Still, could I ask for a citation/source for that which you have copy/pasted?
Yes you can certainly ask for a citation/source for my copy paste and I should have cited them in my post. Mea culpa.
While I had heard of Alfred Russel Wallace, I will admit that I didn’t know a whole lot about him and his relationship with Darwin so I did an internet search.
The source was Wikipedia. And yes, before you say it, I know full well that Wiki is not always a reliable source of factual information and that’s why I use it sparingly but it is a quick way to obtain some general background information and if the article(s) are properly footnoted and the sources for the footnotes are reliable sources then, yes I will use it.
The two links I sourced:
Alfred Russel Wallace
Charles Darwin
Both articles address the relationship between the two men and address the issue of whether Darwin and his contemporaries gave Wallace his proper due and both articles cite the dates and timelines of previous publications by both men and the collaboration between them both before and after the alleged plagiarism.
There is ample evidence that even Roy Davies admits to, that Darwin had been researching on his theory and had begun writing Origin of Species long before Wallace sent him his paper asking for his opinion on it since Darwin was already a recognized and well respected and respected Naturalist. Wallace even in his own writings acknowledges that Darwin’s earlier writings inspired him to do his own research. The questions of earlier correspondences between the two men have not been proven and are speculative in regards to who influenced who.
And the question of whether Darwin “stole” from Wallace is yet to be proven
In Roy Davies own words: “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.”
Rather than being plagiarism in a literal sense, scientists, both then and today, working independently often bounce their ideas off of each other before publication. Sometimes the ideas and research of one scientist can and does influence the final publication of another. It’s called collaboration. Darwin did acknowledge Wallace’s work and Wallace didn’t offer any complaint during his lifetime that he had been ripped off and the two men remained on friendly terms. Wallace should however been given more credit than he received but when one looks at the facts, it wasn’t because of Darwin’s supposed megalomania.
If Darwin can be accused of anything, it could be his timidity about publishing his scientific findings and observations, ones that he knew would shake the established science of his time and would be very controversial. Wallace’s work and independent and similar findings and theory on evolution gave Darwin the impetus to go ahead and publish his own works when he had been holding back from publishing for many reasons including the recent death of his wife and child.
If anything, the fact that other scientists, not just Darwin and Wallace, but others, were making similar observations and drawing similar conclusions then and since, only bolsters the scientific evidence to support evolution.
He is the former head of factual programs for the BBC.
Now let’s take a look at Roy Davies from a source that comes from his own website and not from Wikki.
about the author
Shortly after joining the Chronicle series in the early 1970s, Roy made two documentaries with the writer and presenter Henry Lincoln about the extraordinary story of a French priest who seemed to have found parchments in an altar pillar in his church which pointed to a great treasure.
The documentaries led to the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail and eventually to a host of other researchers and authors embarking on an historical odyssey that ultimately resulted in The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
Roy’s other “historical” documentaries include Destination D-Day, an investigation into the top secret planning behind the invasion of France in 1944, and he later made Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor using testimony from secret sources to argue Roosevelt knew in advance of the Japanese planned ambush of the Pacific Fleet, which catapulted the US into the Second World War.
Roy has a real predilection toward conspiracy theories and undocumented sources. Yes? No?
He might even have been guilty of at least some of it. Edison, I mean.
Tesla has a much better case against Edison than does the speculation of whether or not Davies has any against Darwin.
…here’s another review of the book from that noted creationist website, RichardDawkins.net.
Yes, there is a very spirited open debate going on there. Did you bother to read all the comments or just the ones you agree with?
Let's see if I got this right: You believe in evolution and support that with evidence. Yet you say that you have evidence that supports theory. So there is NO evidence to prove evolution only the theory of evolution. You have it all wrong again! Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Let's try an analogy: Gravity is a fact; we can observe things falling. The theory of gravitation explains how and why things fall. With evolution we can observe change in the genome from generation to generation; that is a fact. In the fossil record and in genetics we can see differences between species, genera, etc. Those are also facts. The theory of evolution seeks to explain those facts.
In science there is no proof; a theory is the highest level of explanation there is. This may be where you are becoming confused, in thinking that a theory is a guess and that ideas need to be proved. That is perhaps the way a layman would use the terms, but that is not how science uses the terms. A theory is the top level explanatory tool that there is.
And on top of all that, you bet your soul that you are right. Good luck in the future.
There is nothing incompatible between the theory of evolution and religion. Our recently deceased Pope told us this.