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.”
Emma - maybe we need to rethink her role in all this after all....
The Prime Mover
A bit on the so-called “atheist” who was indeed a Christian who followed the facts where they led.
As opposed to some on this board, he had intellectual honesty.
Or will you damn him for using his genius? We shall all pass on and our silly posts will fade into nothingness. But 100, 500, a thousand years, 10 thousand years will continue to honor his unique and insightful discernment.
Darwin didn’t discover evolution. He observed minor variations within species, assumed without any scientific evidence whatsoever that said variations could cross every taxonomic boundary, and further assumed without evidence that this had been going on for millions of years, and further assumed without a shred of evidence that this traced all the way back to a mythical first protocell. In other words, Darwinian evolution is a materialist religion, not science.
Yes--the laws of our Creator, the Lord God, Almighty.
vaudine
Why, yes.
The first version of "Be fruitful, and multiply" is written in the genetic code of all life.
Perhaps not a "law", but a suggestion that should be given great consideration.
Newton’s First Law of Motion a/k/a Inertia: the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, or an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force.
The Law of Inertia dictates that without some outside force, all that compressed matter of the universe would still remain at rest. So, where did the force come from to cause the Big Bang at 2:17 p.m. one Tuesday afternoon 8 billion years ago?
Of course. Evolution was invented by a guy named Murphy. We call it Murphy's Law. "Anything that can happen, will happen."
"He observed minor variations within species, assumed without any scientific evidence whatsoever that said variations could cross every taxonomic boundary,"
Minor variations are what drive evolution, just as consumer choice drives economics.
There are no taxonomic boundaries. They are simply convenient demarcations within a broad spectrum of variation.
"... and further assumed without evidence that this had been going on for millions of years,"
The evidence was his own observations, which you have already acknowledged, as well as his understanding of the geological processes of the Earth, which are clearly evident to any honest observer.
"... and further assumed without a shred of evidence that this traced all the way back to a mythical first protocell."
Darwin was not promoting any kind of mythology. He was simply offering an alternative explanation for the variation between life forms that is clearly observable. This alternative explanation is analogous to Copernicus' alternative explanation for planetary orbits, which simplified our conception so radically that it soon became obvious that this clear and simple explanation was the truth.
"In other words, Darwinian evolution is a materialist religion, not science."
In your words, it is. Do you find religion offensive?
If observation, hypothesis, and verified predictions are not science, what is?
Yes, yes...indeed, just where DID all that force come from? (hey, but, lets get it correct - it was 2:17am, not pm! From an orientation perspective, the center of expansion is the other way....)
” If observation, hypothesis, and verified predictions are not science, what is?”
Now that up there looks a lot like a law too....Bacon’s Law I suspect. I dunno....laws could better explained in my view...
What observable, repeatable evidence did Darwin have for no taxonomic boundaries? What observable, repeatable evidence did Darwin have all life derives from a single common ancestor? Sorry, Darwin was practicing Evo-religion, not science.
PS I have nothing against religion. But I do object to the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism hiding the religious motivations behind their unscientific historical interpretations.
"... just where DID all that force come from?"
Well, if it were compressed, that would indicate that some force compressed it, wouldn't it?
But what has this to do with evolution, or Darwin?
I’m a Christian, but I have no trouble thanking Darwin for his contribution to understanding our world. I think evolution by natural selection works to explain many things. It also seems to have its limitations, and needs some refinements or corrections. I very much appreciate the Intelligent Design advocates for elucidating those issues. Does it have to be God or evolution? Can we open the science book and the Bible and simply see what we can learn? (Uh, I’m afraid I’m sounding like I’m ready to hold hands and sing Kumbayah...) But really, if an accurate understanding of the world is the goal then patience, humility and a willingness to accept that we do not have answers for every scientific anomaly would help more than choosing up sides for and against Darwin.
"PS I have nothing against religion. But I do object to the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism hiding the religious motivations behind their unscientific historical interpretations."
Darwin asserted nothing about taxonomic boundaries. You did, and I did.
Common ancestry is a derived concept formulated from the observance of shared DNA, a discovery that Darwin's observations predated. He was only describing how nature tends to shape animals and adjust them to better fit their ecological niches, just as flowing water softens its own bed.
If you have nothing against religion, you should refrain from attempting to insult opinions you find disfavorable by calling them religions.
"... object to the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism hiding the religious motivations ..." -- Now you're inventing mythological nonsense.
By the way, your phrase, "materialistic religion" sounds like some "focus-tested" wording designed to get people's nerves on edge.
You say you have nothing against religion. Should we conclude that you do have something against materialism?
"You some kinda Communist, boy?" (/Foghorn Leghorn character)
That's a very mature attitude. It is probably exactly the one chosen by the majority of calm and rational people.
It may, however, be that "an accurate understanding of the world" is not what is desired for you and your loved ones. How could you be mindlessly led in that case?
Likewise, we use materialism to explain biology. If we waited for God to poof up living things out of nothing, we'd be waiting forever. He doesn't work that way.
Or the laws are just human descriptions of the way that things are. Things that are the way they are because they can be no other way.
1707 Linnaeus born. Linnaeus founded a hierarchical system of classification.
1767 Cuvier born. Cuvier founded paleontology, thestudy of fossils.
1795 Hutton proposed geological theory of gradualism.
1798 Publication of Malthus’ Essay on the Priciple of Population.
1809 Publication of Lamarck’s theory of evolution — Darwin born.
1830 Lyell proposed geological theory of uniformitarianism.
1831 Voyage of the Beagle.
1844 Darwin wrote an unpublished essay on natural selection.
1858 Wallace wrote on natural selection. Both Darwin’s and Wallace’s ideas presented to the Linnaean Society of London.
1859 Darwin published The Origin of Species.
1865 Publication of Mendel’s experiments on heredity
1871 Miescher isolated DNA
1892 Weisman demonstrated important role of nucleus in heredity
1900 Mendel’s experiments rediscovered
1903 Sutton demonstrated chromosomes carry units of Mendelian heredity
1943 Demonstration that DNA is the genetic material
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.