Charles Darwin
Forum
Darwin was aboard the Beagle initially to accompany the ship's captain, something Roy, who wasn't allowed to dine or converse with the rest of the crew. That was the maritime tradition of the time. because the man was depressed, he desired to bring along a friend. Darwin was not a respected scientist at the time and was actually planning on going into the ministry. Luckily for us all, Darwin quickly took over as chief naturalist of the ship. He didn't formulate his theory until some time after their return. The trip did allow him to collect collect collect as well as observe species in their habitats.
As regards his religious life, he was careful to hide his deepest conviction. presumably, and perhaps provable through some journals and his autobiography, Darwin did change his views on theology and more specifically natural theology which was the English trend in his day. He realized only some of the interesting consequences of his discovery such as the need for natural design to come about from a mechanistic process that doesn't require a devine push. He did understand that his revolutionary idea went against the accepted mind-first view which insisted that no design could come into existence without a mind to design it. This more or less shattered the famous "Great Chain of Being" organization and replaced it with a blind, mechanistic universe. The realization that nature was blind but capable of creating life from inorganic materials certainly forced him to question and doubt his Christian upbringing but the details of this doubt are hidden from us. Also, before trying his hand as a naturalist, Charles was an avid topographer and geologist. His knowledge of Earth's history and the necessary millions of years, not thousands, must have led to doubt as well. Im sure you can guess why he refrained from philosophical and theological discussions of god and creation in his work.
Read his autobiography sometime. It does not delve too deeply into his theory but does a great job in explaining the intellectual community of his time. One of the interesting hisotrical influences on Darwin, perhaps the biggest, was his father, a respected physician. Also, his grandfather was a leading intellectual in his own day. Directly relating to the development for his theory, he was inspired by Malthus, an economist, who demonstrated some important trends in population scenarios (Darwin was no economist but was able to abstract the principles). All this and so much more makes the story as important and interesting as Geoe Washington's or Martin Luther's.
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 17 Jun 2005 13:01)
Wow, thanks for the great info, Hume. Interesting and perceptive to mention Luther, as the impact Luther and Darwin have had are remarkably similar, albeit in different ways. I definitely need to have a go at Darwin's biography.
>>By Just Jon (Friday, 17 Jun 2005 18:47)
on a more reminiscent note, the initial stages of this Darwin forum of which Hume was the founding contributor would've begun with an exchange between Hume & myself over a seemingly superflous comment I ran over "Don Carlos Naturalista..." which is how Darwin would've been reffered to in the Americas he would've made 1st contact with the indigonous inhabitants- supposedly demising 'God' for the gradient that exists in human groups; It was irrelevant then for me to have alerted that the caption was not fanciful from my end, but a rhapsodic jest resulting to my having read the bio on the geological bard...afterall I am more affiliated with the humanities by industry, but given to the discourses in logic in all my renderings and conceptions; Well, alot has sufficed since, with a lot of substantiation from the just concoction of this vicinity's cause; Live long and prosper.
>>By LINZ OF ASTRA (Monday, 20 Jun 2005 13:42)
Has anyone heard about that new game made by the same guy who created the Sims games? I think it is called "Spores" and is a game of evolution. So far I haven't heard any further details but am interested.
>>By Hume Ungus (Monday, 25 Jul 2005 23:39)
Sounds neat, though I too couldn't find much info on the game as it's apparently still in early development. You might also be interested in Terrarium, a Microsoft project that simulates living creatures interacting and competing. It's a neat introduction to AI, as well. Though experience with .NET programming would help, it's so well-documented a novice should be able to get things going with the necessary software. Here's the link to it, for anyone interested:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/smartclient/codesamples/
terrarium/default.aspx
>>By Just Jon (Tuesday, 26 Jul 2005 08:42)
Thanks for the reference. Ill check it out.
>>By Hume Ungus (Tuesday, 26 Jul 2005 12:28)
"it's so well-documented a novice should be able to get things going with the necessary software"
Wanna bet on that?
http://www.juliantrubin.com/quiz/darwinquiz.html
I found this lurking on google I scored 12/16 (will admit to a couple of guesses tho'). It's a bit of fun - but please don't get question 14 wrong!!!
>>By B.A.B.E.S (Tuesday, 9 Aug 2005 14:05)
Neat quiz, just took it myself. As to "a novice" I meant really, really smart novices like the people who hang out here!
>>By Just Jon (Tuesday, 9 Aug 2005 17:14)
Just want to welcome everyone back from vacation...
>>By Hume Ungus (Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 13:59)
Thanks Hume, wish I could afford one! Another note about the Terrarium project--there's lots of ready-made creatures that people have designed, that are easy to modify. So really it's not as daunting as it might seem to get started. If anyone's interested in it but needs some help finding info, feel free to flork me.
>>By Just Jon (Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 15:17)
I'm back, too. Good to see some people still check in here periodically.
Tried out that quiz- I missed the two dealing with flowers and kids. Flowers? Wasn't it Finches? ;-) And kids???? Who knew? (ah, but who can blame Darwin for wanting to contribute first hand to the descent of man. It's interesting AND fun!)
Here's another interesting and fun fact- the President of the United States has come out on record saying that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in the schools. Any thoughts on this?
>>By Majorette (Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 15:45)
When did the POTUS say that? I suppose it isn't surprising for him to support I.D. (if indeed he did) especially as a second term president. Which congress-people have supported his statement, if any? Putting any thought into public schools seems out of the ordinary for him to start with, but when you look at the one thing he wants to add it all makes sense. Perhaps it would be the only way to get him to throw some money into the schools. Unfortunately it wouldn't be worth fully funding the education mandate if in return our children were subjected to this line of thinking under the guise of legitimate science. Since we for some reason give tax exemption to the churches still, I say we leave it up to them to spread that word and let the teachers stick to hard facts and well developed theories.
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 12 Aug 2005 13:23)
Majorette
So Dubbya's on the trail of evolution now he's sorted the evil stem cell debate. I agree with Hume, yes teach it by all means, it's their right to be heard but as a religious subject not pure science.
Maybe science will be the next persecution - like the Catholics in Victorian times. Anyone caught wearing a lab coat will be hung for crimes against humanity.....
Have to say - 10 kids where did he find the time to do any research at all????????
>>By B.A.B.E.S (Friday, 12 Aug 2005 14:36)
sorry, Hume, should have included a link.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/politics_evolution_dc
But you can Google "bush evolution" under the News search and get tons of articles, many from the UK, too.
BABES- science as the next persecution.... hahaha but that's just history repeating itself! It wasn't too long ago when scientists WERE hung (or disembowled or burned or tortured yada yada yada) for speaking out against the church. Of course, you could avoid all that nasty business by just signing a confession and recanting your work....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rome, 1633
Galileo: Woops, did I say the Earth revolved around the sun? What I MEANT to say was the EARTH was the center of the universe. Yes, that's it. Everyone knows the sun orbits the Earth. Duh!
The Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal: Just sign your name here, my child, and you can return to your humble God-fearing way of life. Under house arrest, of course.
Galileo (dryly): Thanks. Can you please stop waving that sharp pointy object at me now?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In all seriousness, the biggest problem I have with teaching ID in schools is that it begs the question: WHICH designer? God? Allah? Buddha? Call me cynical, but I doubt the proponents of Intelligent Design in public schools would accept the great Viracocha (the Andean Weeping Sun God) as a suitable representative for their intelligent designer curriculum.............
>>By Majorette (Friday, 12 Aug 2005 16:54)
Majorette makes one of the most important points, I think, in the whole debate over I.D. At the end of the day, how will this designer be described? By a name? From where did it come and is it a mortal entity or something supernatural? Is there an hidden agenda? I think many would agree that this isn't a position put forth primarily by contemporary philosophers but by religous groups. As BABES may agree, the churches should continue to maintain their right and self-proclaimed duty to promote an alternative point of view. However, this right cannot and should not ever act as a means to hinder debate or to infiltrate science classes.
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 12 Aug 2005 23:31)
This is an oldie but a goodie from the beeb - from here you can get at a good documentary (well the transcript) but also something called alife which an artificial online environment (just jon a little treat for you!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/index.shtml
Majorette - d'oh!!!!! I think this scientist has had her brain temporarily removed....
>>By B.A.B.E.S (Monday, 15 Aug 2005 15:10)
I fear the the resurging of medievalism, its slaughter-house knives that butcher in the brutest of mans incivility; the mis-inclination that leads to the unpredictability from fallable iunverifiable sciences; Ladies and gentlemen...the dogma endorsed by my ill logic state......'intelligent design'
never mind the lack of an emperical substantiation...intelligent design is disqualified even on the basis of PREDICATE LOGIC;
I need not prove my here announced dogma
>>By LINZ OF ASTRA (Tuesday, 16 Aug 2005 12:34)
Linz' Translation: "I agree with you guys."
:-D
I'm just joshin' with you, Linz. I understand all the words you use, I just don't always understand what you're saying. Have you ever read Diane Ackerman's work? You might like her; she's a poet, like you, but she has a love affair with the sciences. Sometimes she's a little hard to understand, but I chalk that up to my lack of poetry skills rather than any misunderstanding of science. I'm reading "On Extended Wings" right now...... very fun stuff.
>>By Majorette (Wednesday, 17 Aug 2005 18:01)
Ok I'm back guys where's that f@*kin yahoo gone!?
>>By docjay (Wednesday, 17 Aug 2005 18:05)
One of the things I've often wondered about is, Do we give undue legitimacy to Intelligent Design and other creationist ideas by actually debating them as if they were scientific theories? I mean, shouldn't we just insist that they live up to the same rigorous standards we hold the rest of the scientific community (eg, published findings, falsifiable hypotheses, replication, etc) and not give them the time of day until they produce something that resembles scientific thought?
In many ways I'm torn by this question because I DO believe that debating them gives them unwarranted attentiion, but I must admit I cannot walk away from a evolution vs. creation debate. I have never been able to, and I doubt I ever will.
I raise the question because there was an interesting editorial in the Boston Globe today on the importance of scientists confronting the claims of ID proponents (rather than avoiding them).
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/
editorial_opinion/oped/articles/
2005/08/29/who_designed_the_designer/
In a nutshell, the author argues that we need to address ID publicly because of all the people "on-the-fence" who don't necessarily have the background to critically examine the ID argument.
What does everyone think about this? Should we risk adding to their perceived legitimacy by confronting the Intelligent Design topic in the media, in the hopes of swaying people who haven't made up their minds one way or the other?
(Aaaaaand for those of us with an interest in genetic algorithms and computational evolution, there was a second editorial that examines the ID argument that life is too complex to have arisen without a designer:)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/
editorial_opinion/oped/articles/
2005/08/29/and_now_digital_evolution/
Unfortunately, you have to register to read these articles, but registration is free. If anybody would like the full texts without having to register, just flork me.
>>By Majorette (Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 04:30)
Majorette...That is one of the tough aspect to this entire line of disussion...Does that attention we all give ID help spread the belief in it despite the stronger, testable nature of the scientific point of view? It should be accepted by all people, on any side of this issue, that ID does not fit into the scientific model for the reasons you pointed out. Just as a matter of procedure, it cannot be passed off as science if it cannot be tested, verified, and replicated in experiments. Some may say that Cosmological Models would fail to be scientific for similar reasons. However complex the models become, we can at least build the concepts from more basic ones that HAVE been verified and replicated. I diverge...
As many know, it isn't always about the validity of an argument that makes it move minds. The delivery is key, especially with issues that transcend the field of interest, like ID, which is a hot issue in religion, philosophy, and politics (to name a few). No matter what, it should always be pointed out that ID is not a scientific theory and this should be explained as much as necessary. It may not be wise to attack the ID claims right off the bat but instead to frame their point of view properly. When ID proponents frame their argument, often times there is an appeal to the emotional or "spiritual" needs of human beings. The fear of ultimate solitude or guilt of self-centeredness is powerful whether it is true or not. This concept isn't easily fought off, especially for some audiences who may be "hanging on the fence." But a scientific claim requires a scientific mind to understand. If you try to argue evolution to a person who hasn't been trained to think scientifically, there isn't much hope of true understanding. It seems like a better strategy to start as basic as possible and simply introduce ideas that may slightly upset ones point of view. The full-out attack, from either side to the other, will most likely fuel the other, as they will feel personally attacked and will defend at all costs their beliefs. Let them change on their own, with some help, and over time one may leanr to accept new ideas and concepts.
>>By Hume Ungus (Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 13:25)
Have you seen the challenge to the Kansas School Board that if they teach ID, they should also teach the theory that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not, go to http://www.venganza.org/ -- the site has an open letter to the board and is extremely funny.
Included on the page is a clear statistically significant inverse relationship between the number of pirates in the world and increases in global temperature ...
>>By Happy chappy (Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 18:46)
Everyone knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a myth. In fact, it is outright heresy to mention that name in any type of affirmative or accepting way. The Crouching Donkey is by far the more likely and cool creator of the two. Think for just a brief moment about the science of it all. The Donkey crouches, pushes, and from the ass emerges all types of shit. On behalf of everyone in this room, all of whom I am positive agree with my objective analysis, I will turn Happy Chappy into the board of asses for digestion.
>>By Hume Ungus (Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 22:25)
I believe that humans should not cause undue harm to animals and I fear I may be slightly indigestable!
>>By Happy chappy (Wednesday, 31 Aug 2005 13:27)
anything that eats can be eaten!
>>By Hume Ungus (Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 00:57)
Tell that to my Catholic girlfriend.
>>By Just Jon (Thursday, 1 Sep 2005 01:09)
just curious....what is the current position of the Vatican on the teaching of evolution (with or without the additional ID)? I have a few friends who have kids in a Catholic highschool and I believe they do study it in their science class. If anyone knows of an official public statement or accepted policy, I'd be interesting in knowing.
>>By Hume Ungus (Monday, 5 Sep 2005 16:09)
Jokes aside, I think the Catholic schools are actually pretty good about teaching evolution. It's the Protestant crowd here in the States that demands we teach kids that "The Flintstones" is scientifically accurate.
Btw, saw a poll yesterday, and most Americans want ID taught in schools. That's why I'll never leave the U.S., not for all the weed in British Columbia...I just feel so damned smart living here.
>>By Just Jon (Monday, 5 Sep 2005 16:38)
Anyone seen the movie Saved? Excellent depiction of some of struggles teenagers may have in the modern day United States while trying to maintain a Christian lifestyle.
>>By Hume Ungus (Tuesday, 6 Sep 2005 13:01)
It's a third-grade education that makes it hard to maintain a Christian lifestyle.
>>By Just Jon (Tuesday, 6 Sep 2005 17:10)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS