Posted on 08/11/2008 3:04:34 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I think I can bear the pain of that action - whatever you decide to rename "Darwin's theory" it won't change his actual writings, or the basic premise.
But if it makes you feel good and you want to presume the book to be true...
Bottom line is that people are trying to make more of BOTH Darwin and ID than is there to be made - neither should invalidate the other whether true or simply reasonable.
==There was no argument or any discontent between these scientists except for in the vivid imaginations of the ID’ers some 150 years later
First of all, the author is neither an IDer or a Creationist. He is the former head of factual programs for the BBC. In the meantime, here’s another review of the book from that noted creationist website, RichardDawkins.net.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Mail-boat record ‘proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist’
by Steffan Rhys, Western Mail
CHARLES DARWIN’S theory that for 150 years has been viewed as explaining the origin of mankind was stolen from a Welsh scientist, the author of a new book has claimed.
In his book The Darwin Conspiracy: Origins of a Scientific Crime, published this week, Roy Davies claims to have unearthed new evidence that shows Charles Darwin stole the ideas of Alfred Russel Wallace for his work On the Origin of Species, and that it is Wallace who should be credited as having first proposed the theory of evolution.
Davies accuses Darwin of incorporating the revolutionary ideas of Wallace into his manuscript then claiming them as his own.
His crucial evidence, he claims, is in pinpointing the exact dates that letters from Wallace to Darwin explaining his theories arrived at Darwin’s home, proving that the Welsh scientist developed them first.
And experts on the Welshman yesterday agreed that Wallace had been unfairly treated by history but said it would be difficult to prove his ideas were in fact stolen.
“I researched the book for 12 years,” said Davies, a former head of factual programmes at BBC Wales.
“At the beginning, I believed Darwin was a genius. By the time the book was finished, I had long since realised that it was Wallace who was the genius and Darwin, 14 years his senior, who was the plodder.
“In the end, the crucial evidence came from an expert on Dutch maritime shipping in the 19th century, Professor Femme Gaastra of Leiden University.
“He was able to pinpoint exactly which boats picked up Wallace’s mail in the Malay Archipelago (now Malaysia and Indonesia), where he was working as a collector of new species, and delivered it to the P&O liners who shipped the mail home to Southampton.
“Before the research, Darwin’s supporters were able to argue that the letters he received from Wallace arrived at his home when he claimed they had.
“Professor Gaastra’s great contribution was that he was able to show that two crucial letters written by Wallace between October 1856 and March 1858 arrived in Britain long before Darwin admitted they had. Wallace’s ideas appeared in Darwin’s work soon afterwards.”
Wallace was born in Llanbadoc, near Usk, in 1823 and became an explorer, collector, naturalist, geographer, anthropologist and political commentator. He died in 1913. Experts at the Natural History Museum say he came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection at the same time as – but entirely independent of – Darwin, but has since been overshadowed.
While feverish with malaria on the Malay Archipelago in 1858, Wallace wrote to Darwin explaining his ideas because he knew Darwin was also working on the theory.
Both men presented their theories to the scientific Linnean Society of London, but Darwin’s manuscript was published the following year, and he has since been universally credited with the theory, while Wallace’s name has largely been forgotten.
“It is terribly unfair on Wallace,” said George Beccaloni, a curator at the Natural History Museum and founder of the Alfred Russel Wallace Memorial Fund.
“The fact of the matter is they both simultaneously published the theory of natural selection in 1858, 15 months before Origin of Species.
“But everyone credits Origin of Species as being the place the idea was first published, which isn’t true. Wallace definitely deserves half the credit for the idea.
“On the face of it, it certainly seems there are questions that should be answered by historians.
“But whether Darwin stole the idea remains to be seen.”
Davies said the implications for Darwin’s status as an honest scientist were serious but said his theory would face “serious opposition” from academics.
“Any attempt to restore Wallace’s name to anything like equality with that of Darwin’s is bound to fail,” he said.
“All I can hope for is that fair-minded people read the book and make up their own minds.”
See #43
He might even have been guilty of at least some of it. Edison, I mean.
What you share here, sounds like strong refutation of the thesis of the article, heading this thread. (not that it matters to me all that much, it's all water under the bridge, now, regardless of who was thinking what, first.)
Still, could I ask for a citation/source for that which you have copy/pasted?
Though even having a source for what you've quoted, most likely wouldn't resolve just exactly who the " number of scholars" is, who opine that the claims of these other, named persons (who show their work!) are "not credible"...
Actaully, the cut and paste does not include the new scholarship. Also see the RichardDawkins.net review in reply #43.
I'd like to see credit go where it is due - both men seem to have been out there at the front and (as I tried to state) credit does not always go where it is most due.
Which does not change the basic theory or it's applicability, the gaps between it and the complexity that ID postulates, or the "how did it all get started" question.
Most interest on FR is apt to be due to ID/Evo dynamic rather than historic interest.
That is the shame of it.
Sorry for any mis-direction this may have caused.
The scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.
It does not support anthropogenic global warming.
And it certainly does not support creationism.
No big deal. It’s probably my fault for not making the issues involved more clear. All the best—GGG
==The bigger lie than Al Gore’s global warming is the Darwinist’s lie that science proves evolution.
You are quite right. In the scheme of things, one lie is very limited in scope, whereas the other lie cuts right to the heart of all creation.
I said it supports the theory. At least try to quote me correctly.
By saying that you still did not squelch what I said. Well, at least you have “faith” just as I do, although my anchor is much stronger than your man made one. Please don't send me all that garbage you have already sent me about three times now. You know what I mean.
Sorry, I don't post garbage. What I post can be supported with evidence.
This is really funny because when I posted I thought , “please don't let me get a reply from Coyoteman. LOL The ubiquitous (on evolution, Coyoteman)
I am perhaps the only one on FR who studied fossil man and the theory of evolution through to the Ph.D. level. Why would you fear to hear from me? At least I have some basis for the statements I make.
No worries, I have crossed paths with Coyoteman many times. He strains at gnats without realizing he has long since swallowed a camel.
Thanks for the ping!
How have things been Alamo-Girl? I never see you responding to anything I send anymore. Everything ok in Alamo-girl-land?
Everything is fine. I pray all is fine with you, too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.