Quote:
Originally Posted by Ea
The line: "... life [...] having been originally breathed into ..." reads to me rather like the second version. That idea of 'breathing life into' sounds to me like something from the bible, and something done by a creator (sorry, but I can't quote where). Darwin just doesn't make it explicit that it's the christian God, but given the historical context it would not be strange to assume so. Looking at it from my POV, in my time, the change doesn't strike me as so controversial.
|
I agree with you that both versions of the sentence are compatible with the content of the book (if can say this without having actually read it), so I wouldn't call it controversial, but it is interesting. The first version does not explicitly mention a Creator, and yet leaves the reader free to assume that such a presence is implied. That first version can be read both with and without a Creator, it is completely open.
So why did Darwin, who was so conscious that his work itself would be controversial that he waited years to publish it, chose to leave the Creator out of the first version and to only
seem to hint at Him?