Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild

CMI ^ | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild

If you thought Darwin’s Origin was original, think again!

by Russell Grigg, Australia

The concept of evolution by natural selection is sometimes referred to as Charles Darwin’s brainchild, and indeed he often referred to it in his letters to his friends as his dear ‘child’. However, this is a far cry from the facts. At best it was an adopted child; at worst an illegitimate child...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Ozone34]

Actually the Roman Lucretius beat Darwin to it in 58 B.C., in “De Rerum Natura”, inspired to a considerable degree by the Greek philosopher Epicurus.

[Sherman Logan]

VERY few concepts in history spring full-blown from the mind of a single individual.

Most have precursors and intellectual ancestors.

The adulation given to Darwin is often a little overdone, but so are these attempts to turn him into some kind of a plagarist.

[elkfersupper]

Last I heard, this was a news forum.

You need to deal with this on Sunday mornings, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, or whenever you are in your church.

[ChessExpert]

This appears to be good historical research that shows that many of Darwin’s ideas were anticipated and advanced by others earlier.

It does not explain why Darwin is more famous than his predecessors and contemporaries who offered a similar hypothesis. Why did he and his work have a greater impact? Perhaps his effort was more exhaustive, or more complete, or better written, or his book was longer and more impressive looking. Perhaps his work had a different cultural or philosophical bent. What was different about Darwin and his work?

The article notes a difference between Blyth and Darwin

Edward Blyth (1810–1873) was the man whose ideas probably influenced Darwin most.
...
Blyth was a Christian and what we would nowadays call a ‘special creationist’. . E.g. concerning the seasonal changes in animal colouring (such as the mountain hare becoming white in winter), Blyth said that these were ‘striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause’. And he said that animals ‘evince superhuman wisdom, because it is innate, and therefore, instilled by an all-wise Creator’.

Well , there is a difference right there. Darwin was not a special creationist. Perhaps this, as much as anything else, explains Darwin's "unique" status.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GourmetDan]

As you know, evolution is an old pagan idea. Pagans used to believe that carcasses spontaneously produced maggots and garbage dumps spontaneously produced rats.

Louis Pasteur scientifically proved that life comes only from life, sometimes called the law of biogenesis.

Nevertheless, we still have people who believe that life self-organizes out of non-life. Paganism never really went out of style. Darwin just helped it take over a once-respectable methodology formerly known as “science”.

[BrandtMichaels]

Yeah, it can’t be news if it was not reported factually the 1st time - eh? /s

I read FR for both the news and the debating. I most especially like the debating and varied points of view, if for nothing else than to expand the mind.

Too bad you think some things must be soooo compartmentalized...

[elkfersupper]

Too bad you think some things must be soooo compartmentalized...

I am the opposite of compartmentalized.

My religious faith cannot be threatened by scientific fact.