way: Do you reject God?
You will have to satisfy your curious inquisition with the responses I have already given. I have stated that God and I are neighbors, that we take walks on the beach together.
You can do this too. Just find yourself a lonely beach and look around. If you don't feel the presence of God, simply fall to your knees and strike your fists upon the shore at your feet. This will surely get God's attention.
Go pound sand.
Well, if it would make you feel better....
It seems to me that you and Polis (of Plato's Gorgias) have an awful lot in common.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.