> http://www.thingsrevealed.net/darwin.htm
>
> On
> The Origin of Species
> By Means of Natural Selection,
> Or The
> Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle
> For Life
>
> Charles Darwin
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Darwinian Thesis
>
> In 1859 Charles Darwin published his pivotal work On the Origin of the
> Species. Humanism had finally found an axis for a world wide
> revolution. The search for a naturalistic explanation for the
> existence of the universe was one of the great quests of humanism in
> the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the Age of Reason promised
> that science would deliver such a new world view. Charles Darwin was
> the supremely adapted instrument for such a task; exacting scientist,
> theologically restrained, and personally reserved. The concepts he
> articulated were likewise modest and when T.H. Huxley, Darwin's
> bulldog, first read the Origin he is reported to have said, "How
> extremely stupid not to have thought of that" (Origin, p. xv). The
> simplest form of the central claims of Darwin's theory may be arranged
> as a syllogistic argument which he himself provided. The argument was
> as follows: (1) since there have been long ages, (2) since organic
> beings vary, (3) since organic beings increase by geometrical powers,
> then: " I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation
> ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way
> as so many variations have occurred useful to man" (Origin, p. 126).
> These premises and the conclusion have been summarized in the
> naturalistic theory of origins called "descent with modification
> through natural selection" (Origin, p. 343). We will now consider the
> basic premises and the conclusion in order.
>
> Uniformitarianism
>
> One of the crucial foundations for the Darwinian revolution was the
> principle of uniformitarianism. This principle was first advanced by
> James Hutton who argued that the geological structures of the earth
> could be explained by the work of long ages of time. Charles Lyell
> later became the most effective advocate for abandonment of the
> Biblical view of earth's origin, which he called the "Mosaic system"
> of geology, in favor of the view that all the features of the Earth's
> surface were produced by natural forces operating for long ages. His
> arguments that the Earth's crust was the product of thousands of
> millions of years of activity convinced many that there was no need
> for explanations motivated by the Biblical record of the Genesis Flood
> or subsequent natural catastrophes. His principle of uniformitarianism
> can be stated as follows: The causes which shape the Earth's surface
> in the present are the only ones that have operated in the past and
> they have always acted at the same rate, or "the present is the key to
> the past." Lyell's influence in geology later brought about a nearly
> complete abandonment of what was then called "catastrophism" and also
> laid the foundations for evolutionary biology.
>
> Darwin assumed this view of earth history and considered it beyond
> dispute. He spent very little time in the Origin on the defense of
> uniformatariansim and assumed that all those who were geologically
> literate had been "inculcated" in Lyell's views (Origin, p. 292). The
> theory of descent with modification was dependant on the existence of
> long ages of time in order for the minute variations he observed in
> the present to be accumulated in innumerable generations in the past.
> There was no room for catastrophes in earth history because, as both
> Darwin and Lyell understood, this admission would allow for the
> possibility that the Genesis Flood was an adequate explanation for the
> appearance of the Earth's surface. It is important to note that Darwin
> took Lyell's books Principles of Geology and Elements of Geology on
> the Beagle where he was supposed to have formulated his theory.
> Further, it was Lyell who encouraged his young friend Charles Darwin
> to publish his theory before Alfred Russell Wallace published a
> similar view.
>
> Biological Variation
>
> The backdrop for Darwin's principle of biological variation was the
> common notion of the "immutability of the species." The crucial
> philosophical components of this idea had originated with Plato and
> Aristotle. According to Plato there were a "limited number of fixed,
> unchangeable 'ideas' underlying the observed variability, with the
> eidos (ideas) being the only thing that is fixed and real" (Origin, p.
> xix). According to Aristotle all of nature could be arranged in a
> "continuous series in which each link would be almost
> indistinguishable ... from the lowest organisms to the
> highest" (Durant, pp. 65-66). This scale of nature, or Scala Naturae,
> was the precursor of what would later be know as the "Great Chain of
> Being." This quasi-theological theory was based on Aristotle's Scala
> Naturae with the addition of angels and God attached at the top, owing
> to the influence of deism and Christianity in the west during this
> period. This construct should be understood as a syncretic amalgam of
> Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine possessing profound internal
> inconsistencies, since the Biblical conception of God is one of
> transcendence; and therefore, he is completely distinct from his
> creation. One of the logical deductions of this view was the
> "immutability of the species." We must, however, distinguish between
> the Biblical idea of "created kinds," or categories in which each
> original creation could reproduce "according to its kind" (Genesis
> 1:12), and the theory of immutable species.
>
> The first evidence Darwin called upon for biological variation was
> familiar to most people of that day, since variation due to artificial
> selection, or domestication, had yeilded so many important results. It
> was straight forward to make reference to such cases as the breeding
> of horses, cattle, and pigeons. Many details are given for the
> variation of pigeons, since Darwin was a member of the London Pigeon
> Clubs and personally conducted experiments in artificial selection
> (Origin, pp. 20-21). An important case was made for the power of this
> kind of selection, even though intelligently made, since it showed
> that variations within species were easily achieved. The key was man's
> power of accumulative selection (Origin, p. 30), or as Darwin said, "I
> am convinced that the accumulative action of Selection ... is the
> predominant Power" (Origin, p. 43).
>
> The next category of evidence of biological variation was taken from
> the natural world without the influence of intelligent selection.
> Darwin spent a great deal of time arguing that the differences between
> what were known to be variations within species through breeding, and
> those classified as distinct species in nature were comparatively
> small. When considering what might constitute a definition of species
> Darwin concluded that, "the opinion of naturalists having sound
> judgment and wide experience seems the only guide to follow" (Origin,
> p. 47). In nature, just as in domestication, what were selected as
> "advantages" were inherited by their offspring, but now these would
> allow them to become dominant over their compatriots. On this view
> Darwin concluded that the distinction between species and variations
> within species was arbitrary and; therefore, species were not
> immutable.
>
> Malthusian Population Dynamics
>
> The next major concept described by Darwin was referred to as the
> "struggle for existence." This idea was important since Darwin
> believed that it allowed Nature to replace intelligence in the
> selection process so that speciation would continue without guidance.
> Herein, lies the central theme of Darwin's thesis:
>
> All these results, ... follow inevitably from the struggle for life.
> Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and
> from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to
> an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to
> other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the
> preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by
> its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of
> surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are
> periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this
> principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by
> the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's
> power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly
> produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses,
> through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him
> by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter
> see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably
> superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those
> of Art. (Origin, p. 61)
>
> Ultimately, Darwin argued that if the intelligent selection of man in
> producing variations in species can be replaced by the a process of
> natural selection, then why not replace the "apparent design" of life
> itself with that same process in Nature. It is important to observe
> how Darwin has metaphorically personified Nature as the predominant
> "Power" and source of nature itself.
>
> The principles of Thomas Malthus and the idea of a "struggle for
> existence" were the seedbed for Darwin's proposal of Natural Selection
> as the efficient power for the progress of evolution. The principle
> that Malthus laid down was stated as follows: "Population when
> unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases
> only in an arithmetic ratio" (Taylor, p. 61). With this principle and
> a great deal of pessimism Malthus envisioned man as a brute-beast and;
> therefore, argued that disease, famine, infanticide, and warfare were
> legitimate checks on human population and should not be discouraged.
> This idea was also popularly applied to nature as illustrated by the
> famous quote from Alfred Tennyson, "Nature red in tooth and claw." For
> many, the harsh realities of the rise of the Industrial Revolution
> seemed to vindicate a Malthusian outlook of human affairs. Whatever
> Darwin may have thought of the application of these ideas to human
> populations he certainly felt obliged to credit Malthus for his own
> use of this principle in natural selection (Origin, p. 63). In this
> context he concluded that the struggle for existence was most severe
> between species of the same genus (Origin, p. 76).
>
> With this background the evidence for the power of natural selection
> was seen as compelling. Everywhere one could expect to see natural
> selection at work in "the preservation of favorable variations and the
> rejection of injurious variations" (Origin, p. 81). Since in the long
> run only the strong would survive, Darwin concluded that modifications
> among the favored races, due to natural selection, "shall not be in
> the least degree injurious" (Origin, p. 86). Darwin's illustrations of
> the action of natural selection include several "imaginary cases" such
> as: increased nectar excretion in flowers resulting in increased
> distribution of pollen by bees, a more complete separation of sexes in
> plants allowing increased efficiency by division of labor, and an
> increased length proboscis in hive-bees permitting greater
> productivity in the acquisition of nectar (Origin, pp. 93-95). A
> crucial aspect of the action of natural selection was the domination
> of favored raves in the competition for mastery of a common niche.
> This was inferentially illustrated by observations Darwin actually
> made for a turf of grass. In this case, a plot of natural grasses were
> observed to contain twenty species, eighteen genera, and eight orders
> (Origin, p. 114). From these observations Darwin concluded that only
> those species which were sufficiently different from each other could
> co-inhabit a certain environment, since they were not in direct
> competition for the same niche. In the end, this view of competition
> within natural selection requires that the "improved" species dominate
> the environment to the extent of extermination of all local and
> closely related rivals. Thus, Darwin described what has been popularly
> referred to as as the principle of "survival of the fittest."
>
> Summary Conclusion
>
> With the assumption of an enormous lapse of time, the evidence for
> limited biological variation, and the acceptance of the struggle for
> existence, Darwin concluded that variation could continue on
> indefinitely and ultimately account for the origin all life on earth--
> including man.
>
> Analysis
>
> The common view of the history of Christian motivation of the sciences
> is clearly checkered. Though no one should doubt the importance of the
> motivating force of the Biblical idea of a Creator/Lawgiver God who
> created man in his own image so that "man can think the thoughts of
> God after him," it is also clear that the conflict between the church
> and humanism has never ceased. The struggle between the Catholic
> church and Galileo largely intensified the antagonism between
> Christianity and naturalistic humanism. Then, with the triumph of the
> Darwinian revolution in the sciences, humanism was seen as ultimately
> vindicated. Since man was not qualitatively distinct from God on the
> Great Chain of Being, God could be replaced by man on the pinnacle of
> progress. Thus, did the Age of Reason bring in a new era.
>
> But what about the scientific claims of evolution as an explanation
> for the origin of life? Were they truly based on a solid empirical
> foundation? In what follows I will attempt to show that humanistic
> theories of origins are based upon the concept of naturalism and that
> as Thomas Kuhn argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, "a
> decision of that kind can only be made on faith" (Kuhn, p. 158). The
> first important principle that must be established is a definition of
> what constitutes true science. Although Kuhn had no concern for
> precise definitions (Kuhn, p. 160), there is reason for concern about
> defining science merely by symptoms rather than by an objective
> standard for demarcation. The method used by all successful scientists
> throughout history is now called the "Baconian scientific method."
> That method is given as follows:
>
> The Baconian Scientific Method: (Applies to naturally recurring
> processes in the present.)
>
> 1. Observation: Direct or indirect in the present.
> 2. Problem: Question posed about natural process that is relevant and
> testable in the present.
> 3. Hypothesis: An educated proposal for an explanation of naturally
> recurring processes in the present and for the future.
> 4. Experiment: Direct test of hypothesis in the present which is
> possible to repeat in the future.
> 5. Theory: Scientific theories are hypotheses about the present and
> future confirmed by experiments in the present. They will be judged by
> their predictive value in the future.
>
> The first thing to observe is that, while Darwin did use this method
> "whenever possible" (Origin, p. x), by definition he could not observe
> events or process in the past and therefore he chose to rely upon an
> "alternative" inference by analogy in the present. In point of fact,
> Darwin relied heavily on analogies between processes in the present
> for extrapolation into the past. Darwin was aware that this was a
> doubtful practice and admitted that "analogy may be a deceitful
> guide", but pushing ahead he wrote, "Nevertheless, ... I should infer
> from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever
> lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into
> which life was first breathed" (Origin, p. 484). The important
> distinction to be made between the Baconian scientific method of
> inquiry and this "alternative" is that in confirmation we are able to
> observe the actual processes themselves; however, when we take
> observations in the present to infer that processes or events may have
> occurred in the past we must recognize that this is mere speculation
> and not logically guaranteed or necessarily reasonable.
>
> No one can fault Darwin for his ignorance of the limits of biological
> variation. He accurately stated for the science of his day that, "The
> laws governing inheritance are quite unknown" (Origin, p. 13). It was
> not until 1865 that Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk, established
> the laws of biological inheritance. And it was not for another thirty
> years that these laws were rediscovered and used to replace Darwin's
> mechanisms which relied upon Lamarkian "acquired characters" and
> "blending inheritance" (Origin, p. 15, 37). He certainly could not
> have known that he had confounded microevolution, the conservative
> process that allows the expression of latent information pre-encoded
> for the survival of organisms within a category, with macroevolution
> the supposedly "creative" process by which mutations appear with new
> information providing variations sufficient for unique organic
> categories. Further, Darwin could not have know about the astronomical
> information content of the genetic code which Watson and Crick
> discovered in 1953, with its precise processes of self replication,
> error checking, and self repair. Thus, Darwin stated, "I can see no
> limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully adapting each form to
> the most complex relations of life. The theory of natural selection,
> even if we looked no further than this, seems to me to be in itself
> probable" (Origin, p. 467). Now we can see that Darwin had observed
> one process, microevolution, and assumed that it was the same process
> as macroevolution and therefore, he made an incorrect inference.
> Largely because of a lacking knowledge of genetic inheritance Darwin
> was not able to analyze certain important facts about variation and;
> therefore he was not able to "see" the flaw in his use of inferential
> analogies. Today, we must recognize that the study of "origins" is
> intrinsically outside of the domain of scientific inquiry.
>
> Darwin and the Fossil Record
>
> Scientific theories are judged by their predictive power. One of the
> central predictions of evolution is that descent with modification in
> organisms occurs in the finely graded variations. This should have
> been observed at some point in the contemporary world, but for obvious
> reasons Darwin spent a great deal of time explaining why he believed
> that intermediates became extinct through competition for domination
> of a biological niche. Whether it is valid to argue that no family
> line could simultaneously survive at any place in the entire natural
> world is questionable; however, Darwin felt compelled to argue most
> strenuously in explanation of the lack of fossil evidence for
> intermediates. As he stated in his summary chapter:
>
> The geological record [is] extremely imperfect, and [this] will to a
> large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties,
> connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the
> finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of
> the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. (Origin,
> p. 342)
>
> Though it was clearly the intent of Darwin to explain away the lack of
> evidence for his theory we should not feel obliged to accept a
> "scientific" theory which lacks empirical evidence. First it must be
> observed that the number of transitional forms at some time in
> evolutionary history would have to be, in practical terms, infinite.
> Darwins's hypothetical "finely graded variations" must have lived at
> some point in Earth history and no matter how unfavorably he
> envisioned the probability of fossilization it is inconceivable that
> no intermediate fossils could be found. Yet, once again in Darwin's
> day the knowledge of the fossil record was comparatively small. Today
> that claim can no longer be maintained. In Luther Sunderland's
> important book, Darwin's Enigma, he explains the present state of
> knowledge of the fossil record:
>
> Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking
> geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the
> picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859.
> Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of
> fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils
> of 250, 000 different species. The availability of this profusion of
> hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to
> determine if Darwin was on the right track. (Sunderland, p. 9)
>
> On behalf of the New York State Board of Regents, Luther Sunderland
> interviewed the top paleontology experts at five of the world's
> greatest fossil museums. The results are as follows:
>
> No museum official offered any real fossil evidence that any one of
> the various invertebrate evolved into vertebrate fish (Sunderland, p.
> 63).
>
> None of the museum officials could produce any fossil evidence of an
> intermediate ancestor connecting the amphibians with fishes
> (Sunderland, p. 64).
>
> None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a
> transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the
> transformation of one basically different type to another (Sunderland,
> p. 88)
>
> In the words of Dr. Collin Patterson, Senior Principle Scientific
> Officer of the Paleontology Department of the British Museum of
> Natural History, London:
>
> I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of
> evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or
> living, I would certainly have included them ... Yet Gould and the
> American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are
> no transitional forms ... I will lay it on the line -- there is not
> one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
> (Sunderland, p. 89).
>
> It appears that we should take at least some of Darwin's words to
> heart: "He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological
> record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
>
> According to Kuhn the rejection of one world view, or paradigm, for
> another is not done strictly on the basis of evidence, but by a leap
> of "faith." Now, if we define "faith" as making a decision based on
> limited evidence, then all people make decisions based on such faith
> since no one has completely exhaustive knowledge, but if on the other
> hand, we define "faith" as making a decision in spite of the evidence,
> then it appears that we have the kind of faith required to make a
> modern scientific paradigm shift. Once again, according to Kuhn, " In
> the sciences might makes right" (Kuhn, p. 167), therefore it appears
> that the present domination of the of sciences, by the evolutionary
> species of scientist, is sufficient evidence for the "fact" of
> evolution.
>
> Darwin's Prophetic Vision for the Future
>
> In Darwin's summary chapter he makes a number of what he might have
> considered to be scientific predictions, but which he finally called
> "a prophetic glance into the futurity" (Origin, p. 489). Some of those
> failed prophecies are as follows:
>
> There will be an end of the disputes concerning the definition of
> species (Origin, p. 484). In this case we need only consider the
> current debate between Cladists who favor the principle of typology,
> as opposed to Neo-Darwinists who favor the principle of phylogeny.
>
> There will be an open discussion of "rudimentary", or vestigial organs
> and embryological phylogenies (Origin, p. 485-486). In this case the
> work of Ernst Haekel in making a long list of supposedly useless, or
> vestigial organs and in the development of the "Biogenic Law" were
> predicted by the theory of evolution. Today, virtually every vestigial
> organ has been removed from Haekel's list since we have discovered the
> functional necessity for them all. Further, the "Biogenic Law" that in
> the development of the embryo an organism portrays its evolutionary
> past, has now been rejected by virtually all evolutionists.
>
> There will be a better understanding of the effects in variation from
> the environment, and of use and disuse of characters in relation to
> biological inheritance (Origin, p. 486). In this case no evolutionist,
> or creationist, today believes that the Lamarkian view of inheritance
> is valid.
>
> The use of fossils to date rocks, and the use of rocks to date fossils
> as a "fair measure of the lapse of actual time" (Origin, p. 487-488).
> In this case we are still using this form of circular reasoning.
>
> There will be a new foundation on which to build psychology (Origin,
> p. 488). Unfortunately this has been fulfilled in the form of Social
> Darwinism. It is hard to estimate the full effect of this terrible
> prophecy, but one need only consider Nazism, Communism, exploitive
> capitalism, Freudian psychology, and the racism of "evolved
> superiority," to get a sense of the scope of its effects in society.
>
> Finally, in a very uncharacteristic fashion, Darwin removed his
> theological restraint and made one last bold assertion and prophecy
> which reveals how potent ideas on origins may be. Compare and contrast
> the following:
>
> We may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has
> never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole
> world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of
> equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by
> and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments
> will tend to progress towards perfection (Origin, p. 489).
>
> First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will
> come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say,
> "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died,
> everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But
> they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens
> existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these
> waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the
> same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being
> kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men (2 Peter
> 3:3-7).
>
> With uniformitarianism and evolutionism as the poles, the Darwinian
> revolution has set the world into a motion which will ultimately be
> perfected in the fire.
>
> Footnotes:
> 1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, reprint of 1st. ed.
> (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964).
> 2. Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, (New York: Washington Square
> Press, 1961).
> 3. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, 3rd. ed. (Toronto: TFE
> Publishing, 1991).
> 4. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed.
> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).
> 5. Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, 4th ed. (Santee, California:
> Master Books, 1988).
>
> Tim Nordgren, 8-2-96