Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From Cambridge U: tons of Darwin material now free online

arroba Email


The origins of Darwin’s theory of evolution – including the pages where he first coins and commits to paper the term ‘natural selection’ – are being made freely available online today in one of the most significant releases of Darwin material in history.

The information Darwin received, and the discussions he conducted in these letters played a crucial role in the development of his thinking.

In total, Cambridge Digital Library is releasing more than 12,000 hi-res images, alongside transcriptions and detailed notes as a result of an international collaboration with the Darwin Manuscript Project, based at the American Museum of Natural History. These papers chart the evolution of Darwin’s journey, from early theoretical reflections More.

Gosh, and just in time for the funeral too.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

rvb8, since you seem to believe in the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian evolution to account for all the unfathomed complexity found in life, can you tell me why there are so few true Neo-Darwinists anymore in the upper tiers of research? Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin - April 22, 2014 Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology. “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.” http://www.worldmag.com/2014/04/scientists_stunned_by_the_public_s_doubt_of_darwin And if you don't believe in the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian evolution as these following leading researchers don't, The Third Way http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin October 8, 2014 Excerpt: "The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field." (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) ) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html ,,,rvb8 can you tell me what alternative to Neo-Darwinism you favor and why? bornagain77
And yet he stubbornly refuses to disappear, despite the constant reminders here of his immanent demise. This raises the unnerving question; why won't this idea disappear? Two answers are possible. One; there is a great Darwin conspiracy led by all the biology departments of all the half decent universities in the world, to ensure true 'Design Science' is silenced, or Two; all the rational scientific evidence and reasoned thought clearly point to RM + NS = Evolution. Here's what that great thinker and antisemite Martin Luther said of reason: "Reason is the Devil's harlot, who can do nought but slander and harm whatever God says and does." Hmmm! rvb8
And I was hoping to be able to print it out and make toilet paper out of it to send to keiths. Mung
Funny about the funeral crack eh!! Maybe they are emptying the room. (Well I tried). Darwin simply realized there must of been biological change beyond creation week and so unrelated to god at least directly. I note he constantly stressed about how it was impossible for birds to be created on each isle. A rejection of the biblical flood right off for YEC. darwin was too easily convinced for his ideas because of the incompetence of other ideas. It was easy to say everything grew itself based on minor steps. At best it would be only a special case. Biology is and has the option of being very complicated. chuck too easily made it simple and so unlikely. Robert Byers
Maybe there will be a letter from Charles to Queen Victoria telling her to ignore the trolls. ppolish
Gosh, and just in time for the funeral too.
:-) Maybe they're hoping someone will actually look at it now.
releasing more than 12,000 hi-res images, alongside transcriptions and detailed notes
Some fireside reading with Darwin, Marx, Pol Pot, Heinrich Himmler ... lots of inspirational stuff for the holidays! Silver Asiatic
OT: Dragonflies on the hunt display complex choreography - Dec. 10, 2014 Excerpt: The dragonfly is a swift and efficient hunter. Once it spots its prey, it takes about half a second to swoop beneath an unsuspecting insect and snatch it from the air. Scientists,, have used motion-capture techniques to track the details of that chase, and found that a dragonfly's movement is guided by internal models of its own body and the anticipated movement of its prey.,,, "Until now, this type of complex control, which incorporates both prediction and reaction, had been demonstrated only in vertebrates,",,, "dragonflies on the hunt perform internal calculations every bit as complex as those of a ballet dancer.",,, "Articulating a body and moving it through space is a very complicated problem.",,, it was clear that the dragonflies were not simply responding to the movements of the prey. Instead, they made structured turns that adjusted the orientation of their bodies - even when their prey's trajectory did not change.,,, Leonardo says the movements his team observed are so fine-tuned that they keep the image of the prey fixed in the crosshairs of the dragonfly's eyes—their area of greatest acuity—during the duration of the chase. That allows the dragonfly to receive two channels of information about its prey, Leonardo says. The angle between the head and the body tracks the predicted movement of the prey, while the visual system detects any unexpected movement when the prey strays from its position in the crosshairs. "It gives the dragonfly a very elegant combination of predicted model-driven control and the original reactive control," he says. http://phys.org/news/2014-12-dragonflies-complex-choreography.html bornagain77
SKEPTICS OF DARWINIAN THEORY "...I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction? Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - one of the founders of modern geology. - The Spectator, 1860 http://veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/critics.html bornagain77
Andre as to: "Was any of his work ever peer reviewed?" It appears that Darwin's theory was not recieved well. Here are a few notes in that regards Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) - October 2011 Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.,,, Just two weeks before the (re)lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/ An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 22, 2012 Excerpt: "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?" (Sedgwick to Darwin - 1859),,, And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,, For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html Here is the letter from Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin: Sedgwick, Adam to Darwin - 24 Nov 1859 Excerpt: There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548 Someone tries telling the truth: Darwin wasn’t that great but he met an elite need - July 29, 2014 Excerpt: , he (Charles Darwin) devoted almost every bit of his magnum opus (Origin Of Species) to tedious examples of artificial selection in domestic animals. He brushed away the glaring advantage of artificial over natural selection with rhetoric along the lines of “I see no reason why” natural selection might not have fashioned the eye or any other organ or living thing. For such schoolboy ineptitude he was roundly criticized by his contemporaries, all of whom are now consigned to history’s dustbin, regardless of their skills and biological competency. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/someone-tries-telling-the-truth-darwin-wasnt-that-great-but-he-met-an-elite-need/ Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X Since Darwin's book ‘Origin of Species’, besides being bad science, is also rife with bad theology, it is not surprising that the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the ‘scientific’ clergy shunned it: “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species bornagain77
This is really amazing! Darwin is amazing! Evolution is amazing! Racism told Darwin style is amazing! Eugenics told Darwin style is amazing! Trusting the mind of a monkey is amazing! This guys is the shizzle! He created a brand new faith that requires more faith than any other faith! It is amazing! All hail Darwin! P.S. Was any of his work ever peer reviewed? Andre

Leave a Reply