In a message dated 7/19/2005 10:24:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The *point* of the matter IS that, Charles Darwin was a deeply spiritual > man > who did not approach his very young theory with the flippancy > of most people today. > THAT is what Cardinal Chris is pointing out. > (and notice the qualifying language he uses, > the Church has learned alot since Gallileo) Darwin was not really spirtual. He kept mum on his religous beliefs in part out of respect for his wife (some think he delayed publication of Origin in part to avoid causing his wife difficulty). He was a public agnostic and likely an atheist. > > But....David Loye says it better: > "In the Descent of Man Charles Darwin wrote only twice of "survival of the > fittest" — but 95 times about love! 92 times about moral sensitivity. survival of the fittest is really atributable to Herbert Spencer who pushed "Social Darwinism" a philosophy Charles was distinctly uncomfortable with. Darwin understood that his theory explicitly did away with the notion of progress in particular towards a higher state or goal (that is for most people humans). Many evolutionists have been closer philosophically to Spencer than Darwin including Ronald Fisher in England and Seward Wright in the US the two scientists who restored natural selection as theory of evoluition. In the late 19th and early 20th century natural selection was regarded as wrong or at least incapable of being the cause of all evolutionary change. Mutation, inheritance of acquired traits (Lamarkism) and directed evolution (that is god) all were considered more important than selection which was thought to be able to account for only small changes. Nothing much has changed today. Some tout things like morphologic requirements or developemental constraints claiming they have more to do with evolution than selection. Even "Creationists" such as intelligent design advocates like MIchael Behe and William Demisky believing that small changes (microevolution) can occur via selection. They like many others just don't like the idea of puposeless selectrion beinign responsilble for major evolutionary trends (marcroevolution). Still through all Natural Selection is the only scientifically viable and experimentally supported theory that explains adaptation. The reason that people don't like natural selection is that the inevitable conclusion of accepting natural selection is that there is no purpose to life, no plan. We don't mind that when it comes to maybe the shape of the beaks of finches but we do not want to accept that for ourselves. It is a bleak vision. Unfortunately I see no other possibility. All other options including god create too many problems. If there really is a purpose a goal a guiding intelligence an objective view of the world requires that this intelligence is at best an insensitive practical joker or more likely a malignant one. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
