[quote mine] Charles Darwin: “all has been intelligently designed”

_{Salvador Cordova

August 20, 2007

Humor, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Letter 3154 Ã¢â‚¬â€ Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May [1861]

One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed

Charles Darwin, 1861

I think that would make a perfect textbook sticker.

Comments

JK writes, Ã¢â‚¬Å“So from this understanding of human nature and of the human condition both reason and emotion tell us that we should care about others.Ã¢â‚¬Â I grant that reason (always) and emotion (sometimes) tell us we should care about others. That is not the important question. The important question is, on what ground does the materialist choose to be guided by reason and good emotions instead of bad emotions such as envy, lust and malice? Again, from a strictly logical point of view, it is quite simply inescapable that the true materialist (i.e., a materialist true to his beliefs and not living on our cultureÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s rapidly dwindling store of Judeo-Christian moral capital) bases all of his decisions on pragmatic grounds, for to him, by definition, there are no other grounds upon which to base a decision.BarryA_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

And I agree with all that Barry just wrote about treating others with dignity and respect. My point is that one doesn't have to be a theist to believe what Barry wrote about how to treat people. The reasons might be different, but the conclusion is the same.Jack Krebs_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

I was writing my response to Barry when Tribune7's post intervened. When I wrote, "I am certain that many materialists feel strongly that they have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect," Tribune7 asked,
Can you articulate any?
Sure. However, following up on what I just wrote to Barry, let me say that I am fairly sure that you won't agree with them, which is fine with me - I'm not trying to convince you to be a materialist. What I would like you to do, however, is understand a bit better. So here is, perhaps, a materialist talking: "We live in a wondrous world - one capable of, among many other things, producing livings things as human beings. We have this short opportunity to be a human being, and while we are here we are sharing this opportunity with other human beings. Human beings have a nature - we have the potential to love, to be compassionate, to help others, to create and better the world around us; and our experience (both individual and collective) tells us that our deepest sense of satisfaction comes when we realize these potentials to reach out beyond ourself." "So from this understanding of human nature and of the human condition both reason and emotion tell us that we should care about others, which of course includes having respect for the inherent human nature that resides in each and every one of us." One does not have to believe in God to believe that love, compassion, and respect are central to the human condition, and that exercising those qualities resonates the best with the truth about what human beings are.Jack Krebs_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

I cannot speak for other theists, including Robo, but the answer to your question is simple from a Christian perspective. We are enjoined to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Who, then, is our neighbor Christ was asked, and he responded by telling the story of the good Samaritan. Christ chose a Samaritan as the hero of his story for a reason; to the Jews Samaritans were a despised race, literally untouchable. Jesus point was that there is no merit in loving those for whom you have natural affection. The real test is loving those with whom you have natural antagonism. So, JK, the answer to your question is that every person on this site who names the name of Christ has a duty to treat all commenters with love, and this necessarily means every commenter should be treated with dignity and respect, even when (perhaps Ã¢â‚¬Å“especially whenÃ¢â‚¬Â) that dignity and respect is a one-way street.BarryA_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Let me restate this then: Many materialists have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect. I believe they would claim that their reasons are sound, based on both the exercise of logic and human reason as well as experience and knowledge of human nature and the human condition. I understand that you, and many theists, are as dismissive of this position as the materialists are of theism. The current point I am making is not who is right, but rather what kind of respect does one show one with opposing viewpoints. In discussing materialism, should one make an effort to accurately present their position as they themselves see it, or can one just dismiss their position as wrong and then portray them as you - the anti-materialist - see them. And let's be sure to turn this around: how should the materialist look at the theist? Should he make a genuine effort to understand the reasons the theist believes as he does, and to understand the overall context of the theist's religious beliefs?, or should he dismiss the theist as having totally unsubstantiated beliefs in imaginary entities? There are people on both sides of this discussion who do not show respect for persons on the other side, and there are people that do. There are many people - good people - who have thought deeply about these matters and have reached opposite conclusions. What kind of respect should one have for someone who has reached the opposite conclusion as one's self, and how should you treat such a person in discussing these matters with him? This is the question brought up by Robo's comments above, I think.Jack Krebs_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

I am certain that many materialists feel strongly that they have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect. Can you articulate any?tribune7_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

JK writes: Ã¢â‚¬Å“I am certain that many materialists feel strongly that they have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect.Ã¢â‚¬Â Your comment reminds me of my torts professor in law school. He was ruthless. Whenever someone said in response to a question, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I feel . . .Ã¢â‚¬Â he would invariably interrupt and say, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Mr. X, neither I nor your classmates are interested in the condition of your viscera. Give me reasons, not feelings.Ã¢â‚¬Â From a strictly logical point of view, it is simply irrelevant that many materialists may Ã¢â‚¬Å“feel stronglyÃ¢â‚¬Â that there is a reason for treating others with respect other than mere pragmatism. Nietzsche was right to this extent. If materialism is true, these materialistsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ feelings have misled them.BarryA_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

jerry, Sal: You're very welcome. __________ Keep the moderation policy as is, please. No tripe.j_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

I've been thinking about Robo's comment that
People who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect. Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).
I don't know whether Robo intended his comment to include all possible cases - whether he sees the "imago Dei" and the "imago animalia" groups as two disjoint sets that include the only two possibilities into which a person's beliefs can fall. I'm also not sure what people he includes in the "imago animalia" group. I'm assuming at a minimum he is including materialists who do not believe in any metaphysical aspect to the world. Keeping these uncertainties I have about exactly what Robo has in mind, here are a few comments. 1. There are many people throughout the world who are not theists in the Western tradition and that have spiritual beliefs that all human beings have an inherent right to our respect, irrespective of any pragmatic grounds they might have for treating people with respect. So if Robo's two categories are meant to just mean theists and materialists, then his categories are not all-inclusive: many people fall in neither group. 2. However, perhaps Robo includes in the "imago animalia" group all who accept evolution and our biological relationship with all of life via common descent back to the beginnings of life. In this case, this group includes much more than the materialists, including a sizable fraction of the theists in the world. As has been discussed at length (but is still always a quite relevant fact)), many Christians accept evolutionary science and Christian theism: we have evolved in the animal world and also participate spiritually in the "imago Dei" that God has endowed upon and within our animal nature. One doesn't have to agree with that interpretation, but I think it is a true fact that is what many Christians believe. 3. But even if Robo is just talking about the materialists, I think he misrepresents them by saying that they respect others for pragmatic reasons only. In fact, I find the following a little ironic: the claim is made that "[p]eople who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect." And yet one sign of respect, in my opinion, is to try to genuinely understand the points of view of others who have different points of view than our own. Each person is trying to make sense out of the world as best they can, and even though we may think someone else's path is terribly misguided, we should at least try to honestly understand them. I am certain that many materialists feel strongly that they have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect. I would hope that Robo and others would not be so simplistically dismissive of the beliefs of those who believe that the material world is all there is - if for no other reason than out of respect for the "image of God" that the theist believes resides in us all.Jack Krebs_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, By and large, I love the moderation policy around here. I've not had to read through pages of spam. Thanks for protecting our website. I believe the quality of the comments is one of the reasons people enjoy visiting UD. I started my own blog and discussion forum and modeled the moderation policy based on UD. UD is a trend setter. It deserves to be famous. Salvadorscordova_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

bfast this site is famous for banning people It's honest about banning people. That's such a rarity that it draws attention hence the fame.DaveScot_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Daniel King, The problem is what is pragmatic for you may be different from others such as Hitler and Stalin. It was very pragmatic for Stalin to get rid of the Kulaks. History is full of pragmatic solutions that are pragmatic only in the eyes of a single person or a few or maybe even a majority. Majorities may have different pragmatics than minorities. Pragmatic also means that what is useful to you today may not be useful for you tomorrow. Pragmatic is a different way of saying relativism because the basis for judging anything can change depending upon one's personal needs. In many instances the actual pragmatic choice has no major implications for others but in many cases it does.jerry_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Is there anyway of changing the font color for comments or blockquotes? They are difficult to read. I measured the color components of the grey type face of the blockquotes in Photoshop and it is closer to white than black and when it is on the grey background of the typical responder it is a faint grey on slightly fainter grey. The "humor" classification under the post at the top is close to white and the line above it almost pure white in Photoshop.jerry_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).
Pragmatism works for me.Daniel King_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

"IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve asked UD commenters to treat you with respect like an opponent visiting under flag of truce." People who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect. Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).Robo_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

"If I had seen the humor part I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have responded. My apologies." I would agree with Jack on this. The font color is almost unreadable on my laptop.Robo_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Ed Brayton repeats the Darwinist mantra. Crowther's Lies on Origin of Intelligent Design Brayton writes:
Nick did not claim that the phrase intelligent design was invented for the first time in late 1987; he said that this was the first time the phrase was "used systematically, defined in a glossary, claimed to be something other than creationism, etc." In other words, it was only after the Edwards ruling that this phrase began to be used by anti-evolutionists as a label for their alternative position, and thus began to be used as the label for their movement. The evidence for this is absolutely undeniable.
Not quite. Darwin used the phrase "intelligent design" to describe the alternative (to his) position. In contrast, Darwin did not even use the phrase "creationism" or even the word "Bible" or "biblical" in Origin of Species. Look at the TalkOrigins site regarding McLean vs. Arkansas and see how often the Bible is mentioned. Or Edwards vs. Aguillard. Darwin set the debate not against Biblical Creationism but against intelligent design, and a notion of special creation not necessarily rooted in what is now called "Biblical Creationism".scordova_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Hi bfast, It is perhaps because this site has acquired such a reputation that it is possible for us to have the long and fruitful discussions that do occur here. Having tried to speak my mind at PT, Pharyngula, StrangerFruit, ATBC, etc., I, for one, couldn't care less about the so-called plank in the eye of UD. Dissenters are not hard to find.Charlie_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Thanks, bfast. I know there are people at the KCFS site that are rude and abusive, as there are on every site (I was just called a terrorist, for instance, who only pretends to be nice), but people's behavior has to be quite excessive before they get banned at the KCFS forum. I know that I disagree with most of you about lots of basic issues, but I think on this site I've been pretty good about having civil discussions with people, which is what I enjoy when I have the time and the topic interests me.Jack Krebs_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Gentlemen, I know nothing of Krebs' site, but this site is famous for banning people. I think we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Sal may have a point about abusive language on Krebs' site, I don't know. But I personally would love to have more dissenters on this site. Lets pull the plank out of our own eye before trying to deal with the speck in our brother's eye.bFast_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

JK is, imo, a 1st class Darwinian fundamentalist terrorist -- where he can freely act as such, and pretends to be a nice, fair, unprejudiced guy anywhere else. Gee, that sounds like almost every other Darwinian fundamentalist I've ever met. What a coincidence!Borne_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

j, Thank you very much for your research and posting it here. It was very informative. Salscordova_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Jerry wrote:
"Thanks J for the long post about the context of DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s comments and that the term and concept of intelligent design was not borne in 1989 as Nick Matzke claims but was well known to Darwin."
And well beyond. There have been design advocates throughout recorded history, although most deists and theists probably (as today) have disavowed design as an 'intelligent process.' It's been stated by certain researchers, however, that many Greek and Roman thinkers recognized design in nature. One ancient whose writings are available today was Epictetus. Here's a quote from Disc. 1.6.7 (Loeb Classical Library translation, 1:41)
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Assuredly from the very structure of all made objects we are accustomed to prove that the work is certainly the product of some artificer, and has not been constructed at random.Ã¢â‚¬Â
And another: Epictetus Disc. 1.16.8
"Anyone who observes the facts of nature yet denies the existence of a creator, he opines, is stupid."
The concept is as old as man's cognitive processes, although granted, there have been resurgences of late. Sorry, Nick.LeeBowman_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Forthekids, the very impersonal nature of online discussions lend themselves to childish tactics like name calling, etc. The reason of course is that the person you are insulting is not sitting in front of you. I can guarantee you that most people will not behave the way they do, if they had to face the consequences of doing it in person.vpr_{August 21, 2007
August
08
Aug
21
21
2007
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

The strength of Darwin's theory is that on the surface it explains and unifies biology. This is why it is so readily accepted. If it only worked all of biology would fall into place. The only problem is when one looks at the details and finds it fails at nearly every turn. It is interesting that Darwin said that when you look at the universe as a whole you see design but when you look at the individual species you do not see design. If he had gone one step further and looked at the patterns of change in species he would not have found any evidence for gradual change. So where to then if not back to design. The letter to Herschell reveals a cocky Darwin who thought the details would be easily shown to support his views while 150 years later the details actually undermine it. Thanks J for the long post about the context of Darwin's comments and that the term and concept of intelligent design was not borne in 1989 as Nick Matzke claims but was well known to Darwin.jerry_{August 20, 2007
August
08
Aug
20
20
2007
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs argues: Sal is not banned at KCFS. Any further discussion about this should take place there, not here, as it really doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t pertain to this site at all.
Yeah right, Jack, where I can't plead my case before your over there where you act as Judge and Jury. I can plead my case here however, and since you're here, it is an opportune time to mention it. Any way, feel at home here at UD Jack, I have no intenetion of suppressing what you have to say. I'm merely pointing out that I have extended much more courtesy to you than you have to me at KCFS, where people have the freedom to ignore threads that I start there (unlike a blog, where they have less choice about what they read). I've asked UD commenters to treat you with respect like an opponent visiting under flag of truce. I'm complaining you hadn't gone the extra mile on my behalf over at KCFS where it seemed you'd tolerate any level of vulgarity directed toward me. Your toleration of vulgarity and accusations of lying didn't bother me as much as the fact you would tolerate that and yet stop a limited number of discussions on scientific topics that I started and which I took care to stay on scientific grounds. I posted material on Lewontin which you shut down, yet you regularly allow bandwith for insults and ad homs to be directed at me. I can take the trash talking, but I find it a bit inequitable that discussion of things like Lewontin's Santa Fe 2003 paper get quickly labeled as spam, yet stuff on your board that should clearly count as frivolous is permitted.scordova_{August 20, 2007
August
08
Aug
20
20
2007
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

More interesting is what lead up to the letter in question. "The Law of Higgledy-Piggledy" by j Charles Darwin, Autobiography, p. 68:
During my last year at Cambridge I read with care and profound interest Humboldt's Personal Narrative. This work and Sir J. Herschel's Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two.
Darwin states that his interest in science was due in great measure to John Herschel, eminent astronomer and philosopher of science. John Herschel to Charles Lyell:
Feldhausen, Cape of Good Hope, 20 February 1836. My dear Sir, I am perfectly ashamed not to have long since acknowledged your present of the new edition of your Geology, a work which I now read for the third time, and every time with increased interest, as it appears to me one of those productions which work a complete revolution in their subject, by altering entirely the point of view in which it must thence-forward be contemplated. You have succeeded, too, in adding dignity to a subject already grand, by exposing to view the immense extent and complication of the problems it offers for solution, and by unveiling a dim glimpse of a region of speculation connected with it, where it seems impossible to venture without experiencing some degree of that mysterious awe which the sybil appeals to, in the bosom of Aeneas, " on entering the confines of the shadesÃ¢â‚¬â€or what the Maid of Avenel suggests to Halbert Glendinning, "He that on such quest would go, must know nor fear nor failing; To coward soul or faithless heart the search were unavailing." Of course I allude to that mystery of mysteries, the replacement of extinct species by others. Many will doubtless think your speculations too bold, but it is as well to face the difficulty at once. For my own part, I cannot but think it an inadequate conception of the Creator, to assume it as granted that his combinations are exhausted upon any one of the theatres of their former exercise, though in this, as in all his other works, we are led, by all analogy, to suppose that he operates through a series of intermediate causes, and that in consequence the origination of fresh species, could it ever come under our cognizance, would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous processÃ¢â‚¬â€although we perceive no indications of any process actually in progress which is likely to issue in such a result.
In this letter, published in 1838 in the appendix of Charles Babbage's The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, we see that John Herschel read and was greatly impressed with Lyell's masterpiece, The Principles of Geology, and that he considers it to shed light on the area of biological origins. Herschel suggests that it is a natural process; that the process is teleological is implied (Ã¢â‚¬Å“he operates through a series of intermediate causesÃ¢â‚¬Â). Charles Darwin, Autobiography, p. 68:
I felt a high reverence for Sir J. Herschel, and was delighted to dine with him at his charming house at the C. of Good Hope... He never talked much, but every word which he uttered was worth listening to.
Darwin dined with Herschel in June 1836. In his journal, Darwin called the occasion Ã¢â‚¬Å“the most memorable event which, for a long period, I have had the good fortune to enjoy.Ã¢â‚¬Â (I wonder what they talked about.) Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (1859), p. 1:
When on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species -- that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it.
Darwin implicitly gives tribute to Herschel for highlighting the issue of species origination. Charles Darwin to John Herschel, 11 November 1859:
My dear Sir John Herschel, I have taken the liberty of directing Murray to send you a copy of my book on the Origin of species, with the hope that you may still retain some interest on this question.Ã¢â‚¬â€ I know that I ought to apologise for troubling you with the volume & with this note (which requires no acknowledgment) but I cannot resist the temptation of showing in this feeble manner my respect, & the deep obligation, which I owe to your Introduction to Natural Philosophy. Scarcely anything in my life made so deep an impression on me: it made me wish to try to add my mite to the accumulated store of natural knowledge. With much respect I beg leave to remain Yours sincerely Charles Darwin
Darwin seeks the approval of Herschel. Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, 23 November 1859:
Sir J. Herschel, to whom I sent a copy, is going to read my book. He says he leans to the side opposed to me. If you should meet him after he has read me, pray find out what he thinks, for, of course, he will not write; and I should excessively like to hear whether I produce any effect on such a mind.
Darwin is desperate to find out what Herschel thinks of his book. Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, 12 December 1859:
I have heard, by roundabout channel, that Herschel says my book "is the law of higgledy-piggledy." What this exactly means I do not know, but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is a great blow and discouragement.
Herschel has perceived that, in Darwin's theory, variation and natural selection are both generated by chance. Darwin is offended and upset by Herschel's sharp characterization. John Herschel, Physical Geography of the Globe (1861), p. 12:
This was written previous to the publication of Mr. Darwin's work on the Origin of Species, a work which, whatever its merit or ingenuity, we cannot, however, consider as having disproved the view taken in the text. We can no more accept the principle of arbitrary and casual variation and natural selection as a sufficient account, per se, of the past and present organic world, than we can receive the Laputan method* of composing books (pushed ÃƒÂ outrance [i.e., to the extreme]) as a sufficient one of Shakespeare and the Principia. Equally in either case an intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the directions of the steps of change -- to regulate their amount, to limit their divergence, and to continue them in a definite course. We do not believe that Mr. Darwin means to deny the necessity of such intelligent direction. But it does not, so far as we can see, enter into the formula of this law, and without it we are unable to conceive how far the law can have led to the results. On the other hand, we do not mean to deny that such intelligence may act according to a law (that is to say, on a preconceived and definite plan). Such law, stated in words, would be no other than the actual observed law of organic succession; a one more general, taking that form when applied to our own planet, and including all the links of the chain which have disappeared. But the one law is a necessary supplement to the other, and ought, in all logical propriety, to form a part of its enunciation. Granting this, and with some demur as to the genesis of man, we are far from disposed to repudiate the view taken of this mysterious subject in Mr. Darwin's book.
In Herschel's reply to Darwin, he correctly points out that in order for evolutionary processes to generate complex specified information, they must be guided by intelligence. Charles Darwin to John Herschel, 23 May 1861:
Dear Sir John Herschel, You must permit me to have the pleasure to thank you for your kind present of your Physical Geography. I feel honoured by your gift, & shall prize this Book with your autograph. I am pleased with your note on my book on species, though apparently you go but a little way with me. The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure; & has been ably discussed by Prof. Asa Gray, with whom I have had much correspondence on the subject. Ã¢â‚¬â€ I am in a complete jumble on the point. One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,Ã¢â‚¬â€those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed. But I ought to apologise for thus troubling you.Ã¢â‚¬â€ You will think me very conceited when I say I feel quite easy about the ultimate success of my views, (with much error, as yet unseen by me, to be no doubt eliminated); & I feel this confidence, because I find so many young & middle-aged truly good workers in different branches, either partially or wholly accepting my views, because they find that they can thus group & understand many scattered facts. This has occurred with those who have chiefly or almost exclusively studied morphology, geographical Distribution, systematic Botany, simple geology & palaeontology. Forgive me boasting, if you can; I do so because I shd. value your partial acquiescence in my views, more than that of almost any other human being.Ã¢â‚¬â€ Believe me with much respect Yours, sincerely & obliged Charles Darwin
Darwin uses the phrase Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent designÃ¢â‚¬Â and effectively threatens Herschel with obsolescence. Herschel does not reply. __________ Herschel, an ID proponent, set Darwin on his life's course, first by igniting a love of science ("natural philosophy"), and then by highlighling a major, unanswered scientific question, and giving a general description of the type of answer it should have. Darwin reported back to his muse over 20 years later with a theory, basically saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Chance did it.Ã¢â‚¬Â Herschel immediately and rightly rejected the theory as plainly inadequate, over a century before it was possible to demonstrate this (via computer), as has now occurred. Herschel -- Ã¢â‚¬Å“such a mindÃ¢â‚¬Â indeed. __________ * From Gulliver's Travels (1726) by Jonathan Swift: We crossed a walk to the other part of the [Laputan] academy, where, as I have already said, the projectors in speculative learning resided. The first professor I saw, was in a very large room, with forty pupils about him. After salutation, observing me to look earnestly upon a frame, which took up the greatest part of both the length and breadth of the room, he said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Perhaps I might wonder to see him employed in a project for improving speculative knowledge, by practical and mechanical operations. But the world would soon be sensible of its usefulness; and he flattered himself, that a more noble, exalted thought never sprang in any other manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s head. Every one knew how laborious the usual method is of attaining to arts and sciences; whereas, by his contrivance, the most ignorant person, at a reasonable charge, and with a little bodily labour, might write books in philosophy, poetry, politics, laws, mathematics, and theology, without the least assistance from genius or study.Ã¢â‚¬Â He then led me to the frame, about the sides, whereof all his pupils stood in ranks. It was twenty feet square, placed in the middle of the room. The superfices was composed of several bits of wood, about the bigness of a die, but some larger than others. They were all linked together by slender wires. These bits of wood were covered, on every square, with paper pasted on them; and on these papers were written all the words of their language, in their several moods, tenses, and declensions; but without any order. The professor then desired me Ã¢â‚¬Å“to observe; for he was going to set his engine at work.Ã¢â‚¬Â The pupils, at his command, took each of them hold of an iron handle, whereof there were forty fixed round the edges of the frame; and giving them a sudden turn, the whole disposition of the words was entirely changed. He then commanded six-and-thirty of the lads, to read the several lines softly, as they appeared upon the frame; and where they found three or four words together that might make part of a sentence, they dictated to the four remaining boys, who were scribes. This work was repeated three or four times, and at every turn, the engine was so contrived, that the words shifted into new places, as the square bits of wood moved upside down. Six hours a day the young students were employed in this labour; and the professor showed me several volumes in large folio, already collected, of broken sentences, which he intended to piece together, and out of those rich materials, to give the world a complete body of all arts and sciences; which, however, might be still improved, and much expedited, if the public would raise a fund for making and employing five hundred such frames in Lagado, and oblige the managers to contribute in common their several collections. He assured me Ã¢â‚¬Å“that this invention had employed all his thoughts from his youth; that he had emptied the whole vocabulary into his frame, and made the strictest computation of the general proportion there is in books between the numbers of particles, nouns, and verbs, and other parts of speech.Ã¢â‚¬Â I made my humblest acknowledgment to this illustrious person, for his great communicativeness; and promised, Ã¢â‚¬Å“if ever I had the good fortune to return to my native country, that I would do him justice, as the sole inventor of this wonderful machineÃ¢â‚¬Â... __________ (Please excuse the length of this comment.)j_{August 20, 2007
August
08
Aug
20
20
2007
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Right...then your friends can fire up the cannons and let loose while you sit back (as usual) and enjoy the fireworks.Forthekids_{August 20, 2007
August
08
Aug
20
20
2007
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Sal is not banned at KCFS. Any further discussion about this should take place there, not here, as it really doesn't pertain to this site at all.Jack Krebs_{August 20, 2007
August
08
Aug
20
20
2007
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

It truly is amazing how Jack Krebs (KCFS) and Wesley Elsberry (AtBC) will allow the supporters of their forums to use the most horrific name calling and ridiculing techniques known to man, yet they ban people like Sal and I for the most insignificant, miniscule comments in comparison. Then they have the gall to complain when we moderate their profane, inane, or repetitive comments at our blogs. Elsberry is a Christian, but evidently verses like "Be ye kind one to another" only apply to those who agree with his philosophy about life. I swear this whole on-line debate is out of control. People are positively nasty to one another. It's really sad if you think about it.Forthekids_{August 20, 2007
August
08
Aug
20
20
2007
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply