In a message dated 17/12/00 23:11:54 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
>
> I don't know about physics. But in the area of evolution, it was Darwin's
> "primary object to `undermine confidence' in" creation and he actually
said
> so:
>
> "...in the earlier editions of my 'Origin of Species' I perhaps
> attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival
> of the fittest. ... I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I
> had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had
> not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had
> been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the
> inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the
> surrounding conditions. ... Some of those who admit the principle
> of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when
> criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence
> if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I
> am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power,
> which is in itself probable, I have at least as I hope, done good
> service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
> (Darwin C.R, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to
> Sex," [1871], bound in one volume with "The Origin of Species",
> nd., pp.441-442)
>
> Note that Darwin says his *primary* goal was religious (i.e.
anti-creation)
> and his secondary goal was scientific (i.e. natural selection).
Typical nonsense. Darwin says nothing of the sort here.
It's obvious what he says (but then you probably didn't read it, the
commentary was copied from an apologetics book). He says he's
doing two things : destroying the "dogma" of creation, and to
show natural selection was responsible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 18 2000 - 10:53:54 EST