Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Words are a changin .. Darwin Evolution.
Did something yeterday I have not done in a while .. went to a real bookstore to buy a book .. 
Not my favorite cyber book vendor.
As I wandered around I passed the science section and was drawn to a handsome boxed book ... "From So Simple A Beginning" edited by EO Wilson a compilation of Charles Darwin's four great books .. one of which being the "Origin Of Species".
What surprised me was the general introduction by Wilson .. it ended with a quote from the end of the original edition of the Origin Of Species and one of my favorite sentences in the book. It was not quite the same as the line you find in the popular Mentor addition of the book that I own and have read ... the word "Creator" is not present in Wilson's quote.
So .. I wonder .. was the word "Creator" added in by others after Darwin's first publication or has it been deleted out to make Darwin's work more workable with an aetheist view of the Origins.
It is well known that Darwin was well versed in the bible and the presence of "Creator" demonstrates he still entertained the idea of a creator albiet he now had a better understanding of the creation. It would make perfect sense he would use the word "Creator". It would also make sense that modern scientist today would force a creator out of science given the chance.
The Quote : Mentor publication.
"There is a grandeur in this view of life. with it's 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 laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Is science re writing science ?? .. or have we been duped by those not willing to accept evolution and was the word "Creator" forced into Darwin's work.
I have called EO Wilson by phone for a clarification. Hope to recieve a response.
I am confused. What gives ??
Good Day ....
Not my favorite cyber book vendor.As I wandered around I passed the science section and was drawn to a handsome boxed book ... "From So Simple A Beginning" edited by EO Wilson a compilation of Charles Darwin's four great books .. one of which being the "Origin Of Species".
What surprised me was the general introduction by Wilson .. it ended with a quote from the end of the original edition of the Origin Of Species and one of my favorite sentences in the book. It was not quite the same as the line you find in the popular Mentor addition of the book that I own and have read ... the word "Creator" is not present in Wilson's quote.
So .. I wonder .. was the word "Creator" added in by others after Darwin's first publication or has it been deleted out to make Darwin's work more workable with an aetheist view of the Origins.
It is well known that Darwin was well versed in the bible and the presence of "Creator" demonstrates he still entertained the idea of a creator albiet he now had a better understanding of the creation. It would make perfect sense he would use the word "Creator". It would also make sense that modern scientist today would force a creator out of science given the chance.
The Quote : Mentor publication.
"There is a grandeur in this view of life. with it's 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 laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Is science re writing science ?? .. or have we been duped by those not willing to accept evolution and was the word "Creator" forced into Darwin's work.
I have called EO Wilson by phone for a clarification. Hope to recieve a response.
I am confused. What gives ??
Good Day ....
0
Comments
I am not sure what else Darwin may have altered between editions.
Thanks for the link.
Good Day ...
Bushi, dear warrior friend,
Things haven't changed that much: we are still trying to understand our place in nature. It's just that, since the 16th century, we have been using different tools and, in particular, we use reason rather than authority, the mind rather than the writings of Aristotle or, even, Darwin. We demand, "Show me, don't just tell me."
Havingh discovered the scientific method and the power of human reason, particularly mathematical reasoning, some have tried to reduce all 'valid' knowledge to the 'reasoned'. Spinoza (not him again!) was one of the fathers of this modernism.
What the reductionists fail to mention is that they don't actually start with reason. They start with imagination, the power to elaborate postulates and hypotheses. After that, they may major on reason and method but, ab initio, they dream. Einstein is, as always, a brilliant example.
The human mind appear to function by symbols and 'images' (which can be vision, audition, kinesthesia, even olfactory or gustatory depending on the thinker). Once we have that initial 'dream', we search to find the reasonable basis. Thus, the dreaming Einstein rides on a sunbeam or Hoyle constructs a picture term for the first moments of this universe by calling it the Big Bang.
And, of course, there has to be a solid faith in the power of reason and the method used.
Palzang
Palzang
I agree, Palzang. Indeed, it would sit well in any General or Citizenship Studies. Wouldn't it be extraordinary if, instead of using the school system to produce cannon-fodder for industries that are dying and death-dealing, we turned out young people who had begun to ask themselves what it means to be human, to have choices, to think for themselves.
In the school system that I experienced (the French lycéePhilop system of the '50s and '60s: secular and intellect-based), the very best year was the last one, Philo Lettres: 7 hours of philosophy classes each week. Alongside those of us who had been at the school for years, students came from other French schools to study in England under university-level teachers. we had Catholics, Royalists (well, one! French royalists are a strange bunch: Action Française), a card-carrying Young Communist, Muslims and humanists. The point is that we all came to this extreme stretching of our minds after years of training. Of course we had learned facts but we had also learned method and had been challenged, year by year, to learn how to think for ourselves.
A little film like that raises so many questions, questions which should fascinate and engage young minds and which are the best protection against extremist nonsense of all sorts.