I have simultaneously started reading Darwin's "On the origin of species" and a book by philosopher Mary Midgley called "The solitary self: Darwin and the selfish gene". See this great review:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24663-the-solitary-self-darwin-and-the-selfish-gene/
Read this review if you have the chutzpah, but rest assured that she does a pretty good job on Dawkins, Dennett, and the other "Darwinians". Midgley has brought home to me me how thoroughly Darwin's own very nuanced arguments and views were quickly and completely subverted by subsequent commentators, none of whom were as insightful or as careful as him in their conclusions. This started with Huxley while Darwin was still alive.
Darwinists always have another agenda that is not related to biological science. Darwin himself just tried to understand and explain the biological world as we encounter it.
I am only on chapter 1 of Darwin but you are struck by his intellect and depth of observational experience.
I was equally stuck by the rare instances where he was wrong. He believed most domesticated animals had a single wild ancestor (based on lots of evidence and very clever induction), but strangely exempted the domestic dog from this. I suppose he thought that there were just too many types of very different breeds to support a single ancestor. Sadly, we now know definitively from genetic studies that he was wrong. Maybe he should have followed his own logic, applied to other domesticated species, but given the lack of any known mechanism for any of these things at the time, he must be forgiven.
I am looking forward to more insights from Darwin as I proceed slowly.
The short lesson from this post is: Don't confuse Darwin with Darwinism!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have always considered Dawkins to be a bit of an oaf in a way, because he is very intolerant of anyone who has differing views to his own. Like he needs the validation. He resorts to plain rudeness when he meets his match. Very off putting indeed.
ReplyDeleteThis subject is very interesting to me and gives me food for thought. I will pose a question to you when I think through how to word it. It is complex in a way and I am not sure I even know what I am thinking myself and have been for a long time now, in relation to this very subject you are reading/ writing about.
By the way Mumbling Minty is my name from a blog I started some years ago too but have not bothered going on with.
Now I am retired it might also be a good way for me to collect thoughts, mine and others, and will be another way to help fill in the days. Nothing as intellectual as yours though.
Meant to say, I like that summary idea at the end of your post. It enables me to go back and re- read what you have written, with a purpose of looking for the point and hence understanding more fully, your meaning.
ReplyDeleteHi MM. Thanks for your replies and as you can see, I don't even check my own blog very frequently. I set it up for the exact purpose you mention, to collect and record my thoughts on all the different strands that I am interested in. I am close to retirement myself and have had an increasing urgency in myself to sort out some things that have fascinated me for years. These all revolve around science, theology and philosophy and as I am fortunate enough to work as a librarian in a research university I have great access to all the literature I need or want, at least I do until I retire! I hope to do another post or two soon, so I hope you will read and comment when I do. Best wishes from Roger
Delete