Sign in with Facebook
Manny's Reviews > On the Origin of Species
On the Origin of Species
by
by
Dear Carol,
Thank you for your mail, and of course I remember meeting you on the flight last month! It was a very interesting discussion and I'm still thinking about it. The semester has now started here at Creationist U and I am working hard, but I found time to read the book you recommended. And I'm glad I did, because it was really a lot better than I thought it would be.
I guess I was expecting Darwin to be like Richard Dawkins, but he was respectful of religious ideas. And it was great that he liked Paley's Natural Theology so much... he says he almost knew it by heart! We read Paley last year in History of Creation Science, and I also thought it was a terrific book. So I could see Darwin was an open-minded person who was prepared to look at both sides of the question. Richard Dawkins could learn a lot from that!
The way he sets up his argument is smart. He starts off talking about how stockbreeders can improve their breed - well, I'm a country boy, and I could see he knew his stuff. This is someone who's spent time down at the farm and understands how country people feel about livestock. And I liked that he'd done all that work raising pigeons. Not the kind of scientist who just hangs out at the lab all day.
After that, he introduces his Big Idea about the survival of the fittest and he almost made evolution sound sensible. He's a good writer. And then he was honest when he explained all the problems with the theory. He really got me - I was wondering if he was going to mention any of that stuff, and a page later he came out and said just what I was thinking! Nice work, Mr. Darwin. But I did wonder what he was doing, cutting out the ground from under his own feet. He said he could explain things like the eye and how bees could evolve to make honeycombs, but even if he was real good at making his case, I wasn't buying any.
So by the halfway mark, I figured he was done, but like ol' Dubya used to say, I misunderestimated him - he'd saved all his best stuff for last. He had some good shots! I got to admit, he made me think. Why does God put the species that look alike in the same place? Like he says, it is weird how you have a mountain range, and there's one kind of animals and plants on one side, and a different kind on the other side. God's ways are inscrutable to us, but why does He care about those mountains? And the islands, they were even worse. He says if you look at the species on a lot of islands, you don't have any mammals there, except you do have bats. Why? I could see where he was going with this one - the bats could blow in off the mainland and evolve, but other mammals couldn't do that. I admit it, I don't have an answer, except maybe God's testing our faith again. But I can see not everyone will like that. I'm still wondering about those bats! Okay Mr. Darwin, I said it already but I'll say it again, you were a smart guy.
So how's life at MIT? And I hope you read the book I recommended to you. A Canticle for Leibowitz will show you that faith and science have more in common than you might think!
Take care,
Bob
Thank you for your mail, and of course I remember meeting you on the flight last month! It was a very interesting discussion and I'm still thinking about it. The semester has now started here at Creationist U and I am working hard, but I found time to read the book you recommended. And I'm glad I did, because it was really a lot better than I thought it would be.
I guess I was expecting Darwin to be like Richard Dawkins, but he was respectful of religious ideas. And it was great that he liked Paley's Natural Theology so much... he says he almost knew it by heart! We read Paley last year in History of Creation Science, and I also thought it was a terrific book. So I could see Darwin was an open-minded person who was prepared to look at both sides of the question. Richard Dawkins could learn a lot from that!
The way he sets up his argument is smart. He starts off talking about how stockbreeders can improve their breed - well, I'm a country boy, and I could see he knew his stuff. This is someone who's spent time down at the farm and understands how country people feel about livestock. And I liked that he'd done all that work raising pigeons. Not the kind of scientist who just hangs out at the lab all day.
After that, he introduces his Big Idea about the survival of the fittest and he almost made evolution sound sensible. He's a good writer. And then he was honest when he explained all the problems with the theory. He really got me - I was wondering if he was going to mention any of that stuff, and a page later he came out and said just what I was thinking! Nice work, Mr. Darwin. But I did wonder what he was doing, cutting out the ground from under his own feet. He said he could explain things like the eye and how bees could evolve to make honeycombs, but even if he was real good at making his case, I wasn't buying any.
So by the halfway mark, I figured he was done, but like ol' Dubya used to say, I misunderestimated him - he'd saved all his best stuff for last. He had some good shots! I got to admit, he made me think. Why does God put the species that look alike in the same place? Like he says, it is weird how you have a mountain range, and there's one kind of animals and plants on one side, and a different kind on the other side. God's ways are inscrutable to us, but why does He care about those mountains? And the islands, they were even worse. He says if you look at the species on a lot of islands, you don't have any mammals there, except you do have bats. Why? I could see where he was going with this one - the bats could blow in off the mainland and evolve, but other mammals couldn't do that. I admit it, I don't have an answer, except maybe God's testing our faith again. But I can see not everyone will like that. I'm still wondering about those bats! Okay Mr. Darwin, I said it already but I'll say it again, you were a smart guy.
So how's life at MIT? And I hope you read the book I recommended to you. A Canticle for Leibowitz will show you that faith and science have more in common than you might think!
Take care,
Bob
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
On the Origin of Species.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
September 25, 2012
–
Started Reading
September 25, 2012
– Shelved
September 25, 2012
–
11.42%
"I do not think I ever admired a book more than Paley's Natural Theology; I could almost formerly have said it by heart."
page
45
September 25, 2012
–
15.99%
"Ask, I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Hereford cattle, whether his cattle might not have descended from long-horns, and he will laugh you to scorn. I have never met a pigeon, or poultry, or duck, or rabbit fancier, who was not fully convinced that each main breed was descended from a different species."
page
63
September 27, 2012
–
22.08%
"Where many species of a genus have been formed through variation, circumstances have been favourable for variation; and hence we might expect that the circumstances would generally be still favourable to variation. On the other hand, if we look at each species as a special act of creation, there is no apparent reason why more varieties should occur in a group having many species, than in one having few."
page
87
September 27, 2012
–
25.38%
"When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply."
page
100
October 3, 2012
–
38.07%
"I think it can hardly be accidental, that if we pick out the two orders of mammalia which are most abnormal in their dermal covering, viz. Cetacea (whales) and Edentata (armadilloes, scaly ant-eaters, etc), that these are likewise the most abnormal in their teeth."
page
150
October 10, 2012
–
43.15%
"Long before having arrived at this part of the book, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I cannot reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory."
page
170
October 12, 2012
–
69.8%
"On the theory of natural selection the extinction of old forms and the production of new and improved forms are intimately connected together. The old notion of all the inhabitants of the earth having been swept away at successive periods by catastrophes is very much given up, even by those geologists whose general views would naturally lead them to this conclusion."
page
275
October 13, 2012
–
79.95%
"Undoubtedly, there very many cases of extreme difficulty, in explaining how a species could have migrated from one point to several distant and isolated points. Nevertheless, the simplicity of the view that each species was first produced within a single region captivates the mind. He who rejects it, rejects the vera causa of ordinary generation with subsequent migration, and calls in the agency of a miracle."
page
315
October 14, 2012
– Shelved as:
science
October 14, 2012
– Shelved as:
history-and-biography
October 14, 2012
– Shelved as:
linguistics-and-philosophy
October 14, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-45 of 45 (45 new)
date
newest »
newest »
I think I have seen the Empedocles quote before, the image of the wandering collections of body parts sounds familiar! And yes, there were clearly many precursors to Darwin's theory, but his achievement was in pulling all the threads together and turning it into something coherent and well-argued, rather than just speculative. But still only about a quarter of the way through... will have more to say when I'm finished!
Bird, I think they get together later in the movie Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice but I don't want to spoil it for anyone.
I love that you mention a Canticle for Liebowitz. It's brilliant.But erm....was there no way to work in poor old Malthus?
Ah yes, that's why Bob goes with Carol... I wrote the review late at night when rather sleepy :) I have never seen the movie but know the title. No conscious reference intended, however. Bob is kind of wondering if he could ask Carol out on a date, but he isn't sure yet whether she knows that True Love Waits. He's right to be concerned. I don't think Bob has read Malthus - my feeling is that Creationist U wouldn't have him on the syllabus. It was brave enough of them to include Paley!
I didn't know there was a movie - I've only read Canticle.Poor Bob.
So Bob didn't find Darwin acknowledging his debt to old Malthus? Gosh, and they were friends. At least Newton never pretended to like Leibniz.
In what way do you think Darwin is remiss in not acknowledging Malthus? He certainly mentions him early on in the Introduction:In the next chapter the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase, will be considered. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.
If you call a one-liner acknowledgement, then by all means....There's a bit of lit on it...and I'd engage but I'm stuck for time (am I ever not)...I suppose it's just that the economist in me objects to the fact that my 'science' has a history of trying to legitimise itself using the hard sciences, and a 'hard scientist' used an economist to establish an entire theory which informs most sciences (in one way or another) today.
One of the odd things about On the Origin of Species is that there are in general very few references. I somehow hadn't realized before that it was only intended as an extended abstract for the full book! The fact that he only quotes Wallace twice is even odder. Though he's certainly very openly respectful of some people - Lyell, Cuvier and de Candole stand out.
I'd like to read more about how Bob feels about selection of the fittest and how it's affecting farming in the midwest.
Well, that's what's so clever about Darwin's argument! He starts off with artificial selection, and what Midwest farmer boy is going to disagree with that? No wonder Bob's confused.
One of the odd things about On the Origin of Species is that there are in general very few references. I somehow hadn't realized before that it was only intended as an extended abstract for the full book!Right, Origin is the popular, easy-to-read precursor of the planned many-volumes-full-of-detailed-evidence that Darwin intended. And of course, it was his opus on molluscs that he expected to be his masterpiece...
You might enjoy Gillian Beer's Darwin's Plots: Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Fiction, btw.
Yes, the constant references to the not-quite-finished full version are kind of the running joke! And boy, what Darwin didn't know about cirripides just wasn't worth knowing. Though it took me about three chapters to figure out what they were...
Until I read your review, I hadn't realised that, when people refer to some aspect of economics or capitalism as Darwinian, they should really be describing it as Malthusian.
I think that would often be more accurate, yes!
Very honest appraisal. I have been researching Darwin in great depth this past while and found that the Ultra-Darwinists as they have come to be known - like Dawkins who uses Darwin's ideas to pontificate from the pulpit of non-belief and actually, I now believe, would have Darwin turning in his grave from mortification.
P.S. I take neither side in the great debate, I just follow the evidence... But yes, I really came to respect the man - Charles Darwin after reading tons of his letters, but that still doesn't make the theory any better I'm afraid. There I've finished my rant.
Thank you Maria! I would love to see a meeting between Darwin and Dawkins. In some ways, I think Darwin would be very flattered about the way Dawkins has spent such a large part of his career filling in the holes in the original theory of evolution. But yes, unsure he'd appreciate it being used as part of an extreme atheist propaganda campaign. He was always careful not to claim more than he believed the evidence would support.
Manny wrote: "Thank you Maria! I would love to see a meeting between Darwin and Dawkins. In some ways, I think Darwin would be very flattered about the way Dawkins has spent such a large part of his career filli..."Darwin, having been a competent scientist, would have poured derision on Dawkins' joke of a self-contradictory "theory."
Way harsh (to quote Clueless). I'm sure Darwin would like The Ancestor's Tale, at least...
Manny wrote: "Way harsh (to quote Clueless). I'm sure Darwin would like The Ancestor's Tale, at least..."OK, less harsh: Darwin would have politely pointed out the obvious flaws in Dawkins' joke of a self-contradictory "theory."
Ah, if only Darwin could be brought back in a time machine! He's the one person Dawkins would listen to.
If Darwin were alive now he'd be disappointed that he's not more famous for his work on molluscs.
I think that seeing his face on a £10 note would cheer him up though. Maybe people in the US should start a campaign parallel to ?
A campaign to what? Get Darwin on our currency? Pshaw! We don't do stuff that is done by Europeans.
You're right, you're right. The second time it would be dull. I was just curious to see the reaction.
Haha I just bought this book and thought of seeing some reviews and here I found you.I see I misjudged you as I see you enjoyed this book :D
I am somehow creationist but I thought that reading this book would be a nice idea, especially when I see myself in the center of a scientific debate.?
Can't wait to start reading it soon :D
Manny, I used to have my doubts until I read Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. This answers most of the questions Darwin left open by bringing in modern scientific fossil discovery and DNA, as well as controlled experiments. Now I am convinced. Good luck in your search for truth.
You recommend it for Creationists. Would you mind explaining that, if it's not too much trouble?
Ketti wrote: "You recommend it for Creationists. Would you mind explaining that, if it's not too much trouble?"Well, it was written for Creationists. What could be more logical than to recommend it to them?
Do you believe in Evolution or Creation? and also do you believe God?
Hameed wrote: "Do you believe in Evolution or Creation? and also do you believe God?"It's hard not to believe in evolution. But who knows, maybe it's God's way of getting things done?
Manny wrote: "It's hard not to believe in evolution. But who knows, maybe it's God's way of getting things done?"I never saw any incompatibility in that view. Even the Pope was ok with it.
Indeed, more that OK. Recent popes have not explicitly forbidden belief in creationism, but have certainly favoured evolution, going as far as calling it certain as you can do when you're a pope and not a scientist, and reminding their followers of the Catholic duty to respect the findings of science (because the creator is to be known through his creation). Senior priests have condemned Intelligent Design, in particular, as heretical, for its alleged misunderstanding of the nature of divine causation.
I hadn't noticed the claim that ID was heretical, though it seems quite logical. Do you have a reference?
I have not read a book on evolutionary biology before but I'm interested in learning. I just wanted to know if this book is easy to understand or some other things should be studied before it.
It was the first book on evolutionary biology, and it assumed absolutely no prior background! Of course, it's written in 19th century English, but if you're comfortable with that kind of language it's a pretty easy read.
Saikat wrote: "I have not read a book on evolutionary biology before but I'm interested in learning. I just wanted to know if this book is easy to understand or some other things should be studied before it."I agree; it's very easy to understand but it can be very dry.
Manny wrote: "I hadn't noticed the claim that ID was heretical, though it seems quite logical. Do you have a reference?"Oh, I never got back to you on this, did I?
No, no reference, I'm afraid. It hasn't been declared heretical (as in, we're culpable for believing it) but I'm sure I've seen theologians and vatican people say that they believe it's heretical. So Catholics can believe it without culpably being heretics, but the balance of thought seems clearly against it. But I can't find any clearcut specific citation to that effect now.
However, I think it's fair to say that from a Catholic point of view there are serious problems raised by ID:
1. the world is meant to be knowable through reason, because everything follows a natural law inherent in the nature of the universe. If we insist that God has to personally interfere in the natural law (i.e. perform a miracle) to explain every single new species, that takes away a lot of the ability of science to explain the natural world - that is, it seriously reduces the ability of reason to explain the world without the need of faith, and it kind of makes God seem as though she isn't playing fair;
2. it encourages a facile understanding of causation and creation; Catholicism holds that God does not need to be an efficient cause of things in order to create them. God can be the final cause of things without being their efficient cause;
3. in reasoning that living species are so complex or so perfectly designed that they could not have been produced in a universe without constant miracles, the ID theorist is essentially saying that (because for the theist 'X is impossible' is the same as 'God cannot do X') God is unable to create a universe in which these species could evolve naturally without intelligent design. If ID is heretical, it's probably for this reason, since this is a pretty dramatic lack of faith in the omnipotence of God. The idea "this is so wonderful it could not occur naturally, so God must have done it" assumes a division between God and the natural world that Catholicism rather frowns upon;
4. the whole idea of reasoning from "I can't understand how this could have happened without divine interaction" to "God must have done it" seems suspiciously like creating a god-of-the-gaps as a way to paper over the defects of our own understanding, rather than genuine faith.
That's how it would seem to me, at least, although of course I'm both a layman and an unbeliever.
Wastrel wrote: "Manny wrote: "I hadn't noticed the claim that ID was heretical, though it seems quite logical. Do you have a reference?"Oh, I never got back to you on this, did I?
No, no reference, I'm afraid. ..."
I have had exactly the same thought. If it's not heretical, it seems at least blasphemous to say that, with my puny human understanding, I can prove that the Creator could only have caused life to arise in one way and not in another, although the second method is apparently far more general and elegant.
But I freely admit I'm no theologian. Maybe it's not blasphemous at all, and I just have a higher opinion of God than the average believer in ID does.
Go to Darwin-online.org.uk. Everything is there - all his writings, letters, biography and all editions of his book. I have been researching Darwin for years and his theory. I love his letters about his theory and think that you will get as much from those as the book On Origin of the Species. I put in search terms while on the site and you will get lots of options rated according to how closely they match. SOrry this is such a late reply and I missed the above conversation - too busy writing books and researching to converse back then.
Hi Manny, I was wondering if you read the long version of this book, and whether you would say it's worth it to do so or if it's better to just go for the abridged version read by Dawkins if what one wants is simply to understand the theory in relative detail. Thanks :)
Hey Manny! Great review. How are Ted and Alice btw?
The full article is at
An excerpt:
The idea of natural selection itself began as a just-so story, more than two millennia before Darwin. Darwin belatedly learned this when, a few years after the publication of “On the Origin of Species,� in 1859, a town clerk in Surrey sent him some lines of Aristotle, reporting an apparently crazy tale from Empedocles. According to Empedocles, most of the parts of animals had originally been thrown together at random: “Here sprang up many faces without necks, arms wandered without shoulders . . . and eyes strayed alone, in need of foreheads.� Yet whenever a set of parts turned out to be useful the creatures that were lucky enough to have them “survived, being organised spontaneously in a fitting way, whereas those which grew otherwise perished.� In later editions of “Origin,� Darwin added a footnote about the tale, remarking, “We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth.�