|
Darwin
Feb 6, 2009 20:54:32 GMT
Post by Noelfitz on Feb 6, 2009 20:54:32 GMT
Recently there have been TV pro grammes to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species".
I was annoyed by a programme with Sir David Attenborough, in which he discussed Darwin's religious views, noting how he would go to the church with his family, but not attend the service. Also he mentioned the contributions of Gregor Mendel, without mentioning his religious views and the fact that he was a Catholic priest.
I do not think a scientist's religion should be considered in discussing his or her scientific opinions. Scientific views should be discussed on their own merit.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 8, 2009 17:51:29 GMT
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Feb 8, 2009 17:51:29 GMT
I agree. In any case I think he has oversimplified Darwin's position. As far as I am aware, he was not an unbeliever.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 8, 2009 18:19:23 GMT
Post by guillaume on Feb 8, 2009 18:19:23 GMT
I agree. In any case I think he has oversimplified Darwin's position. As far as I am aware, he was not an unbeliever. He must be indeed. Creationism, also known as Catholicism, doesn't match indeed evolutionism. Sounds like God made us monkeys then decided to improve Its creation. Like : Well, no, monkeys (homo sapiens or whatever) are not good enough. Let's create a proper creature with brain, feelings and soul. But let's get rid of the Dinosaurs first. Well, regarding Dinosaurs and others, I had a big... wondering about why did God created them at the first place to be honest. There are proof they really existed... Just visit any natural museum. maybe not.... Hahaha, I am becoming a dinosaurs-negationist ! Only joking.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 9, 2009 10:33:48 GMT
Post by Harris on Feb 9, 2009 10:33:48 GMT
I agree. In any case I think he has oversimplified Darwin's position. As far as I am aware, he was not an unbeliever. He must be indeed. Creationism, also known as Catholicism, doesn't match indeed evolutionism. Sounds like God made us monkeys then decided to improve Its creation. Like : Well, no, monkeys (homo sapiens or whatever) are not good enough. Let's create a proper creature with brain, feelings and soul. But let's get rid of the Dinosaurs first. Well, regarding Dinosaurs and others, I had a big... wondering about why did God created them at the first place to be honest. There are proof they really existed... Just visit any natural museum. maybe not.... Hahaha, I am becoming a dinosaurs-negationist ! Only joking. I reject the comparison you make between catholics and creationists up to a point. There’s a big difference between Catholicism and the Creationists such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind who lecture about Creationism around the world. These people believe that the earth was made by god 6000 years ago and that dinosaurs existed simultaneously with humans. They make these claims flying in the face of all geological and archaeological evidence to the contrary. Also, just to mark your card gullaume, Darwin never claimed we came from monkeys as you state. He claims that both monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor. This is a common mistake made by people who have a poor understanding of his work in this area. His work does not comment on how life started on earth but examines how one species evolves into another one over time. By the way, just for the record, humans are still classified as apes by zoologists. Modern Monkeys are just one branch on a huge tree with thousands or branches.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 9, 2009 14:58:52 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2009 14:58:52 GMT
Darwin was an unbeliever in later life. He was brought up as an Unitarian, became a member of the Church of England as a young man (it was then necessary to attend Oxford- this need not imply deliberate insincerity; Cambridge was associated with a very rationalising version of Anglicanism which played down the supernatural elements of faith) and developed agnosticism after his favourite daughter died in childhood in 1850 from a genetic disease; he could not believe that a loving God would allow an innocent to suffer so. (Darwin's wife was his first cousin. She remained a devout Unitarian and expressed distress at his unbelief - was a devout Unitarian; after his death he was discovered to have kept one of her letters to him in which she expressed distress over his unbelief and to have noted on it that he had shed many secret tears in answer to her distress.) Claims that he reverted to Christianity at the end of his life appear to be based on nothing more than expressions of respect for the philanthropic work done by many churches and religious believers. He suffered like Job, and for whatever reason he could not give Job's answer; insofar as he sought truth he served God unawares and God will reward him for it. Young-earth creationism is a dreadful fallacy based on a form of Biblical literalism which has never been part of Catholic faith, which is not to say that many Catholics than and now have not been led astray by it, including many in authority. I remember being a creationist (in that sense) for a few years myself when I was a teenager, and I am sure it harmed my intellectual development. The alliance between Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics on certain points of faith has many benefits, but one of the problems it brings is a tendency for some catholics to uncritically absorb Evangelical views on these sort of points. (I know of Catholics who read the LEFT BEHINDbok s without noticing that they are fundamentally anti-Catholic). Insofar as Darwinism raises questions for catholicism it they are the same question raised by Job - why do the innocent suffer? The answer is on the Cross, and we must embrace our own crosses. It is easier to write this at the keyboard than to live it n the sickbed or the other places of suffering, but it's the only way.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 10, 2009 5:11:51 GMT
Post by hazelireland on Feb 10, 2009 5:11:51 GMT
Thanks to hibernicus for beating me to it on correcting the mistake about Darwin’s unbelief. I would add to this a rather tongue in cheek comment that he was, as mentioned, a Unitarian. These are people who have been described as “believing in one god…. Maximum”.
Second correction, Kent Hovind does not lecture around the world in the present tense. He did in the past but he is now serving a much deserved prison sentence for tax evasion.
This is indicative of his honesty. I have watched a lot of his “debates” on you tube and I have seen him being told certain things were wrong…. In black and white that some of his comments were just starkly 100% wrong…. And he would then go and repeat them again in the next debates.
In one case for example he quoted a book incorrectly and his antagonist had that very book on his desk. HE opened it, showed that the quote was infact 100% wrong, and Kent repeated it in every debate after this anyway.
This is a man who not just KNOWS his creationism is wrong, but was happy to continue making a living off people who believe it by championing it, earning the money and then refusing to pay tax on those earnings. He deserves 100% the sentence handed to him.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 10, 2009 20:04:10 GMT
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Feb 10, 2009 20:04:10 GMT
Thanks to hibernicus for beating me to it on correcting the mistake about Darwin’s unbelief. I would add to this a rather tongue in cheek comment that he was, as mentioned, a Unitarian. These are people who have been described as “believing in one god…. Maximum”. And thanks to you both for putting me right. My mistaken view was based on a vague recollection of a discussion on Talking History on Newstalk some months ago.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 12, 2009 14:00:22 GMT
Post by Noelfitz on Feb 12, 2009 14:00:22 GMT
Guillaume,
are you acting the monkey? I do not understand what you are getting at. Catholicism is not creationism.
Harris,
Your post is sound. One problem I have is the difference between a bishop and a gorilla, as they are both primates.
Hibernicus,
Thank youi for a most sincere and moving post. Did Darwin study theology before he studied science.?
Another problem I have with Darwin is that he rushed into publicatrion after receiving in private a letter from another another (Wallace??) who independently had the same ideas. Also his grandfather considered evolution before him as did others such as Lamarck and possibly Sts Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine, as well the author of Genesis, where the world developed over time amd man appeared after other forms of life. Was Darwin behaviour ethical?
I quote "Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, said that Darwin had been anticipated by St Augustine of Hippo. The 4th-century theologian had “never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and that forms of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas had made similar observations in the Middle Ages, he added.
He said it was time that theologians as well as scientists grappled with the mysteries of genetic codes and “whether the diversification of life forms is the result of competition or cooperation between species”. As for the origins of Man, although we shared 97 per cent of our “genetic inheritance” with apes, the remaining 3 per cent “is what makes us unique”, including religion.
“I maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian theology,” Professor Tanzella-Nitti added. "
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 12, 2009 14:35:44 GMT
Post by hazelireland on Feb 12, 2009 14:35:44 GMT
Noel,
Good question here but actually I think you have made a very common error in this post from which the questioning of Darwin’s ethical motivation stems. For this reason the answer to your question is not yes or no as I question instead the foundation of the question and your reason for asking it.
You are indeed correct that many people had discussed evolution before Darwin and the idea of life changing slowly over time. I heartily recommend reading the work of Erasmus Darwin as you mention here too!
The error you make is that this is NOT what Darwin brought to the table. He did not invent or discover evolution or evolutionary thought. Knowledge of Evolution pre-dates Darwin in many places and for a long time as you correctly state. You may even be surprised at just how far it goes back.
However what Darwin brought was a description of the MECHANISM by which Evolution occurs and this is a very important distinction to make. This mechanism is “Natural Selection” and “Common Descent”. The discovery of this mechanism was a giant leap forward and shed a new light on evolutionary thought.
Think of Einstein and Newton. They sure did not invent gravity, many people were aware of it before they came along, but their “genius” was in starting in describing the mechanisms by which it occurs and operates.
He opened up a whole new avenue of thought and Evolution today would be unrecognisable to him were he alive to see it. As one professor puts it….
This happens in Science all the time however. Most of the discoveries in Science if you look at them closely you will find that they were credited to one person but that in fact it was “just time” for them to be discovered. The evidence was in, the ground work laid, the situation right and someone would have emerged from the ferment of thought going at the time to announce the discovery to the world.
You can track this anywhere in science and I recommend the invention of the “Steam Engine” as a perfect case in point. Is it “ethical” that we assign credit to one person often for their work when they infact were just the tip of the wave that reached the shore first? Probably not. However this is OUR ethical problem and not that of the scientist we credit for the work. Darwin’s behaviour was perfectly ethical in this, it is our treatment of history that is not. However he did most of the hard slog and ground work and for this he is the best choice to allocate the credit to. He did not just mention it as some before him had, but fully described it, experimented with it and where experiments were not possible he described necessary future experiments and methods to falsify his theories.
As with Darwin or with James Watt of the steam engine the same professor puts it better than I:
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 13, 2009 13:57:12 GMT
Post by Noelfitz on Feb 13, 2009 13:57:12 GMT
HazelIreland,
many thanks for your reply.
You point out that Natual Selection was Darwin's great contribution. It is not survival of the most intelligent or the strongest, but of the most adaptable. That is what the fittest means.
Perhaps this is a lesson for today. To survive we will need to adapt to a post-tiger economy.
I still have a problem. How is it that primitive forms of live still exist, like ferns, fungi etc.?
In my garden I hav a Ginko biloba growing, which is a very primitive tree and it seems to be doing quite well.
Your post reminds me of Newton's idea of "standing on great men's shoulders" and on the controversy about should only Watson and Crick be considered the originators of the Double Helix.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 14, 2009 1:03:41 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Feb 14, 2009 1:03:41 GMT
As regards Darwin and Wallace: Darwin had been working on his theory of natural selection for years. Wallace (who was a respected naturalist) developed a similar idea in a flash of interest and wrote to Darwin to ask his opinion on it. This gave Darwin (who was very cautious) the stimulus to publish his own work. Darwin's first paper and Wallace's letter were read together at a meeting of the Royal Society; Darwin did not try to suppress the fact that Wallace had proposed the theory independently, and though Wallace differed from Darwin in many respects (he was a religious believer - I believe a spiritualist) he always stated that in his opinion Darwin had acted quite fairly towards him and deserved the lion's share of the credit which he received.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 16, 2009 8:23:26 GMT
Post by hazelireland on Feb 16, 2009 8:23:26 GMT
Noel,
Thanks for that but I am not sure I understand either the question or its basis. Maybe you can help me and elaborate more before I reply. What do you mean why is there still such life forms? Why would there not be or why would you expect there not to be?
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 16, 2009 19:15:34 GMT
Post by Noelfitz on Feb 16, 2009 19:15:34 GMT
Hazelireland my point is that as life evolved I would have thought that primitive forms of life would disappear and be replaced by fitter ones.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 16, 2009 22:30:58 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Feb 16, 2009 22:30:58 GMT
Noelfitz doesn't seem to understand what "fittest" means in the Darwinian context. "Fittest" simply means "best adapted to survive in the circumstances where it finds itself". If conditions in a particular place are such that slime moulds thrive and higher forms of life perish, then slime moulds are the "fittest" in that context.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 17, 2009 8:35:30 GMT
Post by hazelireland on Feb 17, 2009 8:35:30 GMT
Noel, Yes I see the problem. It is a common misconception that we can mostly blame on science itself. Science is notoriously bad at communicating with the public and explaining what its theories do say. There just is not, and has never been, enough Carl Sagans out there presenting science to the lay man. This usually means that people who do not understand the theories, or disagree with them, build up a straw man for the public. This is a common example of it and a very easy one to make given our natural human propensity towards seeing ourselves as superior to all around us. Hibernicus summarises it very well here that “fittest” is a false friend. It gives a false interpretation of what the theory claims. The phrase “Survival of the fittest” has probably been the worst one ever in helping people misunderstand the theory and its basis. People commonly think of fittest as bigger, stronger, more advanced. The good news is only a slight modification in your way of thinking is required to rectify the error. What you need to do is drop this phrase “primitive” from your appraisal of the situation. Mammals and Trees may be more _complex_ than single celled organisms, but that does not mean they are more advanced or the other is more primitive. You could imagine comparing a high end 2009 Mercedes Benz with a low end 2009 Fiat Cinquecento. Both are the pinnacle of their class with a wealth of technological advancement and history behind them. Neither of them are primitive, though one is clearly more complex. The less complex of them has advantages the other one will never enjoy as my ex boss found out when I got further on 20euro petrol than him on the way to a hotel in Lurgan one day. I also beat him on a race to the hotel that day by performing a U-Turn on a country road and getting to the hotel before him while he had to drive 2 miles further to find a place he could turn his monster car. I then finally took a parking space that was the last in the lot and completely unusable by anyone else due to its size. He ended up parking in the hotel 5 minutes walk up the road. Clearly his car was more advanced in every way, but in the right environment my car had at least three advantages he could never enjoy. So no, there is no primitive and advanced here. It is merely a large wealth of diversity in which every organism fits into the situation and range of requirements in which it finds itself. There is no reason simple organisms should be replaced. Quite the opposite in fact. The more complex we and other mammals become the more opportunity there is for smaller organisms to excel by way of parasitic, viral or symbiotic existence. Even the Noel sitting here reading this reply is not a single organism sitting on a chair, but is in fact a wealth of bacteria crawling over every micro-millimetre of your skin inside and outside and all throughout your organs, bowels and innards all working to better themselves with different effects good and bad on you and each other. Some of them, in fact, if removed would leave you unable to survive and you would swiftly die. Sometimes “fittest” therefore is not bigger, stronger and more advanced. In certain environments, such as your lower intestines, being smaller, weaker, more innocuous and plain and basic is the best way to go. And, contrary to the mistaken view of our being “advanced”, “less primitive” and “fitter” and contrary to the bible and its claims that we have dominion over all life…. It clearly is not so. We are an easily killed species. Pump a train station with cyanide and we all die. Earth quakes or even a cold snap in the weather finishes us off. Disease wipes out huge numbers of us and we are slow to recover. Yet we wage war on these little life forms. Anti bacterials, corrosive chemicals, vaccines and more, all created from the pinnacle of our scientific knowledge and abilities, and these little “primitive” life forms which you refer to mutate, survive and come back with just as much speed and numbers as ever before. We have little right to refer to them as primitive nor to give credence to the bible when it claims dominion over all life. Clearly these little blighters have complete dominion over us and our struggles against them are a drop in the ocean. In fact only in the last couple of weeks are we really announcing in the scientific world just how complicated some of these "primitive" things are: dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/13/common-cold-genes.html
|
|