Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Other side of Darwin's life not often documented (wife 'saved his life')
San Angelo Standard Times ^ | May 30, 2009 | Fazlur Rahman

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.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: alfredrussellwallace; alfredwallace; anniedarwin; biography; charlesdarwin; consanguinous; creation; darwin; emmawedgwood; evolution; fazlurrahman; georgedarwin; heraclitus; intelligentdesign; whencousinsmarry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-186 next last
To: betty boop
"I'm trying to understand your thinking here. At this point, I'd have to say you seem to be rather attracted to the doctrines of atheism, a/k/a nihilism."

I'm a poet.

“A Well Of Joy”
( -- phrase by Joel Osteen)

There is a well of joy in you,
An ocean in your blood.
Be glad for this component,
The rest of you is mud.

Deep down inside your spirit,
A depth of strength and love,
Wells up to bring the zest to life,
A gift from up above.

When parched by circumstances,
Or reeling from a blow,
Tap into depths of energy,
Unlimited below.

The lifting of this resource,
Will lift you up as well,
To slake your thirst for happiness,
In places that you dwell.

The desert land of loneliness,
The mountains of despair,
Are quite improved by tiny sips,
Of nectar you can share.

Just reach inside your spirit,
The recipe is this,
When desolation comes to call,
Give it a sloppy kiss!

NicknamedBob . . . July 8, 2007

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.

121 posted on 06/06/2009 2:28:00 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (Error is patient. It has all of time for its disturbing machinations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"...if one cannot learn anything about "the rewards due him in an afterlife," one has no reason to alter his behavior in the here and now."

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.

122 posted on 06/06/2009 2:53:44 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (Error is patient. It has all of time for its disturbing machinations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
I'm a poet.

Poets are not noted for being "chaotic thinkers."

123 posted on 06/06/2009 4:02:53 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
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.

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?

124 posted on 06/06/2009 4:09:46 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"Is "Jiminy Cricket" your code phrase for Jesus Christ?"

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.

125 posted on 06/06/2009 4:29:32 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (Error is patient. It has all of time for its disturbing machinations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob

Post 122 does not give any indication of a “standard.”


126 posted on 06/06/2009 6:31:57 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
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."

127 posted on 06/06/2009 6:47:04 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (Error is patient. It has all of time for its disturbing machinations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob; betty boop
Anyway, other methods of teleportation may not be entirely encumbered by this problem. So-called "natural" teleportation, as done by the X-Men, other comic-book superheroes, and Gully Foyle from Bester's "The Stars My Destination", seem to involve disappearing from one location and reappearing in another without aid from mechanical contrivances. It's more a matter of making the space between places disappear than of making an object disassemble itself and then reassemble itself.

That is the only way I can see the "whole" person being able to relocate, i.e. wormhole, folding or pinching space/time.

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.

128 posted on 06/06/2009 11:03:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
"betty boop and I are coming from the math, science and philosophy side."

From your lips to God's funny-bone.

129 posted on 06/07/2009 8:18:17 AM PDT by NicknamedBob (Error is patient. It has all of time for its disturbing machinations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob; betty boop
me: "betty boop and I are coming from the math, science and philosophy side."

you: From your lips to God's funny-bone.

Actually, God laughs at the ones who deny Him.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

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

betty boop and I do not deny God in anything. We see the Creation itself (spiritual and physical) as a revelation of God and that includes math, science and philosophy.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

Indeed, I aver the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner) is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

God's Name is I AM.

Do you deny God?


130 posted on 06/07/2009 8:39:47 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
"Do you deny God?"

A Walk With God

God and I were walking,
Along the endless sands,
Of the beaches of forever,
On my familiar span.

I had a million questions,
He had one answer, "Yes!"
Whatever's not a small reward,
Is just a simple test.

I try to walk here every day.
We watch the time and tide.
The rhythm of days is lulling,
Just I, and with Him beside.

I have no fear of fortune,
As We are walking here,
For peace and joy encompass me,
Because my God is near.

NicknamedBob . . . . . . . . April 17, 2007

We're neighbors.

131 posted on 06/07/2009 9:20:41 AM PDT by NicknamedBob (Error is patient. It has all of time for its disturbing machinations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob; Alamo-Girl
"Essentially, if you can't undo it, don't do it."

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?

132 posted on 06/07/2009 10:38:13 AM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

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?


133 posted on 06/07/2009 10:42:52 AM PDT by Stonewall Jackson (Put your trust in God; but mind to keep your powder dry. - Oliver Cromwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob; betty boop
We're neighbors.

Truly said, though my walk may be different from yours:

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5

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

To God be the glory!

134 posted on 06/07/2009 11:23:04 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
. For the simple reason that there isn't a single thing that you could ever do that can be undone by you.

So very true. Wouldn't it be nice, though?

Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

135 posted on 06/07/2009 11:24:14 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; NicknamedBob
betty boop and I do not deny God in anything. We see the Creation itself (spiritual and physical) as a revelation of God and that includes math, science and philosophy.

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).

136 posted on 06/07/2009 12:36:56 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"If you can't undo it, don't do it."

"... 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.

137 posted on 06/07/2009 12:41:48 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (Error is patient. It has all of time for its disturbing machinations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob; Alamo-Girl
My philosophy is to try to make the world a better place.

How? And in what way?

Oh, and by the way: Do you reject God?

138 posted on 06/07/2009 12:43:59 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
So will you answer my dearest sister in Christ's question: "Do you deny 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.

139 posted on 06/07/2009 12:52:47 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (Error is patient. It has all of time for its disturbing machinations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob; Alamo-Girl
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.

140 posted on 06/07/2009 12:59:11 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-186 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson