In a message dated 20/12/00 23:01:37 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:53:40 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
>
> >SJ>"...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).
>
> PR>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).
>
> What "commentary" and what "apologetics book"? It is in Darwin's Descent
> of Man.
"Darwin says his primary goal was "religious" etc. isn't. It doesn't say this
in "Descent of Man". You have erroneously read this into the text because
it's what you want it to say.
> PR>He says he's
> >doing two things : destroying the "dogma" of creation, and to
> >show natural selection was responsible.
>
> Even that would be good enough. Paul confirms Darwin put "destroying
> the `dogma' of creation", *first* and "to show natural selection was
> responsible" second.
>
> And what was a *scientist* doing "destroying the `dogma' of creation"? All
> Darwin needed to do was present the evidence of his findings together with
> a scientific hypothesis no greater than sufficient to account for the
> observed facts.
Why ? New theories should refer to and point out problems in old competing
ones shouldn't they ?
You can't justify "Note that Darwin says his *primary* goal was religious "
can you ?
It's also a joke, coming from a creationist ; a position which is exclusively
negative evidence in my experience.
> But Paul should read it again. Darwin says "I had two distinct objects in
> view; *firstly*, to shew that species had not been separately created ..."
> (my emphasis). That says that Darwin's *primary* goal was anti-religious.
No it doesn't.
Darwin had two targets. One was to show that what he viewed as a "dogmatic"
belief in creation was false. Secondly to show that his evolutionary ideas
were
true.
Any corrective piece of science does the same thing. It explains the new idea
and points out the old one was wrong.
You can't label one "primary" and one "secondary" simply because they are
ordered. One would expect, in a corrective piece of science, firstly a
"review"
of the old theory explaining where/why it is wrong, followed by an exposition
of the new theory.
> And Darwin's final comment shows that even if he exaggerated the power
> of natural selection, he would have been satisfied in having achieved his
> primary goal, which was to have "...done good service in aiding to
> overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
Yes, but this doesn't mean his "primary aim was religious".
> I don't expect that Paul and I will agree on this (because he rightly
> realised that this would be too damaging for an evolutionist to admit), so
> we shall have to agree to differ on it.
I know.
But you want to say that Darwin says his primary goal was religious, which
isn't the case.
You can't seem to get it into your skull that I "don't agree on it" because
IT DOESN'T SAY IT.
I notice you are now backing out again, presumably because you are incapable
of producing a coherent argument yourself.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 22 2000 - 10:19:54 EST