I have read the appropriate section three times and still cannot fathom this argument. It seems to me that the science of evolution (please, not Darwinism) is already compatible with religions that "are not driven by creationists and primitive science of ancient times," and the author is merely saying that evolution can be made compatible with those religions with which it is already compatible. The longest and most important part of the book is the essay on Darwin, but it is marred by poor writing, poor editing, poor organization, and poor layout. Most particularly, long footnotes appear frequently in the middle of a page. One footnote is three pages long. Two of the important influences on Darwin's theology were the existence of suffering in the world and the death of Darwin's beloved daughter Annie. Darwin was particularly bewildered by a parasitic wasp (the ichneumon wasp) whose larvae eat a caterpillar alive over an extended period. Yet these two influences are mentioned only in a footnote. This footnote, in particular, should have been incorporated into the text. Likewise the three-page footnote beginning on page 27 should have been an appendix if it was not important enough to be included in the text. In that footnote, I think the author uses gene when he means allele, and he never defines Darwinian fitness. All in all, the footnote is hard to follow. The book contains a good description of Darwin's theory of gemmules to support his belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The description of Darwin's drift away from the Anglican church to deism and later agnosticism is good. Darwin was very conservative and opposed strident atheism, saying change must come in an orderly fashion. As far as I know, Hooker and Lyell's treatment of Alfred Russel Wallace is described fairly. Hooker and Lyell were concerned, however, that Darwin was too "principled" to act. What does it mean that Darwin was too principled? Were they pressuring Darwin to do something unethical? Or was it unethical only by today's standards? The incident should have been discussed more. The book looks as if it was printed straight from a Microsoft Word file, with no additional typesetting whatsoever, so it resembles a typescript rather than a printed book. Paragraphs are long and sometimes run to 2-1/2 pages. Even widow/orphan is not turned on. The book has no index, and very few references are called out in the text. The book is full of mistakes: Dr. Butler's great school (for grade school?). Discrete for discreet. Shivery for shivers. Confidante for confidant. Oviposter for ovipositor. Mitochondrian for mitochondrion. Fundamental Christian for fundamentalist Christian. Chagrin for chagrined. Titles are often both set in italics and enclosed in quotation marks. Quotations are often enclosed, so to speak, in a single quotation mark (... Darwin was besieged with correspondence concerning this "delightful" and most interesting" book). I will not bore you with the myriad instances where the author uses he and his with an unclear antecedent, usually but not always Darwin. Nor will I dwell on the awkward, passive-voice sentences that often pop up in the middle of an otherwise perfectly good paragraph written in the active voice. If this author has something to say, and I think the first chapter may have merit, he has unfortunately not said it in a clear, useful, or compelling way.probabilistic model accounts for the thesis that Homo sapiens is a chance species on earth. It also builds a bridge over the seemingly deep chasm separating theism on one side and Darwinism on the other side, and therefore allows Darwinism to be made compatible [author's italics] with various different religions throughout the world whose doctrines and practices are not driven by creationists and primitive science of ancient times.
Darwin, Darwinism, and Uncertainty: book review
If you want to publish a book with a vanity press and no editorial assistance, you had better know what you are doing. Charles M. Woolf, an emeritus professor of zoology at Arizona State University, unfortunately does not know what he is doing. His book, Darwin, Darwinism, and Uncertainty, is a series of three more or less unrelated essays. The first is a biography of Darwin and attempts to show that Darwin was a believing member of the Church of England until the ascent of Darwin to agnosticism later in his life; hence, "Darwinism" and theism are not necessarily incompatible. The second and least important essay is called "Theories for the creation of the universe," but it concerns mostly the origin of complex, self-replicating molecules, and I found much of it very difficult to understand.
The last essay, "A probabilistic model for the origin of life forms on earth," uses a crude probability model to suggest that intelligent, upright beings are common in the universe. The author seems to think that his
22 Comments
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 2 July 2012
I certainly don't like "probabilities" in the absence of meaningful data. Shades of "ID mathematics." I suppose that he thinks that he has good reason for such figures, but I can't think that it counts as science (or anything better than idle speculation) any more than Dembski's claims do.
Aside from that it might have been good if properly done. What seems too likely is that his book will be quotemined by IDiots who, true to their dismal grasp of logic and math, will generalize the specific.
Glen Davidson
Kevin B · 2 July 2012
There might be a case for arguing that Darwin was "over-principled". Although there continue to be assertions (mainly by people wanting to downgrade "Darwinism") that Wallace's "priority" was trampled upon, it seems pretty clear that the historical record reflects fairly the work of both Darwin and Wallace.
What Hooker and Lyell did was to make sure that Darwin didn't abandon his work altogether.
harold · 2 July 2012
glipsnort · 2 July 2012
"The book is full of mistakes: Dr. Butler’s great school (for grade school?)."
"“In the summer of 1818 I went to Dr. Butler’s great school in Shrewsbury, and remained there for seven years till mid-summer 1825, when I was sixteen years old." (Darwin's autobiography)
Matt Young · 2 July 2012
harold · 2 July 2012
Kevin B · 2 July 2012
Dave Lovell · 2 July 2012
Kevin B · 2 July 2012
glipsnort · 2 July 2012
I would have guessed that "great school" meant an advanced school, which would have been primarily for older students; that's what the equivalent Latin names seem to have meant ("magna schola", "schola maior").
KlausH · 2 July 2012
Dave Luckett · 2 July 2012
No. "United Kingdom" in full is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", which is why Ulster Protestants insist on "United Kingdom": because it acknowledges their preferred polity as an integral component. "Great Britain" is England, Wales and Scotland, or more exactly the territory that they occupy, plus certain other entities such as the Isle of Man.
As for Queen Elizabeth I, the question of her legitimacy is moot. She was a right bastard in a number of other ways; it seems superfluous to quibble over certain irregularities in her father's marriage to her mother. That marriage was lawful by the laws of England at the time; it was as lawful as my own, in fact, and I would resent my son being called a bastard, except, of course, in the Australian sense, which is harmless if the adjective "old" precedes it.
Joe Felsenstein · 2 July 2012
Roger · 3 July 2012
Dave Lovell · 3 July 2012
Kevin B · 3 July 2012
Dave Luckett · 3 July 2012
KlausH · 3 July 2012
Kevin B · 3 July 2012
KlausH · 3 July 2012
I admit that I am not familiar with the details of why Mary was the heir. Royal succession is rather complex and not taught it US primary or secondary schools. I do recall multiple sources stating that Mary was the rightful heir.
Dave Luckett · 3 July 2012
According to the Roman Catholic church of the day - and, I believe, even now - the divorce of Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragorn was invalid, and hence he was not at liberty to marry Anne Boleyn. Hence that marriage was invalid. Hence its issue, Elizabeth, was illegitimate. So says the Church of Rome.
There was and is no argument that Elizabeth was not the daughter of Henry VIII. Therefore, after his son Edward and his elder daughter Mary died, both of them without issue, Elizabeth was his heir by the laws of England if his marriage to her mother was valid. By the law of England then and now, it was valid.
The authority of the Bishop of Rome to pronounce on the validity of marriages in England was repudiated formally by the English bishops and laity in Parliament in 1533, and in May of that year Archbishop Cranmer pronounced the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne, which had been celebrated in January, to be good and valid. Elizabeth was born in September, 1533. At that time, the King in Parliament had the sovereign authority to rule on what was the law in England, whether civil or ecclesiastical. This position has only changed insofar as the monarch must act according to the advice of his or her ministers, and they in turn either accept that of the Law Lords as to the state of the law, or legislate to change it.
I married a woman who had been divorced by the laws of England, and her first marriage, although not celebrated according to the Roman rite, would have been recognised as valid by the Bishop of Rome, had he been aware of it and had anyone bothered to ask him. But her subsequent divorce and remarriage to me, although perfectly valid according to the laws of (sigh) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the Commonwealth of Australia, where she had come to reside, is not valid in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church, although these days His Holiness would appear to be too well-mannered to make much of it.
Therefore I find myself in much the same position as Henry VIII, although with the shoe, or wife, on the other foot, and my son is in that of Elizabeth, so to speak. Nevertheless, and the opinion of the Roman church notwithstanding, he is my true heir, and no bastard - just as Elizabeth was the true, lawful, and legitimate heir of the throne of England, as is our current sovereign lady of the same name, and her heirs and assigns according to law. Anyone who says different is a traitor if English, and if foreign, an enemy of the Crown. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
(I don't use smileys, and I wonder if the use of an asterisk or two might convey that my tongue is sticking out of my left ear.)
Dave Lovell · 4 July 2012