Darwin's Origin of Species

[Vector]

Unfortunately, you have a good point. The madness is widespread.

[kennyc]

I was just checking my ebook "On the Origin of Species..." from project guttneberg -- it's apparently the 11th edition. (for anyone that is keeping track of that sort of thing).

[Vector]

Enough badinage. Let's get's down to business.

The first edition of Origin had two epigraphs, one from Whewell and one from Bacon. Later editions inserted another, by Butler, in between. I think a good place to start is to give these epigraphs careful attention. What do they mean? What purpose do they serve? Etc.

The Butler epigraph has already been referred to in this string:

Originally Posted by neilmarr

I believe that after the first edition, Darwin was pressured into adding some strangely out of place words at the start of the book: on the lines that evolution is "guided by the Creator".

Is the Butler quote really "strangely out of place"? Is it really different in substance from the Whewell quote?

Whewell refers to "the establishment of general laws." Both in context, and by his choice of the word "establishment," he seems to be referring to God decreeing the laws of nature. I did some googling, which seems to confirm this impression. Whewell's name often appears with "D.D." after it, and the Bridgewater Treatises were, according to Wikipedia, intended "to explore the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation."

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Thanks Ben, I'm definitely looking forward to it. I recently watched a couple of his talks on TED - http://www.ted.com/speakers/dan_dennett.html and have followed his work for years.

Thanks for the link! I watched this video on "dangerous memes" and found it very interesting (but you have to watch all of it IMO, the beginning is not as good as the end). And it's not completely off topic because it talks about evolution

I'll go back for more I think.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Thanks for the link! I watched this video on "dangerous memes" and found it very interesting (but you have to watch all of it IMO, the beginning is not as good as the end). And it's not completely off topic because it talks about evolution

I'll go back for more I think.

It was Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene" that came up with the Meme concept.

[kennyc]

And then there's this Gallup Poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/da...evolution.aspx

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Vector

Is the Butler quote really "strangely out of place"? Is it really different in substance from the Whewell quote?

My paper copy doesn't have the Butler quote in - what does it say?

[Vector]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My paper copy doesn't have the Butler quote in - what does it say?

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is STATED, FIXED or SETTLED; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."- Butler: "Analogy of Revealed Religion".

[Kevin2960]

Originally Posted by Vector

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is STATED, FIXED or SETTLED; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."- Butler: "Analogy of Revealed Religion".

What a Wonderful Quote from Butler ....

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And then there's this Gallup Poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/da...evolution.aspx

"Belief drops to 24% among frequent church attenders."

It's pitiful and frightening that so many religious cults in the U.S. are so averse to reality, but it goes a long way in explaining American gullibility on so many other issues.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Vector

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is STATED, FIXED or SETTLED; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."- Butler: "Analogy of Revealed Religion".

Thanks for that.

He seems to be saying that the only difference between the natural and the supernatural is that we see natural things repeated in a consistent way, while the supernatural is a one-off or inconsistent occurrence.

I wonder if, in context, he was suggesting that because God was required to explain the natural, the supernatural shouldn't be seen as far fetched.

What Darwin does is show how intelligent agency is not required for the repeated, consistent (i.e. lawful) case [this is "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"!] - which undermines the credibility of the supernatural case, because it is the only case where intervention by the divine is still required.

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it seems an appropriate quote to include to me - as one that he undermines rather than one that he is approving.

[ShellShock]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Perhaps someone else here could confirm this, Tom, but I believe that after the first edition, Darwin was pressured into adding some strangely out of place words at the start of the book: on the lines that evolution is "guided by the Creator".

One of the most (in)famous changes is in the very last paragraph. In the first edition it reads:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

In later editions, Darwin changed it to this (my emphasis):

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Either way, it is a beautiful piece of prose.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by ShellShock

One of the most (in)famous changes is in the very last paragraph. In the first edition it reads:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

In later editions, Darwin changed it to this (my emphasis):

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Either way, it is a beautiful piece of prose.

And either way true; whether that "Creator" was Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, the Goddess, et. al., or nature.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by ShellShock

One of the most (in)famous changes is in the very last paragraph. In the first edition it reads:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

In later editions, Darwin changed it to this (my emphasis):

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Either way, it is a beautiful piece of prose.

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.

[FlorenceArt]

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?