In “The Darwin Myth,” by Benjamin Wiker (the most recent book on Darwin that I’ve read), it is recorded that in the first edition of “Origin of Species” “Darwin was silent about God as well, but that silence was transparent in its implications: Darwin had not said anything about God because he had rendered Him entirely superfluous.”
In subsequent editions (beyond the second) Darwin, apparently responding to critics, threw them a sop by writing of “life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . . ..”
Dare we hope that the Creator was graciously grateful for this reluctant acknowledgement?
In this same book, p. 47, we find Darwin wondering “why should there be differences (among birds sharing a common gene pool) on nearly identical islands a mere twenty miles apart?” A good question; birds should be capable easily of inter-breeding across so small a territorial range. Continuing, we read “It was in fact because of their very proximity, as Darwin humbly admitted, that he didn’t keep very straight what specimens came from which island.”
I rest my case.
Easily? Maybe so, but I doubt a finch would cross 20 miles of open ocean if it didn't have to.
Darwin, apparently responding to critics, threw them a sop by writing of “life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . . ..”
I'm not following you here. Are you complaining that he acknowledged a Creator? I can see how that it wouldn't fit an anti-Darwin/anti-science biased world view, and how that would be disturbing to a fanatic. I don't think you are one though.
Continuing, we read “It was in fact because of their very proximity, as Darwin humbly admitted, that he didn’t keep very straight what specimens came from which island.”
Yes. I suppose the case would be strengthened if he'd lied about it, or if hundreds of other scientist didn't go back to the Galapagos and personally check his observations.
I rest my case.
Uneasily...