Blogging Live from Darwin / Chicago 2009

remember a few weeks ago watching a program on NOVA about new discoveries
that environmental conditions at particular points in the lives of grandparents life, had effect on their DNA/ genes that would express it's self two generations later on the grandchildren. It was a very interesting program and I found it fascinating.

Then Today as I was doing a little reading when I came across this.

Charles Darwin wrote in pg. 7 chapter 1 variation under domestication, On the
origin of species 1859

But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of
variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements
having been affected prior to the act of conception. Several reasons make me
believe in this; but the chief one is the remarkable effect which confinement
or cultivation has on the functions of the reproductive system; this system
appearing to be far more susceptible than any other part of the organisation,
to the action of any change in the conditions of life.

I was immediately reminded of your program.
Is this another one of Darwin‚s predictions coming true?

I just watched a presentation on the emerging field of Eco Eco (evolutionary ecology) and the presenter showed a quote from The Origin where Darwin discussed the affect evolving organisms may have on their environment.

The ol' boy nailed it again.

Although there have been discussions during some talks of what he got wrong as well.

So while he was quite a guy, he wasn't perfect, and no one around here is "worshiping" him the way creationists like to claim.

Just honest respect for a damn good scientists.

Being an atheist, it would be unlikely I would worship anyone.

Thanks,,,

I just completed a biography on Charles Darwin; although sympathetic with the plight of the savages he ran into on his journey he discoursed at length regarding the superiority of white Euro man and had he/she/it higher up the evolutionary food chain than the noble-but-poor savage. Can anybody help me rationalize his position (ignorance of the 19th century,perhaps?)also the family was involved with the burgeoning eugenics movement and inspired it. True and false?

Secondly, I have heard that he was an atheist from the get-go; others say he was a theist until his research led him towards atheism.
Thanks

Um... you completed a biography, and now you're asking these questions?

Or did you mean you just finished reading one?
There are others.

JJJ III,

Darwin was probably slightly less racist than average for his time, but his nomenclature was "unenlightened" by today's standards. However, re "evolutionary food chain", you're conflating Social Darwinism's "evolutionary ladder" (yes, popular after his time, and mistakenly attributed to him) with his real position. I urge you to figure out the difference.

Re the eugenics movement, false, by any reasonable definition of "involved" and "the family".

Re his religion, it's pretty well documented that his faith waned over the years. Whether or not it was due to research is hard to prove.

GuyeFaux said: Re his religion, it's pretty well documented that his faith waned over the years. Whether or not it was due to research is hard to prove.

eric said:

GuyeFaux said: Re his religion, it's pretty well documented that his faith waned over the years. Whether or not it was due to research is hard to prove.

I think the standard 'story' of Darwin attributes his loss of faith more to losing his daughter than his scientific research.

I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.

Darwin was a nineteenth-century Englishman of the upper class, a "gentleman" in the contemporary sense. He was a product of his time and his background, as are we all. He certainly thought of non-Europeans as less "advanced", on the basis, essentially, of their technology and polity.

This was also the universal opinion of Europeans of his day and far later. There was practically no dissent from the opinion that the possession of the steam engine and the nation-state demonstrated that European-derived civilisation represented the highest stage of human development. That attitude was really only challenged after the First World War. Gandhi's waspish remark about "European civilisation" would only have produced puzzled bemusement, earlier.

However Darwin also certainly thought of indigenous people as human beings like himself, and he deplored and denounced their slavery, subjugation, ill-treatment and genocide. Personally, he was universally described as kindly and gentle, and he was a devoted and beloved father and husband. As the letter quoted above shows, he was unable to reconcile the cruelty, suffering and pain he saw in nature with the idea of a benevolent and loving Heavenly Father.

I can't fault his reasoning. If God damned him for that, then God's a monster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCNftnJZX1Y

This video contains quotes which show Darwin's deep respect for foreign cultures and ethnicities. You might google for the quotes and find the context in an online edition of Darwin's works.

Dave:

You are correct in your comments re: Darwin being part and parcel of his times. He was a kind and sympathetic person towards other races. It does not let him off the hook. One cannot being excused for his cultural-built philosophies (nee "theories") than his 19th century understanding of the simple, dumb cell being the foundation of life. So when the 21st century builds on his scientific work, and finds that he was ignorant due to when he was alive and the advancement of science at that time, so too we can look at his methodological naturalism as naive and in need of a greater understanding. He puzzled over the Cambrian Explosion. He left that for later generations to take a whack at; science has and guess what they found -- his theory has been proven (a prepondeerence of the evidence) wrong. Why hang on to that simple 19th century opinion from his orign of life theory? He would likely be a member of the (apostate) Discovery Institute and the new, fresh ideas they are generating. As he was a game breaker for his time now a new generation is "breaking on through to the other side." [Jim Morrison]

Dave:

God does not "damn" Darwin. Not the Biblical God, anyhoo. If Darwin is damned it is due to his own unbelief. That free will thing that was intelligently designed.

Eric: Thanks. My wife and I have buried two of our three children. the first time we ran from Him; the second time we ran towards him. As St. Paul taught me, Lord, I don't ask why bad things happened to me; I only ask what I can learn through this pain.

Eugenics: gotta look up the facts. Take a gander at his grandfather's writings, as well as those Darwinists descended on Darwin's personal tree of life. There is direct involvement. Not undirected, though.

his theory has been proven (a prepondeerence of the evidence) wrong.

Yeah, don't just accuse scientists as a group of continually ignoring some well known basic principle or evidence. One scientist might miss something simple, but would a large number of them miss the same things at the same time, while competing with each other for funding and recognition? I don't think so.

Henry

It's the "open with the naive and disinterested seeker of truth routine" routine...

Deja vu all over again.

So when the 21st century builds on his scientific work, and finds that he was ignorant due to when he was alive and the advancement of science at that time, so too we can look at his methodological naturalism as naive and in need of a greater understanding.

JJJ wrote:

"He puzzled over the Cambrian Explosion. He left that for later generations to take a whack at; science has and guess what they found – his theory has been proven (a prepondeerence of the evidence) wrong."

OK I'll bite (although I know I will regret it already). Exactly what do you think that Darwin was wrong about? Exactly why do you think that he was wrong? Exactly what "theory" are you referring to? Exactly what evidence are you referring to? Is this just some crap you read on some lying creationist web site?

Look, I'll make this really simple for you. Darwin was wrong about lots of stuff. He was not wrong about descent with modification. He was not wrong about natural selection. He was not wrong about the Cambrian explosion. He didn't know everything, so what? No one does.

Look, if you think that Darwin was just some quack who got everything wrong, why did you do a biography on him (or even read one)?

Oh and by the way, Darwin did not invent methodological naturalism, nor is it "wrong" in any meaningful sense. If you don't like it fine, don't use it. If you have a better alternative then fine, please use it. But don't use modern technology to denigrate the methods that have been used to create that technology. There is a word for people who do that.

Rilke's granddaughter: This is incorrect. No evidence has ever been shown to disprove Darwininian evolution... If you have genuine counterevidence feel free to produce it

That there "Cambrian explosion" was simply the period in which hard parts became common enough to have left some fossils that people have found. What other explanation is really needed for that?

Now whether they diverged from one type that developed hard parts once, or several evolved this rather expensive trait due to evolutionary pressure from enemies that had already done so (or were in the process of doing so), could be an interesting question. (And has probably already been answered by the experts.)

Henry

I'll let the actual scientists try science on JJJ. I know that science consists of finding objective evidence and drawing conclusions only from that evidence. Hence the request for JJJ to produce his evidence and show his reasoning from it. He will, I predict, either fail to produce any or go on from here to win a Nobel Prize.

First, allow me to commiserate with JJJ about the death of his children. I cannot imagine what I would do if I lost my only child, my son. I doubt very much that I would bear it with JJJ's fortitude. And believe me, I am quite sincere about that. The shiver of dread that passed over me when I read that was absolutely real. We have come close to losing him, twice.

Lacking in science, I take up JJJ's idea that Darwin may be damned for his unbelief. (I quite take the point that JJJ did not say he was.)

It appears from this that JJJ thinks that God allows eternal torment to be the consequence, not of any moral failing, and not for any specific evil, but simply for not believing, and also that God is just and loving.

I cannot comprehend how it is possible to believe both. I don't believe the former; if I did, the only conclusion I could reach from it is the one I gave: that God's a monster.

Instead, assume that there was no Charles Darwin. Assume that the Beagle capsized a mile out of Portsmouth, killing all hands. There was no voyage of discovers, there was no “Origin”. You have a clean slate, and an open field. Please give us one bit of empirically verifiable evidence which supports ID, JJJ.

— stevaroni

JJJ III said: He [Darwin] puzzled over the Cambrian Explosion. He left that for later generations to take a whack at; science has and guess what they found -- his theory has been proven (a prepondeerence of the evidence) wrong.

Why hang on to that simple 19th century opinion from his orign of life theory?

He would likely be a member of the (apostate) Discovery Institute and the new, fresh ideas they are generating.

Well, I can only speak for myself, of course, but I always go for the "Assume there was no Darwin" because it quickly removes the false dichotomy of the ID argument and goes directly to the real issue, that the Emperor has no clothes.

For decades, the ID argument has been almost exclusively given in terms of "evolution is wrong". I understand why they want to argue that way - it's easy.

Evolution is the natural enemy, and in their eyes, this is an obvious zero-sum game. To them, since the answer is obviously special creation, anything that casts doubt on evolution is evidence for their side.

Since they perceive evolution as a competing religion, if you can demonize Charles Darwin in the process, so much the better.

I like to just give them the ball and an open field, and watch them either 1) fumble immediately or 2) (if they're smart) refuse to touch the ball at all. Either way, it's pretty demonstrative.

Past that, I'm open to either line of questioning, I tend to gravitate to "give me one little scrap of positive evidence", which invariably results in them delivering nothing, hopefully very publically. But "What happened when" is also pretty good, since (unless you're dealing with a YEC who will actually admit what he believes) it requires immediate evasion.

Why hang on to that simple 19th century opinion from his origin of life theory?

Adding to stevaroni's examples:

Why do they keep drawing benzene with three double bonds when we know know that's wrong?

As you know, and creationists either don't or pretend not to, it's because, like Newtonian physics and Darwinian evolution, it's useful and instructive even when modern advances (in this case molecular orbitals) are ommitted because they may confuse those new to the subject.

Why do they keep drawing benzene with three double bonds when we know know that’s wrong?

Cause that makes it easy to count the number of bonds attached to each atom? It’s elementary!

— Henry J

But I think if evolution teachers first make it clear how we know that life is arranged in a ~4-billion year old “tree” before jumping into natural selection