Re: evolution and "materialism"
- From: "david ford" <dford3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Sep 2005 08:39:20 -0700
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> Sorry, Ford -- I should have prefaced my question by stating explicitly
> that I only wanted to hear from sane, coherent people.
Do you consider the Darwin below "coherent"?
As the years passed, Darwin weakened his affirmation of
Darwinian natural selection. To illustrate, witness this 1871
statement from his _The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation
to Sex_ (1981 Princeton University Press reprint of the 1871
edition), volume one, 152-3:
Thus a very large yet undefined extension may safely be
given to the direct and indirect results of natural
selection; but I now admit, after reading the essay by
Nageli on plants, and the remarks by various authors with
respect to animals, more especially those recently made by
Professor Broca, that in the earlier editions of my 'Origin
of Species' I probably attributed too much to the action of
natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have
altered the fifth edition of the Origin so as to confine my
remarks to adaptive changes of structure. I had not formerly
sufficiently considered the existence of many structures
which appear to be, as far as we can judge, neither
beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to be one of
the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work. 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. Nevertheless I was not
able to annul the influence of my former belief, then widely
prevalent, that each species had been purposely created; and
this led to my tacitly assuming that every detail of
structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though
unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his
mind would naturally extend the action of natural selection,
either during past or present times, too far. 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 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.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 1959. _Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution_ (NY: Doubleday & Company), 480pp. From
the chapter "The Origin of Man," a paragraph on 343, a
paragraph on 346-7, the following line, my reference to a
snipped 1871 Darwin quote, and the Himmelfarb paragraph
on 348 that followed the Darwin quote:
Sexual selection had a far more important role in the
_Descent [of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex_]
than in the _Origin_. It assumed much of the burden for
the origin of species that had earlier been carried by
natural selection-- so much so that it would no longer be
accurate to describe the theory as that of natural
selection. Darwin himself had taken to referring to his
theory as "the principle of evolution."^37 This principle
included several explanations for the origin of man, of
which natural selection was only one, the others being
sexual selection, the inherited effect of use and disuse,
the direct action of the environment, the correlation of
growth, and one unspecified cause. Of these, sexual
selection, not natural selection, was the most important,
as Darwin himself now admitted: "For my own part I
conclude that of all the causes which have led to the
differences in external appearance between the races of
man, and to a certain extent between man and the lower
animals, sexual selection has been by far the most
efficient."^38
....
Having dispensed with natural selection when there was
no evidence of utility, he [Darwin] soon came to
dispense with it even where he might have made out a
case for utility. More and more, the Lamarckian
principle of the inherited effects of use and disuse came
to replace natural selection. A variety of phenomena
were now attributed to this cause: the smallness of the
tail in some monkeys and its absence in man, the
development of the vocal organs and power of speech,
the thin legs and thick arms of Indians who spent most
of their lives in canoes, the larger hands of English
laborers compared with those of the gentry, the
hardened skin on the soles of the feet, the inferiority of
Europeans compared with savages in sight and other
senses, customs such as the deliberate eradication of hair
and other mutilations;^46 even the virtuous habits
inculcated in youth. Where once he would have
re-interpreted these findings to make them conform to
natural selection-- and they are amenable to such
re-interpretation-- he was now easily persuaded of the
simpler Lamarckian idea.
In a remarkable confession Darwin explained how and
why he formerly erred in giving too much prominence
to natural selection:
[snip 1871 Darwin quote. A slightly-fuller quote than
what Himmelfarb quoted is above]
The confession is fascinating, not only for what Darwin
said but how he said it-- the alternating rhythm of
self-recrimination and self-extenuation. In the second
edition, perhaps smarting as a result of Mivart's
triumphant citation of this passage, he tried to undo the
damage by recanting, in effect, some of his earlier
recantation. He now declared himself convinced "that
very many structures which now appear to us useless,
will hereafter be proved to be useful, and will therefore
come within the range of natural selection."^48
> Run along, little boy.
Yes, sir.
> david ford wrote:
> > 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> > > A simple question for the IDers out there:
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: evolution and "materialism"
- From: Craig Franck
- Re: evolution and "materialism"
- References:
- evolution and "materialism"
- From: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
- Re: evolution and "materialism"
- From: david ford
- Re: evolution and "materialism"
- From: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
- evolution and "materialism"
- Prev by Date: Re: Naturalism is not a Religion
- Next by Date: Re: [OT] What happens to E.coli pumped into the sea?
- Previous by thread: Re: evolution and "materialism"
- Next by thread: Re: evolution and "materialism"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
