Origin of the Species - what is the message?
Cheetah
like to hear about, and which may stir up something other than evolution vs
creation debates.
The central tennent of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God, he
died for our sins, and it is only through a faith in him as the Son of
God and through his sacrifice on the cross that we may enter heaven. Only
through faith in Jesus Christ can you enter heaven. To have faith in him
also means following his example, in acting kindly and lovingly to your
fellow man, showing compassion, and being humble. Thats what it is to be
Christian. This message is brought to Christians through the Bible. Most
denomonations believe that the Bible is the only source of Gods word.
Science has introduced documents such as Darwins Origin of the Species
through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its validity -
there is already plenty of that.
My question is - what is the message?
What I am after is what the Origin of the Species brings us. What are the
central tennents of the Origin of the Species?
I hope this isn't a question asked often, because I think its one I havn't
seen addressed.
Regards,
Peter Harrison
Drearash
>From: Cheetah pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz
>Date: 1/19/02 1:20 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Re828.514$zy4....@news02.tsnz.net>
I suggest you read it yourself. It's available online, and Darwin is a
wonderfully clear writer. If you haven't read it, do so. If you can't be
bothered to read it, then I can't be bothered to explain it to you.
The books "message" is far clearer than that of the Bible, IMO.
Von Smith
"You are not thinking...you are merely being logical" -Niels Bohr
Sverker Johansson
>
> However, a more interesting idea occured to me, one which I would honestly
> like to hear about, and which may stir up something other than evolution vs
> creation debates.
>
> The central tennent of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God, he
> died for our sins, and it is only through a faith in him as the Son of
> God and through his sacrifice on the cross that we may enter heaven. Only
> through faith in Jesus Christ can you enter heaven. To have faith in him
> also means following his example, in acting kindly and lovingly to your
> fellow man, showing compassion, and being humble. Thats what it is to be
> Christian. This message is brought to Christians through the Bible. Most
> denomonations believe that the Bible is the only source of Gods word.
>
> Science has introduced documents such as Darwins Origin of the Species
> through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its validity -
> there is already plenty of that.
>
> My question is - what is the message?
>
> What I am after is what the Origin of the Species brings us.
It brings us an understanding of how the diversity of life
got here.
> What are the
> central tennents of the Origin of the Species?
Origin of Species is a scientific work, not a religious one.
Scientific works do not have tenets in the same sense as
a religious holy book. OoS in no way aspires to tell us
how we ought to live our life -- that's not the purpose of
such a book.
> I hope this isn't a question asked often, because I think its one I havn't
> seen addressed.
The question is meaningful only for books with religious
or ideological intent.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
John Wilkins
It's "tenet". Tennants are inhabitants of buildings and suchlike.
The definition of tenet is "principle, dogma, doctrine, of person or
school" according the the aging Concise Oxford on my shelf. This
presupposes that TOoS is a doctrinal book. It is not. It is a scientific
explanation of a range of facts. Scientists are entirely free to
disagree with any or all of it, so long as they have the data to back
that up.
What the primary arguments or explanations of TOoS are can be found by
reading it. It is online in a number of places, usually in the sixth and
final edition, including our very own www.talkorigins.org.
Darwin did, however, have a number of theses which I have outlined in
two FAQs: In "Darwin's precursors and influences"
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html> I outline his
actual claims and trace those ideas to earlier sources where they exist.
In "How to be an Anti-Darwinian"
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html> I extend that to the
broader views of what have been called "Darwinism" in the later history
of evolutionary biology. They are both sketchy, but include references
you can track. Have fun.
BTW: Most denominations do *not* think that the Bible is the only source
of revelation. Most of the catholic (ie, Nicene tradition) denominations
also think that revelation occurs in the life of the church through the
inspiration of the holy spirit, and that the experience of the church
provides a guide to interpretation of the scriptures. I'm not Christian
myself, so it doesn't matter to me, but Christianity as you have
outlined it is a marginal and deviant interpretation that dates from the
Mennonites and Moravian brethren of the sixteenth century.
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 46 years
Cheetah
> Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> It's "tenet". Tennants are inhabitants of buildings and suchlike.
Sorry, spellchecks broke.
> The definition of tenet is "principle, dogma, doctrine, of person or
> school" according the the aging Concise Oxford on my shelf. This
> presupposes that TOoS is a doctrinal book. It is not. It is a scientific
> explanation of a range of facts. Scientists are entirely free to
> disagree with any or all of it, so long as they have the data to back
> that up.
>
> What the primary arguments or explanations of TOoS are can be found by
> reading it. It is online in a number of places, usually in the sixth and
> final edition, including our very own www.talkorigins.org.
I suppose my question is really trying to probe what people learned - what
they took away from a book like this. Not spiritual insight like the Bible,
but scientific insight. There seems to be many people who talk about what
Evolution is - but many do not really understand it.
Until I studied it a bit closer over the last few years I thought I knew
what evolution was. However after reading a number of books on the topic I
gathered a new understanding. Creationists sometimes claim we close our
minds - believe we 'know' something when we do not.
>
> Darwin did, however, have a number of theses which I have outlined in
> two FAQs: In "Darwin's precursors and influences"
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html> I outline his
> actual claims and trace those ideas to earlier sources where they exist.
> In "How to be an Anti-Darwinian"
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html> I extend that to the
> broader views of what have been called "Darwinism" in the later history
> of evolutionary biology. They are both sketchy, but include references
> you can track. Have fun.
Thanks for the references.
> BTW: Most denominations do *not* think that the Bible is the only source
> of revelation. Most of the catholic (ie, Nicene tradition) denominations
> also think that revelation occurs in the life of the church through the
> inspiration of the holy spirit, and that the experience of the church
> provides a guide to interpretation of the scriptures. I'm not Christian
> myself, so it doesn't matter to me, but Christianity as you have
> outlined it is a marginal and deviant interpretation that dates from the
> Mennonites and Moravian brethren of the sixteenth century.
Thanks for this, while not on topic here it relates to another discussion I
am conducting.
Regards,
Peter
mel turner
[Cheetah] wrote...
>
>However, a more interesting idea occured to me, one which I would honestly
>like to hear about, and which may stir up something other than evolution vs
>creation debates.
Sounds good. Shoot...
[By the way, do visit the FAQs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
etc.
>The central tennent of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God, he
>died for our sins, and it is only through a faith in him as the Son of
>God and through his sacrifice on the cross that we may enter heaven. Only
>through faith in Jesus Christ can you enter heaven. To have faith in him
>also means following his example, in acting kindly and lovingly to your
>fellow man, showing compassion, and being humble. Thats what it is to be
>Christian. This message is brought to Christians through the Bible. Most
>denomonations believe that the Bible is the only source of Gods word.
>
>Science has introduced documents such as Darwins Origin of the Species
>through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its validity -
>there is already plenty of that.
>
>My question is - what is the message?
You seem to think evolutionary biology should have a central
"message" in competition with those of Christianity, etc.. That's
simply a mistake. It's science, not a rival religion. Plenty of
people who consider themselves devout Christians nevertheless fully
accept the scientific findings of evolutionary biology.
>What I am after is what the Origin of the Species brings us. What are the
>central tennents of the Origin of the Species?
The Origin of Species [note you have an extra word in there] was
an imporant early work first explaining some important principles
about evolution, but it isn't a sacred founding text revealing the
central tenets of a new religious creed. If you're just asking
what the book is about, you can see for yourself:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
If there are 'central tenets' to its arguments, it would be that
the evidence shows that living things have evolved ["descent with
modification"] by gradual changes over many generations from earlier
common ancestors, and that the principle of natural selection
explained in the book will have mediated much of that change.
But again, evolutionary biology has changed a lot since Darwin's day:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
[Antievolutionists are frequently too fixated on Darwin and _The
Origin_ as though they were the founding prophet and sacred texts
of a rival religion, and discrediting them would cause the whole
thing to immediately collapse. Although that might say something
about their religious mindset, they're clearly mistaken.]
>I hope this isn't a question asked often, because I think its one I havn't
>seen addressed.
It's an interesting question, and perhaps could be expanded on. Do
any sciences have a "message" comparable to those of religions? Or
do they offer messages of a fundamentally different sort?
cheers
Dunk
wrote:
Evolutionary thinking has long been important in agriculture, so you
might say it brings us food. There was a time, in the USSR, under
Stalin, when they tried to force non-Darwinian ideas onto agriculture.
People got hungry.
Evolutionary thinking is beginning to be important in medicine.
But of course, Darwin and other pure scientists are not aiming for
applications. People scientifically investigate nature because they
want to understand their world, and their place in it.
Think of the periodic table of the elements. It is a fantastic idea!
We are surrounded by many thousands of different substances, yet we
now know that all of them are made from a few basic substances, which
we now call elements. And it turns out that living things are made of
these same elements. Mostly of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.
Who'd have thought it?
If you are asking for a spiritual message from science, including
evolutionary biology, it is in our relatedness to all the other life
around us, and to the earth itself.
Dunk
J Forbes
>
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > It's "tenet". Tennants are inhabitants of buildings and suchlike.
>
> Sorry, spellchecks broke.
Unfortunately, spellcheck won't tell you when you're
using an inappropriate homonym (different words,
with different spelling and different meanings,
which sound the same)....
> > The definition of tenet is "principle, dogma, doctrine, of person or
> > school" according the the aging Concise Oxford on my shelf. This
> > presupposes that TOoS is a doctrinal book. It is not. It is a scientific
> > explanation of a range of facts. Scientists are entirely free to
> > disagree with any or all of it, so long as they have the data to back
> > that up.
> >
> > What the primary arguments or explanations of TOoS are can be found by
> > reading it. It is online in a number of places, usually in the sixth and
> > final edition, including our very own www.talkorigins.org.
>
> I suppose my question is really trying to probe what people learned - what
> they took away from a book like this. Not spiritual insight like the Bible,
> but scientific insight. There seems to be many people who talk about what
> Evolution is - but many do not really understand it.
>
> Until I studied it a bit closer over the last few years I thought I knew
> what evolution was. However after reading a number of books on the topic I
> gathered a new understanding. Creationists sometimes claim we close our
> minds - believe we 'know' something when we do not.
I think I see what you're getting at....maybe.
Darwin's book brings the message that things can
indeed happen without an intelligent physical being
causing the things to happen. The environment is
sufficient to change organisms greatly over time.
Before TOoS, this concept was wild
speculation...Darwin showed us how it works.
-snip-
Jim
Rubystars
"Cheetah" <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Re828.514$zy4....@news02.tsnz.net...
I don't think that a scientific theory can have any religious type tenets.
You have to realize that science only deals with the physical. It can only
describe the physical.
Science is one source of knowledge among many, because it is confined to
describing the physical alone. Religion/Faith is used to describe the
supernatural and often sets moral standards. Philosophy explores ideas.
Know the limits of each and there should be no conflicts.
-Rubystars
Mark VandeWettering
> like to hear about, and which may stir up something other than evolution vs
> creation debates.
>
> The central tennent of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God, he
> died for our sins, and it is only through a faith in him as the Son of
> God and through his sacrifice on the cross that we may enter heaven. Only
> through faith in Jesus Christ can you enter heaven. To have faith in him
> also means following his example, in acting kindly and lovingly to your
> fellow man, showing compassion, and being humble. Thats what it is to be
> Christian. This message is brought to Christians through the Bible. Most
> denomonations believe that the Bible is the only source of Gods word.
I'm not certain that "most denominations" believe that. Certainly Roman
Catholics don't believe that.
> Science has introduced documents such as Darwins Origin of the Species
> through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its validity -
> there is already plenty of that.
>
> My question is - what is the message?
Why don't you read it and find out?
> What I am after is what the Origin of the Species brings us. What are the
> central tennents of the Origin of the Species?
It brings us a scientific theory to describe the diversity of species
that we observe on planet Earth.
> I hope this isn't a question asked often, because I think its one I havn't
> seen addressed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Harrison
Mark
Frank J
like him. "Origin" adds that I am also related to anthrax spores, but I need
not behave like them either. Alas, that's only my personal interpretation,
which also concludes that "Origins" was not meant to have a message, and the
Bible was meant to have ONLY a message.
stew dean
> like to hear about, and which may stir up something other than evolution vs
> creation debates.
>
> The central tennent of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God, he
> died for our sins, and it is only through a faith in him as the Son of
> God and through his sacrifice on the cross that we may enter heaven. Only
> through faith in Jesus Christ can you enter heaven. To have faith in him
> also means following his example, in acting kindly and lovingly to your
> fellow man, showing compassion, and being humble. Thats what it is to be
> Christian. This message is brought to Christians through the Bible. Most
> denomonations believe that the Bible is the only source of Gods word.
>
> Science has introduced documents such as Darwins Origin of the Species
> through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its validity -
> there is already plenty of that.
>
> My question is - what is the message?
Urm. I think I know what you're after. I think you're after meaning
from science. Science doesnt really do meaning - it tells us how
things work not why they do what they do.
>
> What I am after is what the Origin of the Species brings us. What are the
> central tennents of the Origin of the Species?
'Brings us' 'tennents'? It brought us a theory that has, er, evolved.
It's central theme is natural selection (filtering by environment).
> I hope this isn't a question asked often, because I think its one I havn't
> seen addressed.
To me you're asking 'what has science got to do with meaning'. If
meaning is subjective - which I believe it is - then it has no part in
science but should remain in philosophy.
James Chapman
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > It's "tenet". Tennants are inhabitants of buildings and suchlike.
>
> Sorry, spellchecks broke.
>
Reminds me of an old piece of verse that used to make the
email rounds quite regularly:
I have a spell checker
It came with my PC
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot see
Eye ran this poem threw it
Your sure real glad two no
Its very polished in its own weigh
My chequer tolled me sew
A cheek or is a blessing
It freeze yew lodes of thyme
It helps me right awl stiles two reed
And aides me when aye rime
Now spilling does not phase me
It does knot bring a tier
My pay purrs awl due glad den
With wrapped words fare as hear
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud
And wee mussed dew the best wee can
Sew flaws are knot aloud
So ewe can sea why aye dew prays
Such soft wear four pea seas
And why eye brake in two averse
Buy righting want to please
John Burton
news:VBl28.8285$OS5.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
10-to-the-whatever-years came up with?
John
Andrew Glasgow
Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote:
> What I am after is what the Origin of the Species brings us. What are the
> central tennents of the Origin of the Species?
Well, TOOS is a scientific work, not a moral/religious one like the
Bible.
The major ideas in it are:
1) Organisms do not have equal survival and reproductive success rates.
In particular, more offspring are produced than survive and have
offspring of their own.
2) Organisms within a population vary from one another naturally, and
these variations affect the likelihood that an organism will survive and
reproduce.
3) The variation in organisms is heritable, that is, in most cases
organisms resemble their parents more than the average member of the
population does.
4) Those variations that increase the likelihood that an organism will
reproduce successfully will tend to increase in frequency in a
population. These characteristics are naturally selected.
5) Descent with modification by means of natural selection is the
primary process by which organisms develop from their ancestors.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> Note: address in header munged. |
| "Virtues foster one another; so too, vices. Bad English kills trees, |
| consumes energy, and befouls the earth. Good English renews it." |
| The Underground Grammarian, <http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/> |
SortingItOut
Why is science limited to the physical? Wouldn't it be more accurate
to say that science deals with anything that is observable? If what
is now considered supernatural has any influence whatsoever on matter
or anything else we can observe, then it can be studied (and probably
eventually deemed "natural"). However, if there is no observable
influence from supernatural entities, then their existence is purely
speculative, and attempting to "describe the supernatural" is an
exercise in fantasy.
George Acton
The quick answer is that evolution has no "message", any more than
physics or chemistry does. It's just part of the current
description of nature, but it's as well supported as most of
physics, chemistry and the rest of biology.
It's a misunderstanding to focus on Darwin. If Darwin hadn't
discovered the principle, somebody else would have. If Einstein
had decided he was happy just being a patent clerk, we would still
have a theory of relativity, just later.
Some intelligent people are concerned about the effects of
materialistic theories on people's behavior. The only reasonable
answer is that if nature is a certain way, it is better to recognize
that and that it's injurious to religion to embrace a scientific
theory that's demonstrably false. People may have a more religious
attitude if they look at an animal and think in passing that it was
created as a separate "kind" a few thousand years ago. But they
may also have a better attitude if they look at the sun and think
of it going around the earth because God placed the earth in
the center of the universe because of his concern with humanity.
We decided to take the chance that society wouldn't disintegrate
if we gave up geocentrism. Even if we stamp out evolution,
people are still going to look at an animal and see an electrochemical
machine made out of cells which are assemblies of electrochemical
machines. We won't give that up because of the medical and
economic benefits to understanding biology at the molecular level.
Evolution being used as a scapegoat for other changes in our
world-view that go against a traditional religious outlook, but that
we won't give up because we'd have to face the ultimate horror --
a lower standard of living.
--George Acton
cewagner
Cheetah wrote:
> However, a more interesting idea occured to me, one which I would honestly
> like to hear about, and which may stir up something other than evolution vs
> creation debates.
>
> The central tennent of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God, he
> died for our sins, and it is only through a faith in him as the Son of
> God and through his sacrifice on the cross that we may enter heaven. Only
> through faith in Jesus Christ can you enter heaven. To have faith in him
> also means following his example, in acting kindly and lovingly to your
> fellow man, showing compassion, and being humble. Thats what it is to be
> Christian. This message is brought to Christians through the Bible. Most
> denomonations believe that the Bible is the only source of Gods word.
>
> Science has introduced documents such as Darwins Origin of the Species
> through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its validity -
> there is already plenty of that.
>
> My question is - what is the message?
The message is that the universe and the life in it are the result of a
purposeless accident, a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature that
can be explained by natural, rather than supoernatural causes.
Darwin's original goal, in which he succeeded admirably, was to
overthrow the idea of special creation. His larger failure, however, was
to demonstrate convincingly that variation and selection was the
mechanism by which this occurred.
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
"Hamm: I love the old questions.
(with fervor.)
Ah, the old questions, the old answers, there's nothing like
them!" Samuel Beckett "Endgame"
David Jensen
cewagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote in
<3C4AF4BF...@optonline.net>:
>The message is that the universe and the life in it are the result of a
>purposeless accident, a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature that
>can be explained by natural, rather than supoernatural causes.
It amazes me when so-called Christians who hate evolution insist on
adding this. Can you provide any evidence to show that this
characterization has anything to do with science?
> Darwin's original goal, in which he succeeded admirably, was to
>overthrow the idea of special creation. His larger failure, however, was
>to demonstrate convincingly that variation and selection was the
>mechanism by which this occurred.
Can you provide a reference to this 'original goal'?
Bob Pease
David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:st5m4uklacmhpapi9...@4ax.com...
I had this peculiar misconception that Darwin was a Scientist who was
interested in how a species is formed!!!
RJ Pease
Charlie Wagner
David Jensen wrote:
"I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had
not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had
been the chief agent of change...If I have erred in having exaggerated
it's power (natural selection)...I have at least, as I hope, done good
servive in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations..."
'Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin
Matt Silberstein
Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net>:
"Special" != "separate". HTH. HAND.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM LotL
There is safety in numbers and people and things
And big wads of money and great big diamond rings
J.O.
Charles Wagner
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> In talk.origins I read <3C4B27F8...@optonline.net> from Charlie
> Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net>:
>
> >
> >
> >David Jensen wrote:
> >
> >"I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had
> >not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had
> >been the chief agent of change...If I have erred in having exaggerated
> >it's power (natural selection)...I have at least, as I hope, done good
> >servive in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations..."
> >
> >'Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin
>
> "Special" != "separate". HTH. HAND.
Your reply makes no sense to me. Would you care to explain?
Regards, Charlie Wagner
Matt Silberstein
Charles Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com>:
Sorry. You said Darwin set out to overthrown *special* creation. Your
quote shows he had a goal (it is not clear from your quote when and
where he had this goal) to show that species were not *separately*
created. Your quote does not support your claim.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> In talk.origins I read <3C4B38CA...@charliewagner.com> from
> Charles Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com>:
>>> >"I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had
>>> >not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had
>>> >been the chief agent of change...If I have erred in having exaggerated
>>> >it's power (natural selection)...I have at least, as I hope, done good
>>> >servive in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations..."
>>> >
>>> >'Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin
>>>
>>> "Special" != "separate". HTH. HAND.
>>
>>Your reply makes no sense to me. Would you care to explain?
>
> Sorry. You said Darwin set out to overthrown *special* creation. Your
> quote shows he had a goal (it is not clear from your quote when and
> where he had this goal) to show that species were not *separately*
> created. Your quote does not support your claim.
I think in this context, "special" creation means no more and no
less than separate creation.
Cheers -- Chris
Matt Silberstein
Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au>:
I disagree. Special creation, as he used it, seems to imply creation
by God. I took his comment to mean that Darwin set out to remove God
from the picture. As such special creation is not separate creation.
I could, of course, be wrong about intent and meaning.
John Wilkins
In Darwin's time, the doctrine of separate creations involved centres of
creation of broad types, from which extant species developed over time
in reaction to the local circumstances (soil types, climates, etc).
Cuvier's version, which was influential prior to the general acceptance
of Lyell's actualism, was that there had been numerous (I think about
30) separate creations, each of which had been terminated by a
catastrophe, followed by a new separate creation, of which we are the
final one.
Special creation was an earlier version in which each species, as it is
seen now, was created once by God in a single period. Linnaeus was
perhaps the last scientist to hold to that view, and John Ray and others
had earlier held to the same opinion in the seventeenth century. The
term "special" here is an adjective of species.
Incidentally, I think that Darwin also had the morphological idealists
in his sights. Owen, of course, was the leading British practitioner,
but many of the German and French specialists accepted this view during
his youth. However, the argument against mophological idealism is
philosophical, and rather harder to make. TOoS undercut much of the
foundations of that view, and for that reason a great many people
rejected Darwin's views on the variability of species (which he
originally got from the younger de Candolle). As late as the 1850s,
Huxley was still an adherent to morphological idealism. So Darwin's
*primary* target was separate creationism, sensu Cuvier and Agassiz, but
his secondary and perhaps more profound target was the descendents of
Oken and Goethe, and through them the whole scala naturae.
Some refs:
Richards, R. J. (1992). The meaning of evolution: the morphological
construction and ideological reconstruction of Darwin's theory, Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Nyhart, L. K. (1995). Biology takes form: Animal morphology and the
German universities, 1800-1900, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM LotL
> >
> > There is safety in numbers and people and things
> > And big wads of money and great big diamond rings
> >
> > J.O.
Charlie Wagner
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> In talk.origins I read <3c4b...@news.qut.edu.au> from Chris
> Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au>:
>
>
>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In talk.origins I read <3C4B38CA...@charliewagner.com> from
>>>Charles Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com>:
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>>>"I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had
>>>>>>not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had
>>>>>>been the chief agent of change...If I have erred in having exaggerated
>>>>>>it's power (natural selection)...I have at least, as I hope, done good
>>>>>>servive in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin
>>>>>>
>>>>>"Special" != "separate". HTH. HAND.
>>>>>
>>>>Your reply makes no sense to me. Would you care to explain?
>>>>
>>>Sorry. You said Darwin set out to overthrown *special* creation. Your
>>>quote shows he had a goal (it is not clear from your quote when and
>>>where he had this goal) to show that species were not *separately*
>>>created. Your quote does not support your claim.
>>>
>>I think in this context, "special" creation means no more and no
>>less than separate creation.
>>
>
> I disagree. Special creation, as he used it, seems to imply creation
> by God. I took his comment to mean that Darwin set out to remove God
> from the picture. As such special creation is not separate creation.
> I could, of course, be wrong about intent and meaning.
Darwin certainly did not set out to remove God from the picture. That
came later. What he did set out to do, however, was to show that human
beings decended from lower forms and were not separately created by God.
He did not encounter many difficulties in this regard, because there is
a clear and profound relatedness between human beings and the lower
animals that demonstrates without any argument from me, that all living
forms had a common origin. This has become even clearer over the years
as biologists have uncovered the genetics, biochemistry and
developmental processes in living forms.
What Darwin failed to do however, was to demonstrate with any
degree of certainty that variation and natural selection is the
mechanism by which the various processes, structures and organisms came
to be. He was never able to demonstrate that natural selection has
anything near the creative power that people imagine. So, we're
basically at the same point now as we were in 1859. We know with great
certainty that all living organisms are related and probably had a
common origin, and we know that some of the organisms that lived in the
past were different than those that are extant today. And that's the
total extent of our knowledge on the subject.
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
Clov: "I love order. It's my dream. A world where all would be silent
and still and each thing in its last place, under the last dust
Hamm: "What in God's name do you think you are doing?"
Clov: "I'm doing my best to create a little order."
"Endgame" by Samuel Beckett
Matt Silberstein
Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net>:
[snip]
>Darwin certainly did not set out to remove God from the picture. That
>came later. What he did set out to do, however, was to show that human
>beings decended from lower forms and were not separately created by God.
I don't know that he did this any more than showing that other
creatures descend from older organisms, and ultimately from a common
ancestor, rather than from a specially created ancestor of that
"type".
>He did not encounter many difficulties in this regard, because there is
>a clear and profound relatedness between human beings and the lower
>animals that demonstrates without any argument from me, that all living
>forms had a common origin. This has become even clearer over the years
>as biologists have uncovered the genetics, biochemistry and
>developmental processes in living forms.
> What Darwin failed to do however, was to demonstrate with any
>degree of certainty that variation and natural selection is the
>mechanism by which the various processes, structures and organisms came
>to be. He was never able to demonstrate that natural selection has
>anything near the creative power that people imagine.
NS does not have a creative power. NS *and* mutation do. Descent with
modification is as much part of his theory as is selection.
> So, we're
>basically at the same point now as we were in 1859. We know with great
>certainty that all living organisms are related and probably had a
>common origin, and we know that some of the organisms that lived in the
>past were different than those that are extant today. And that's the
>total extent of our knowledge on the subject.
Gosh no. We have much more knowledge than that. What about the whole
field of population genetics? Or our understanding of how DNA
replication works and how mutations affect phenotype? And so on and on
and on.
Sverker Johansson
> Cheetah wrote:
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's "tenet". Tennants are inhabitants of buildings and suchlike.
> >
> > Sorry, spellchecks broke.
>
> Unfortunately, spellcheck won't tell you when you're
> using an inappropriate homonym (different words,
> with different spelling and different meanings,
> which sound the same)....
However, a half-decent spell-checker really ought to
have marked both 'tennent' and 'tennant', since neither
AFAIK is a word in English.
'Tenants', OTOH inhabit (or at least rent space in)
building.
> > > The definition of tenet is "principle, dogma, doctrine, of person or
> > > school" according the the aging Concise Oxford on my shelf. This
> > > presupposes that TOoS is a doctrinal book. It is not. It is a scientific
> > > explanation of a range of facts. Scientists are entirely free to
> > > disagree with any or all of it, so long as they have the data to back
> > > that up.
> > >
> > > What the primary arguments or explanations of TOoS are can be found by
> > > reading it. It is online in a number of places, usually in the sixth and
> > > final edition, including our very own www.talkorigins.org.
> >
> > I suppose my question is really trying to probe what people learned - what
> > they took away from a book like this. Not spiritual insight like the Bible,
> > but scientific insight. There seems to be many people who talk about what
> > Evolution is - but many do not really understand it.
> >
> > Until I studied it a bit closer over the last few years I thought I knew
> > what evolution was. However after reading a number of books on the topic I
> > gathered a new understanding. Creationists sometimes claim we close our
> > minds - believe we 'know' something when we do not.
>
> I think I see what you're getting at....maybe.
> Darwin's book brings the message that things can
> indeed happen without an intelligent physical being
> causing the things to happen. The environment is
> sufficient to change organisms greatly over time.
>
> Before TOoS, this concept was wild
> speculation...Darwin showed us how it works.
Indeed. Darwin didn't bring us any tenets of his own,
in the doctrinal sense -- but he did pull the rug out
from underneath the old 'intelligent design' tenet.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Felix Sheldon
news:3C4AF4BF...@optonline.net:
<snip>
>>
>> My question is - what is the message?
>
>
> The message is that the universe and the life in it are the result of
> a purposeless accident, a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature
> that can be explained by natural, rather than supoernatural causes.
I agree that it puts another nail in the coffins of the god wranglers. As
our mate Richard Feynman said, "God was invented to explain mystery. God
is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.
Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws
which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore".
> Darwin's original goal, in which he succeeded admirably, was to
> overthrow the idea of special creation. His larger failure, however,
> was to demonstrate convincingly that variation and selection was the
> mechanism by which this occurred.
>
Are you saying he overthrows the idea of special creation by not
convincingly demonstrating variation and selection as an alternative? If
Darwin didn't do it for ya, there's been a bit of work done since his
time...
Felix
John Wilkins
> J Forbes wrote:
> > Cheetah wrote:
> > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > > Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's "tenet". Tennants are inhabitants of buildings and suchlike.
> > >
> > > Sorry, spellchecks broke.
> >
> > Unfortunately, spellcheck won't tell you when you're
> > using an inappropriate homonym (different words,
> > with different spelling and different meanings,
> > which sound the same)....
>
> However, a half-decent spell-checker really ought to
> have marked both 'tennent' and 'tennant', since neither
> AFAIK is a word in English.
>
> 'Tenants', OTOH inhabit (or at least rent space in)
> building.
Trust a Swede to pick up an Australian making an error in English :-)
....
Elf Sternberg
Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> writes:
>Science has introduced documents such as Darwins Origin of the Species
>through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its validity -
>there is already plenty of that.
>My question is - what is the message?
There isn't one. The derivation of a "message" about how humans
should live or what they should do is not possible through the any
"scientific" means. About the only thing you _can_ do is make a
methodological assessment of human behavior, attempt to determine what
is and is not essential and innate, and from there categorize what among
the various tenants of any given utopian vision are easy or hard for
human beings to live with.
Science doesn't have "tenants." It has a methodology. And
that's about it.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/ (under construction)
I have seen the light. I was not impressed.
Charlie Wagner
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Those areas of knowledge do not address the subject under discussion,
namely the origins of structures, processes and organisms. Population
genetics informs us about how the frequencies of alleles can fluctuate
in populations, but it tells us nothing about our origins. Likewise with
mutations. We know that mutations occur and that they have an effect on
phenotype, but this tells us nothing about the mechanism of evolution.
There is no way to demonstrate that either of these effects has anything
at all to do with the question of origins.
Sverker Johansson
:->
... and you missed the error in my grammar in the previous post.
Matt Silberstein
Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net>:
>
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> In talk.origins I read <3C4B6755...@optonline.net> from Charlie
>> Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net>:
[snip]
>>>So, we're
>>>basically at the same point now as we were in 1859. We know with great
>>>certainty that all living organisms are related and probably had a
>>>common origin, and we know that some of the organisms that lived in the
>>>past were different than those that are extant today. And that's the
>>>total extent of our knowledge on the subject.
>>>
>>
>> Gosh no. We have much more knowledge than that. What about the whole
>> field of population genetics? Or our understanding of how DNA
>> replication works and how mutations affect phenotype? And so on and on
>> and on.
>
>
>Those areas of knowledge do not address the subject under discussion,
>namely the origins of structures, processes and organisms. Population
>genetics informs us about how the frequencies of alleles can fluctuate
>in populations, but it tells us nothing about our origins.
Sorry, but "fluctuate" is simply wrong. It helps tell us how they
*change*. And so do tell us about our origins.
> Likewise with
>mutations. We know that mutations occur and that they have an effect on
>phenotype, but this tells us nothing about the mechanism of evolution.
You obviously mean something different than I do by the term
"mechanism of evolution". I would say that learning about how
characteristics are inherited and how those inherited characteristics
change does tell us about the mechanism of evolution. Could you please
explain why you disagree?
>There is no way to demonstrate that either of these effects has anything
>at all to do with the question of origins.
Why? This is not intuitively obvious and I need more than an
assertion.
Charlie Wagner
Felix Sheldon wrote:
> cewagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:3C4AF4BF...@optonline.net:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>My question is - what is the message?
>>>
>>
>>The message is that the universe and the life in it are the result of
>>a purposeless accident, a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature
>>that can be explained by natural, rather than supoernatural causes.
>>
>
> I agree that it puts another nail in the coffins of the god wranglers. As
> our mate Richard Feynman said, "God was invented to explain mystery. God
> is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.
> Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws
> which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore".
The problem, it seems to me, is that we're only examining two
possibilities, "god did it" and "it was an accident". It seems to me
that we should explore other alternatives. The existence of a "higher
intelligence" and "designed for a purpose" doesn't necessarily lead us
to an all powerful, all loving supernatural god in the religious sense.
It could just be an ordinary, natural higher intelligence. It's hard to
reject the idea that there is some kind of intelligence behind the
design of the universe and it's occupants.
>
>
>> Darwin's original goal, in which he succeeded admirably, was to
>>overthrow the idea of special creation. His larger failure, however,
>>was to demonstrate convincingly that variation and selection was the
>>mechanism by which this occurred.
>>
>>
>
> Are you saying he overthrows the idea of special creation by not
> convincingly demonstrating variation and selection as an alternative? If
> Darwin didn't do it for ya, there's been a bit of work done since his
> time...
No. I'm saying he succeeded in the former, and failed in the latter. He
showed quite convincingly that species were not separately created, and
that humans are related to lower forms. He failed, however, to
demonstrate that variation and selection was the mechanism.
Charlie Wagner
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> In talk.origins I read <3C4C2BFD...@optonline.net> from Charlie
> Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net>:
>
>
>>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In talk.origins I read <3C4B6755...@optonline.net> from Charlie
>>>Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net>:
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>>So, we're
>>>>basically at the same point now as we were in 1859. We know with great
>>>>certainty that all living organisms are related and probably had a
>>>>common origin, and we know that some of the organisms that lived in the
>>>>past were different than those that are extant today. And that's the
>>>>total extent of our knowledge on the subject.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Gosh no. We have much more knowledge than that. What about the whole
>>>field of population genetics? Or our understanding of how DNA
>>>replication works and how mutations affect phenotype? And so on and on
>>>and on.
>>>
>>
>>Those areas of knowledge do not address the subject under discussion,
>>namely the origins of structures, processes and organisms. Population
>>genetics informs us about how the frequencies of alleles can fluctuate
>>in populations, but it tells us nothing about our origins.
>>
>
> Sorry, but "fluctuate" is simply wrong.
"fluctuate" means that they can change in either direction (increase or
decrease) depending on the selection pressure. Your use of the word
"change" seems to imply a one-directional movement. I think "fluctuate"
(or "oscillate") is indeed the correct word.
It helps tell us how they
> *change*. And so do tell us about our origins.
I don't have a clue about our origins...
>
>
>>Likewise with
>>mutations. We know that mutations occur and that they have an effect on
>>phenotype, but this tells us nothing about the mechanism of evolution.
>>
>
> You obviously mean something different than I do by the term
> "mechanism of evolution". I would say that learning about how
> characteristics are inherited and how those inherited characteristics
> change does tell us about the mechanism of evolution. Could you please
> explain why you disagree?
You take a "leap of faith" that I simply am unwilling to take. You
assume that because the frequency of alleles can change in a population
that these changes can accumulate to the point of generating new
processes, structures and organisms. There is no evidence to make this
connection. You also assume that because mutations occur and produce
small changes in organisms, that these variations have the creative
power to generate new structures and processes over time. Again, there
is no evidence to support this view. Then, you try to obfuscate the
whole business by not clearly defining what you mean by evolution,
offering an amorphous entity that can be shaped to fit any situation and
can mutate at will to deflect attempts to falsify it.
Matt Silberstein
Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net>:
Fluctuate implies, and oscillate explicitly states that they do go up
and down. And that makes them the wrong word. Not all changes change,
not all changes go up and down in frequency. Change it the correct
word. Some changes disappear, some spread through the population and
take over, some find a balance and remain at less than 100%.
>It helps tell us how they
>> *change*. And so do tell us about our origins.
>I don't have a clue about our origins...
I am sorry about that. There is plenty out there. Read up at
www.talkorigins.org and the follow those parts you find most
interesting.
>
>>>Likewise with
>>>mutations. We know that mutations occur and that they have an effect on
>>>phenotype, but this tells us nothing about the mechanism of evolution.
>>>
>>
>> You obviously mean something different than I do by the term
>> "mechanism of evolution". I would say that learning about how
>> characteristics are inherited and how those inherited characteristics
>> change does tell us about the mechanism of evolution. Could you please
>> explain why you disagree?
>You take a "leap of faith" that I simply am unwilling to take. You
>assume that because the frequency of alleles can change in a population
>that these changes can accumulate to the point of generating new
>processes, structures and organisms.
No faith involved. Again, I may well have more information than you,
but no faith. Now what do you mean by "mechanism of evolution"? You
don't mean DNA and inheritance and how mutations occur, so what do you
mean?
> There is no evidence to make this connection.
Sure there is. Sequence similarity, for example, gives us a good idea
of the origin of blood clotting. We don't have absolute knowledge, no.
But we certainly know much more than we knew 100/50/10 years ago.
>You also assume that because mutations occur and produce
>small changes in organisms, that these variations have the creative
>power to generate new structures and processes over time.
Again, no assumption. I can model how these changes work, I can look
at sequence similarity and protein similarity, etc. My question for
you is why you see creativity as some mystical power.
> Again, there
>is no evidence to support this view. Then, you try to obfuscate the
>whole business by not clearly defining what you mean by evolution,
>offering an amorphous entity that can be shaped to fit any situation and
>can mutate at will to deflect attempts to falsify it.
Evolution, the process, is the change in frequency of inherited
characteristics in a population of organisms over time. Evolution, the
fact, included "directly" (i.e. contemporaneously) observed examples
such as speciation and fixation of beneficial mutations. Evolution,
the fact, also included Common Descent, a inference supported by
multiple independent lines of evidence. Evolution, the theory, says
that the major mechanisms of evolution are mutation, selection, and
drift.
I hope you find that definition clear. I have used it for years so I
see no obfuscation. Nor do I see this as amorphous. The fact of
evolution will look fuzzy to those who insist on an essentialist
viewpoint, but anything dealing with change will cause them problems.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se> wrote:
> > > J Forbes wrote:
> > > > Cheetah wrote:
> > > > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > > > > Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's "tenet". Tennants are inhabitants of buildings and suchlike.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, spellchecks broke.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, spellcheck won't tell you when you're
> > > > using an inappropriate homonym (different words,
> > > > with different spelling and different meanings,
> > > > which sound the same)....
> > >
> > > However, a half-decent spell-checker really ought to
> > > have marked both 'tennent' and 'tennant', since neither
> > > AFAIK is a word in English.
> > >
> > > 'Tenants', OTOH inhabit (or at least rent space in)
> > > building.
> >
> > Trust a Swede to pick up an Australian making an error in English :-)
>
> :->
>
> ... and you missed the error in my grammar in the previous post.
I have no objections to boldly splitting infinitves, if that's what you
mean...
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making grammatical errors for over 46 years
David Jensen
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
<1f6eftn.krinjpj4yl7uN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>:
I would guess that he was speaking of either the lack of an article or
the plural in 'building' (unless XXXX and the Brits treat 'building'
like 'hospital' and 'university'). 'To have marked' is a perfectly
acceptable infinitive form.
R. Baldwin
"Cheetah" <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Re828.514$zy4....@news02.tsnz.net...
> However, a more interesting idea occured to me, one which I would
honestly
> like to hear about, and which may stir up something other than
evolution vs
> creation debates.
>
> The central tennent of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God,
he
> died for our sins, and it is only through a faith in him as the Son
of
> God and through his sacrifice on the cross that we may enter heaven.
Only
> through faith in Jesus Christ can you enter heaven. To have faith in
him
> also means following his example, in acting kindly and lovingly to
your
> fellow man, showing compassion, and being humble. Thats what it is
to be
> Christian. This message is brought to Christians through the Bible.
Most
> denomonations believe that the Bible is the only source of Gods
word.
>
Species
> through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its
validity -
> there is already plenty of that.
>
>
are the
> central tennents of the Origin of the Species?
>
> I hope this isn't a question asked often, because I think its one I
havn't
> seen addressed.
>
>
> Peter Harrison
>
It's not a message, its a model that fits the evidence. Models are
useful because they predict future states. They don't make a moral
statement.
Evidence shows that systems change aperiodically over time, including
the biosphere and the species therein. The processes of biological
evolution are the model that matches the evidence.
The model has immediate utility if you want to fight germs, improve
agriculture, etc. It won't tell you anything about the ethics of doing
so.
Nick Lilavois
>However, a more interesting idea occured to me, one which I would honestly
>like to hear about, and which may stir up something other than evolution vs
>creation debates.
>
>The central tennent of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God, he
>died for our sins, and it is only through a faith in him as the Son of
>God and through his sacrifice on the cross that we may enter heaven. Only
>through faith in Jesus Christ can you enter heaven. To have faith in him
>also means following his example, in acting kindly and lovingly to your
>fellow man, showing compassion, and being humble. Thats what it is to be
>Christian. This message is brought to Christians through the Bible. Most
>denomonations believe that the Bible is the only source of Gods word.
>
>Science has introduced documents such as Darwins Origin of the Species
>through scientists in modern times. I don't want to argue its validity -
>there is already plenty of that.
>
>My question is - what is the message?
There is none.
>What I am after is what the Origin of the Species brings us. What are the
>central tennents of the Origin of the Species?
>I hope this isn't a question asked often, because I think its one I havn't
>seen addressed.
You seem to think that science is an alternative to
religion, and that they are somehow in opposition. They are
not. Science answers the questions of who, what, where, when
and how. It does not answer- or even attempt to answer- why.
Why is the domain of religion. Science and religion only
become in conflict when religion attempts to answer the
other questions.
/*'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'*\
|* Unique, Artistic T-Shirts, Caps, Mugs, Mousepads and More! *|
|* * Mystical * Political * Funny * Sexy * Artsy * *|
|* MagentaStudios | http://shop.magentastudios.com/ *|
|* Nick Lilavois | http://www.lilavois.com/nick/ *|
\*'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'*/
Nick Lilavois
>I suppose my question is really trying to probe what people learned - what
>they took away from a book like this. Not spiritual insight like the Bible,
>but scientific insight. There seems to be many people who talk about what
>Evolution is - but many do not really understand it.
>
>Until I studied it a bit closer over the last few years I thought I knew
>what evolution was. However after reading a number of books on the topic I
>gathered a new understanding. Creationists sometimes claim we close our
>minds - believe we 'know' something when we do not.
If you mean what we draw from it scientifically, it is
rather straightforward. We, meaning all life, evolved over
time. All things change.
If you mean what we can draw from it philosophically, it is
that all of nature is interconnected and interdependent, and
that mankind is a part of nature, not something separate
from nature.
Mitchell Coffey
> Cheetah <pet...@nothingbutnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >I suppose my question is really trying to probe what people learned - what
> >they took away from a book like this. Not spiritual insight like the Bible,
> >but scientific insight. There seems to be many people who talk about what
> >Evolution is - but many do not really understand it.
> >
> >Until I studied it a bit closer over the last few years I thought I knew
> >what evolution was. However after reading a number of books on the topic I
> >gathered a new understanding. Creationists sometimes claim we close our
> >minds - believe we 'know' something when we do not.
>
> If you mean what we draw from it scientifically, it is
> rather straightforward. We, meaning all life, evolved over
> time. All things change.
>
> If you mean what we can draw from it philosophically, it is
> that all of nature is interconnected and interdependent, and
> that mankind is a part of nature, not something separate
> from nature.
Also, philosophically, that one need not assert some teleological
principle to explain observed evolution.
Mitchell Coffey