Talk:The Origin of Species

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Peer review The Origin of Species has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The Origin of Species was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Origin of Species article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Top

Should these be put in subcategories, as:

The Origin of Species/Chapter 1
The Origin of Species/Chapter 2
etc.?

"although it is very wordy - a good general level of intelligence is a prerequisite for comprehending the arguments and subtle nuances put forth by Darwin"

What's a "good general level of intelligence"? I don't think there is common agreement on this point, and to the degree that there is, it's a rather pretentious statement anyway, sort of like saying "an iq of 120 is probably required to enjoy this book". Unless there are objections, I will remove this parenthesis. Vintermann

Implementing as I type ... jmlynch

Wow, this is fantastic. :-) I would recommend that we go through later and put some introductory context remark at the front of each chapter. Perhaps some language like this:

"What follows is the full text of Charles Darwin's famous work The Origin of Species. You may want to also start with our main index page for evolution."

That way, when people accidentally surf in from search engines that index this stuff, they will be able to find what they might be looking for.

I'm somewhat iffy on the idea of including the entire raw text of this book in an encyclopedia at all. It's already available in the public domain from many different sources, including project gutenberg; why not just provide an external link there? I know that Wikipedia is not paper, but still, including entire unannotated sources is a bit much. What benefit does it add?

I, for one, find no useful purpose for including this. There are other web sites that are more suited to the publication of electronic texts. If the purpose be to provide ammunition for the opponents of Creationism, there have certainly been many more recent works that have incorporated scientific advances since Darwin's time that would accomplish this goal more effectively. Furthermore Victorian prose style does not make it an easily readable book. Also, it is a very common and easily found book. If electronic storage is going to be used at all for whole books there should be an emphasis on books that are rare and hard to find.

This debate has happened elsewhere on Wikipedia. Some people like primary sources as part of Wikipedia proper, some don't (I don't, for technical reasons). Anyway, please examine the debate there --User:Robert Merkel

It has indeed, and in every case the conclusion of the debate has been that there's no point to dumping the raw text of public-domain source material like this. Not only is it available elsewhere, and not appropriate content for an encyclopedia, but here on Wikipedia the source material can be changed, which is very not good from a scholarly perspective. So, as I have done elsewhere, I'll be bold and delete all this stuff later today if nobody's come up with a compelling argument for me leaving it in here. Bryan Derksen, Saturday, April 13, 2002
  • I for one agree with deleting it. It's found at numerous stable places on the Net, including Project Gutenberg and the talk.origins pages. I've seen it, ah, creatively taken out of context enough time to have a real concern about people editing the original teext if it's placed on a Wiki, and others being mislead thereby. -- April, Saturday, April 13, 2002
Since the articles can always be reverted if anyone comes up with a signficant objection, I think I'l get to work deleting them now. Bryan Derksen
Congratulations for doing this! Eclecticology

Hey, here's an idea. The Origin of Species/Glossary might actually be useful as a source of material for other articles in Wikipedia, though it's admittedly more dictionary than encyclopedia class material. I'm leaving it intact for the moment to take a closer look later on. Bryan Derksen

"Origin of Species" (without an initial "the") was a redundant article, which I've replaced with a redirect here. The other article was very brief, but there are two bits of information that might be worth integrating here:

  • "was first published in November of 1859."
  • "It was the culmination of over two decades of work"

-- Ryguasu

"It is often mocked by modern day specialists as being incredibly pompous in tone despite it's informative nature. As such, it is often lampooned both in literature and in pop culture." -- I don't think this is true, as written.

The text is often looked down upon by modern day scientists as being very condescending and pompous, despite it's usefullness and reader-friendly nature. As such, it is regularly the subject of mockery in pop culture, in both text and film. An example of this is the film Party Girl.

I dislike the theory of evolution and think Darwin was a dud, but criticism expressed in the Wikipedia must be up to standard. So I moved 1/2 the Party Girl thing to another article. --Ed Poor

I don't doubt that some people find 19th century writing unapproachable, but surely this fact should not take up a third of what an encyclopedia article has to say about The Origin of Species? Accordingly, I've moved this bit back to talk. (also, it's its, usefulness, The, food-oriented, etc.)

"The text is often looked down upon by modern day scientists as being very condescending and pompous, despite it's usefullness and reader-friendly nature. As such, it is regularly the subject of mockery in pop culture, in both text and film. An example of this is the film "Party Girl" in which a library clerk is approached by a woman who simply says, with a lisp, "Orrngses n' spches." Ther puzzled clerk replies, "Oranges and Peaches? Well, you can try the food=oriented periodicals, but sometimes they're a little holier-than-thou.""

Someone else 21:44 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Moved EasterBradford's comments, and my reply, here from my user page:

I do not appreciate your removal of my totally relevant commentary in "The Origin of Species" entry. What I added was a direct quote from an actual movie along with factual information regarding how many esteemed scientists look upon the text; you removed it with a comment that it was a "crap joke." I am re-adding it, and if you remove it again I will have to take it up with the admins. -Easter Bradford-

I have added pop culture reference as to the current scientific viewing of this text as very pompous and holier-than-thou, and quoted a very popular film as reference. It has been deleted once, and I am adding it again. I request it not be deleted again without proper justification. - Easter Bradford-

Go on, then, give me a cite of these esteemed scientists' views. I'm interested to hear from you.
The film quote does not appear to be relevant, as it does not appear to mock the Origin of Species: it makes a joke about mis-hearing things. The Anome 21:41 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

From the article:

The text is often put down upon as condescending and pompous, despite its usefulness and reader-friendly nature; it is often the subject of mockery in pop culture, in both text and film. An example of this is the film Party Girl.
  1. The Party Girl quote, as written, does not appear to support this
  2. This is contrary to my understanding
  3. No evidence is offered to support this assertion.
  4. Cites, please, to support this?
  5. Otherwise, in my opinion, this comment should be deleted.
  6. Still, at least we've started a Party Girl article...

I'm an admin, what's the trouble? Some want the Party Girl thing here, some say keep it all in the Party Girl article. C'mon, let's hear some proposals. --Ed Poor

Hey, I don't care if the joke is in or out -- although I like jokes. Let's just find the right place for it.

And if Origin of Species needs criticism, for stodgy writing style or faulty scientific reasoning, let's go ahead and start filling out the article.

How important is one mumbled reference of a book title, anyway? --Ed Poor

I've never heard of the film in question, nor can I think of any other instances of popular culture mocking Darwin's writing style, much less "esteemed scientists". If it seems relevant to the Party Girl article, say for an example of the tone of the work, fine leave it there. But it seems rather vague and pointless here. --Brion 22:24 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
I have never heard anyone put the text down for being condescending and pompous (although I have heard some mock Darwin's apparent fondness for pigeons) -- indeed, I think few have read it, although I would not blame that on its style. The Party Girl example does not in any way suggest that the text is condescending or pompous. The comment is irrelevant and unsupported and I am taking it out. Slrubenstein
Agreed. The joke's fine. Let's keep the joke in the film article, and put modern-day criticisms of the book in the Origin of Species article. However, I'm unconvinced by some of the claims made -- and using the film's joke to support them appeared to be a non sequitur. The Anome 22:28 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
I agree with you Brion, Slrubenstein and the Anome. The reason I did put the comment back, is that Brion's edit note when he removed the comment did not support the comment's removal in my eyes. The above arguments are better. FvdP 22:37 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
Wasn't me, though I would have happily removed it had I seen it there. --Brion 22:45 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Someone else. For some reason that nickname fails to produce a lasting imprint in my brain ;-) FvdP 22:49 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Looks like the disputed passage is going to stay out, unless:

  • We find an example of modern day scientists "looking down upon" Origin of Species as condescending or pompous, or
  • We find evidence that it's "regularly the subject of mockery in pop culture"

Apparently the oranges & peaches thing wasn't convincing enough by itself. How about a text reference? --Ed Poor

[edit] A slight error of Darwin in the book (at least the first edition)

(Sorry I forgot to register; my ID is François-Dominique on the French Wikipedia. I am not that sure of the quality of my English, so I would be grateful to any native english speaker to correct it if needed, and copy that part in the main topic, if she of he feels it wothwhile; this point is already described ad such in the French wikipedia, if anybody wants to take a look)

Though a common thought is that Lamarck believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics while Darwin did not, the careful reading of the book's first edition shows that the reality is not exactly that simple. Darwin writes :

"It may be doubted whether any one would have thought of training a dog to point, bad not some one dog naturally shown a tendency in this line; and this is known occasionally to happen, as I once saw in a pure terrier. When the first tendency was once displayed, methodical selection and the inherited effects of compulsory training in each successive generation would soon complete the work" (the emphasis is ours, not Darwin's).

This belief in "the inherited effects (...) of compulsory training" appears like a slight error today (probably due to the youth of the theory) compared to the insight of the rest of the book. However, this shows that the popular characterization of Lamarck's and Darwin's positions at that time is not that exact, a fact that was honestly signalled by Stephen Jay Gould.

I think what you wrote was too long, and pardon me, but I am suspicious of your motivation. I believe that there is a statue somewhere to Lamarck crediting him with the "theory of evolution"; and the French were notoriously slow in taking up Darwinism and rejecting Lamarckism, even up to the 1960s, and I don't want this to be a bit of patriotism that has gone awry and made it POV. (I'll try that in French for a bit of practice):

Je crois que votre contribution est trop long, et (pardon, mais) je suis soupçonneux de votre motivation est patriotisme pour Lamarck. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can understand that, but there is probably no need to, for the three following reasons : 1) As A.S.Neill once said "As long as my work is useful, my motivations do not matter" (or, as Deng Xiaping stated it : "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." 2) Nobody believes in Lamarck's theory today, not only in France, but in the whole Europe as fas as I know, so nobody would defend Lamarck. But defending historical precision as far as epistemology is concerned is quite another story ;o) 3) As incredible as it might perhaps seem in some American states, there is no such thing as contestation of Darwin's theory here in Europe (except by some marginal muslim immigrants), so in fact we do not have any raison d'Etat taboo about him and can criticize him freely without any fear to be identified as a Bible belt fan. In fact, as fact as catholics are concerned, the Vatican itself has admitted quite a time ago that natural evolution was "more than an hypothesis", hence the quotes. But of course, I understand the fact that Darwin was European may be seen as a case of European chauvinism ;o) Cheers ! François-Dominique 20:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) (By the way, while Victor Hugo, who was not a scientist, never accepted Darwin's theory, Ernest Renan, who was one (and in the College de France) and lived at the same time accepted it and promoted it without any delay. Just my two cents. :o)

[edit] immediately?

"immediately sold out its initial print run" -- that would imply that it sold out the day it was published. is that so? Kingturtle 17:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The entire first edition of The Origin of Species was sold out on its publication day, 24 November 1859. A second edition was ready by January 1860, and the book went through a total of six editions during Darwin's lifetime." - intro to Leakey's abridged and illustrated Origin of Species. The article needs more about the editions, esp. changes between 1 and 6, which I'm a bit tied up to do just yet...dave souza 07:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
According to the biography by Clark, "Legend maintains that all 1,250 copies were sold on the day of publication; in fact, they were all taken up by booksellers, an indication of the controversy the book was to arouse, but not quite the same thing."--Johnstone 02:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Supported by Desmond & Moore, who note the !st edition was "oversubscribed". Impressive re-editing of the whole article, many thanks..dave souza 19:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for independently confirming the statement, and for the compliment.--Johnstone 01:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A small addition

In the last line of the second box after the article, there is a list of Darwin's eponyms; there are a couple missing, minor but very significant: 1. the farthest west, one of the smallest and the most isolated island on the Galapagos Archipelago is Darwin. 2. the biological research station at the Galapagos National Park is Darwin Research Station. The box cannot be edited from the page, how is it done? Lcgarcia 07:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed statements about Wallace and "first organism"

I have removed the following:

"It is important to remember that Darwin's version of natural selection was different from that presented by Wallace, in that Darwin held that natural selection was continuously operating whereas Wallace argued that selection only occurred when the environment changed."

This statement appears to be wrong. In Wallace's 1858 essay[1], he states that evolution is "...produced by the action of principles constantly at work in nature."

Also removed:

"As an interesting aside, Darwin could be regarded as the first organism in four billion years of life on earth to realise how he had come to exist."

Besides being unencyclopedic and POV, this is also wrong on its own terms: Patrick Matthew has a better claim to the title.--Johnstone 02:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "populations, and not organisms, gradually evolve"

Organisms do not evolve according to Darwin. It is populations that evolve.

  • Well... that's true (and distinguishes a bit the vague notion that "organisms evolve," which could be interpretted in a Lamarckian way), but that sounds to me like a formulation which would be used later (i.e. in the work of Ernst Mayr) than something Darwin would say (Darwin was clearly not a "populations thinker", no matter how much Mayr wanted to interpret him in that light). Hmm. But I can't think of a better way to say it which would be more in accordance with Darwin's own beliefs. He did sometimes talk of "groups" of organisms, but never populations. --Fastfission 7 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
  • I've done countless essays regarding this book and his work, and never does he even use the word "evolve" or "evolution", I recommend a better word be found User:Leethal

[edit] Pseudoscientific Evidence

The first section of this article asserts that modern scientific evidence supports Darwinism. This is plainly not the case. Monkeys have totally incompatible DNA to humans - you cannot copulate with a monkey and expect to create fertile offspring. This article is plagued with anti-creationist POV. It must be changed to highlight both sides of the argument.

I am not a religious zealot, and I do agree with certain aspects of Darwinism. But the point is that scientific evidence does NOT prove it, so this article shouldn't be written as such. Darwinism is a just a theory (albeit a very sketchy one), not proven fact. When I tried to edit this page to make it have a more balanced view, my modification was unjustly denied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rennie84 (talk • contribs) .

I'll try to make this as straightforward as I can:
  1. Mainstream biologists have yet to come across serious evidence which they think has gone against the general concept of Darwinism in its modern form (modern evolutionary synthesis), though there is of course debate over exact mechanisms.
  2. The fact that apes (not monkeys) and humans are not the same species is not evidence against Darwinism, which does not claim that they do.
  3. The article is about a particular book, and links very prominently to pages about the Creationist-Evolution controversy.
  4. Nobody claims scientific evidence "proves" any scientific theory. Scientific theories are supported by the lack of dis-proving evidence. There is of yet no scientific evidence supported by the scientific community which disproves the modern form of Darwinism.
  5. "Just a theory" reflects a lack of understanding over the meaning of a scientific theory. You might want to look at our page on theory if you plan on being taken seriously.
  6. Your edits were reverted because they do not reflect attention to our NPOV policy. Modern biological evidence does not disprove Darwinism according to all mainstream biologists, and only someone with a complete lack of knowledge about the theory would think that the fact that DNA between species is incompatible for reproduction disproves Darwinism. In fact it is the definition of speciation, and was known even to Darwin in his day as such (albeit without reference to DNA, of course).
In short, your edits and comments here reflect either an accidental or purposeful lack of knowledge of modern biology, rudimentary philosophy of science, and a lack of understanding over what Darwin's theory actually was, much less its modern formulations. Hence your edits were reverted. If you'd like recommendations on how to correct these lacunae, I'm happy to recommend a few articles on Wikipedia which would put you in a position to make informed edits on this topic. --Fastfission 17:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The original is bias as well:
As one of the opening paragraphs, the debated paragraph has a particularly strong obligation to be non-bias. The original is equally as bias as Rennie's proposed edit. It starts "Although" in support of a Point of view, and proceeds to make an argument that is equally unsupported. For example, what is "in come parts of the world" about? Any why repeat "scientist" as if trying to drive home a point (using negation when a positive statement suffices)?
In specific, Gallop-polls sited in National Geographic (Nov 2004, "Was Darwin Wrong?") note that over the last 20 years opinions have remind consistently divided on the subject. They note 45 percent reject the idea outright. This can not be ignored, even if you are among the 12 percent like me.
I have replaced the sentence with one I feel is less loaded, and hope further edits can improve in the same direction (mine still makes claims I can't support about the scientific community, and assumes the primary motivation for dissent, ignoring others in pursuit of brevity).
-- Cris 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theory or Hypothesis

Just a slightly pedantic point - The Origin of Species is not a scientific theory in that it has not been definitively proven (although its postulations do appear to be accurate). In a truly objective article, this should be edited to hypothesis. (The same is true of physical 'theories' such as Quantum theory and the theory of relativity. Articles to this effect have appeared in such scientific journals as the New Scientist over the past couple of months. Ck lostsword 17:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To be truly pedantic, TOS is not a theory or hypothesis, it's a book. But if you mean Darwin's theory, I would say that it meets the criteria for a theory, not an hypothesis. Can you provide specific references to articles questioning this? Thanks. Guettarda 17:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Theories do not need to be (and frankly, are never) definitely proven to meet the definition of "scientific theory". See our article on theory. --Fastfission 19:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Very true. :D. Sorry for criticising TOS - I am strongly in support of evolution (having grown up with it, I cannot imagine any other way of thinking about it - I suppose I realise what Darwin was up against!). This is not an attack to the book or theory/hypothesis, merely an alternative way of thinking. When the NS article in question refers to evolution, it uses it as an example of a semi-provable theory (in my terminology), and is actually used as the argument by ID for the use of the word 'theory.' The NS article can be found at [[[2]]]

  • "The work presents detailed scientific evidence he had accumulated both on the Voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s and since his return, painstakingly laying out his theory and refuting the doctrine of "Created kinds" underlying the theories of Creation biology which were then widely accepted.

Even for the non-specialist the book was quite readable (as it still is), and it attracted widespread interest. Although the ideas presented in it are supported by overwhelming scientific evidence"

this is not true. remove it. this is a biased opinion. The tone of the article is also biased. It avoids direct confrontation of the evidence, declares the opposition uneducated, and finds solace in name calling. It's not politically correct to question evolution now. To do so risks ridicule and being seen in the eyes of their peers as foolish and uneducated, when previously they were thought to be brilliant. The basic idea is " if you dont believe this, then your dumb and were not talking with you." The theory of evolution is the result of men wanting to rid themselves of what they saw as the bondage of religion, but until Evolution, there was no rational or intelligent alternative. To rid the feeling of guilt and justify their own lusts and desires, they needed something to justify a disbelief in God, because lets face it not believing in God simply because you don't want to doesn't cut it, with evolution one can hide behind the illusion of materialism and naturalism, seemingly rational, is in the embrace of evolution. It is widely accepted today, not so much because of evidence, but as hostory shows, controversy. Controversy is what made it so popular along with tactful use of humorously misleading remarks and name calling of all those who believe in God to be ignorant and uneducated. Closing one's mind off of a possibility doesn't mean the evidence isnt there. You aren't looking for it, therefore you wont find it. If you do find it, you must dismiss it because it doesn't fit into your preception of reality. Evolution can't leave room for free thinking and open mindedness. It is stricter and more dogmatic than religion and is potentially more dangerous if taken more literal. There are many difficulties in Evolution that are bigger problems then evolutionists are willing to admit, because human beings try to avoid anything which causes cognitive dissonance. Following detrimental issues that are a blow to the theory of evolution and are at least worth looking into are the following:

The fossil record: the sudden appearance of complex life forms and lack of transitional forms. The problem of life coming from nonlife the problem of complexity arising out of simplicity without the aid of intelligent intervention the immense amount of information encoded into the DNA The lack of true mutations that are beneficial to an organism's survival The limits to the amount of change possible within a species

Those are just a few. Now let's be real with ourselves, clear you mind of the emotional backlash you would want to throw at me and consider, just for a moment, that maybe you haven't objectively studied this. I mean why believe in a theory, which relies on the universe creating itself from nothing, randomly, a claim that can't be tested or observed, take convienient "accidents" that just so happened to manage to create life which decided that it would evolve, note that the evolving would have to go without the death of the creature doing the evolving (which in the real world it is observed that it's very unlikely if not impossible), and eventually we arrive at todays world where we are still "evolving", is asking us to take a larger leap of blind faith, and that could only happen in specific and perfectly controlled environments, which requires intelligent intervention, but that these states just happened by chance is completely ludicrous. The article should just state what evolution is, what it teaches, and what its core beliefs are. That's it. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for propaganda.

"This is an encyclopedia, not a place for propaganda." Exactly. So why did you write three long paragraphs of propaganda, while only one-eighth of a paragraph is about improving the article? You can remove things yourself, and this article is not about evolution--it's about Darwin's book. --Bowlhover 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin a Racist

What are these "favored races" Darwin talks about? Seems pretty racist to me. I tend to dislike acts of racism.

  • The "favored races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species have nothing at all to do with the modern terms of human races; they refer taxonomically to a vague conception somewhere inbetween "species" and "varieties". Darwin's views on race are complex, you might look at our article on Descent of Man which is his book which actually discusses human races. --Fastfission 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin favoured group selectionism?

The following section from the lead

In it, Darwin makes "one long argument" for his theory that "groups" of organisms, (now called populations) rather than individual organisms, gradually evolve through the process of natural selection—a mechanism effectively introduced to the public at large by the book.

seems to suggest Darwin favoured group selectionism. Is this accurate? From what I remember of the Origin, Darwin always seemed to favour individual organisms as the units of selection. I might be wrong tho... Mikker ... 10:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm, yeah, it sounds like the sort of interpretation of Origin that someone like Ernst Mayr would offer (that is, reading him through the lens of the modern synthesis). I'll take a look at Origin again and see whether he really talked about populations at all. --Fastfission 14:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Any more clarity on that section FF? Can I reword it? Mikker ... 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization Errors

The links under each section that go to main articles (such as history of evolutionary thought) are not capitalized properly. I tried correcting this capitalization, but this caused the link to no longer link to an existing article. I am rather new to this, so if someone could either tell me how to correct this or correct it for me, I would be eternally grateful. Thanks. Makeemlighter 20:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace's modifications

The article currently states: On Wallace's own first edition of The Origin of Species, he crossed out every instance of the phrase "natural selection" and replaced with it Spencer's "survival of the fittest." Since Spencer did not introduce his phrase until 1864, Wallace could not have made this emendation until five years after the book's publication, a delay not hinted at in the current description. --Blainster 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I'll try and figure out what edition it was in particular, if I can. I double-checked the picture of Wallace's copy from Janet Browne's book but the caption actually doesn't specify which edition it was; I may have mis-remembered it, but I have to check the text again myself. It would be very interesting to know when he did that to his book. --Fastfission 22:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
OK -- Browne's book says that it was Wallace's copy of the 1859 (first) edition. So who knows when he really went through and made the changes, in any case, though obviously clearly after the term had been coined by Spencer. Wallace wrote to Darwin many times that the latter should use "survival of the fittest" instead, and Darwin finally did include it in one of the later editions (fifth?) of Origin. --Fastfission 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states: fifth edition published on 10 February 1869 incorporated more changes again, and for the first time included Herbert Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest". ..dave souza, talk 07:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Reaction

Should we not put someting to the effect that the Darwins theories were widely accepted by 1900 among the general public and the church. Although ther was indeed controversy at the time I think the work was well established as the orthodoxy in 1900. The controversy may be overemphasised in the light of some recent moves in America from a minority seeking to resurrect the 'young earth' theory, and who get attention due to their sheer lunacy of argument.

  • Darwin's theories, per se, were not widely accepted either by the general public or the church. Evolution in general was accepted by many of the "general public" depending on which "general public" you are talking about (it has most likely not been accepted widely by the general American public at any given time, though I'm not sure there is data on that), but Darwinian evolution was actually in a very low ebb in 1900 which it would not come out of until the 1930s. --Fastfission 23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Just for info, Moore here says that "This man Wallace, who was considerably younger, went to the United States for a lecture tour in 1886, and he started off in New York and he went to Boston and Washington. Then he made his way across by train through Kansas and Iowa and Nebraska, and he got to California. And during his trip, he lectured on Darwinism, but there was no problem. He was welcomed, and he got his lantern and slides out and explained Darwinism. That's what he called it, Darwinism. It shows that between 1886-87, when Wallace was trumpeting Darwin's cause in America, and 1926-27, 40 years later, a remarkable change took place in the way that ordinary Americans were prepared to look at evolution." I've also noticed that Vestiges of Creation was still selling well when The Origin was published, so there was already wide public interest in evolution. According to that page, the historian James A. Secord says that Vestiges out-sold The Origin of Species up until the early 20th century. .. dave souza, talk 10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for The Origin of Species has failed for the following reason:

This article needs a lot more sources. There are few, if any, in-line sources. Most sections, especially the historical ones really need to be cited. Use the <ref> </ref> tags.

I will nominate this article as an uncited good article because I think that it is well written and informative.

--The Talking Sock talk contribs 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion / NPOV / Bias

Fastsission & Dave, I appreciate the discussions regarding the contributions to The Origin of Species. Fastfission, you stated that my efforts to present statements with a more neutral point of view would be “a waste of my time”. Well, after reading all the past discussions, posts, edits, & reverts on this subject, I have concluded that you are absolutley correct. Your extreme bias in this subject makes it a waste of time to discuss. It also makes it a waste of time to attempt to improve the article when neither of you are interested in NPOV.

It appears that you both have an agenda to promote this theory as scientific law. It also appears that allowing biased comments are fine as long as they agree with your opinion. Thanks for your time. I will no longer attempt to contribute to this subject. Erich, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't anything on there that tries to promote it to "law". You are likely dealing with an incorrect definition of "theory" of the sort that Creationists like to abuse. See our article on theory for a full explanation. In any case, the "waste of time" comment, as I said before, is purely from a practical standpoint. Creationist POV-pushers just never really seem to accomplish much on here, and I figured I could save you a little bit of wasted effort. If you consider my approach to this—to adhere to NPOV policy correctly and not misrepresent things—to be "extreme bias", then you wouldn't have gotten very far on Wikipedia anyway. Again, I thoroughly presented you with the options by which you could pursue any legitimate NPOV complaints, which you seem to have not pursued, favoring instead a little edit war. Your choice. --Fastfission 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, I do understand the scientific definition of theory. Don't get me wrong, evolution is a good theory. However, it is a flawed theory and therefore can/will never be proven. As far as NPOV; the paragraph in question would be changed immediately if it were in some other (non-controversial) subject. The current wording is an obvious attempt to promote a specific opinion. I do thank you for presenting some options. However, as I said, after reading all the discussion on this subject, it does seem like a waste of time. Finally, you chose to participate in the "edit war". Couldn't you "talked" about it instead of reverting the edit? BTW, I have appreciated your pleasant attitude during our correspondence. Thank you,--Erich168 19:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When multiple editors have reverted the same or similar addition the burden of proof rests with the person trying to make the comment to prove their point more than anything else, especially in regards to controversial changes to controversial articles (as anything evolution-related easily qualifies for). In any case you have not made a point at all for what you consider to be biased about it, only that you think the wording is an "attempt to promote a specific opinion." That in and of itself is not a POV problem. You'll have to be more specific: what opinion do you object to, why do you think the article text is wrong, what relevant POV do you think it is leaving out, etc. That particular sentence is just a way of saying "within the scientific community this issue is more or less uncontroversial at the moment, but outside of it there are people who consider it controversial, primarily because of their religious inclinations; see this other article for more information on this."
I'm surprised that you'd take issue with such a statement. Even the most "official" of the scientists who attack evolution can usually acknowledge that (i.e. Behe's testimony in the Dover case). The most sophisticated of them try to claim that scientists themselves play games of commitment by adopting strict methodological naturalism, but since that argument is basically that science should also study the supernatural, most people don't find that very compelling, despite it being strictly true. Creationists (of all stripes) generally acknowledge that 1. within the scientific community there is little dispute, and 2. the reason the Creationists oppose evolution is because of their religious beliefs (and, on the other side, the reason the scientific community supports it is because of their own beliefs). Are you taking offense at the notion that evolution is not considered controversial scientifically by almost all professional scientists? Or that the nature of the dispute is religious/cosmological in nature? You'll have to be specific, because frankly I don't quite see what point you are trying to push. Your edits make it sound like you want the article to read that there are significant scientific disputes—this is not true, and no, our NPOV policy does not require that we treat "Creation biology" as mainstream science.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I disagree with your changes—I think they make the paragraph highly misleading—and we probably don't see eye to eye on other things either. But I'm happy to discuss things as long as the discussion sticks to the issue of article content and is clearly a good-faith effort on the other side (i.e. it is not trolling). (By the way, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion in three places at once...) --Fastfission 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's helpful - I've reworded the offending paragraph a little, which I hope leaves both sides with some dignity? - Ballista 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Modern DNA evidence is consistent with this idea." could do with more helpful links, or ideally a citation: Phylogenetics and Pseudogene seem relevant to this point which is only obliquely referred to in DNA#DNA in historical and anthropological study, but I'm no expert. Also, Ballista has replaced "overwhelming" with "a body of " scientific evidence: there's probably a citation for overwhelming if memory serves me well, but haven't had time to search for it yet. ..dave souza, talk 12:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
overwhelming would be the word. Few other theories have as much support as Evolution. POV comments seem mostly the same garbage I get from dozens of other places on the net from un informed fundementalist christians. Introducing the idea of "scientific doubt" into any evolution article is in fact a exstremely biased point of view. It's the fallacy fo false dichotomy.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 November 2006.

[edit] Undue weight given to a so-called controversy unrelated to the book in introduction para 3

This article is about the book but the para 3 in the into states, ..."Although its ideas are supported by an overwhelming body of scientific evidence and are widely accepted by scientists today, they are still highly controversial in some parts of the world, particularly among American non-scientists who perceive them to contradict various religious texts (see Creation-evolution controversy).". and I feel that this is not relevant to the book. The so-called Creation-evolution controversy is more focused on modern evolution theory not Darwins book. There is also the obvious anachronism as the issue is American non-scientists (people ?) today whereas America wasn't a coherent country as it was fighting a civil war around the time this book was published. I think the people had more to worry about then. Unless the Creation-evolution controversy is predominantly about Darwins book then it is being given undue weight and thus the existing link further into the article to the Creation-evolution controversy will suffice. I vote it's culled. Ttiotsw 03:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

[edit] Contemporary Reviews

Added reviews with links to three contemporary reviews and a links to Victorian Science texts.

DLH 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which were immutable

If by creationism you mean those who use the account in Genesis, Genesis 30:37-43 describes in detail how Jacob's and Laban's goats mutated. Please do not reintroduce "which were immutable" unless you can cite a source that shows the clear reading of Genesis 30:37-43 does not decribe mutations in goats.

[edit] 99.9%

Please consider removing from the article: "Today, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the fields of earth and life sciences (over 99.9%) consider Darwin's theory correct."[3]

The citation does not say this. It says that "This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism." Creationism and Darwinism are not the only two/mutually exclusive theories on the origin of species. Accordingly, since this an article on the origin of species, and not creationism, I will be removing the quote.--170.215.45.95 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous poet

It means what it says and is correct. There is no other scientific theory explaining the diversity of life. You either accept scientific method, or believe in one or another of the creation myths. --Michael Johnson 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What "means what it says and is correct"? The citation says "This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism," but the article says "Today, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the fields of earth and life sciences (over 99.9%) consider Darwin's theory correct." These are two different statements, and the one in the article is a mis-statement of the reference. Again, please cite a source to back up "Today, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the fields of earth and life sciences (over 99.9%) consider Darwin's theory correct." Also, for somebody espousing the scientific method, 100-0.15 (or 0.14 or 0.13 or 0.12 or 0.11) leaves less than 99.9%. Darwin himself stated "That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny." Of course, he was a scientist. You cannot even subtract, let alone see the difference between the citation and its restatement in this article. Also, Darwin's theory is an origin of species, not an origin of the "common parents", no? In any event, the article itself discusses some early competitors to Darwin's theory, are you claiming no scientist now subscribes to any of these alternatives? I guess not. Consequently, you're wrong on it's Darwinism or Creationism. 170.215.45.95 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I've altered the percentage to "more than 99%", which is supported by the figures in the reference. --Michael Johnson 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it's a start. I still don't believe that more than 99% of relevent scientists consider Darwin's theory correct. I will do some searching to find a better source that more fully discloses any polls that have been done. The reference clearly has an agenda, and as such, and in light of the less than full disclosure of poll details, is suspect. 170.215.45.95 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Well I've never met a biological scientist who doesn't, and I've met hundreds. --Michael Johnson 02:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that if a biological scientist you met did not, s/he would confide this fact with you? Also, do you believe that a person can be a scientist without having been published? E.g., can a high school drop out be a scientist? A relevant scientist? If not, how hard would it be to earn a Ph.D. in the relevant science and express skepticism that species evolve from other species? Could somebody with a B.S. in chemistry and an intense interest in biology be considered a relevant scientist? And, most importantly, does scientific truth submit itself to the will of the majority of relevant scientists? These rhetorical questions do serve to remind one not to get too hung up on polls, and to cast doubt on the validity of including poll results in this article.170.215.45.95 06:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet.
So what you are saying is that the average scientist does not have the moral gumption to stand behind his or her own beliefs, and would not discuss them lest I turn them into the Evolution Police? Oh, please.... --Michael Johnson 08:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a valid supposition. It isn't a surprise though; as Dawkins has said, despite all claims to the contrary, on a very fundamental level science and religion are incompatible. People don't like him saying it, but it is probably true, and is probably why scientists are so irreligious, especially those in the biological sciences. Titanium Dragon 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


How about we just make it more clear by restating what it says on talkorigins? It says:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Why don't we just say "less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism"? That doesn't explicitly say that more than 99.85% of scientists believe in evolution (it just says they DON'T believe in creationism), but at least it has a reputable reference and isn't original research. (On that note, the person who said, "well I've never met a biological scientist who doesn't, and I've met hundreds," is backing up something with OR, and that's against the rules.) Jolb 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book's Influence on world leaders

Can we add a political and philosophical influences section, or should this be included in the public reaction. For example, Ernst Lehmann, a Darwinist/botanist, characterized National Socialism as "politically applied biology." (Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934, pp. 10-11). Also, the book "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" (ISBN: 140397201X) links Darwinism to Hitler's political policies. If how non-scientists in general react to Darwin's theory is of some import, adding a section on how it philosophically influenced Powerful world leaders like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao seems of greater import.

170.215.45.95 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

No because that has nothing to do with Darwin and the Origin of Species. To link the rise of Hitler to Darwin is a bit like linking the rise of Hitler to the motor car, because Hitler supported the development of the Volkswagen and Autobahns. How people mis-apply science in a socialogical context has nohting to do with the science, but everything to do with those people. --Michael Johnson 01:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"How people mis-apply science in a socialogical context has nothing to do with the science, but everything to do with those people." How was it misapplied? And there is already a Philosophical implications section. Do you suggest we remove it? What you're claiming is akin to claiming that Modern physics had nothing to do with the manhattan project or the bombing of Hiroshima. Sure, Darwin did not work for Hitler, Mao, Lenin, or Stalin, as Einstein did for Roosevelt, but in that alone is the comparison unfair. Darwin could not control how or by whom his theory would be used, but that it was influential is of some import, in my opinion.170.215.45.95 Vacuous Poet
What a stupid propostition. We should not use fire, because someone might get burnt. We should not have invented the wheel because someone might get run over. You are also gnoring completely the fact that nothing Darwin wrote if properly interpreted could in any way be of support to Hitler's program, and indeed Darwin wrote of how he saw all the races as fundamentally equal. This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to smear Darwin by association. --Michael Johnson 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You're the one arguing it was misapplied, not me. I'll repeat, Darwin could not control how or by whom his theory would be used, but that it was influential is of some import, in my opinion. 170.215.45.95 03:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
So what? It still has nothing to do with Darwin. --Michael Johnson 03:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an article on Darwin's book The Origin of Species, not Darwin. You pointed that out yourself, earlier. You've not addressed the point regarding its influence on Powerful World Leaders (as well as eugenics programs in the United States), other than to assert, without proof, argument, or citation to reference, that the Origin of Species was misapplied, and that this is a smear on Darwin. Darwin's theory was applied.170.215.45.95 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet.
Notions of racial superiority were around long before Darwin, and really have nothing to do with this book which is about the evolution of species. Bringing them up here is irrelevent and confusing. --Michael Johnson 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You should not make comments about a book you haven't read. The majority of the book is racial slurs, and barely touches on the theory of evolution.MarioFanaticXV 14:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And I don't know what you are going on about Stalin for. Stalin persercuted evelutionary biologists. --Michael Johnson 03:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Stalin persecuted everybody except the sycophants, but that is beside the point. The point is Darwin's work was quit influential, and it's infulence on world leaders is more significant than the general public's reaction to his book. It appears that you think the general "uneducated" public's rejections of Darwin's theory is more important than powerful and educated men adopting and applying the theory. 170.215.45.95 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

So what is the point? You can't "apply" a theory to a problem it does not apply to. The book "Origin of the Species" which is the subject of the article does not mention human beings. If your "powerful and educated men" are applying something they read in OOTS to human race relations, they are sadly misled. Go write something in their biographies, if you think it important. It has nothing to do with Darwin or this book. --Michael Johnson 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Theories do not restrict what problems others will apply them to. Was it really so great a leap to apply selection to the human race? 170.215.45.95 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Fact is, Stalin persercuted evolutionary biologists because he tried to impose his own crackpot theory, just as the religious fundalmentalists are trying to impose their own crackpot theory. This resulted in the deaths of millions in the Soviet Union via starvation. Lets hope the christian crackpots don't get power in the west as their cousins the islamic crackpots are doing in the east. --Michael Johnson 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, crackpot theories abound. But it appears that Stalin was not so much angry with the thoughts of the biologists, as their unwillingness to work on the problem at hand: crop production. Stalin began to become an athiest when he read Darwin's Origin of species. Consequently, it seems the biologists were persecuted for lazyness--not for a belief in Darwin. 170.215.45.95 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Well that is simply not true. You really need to read up on Stalin some more. And now we have guilt by association for athiests. Stalin was an athiest therefore athiests are like Stalin? --Michael Johnson 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's on wikipedia somewhere, it has to be true. Please quit putting words in my mouth, I don't think anybody is falling for it. 170.215.45.95 Vacuous Poet

OK so you have a sense of humour... Actually I don't think anybody is even watching. Anyway we are getting way off topic, which is that whatever Hitler, Stalin, or Fred Bloggs at 41 Spring St. think, it has nothing to do with OOTS. --Michael Johnson 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainly on religious grounds

"a significant proportion of non-scientists in the United States and a few other countries disagree mainly on religious grounds"

Please keep "mainly on religious grounds" out, or cite a poll to justify the claim.

As one well-known counter-example, Ann Coulter is a non-scientist, and she enumerates many problems with Darwin's The Origin of Species that are not based on religious grounds (see "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", ISBN: 1400054206, which argues that to accept Darwin's theory requires acts of faith and belief in miracles, as part of her argument that modern secular humanistic liberalism is itself a religion.) As another example, see "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing" (ISBN: 1932236317) They are based on philosophical, scientific, and logical grounds.

I could name other non-scientists who base their opposition to Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species on non-religious grounds. That a majority of them might be religious does not prima facie demonstrate their logic, opposition, or skepticism is based on religious grounds. You might argue that they are wrong, are relying on faulty logic, are ignorant, and conclude that since they are religious they are actually forming their opposition on religious grounds, but this argument is itself a fallacy. They could simply be wrong and religious. (Or they could be right, who am I to know?)

Citing a source that simply asserts "Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence" does not make it so. Assertions are cheap, especially on the Internet. Cite a poll that asks those non-scientists who do not completely accept Darwin's theory why they do so, or keep your speculation out of the article. --- Vacuous Poet

A quick google (Google is your friend - try it sometime !) gives me, http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm and picking out the November 1997 table,
Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

Note the Everyone is the non-scientists and it clearly shows a bias towards either Classic creation or god-of-gaps style evolution. Ann Coulter's Wikipedia article has her as not being "impartial or balanced". The Origin of the Species came out over a hundred and fifty years ago and to date has survived. I do not think Ann Coulter's efforts are comparable and it would add undue weight to her apologetic to use it to revert text. It is also illogical to have a non-scientist refute Evolution as the non-scientist efforts would not be peer reviewed. Ttiotsw 02:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin's theory was not on the origin of the original parents, right? So the theistic evolution camp could be part of the evolution camp, no? And, if my memory serves me, Darwin does not claim that there were only 1 set of evolutionary parents? E.g., multiple original parents for various evolutionary branches would not contradict Darwin. So, perhaps people who think they disagree with Darwin may not really (the theistic evolution camp). The reference to Ann Coulter was not to refute Darwinism, but to challange that those who disagree with Darwin do so mainly on religious grounds. Ann Coulter disagrees, and makes non-religious arguments. Please don't mischaracterize my statements. BTW, what did you use for your search terms in Google. 170.215.45.95 06:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
There seems to be some mission creep here. We are arguing removing "mainly on religious grounds" from the statement... "a significant proportion of non-scientists in the United States and a few other countries disagree mainly on religious grounds". We cannot combine "Theistic evolution" with "Naturalistic Evolution" as "Theistic evolution" effectively posits a creator; this is a supernatural entity and as such is a pseudoscience not science. The search term was new scientist poll religion evolution (NOT in double quotes on google.com) and I picked the 2nd link down. Ann Coulter is just one person. We'd bloat the Wikipedia page with a shed-load of web links to the many who complain about Darwin for religious grounds. One "conservative" who (quote-mining Wikipedia) says that "... Christianity fuels everything I write." isn't grounds to balance the Gallup poll data. Ttiotsw 21:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading Ann Coulters bio it seems she has pretty strong religious beliefs. It wouldbe pretty difficult to seperate these from her arguments on evolution. For a scientist who is also a thiest and a strong supporter of evolution see John Polkinghorne. --Michael Johnson 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree she claims strong religious beliefs. But are you suggesting that those who have religious beliefs should be barred from raising non-religious objections? A religious test, so to speak? 170.215.45.95 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
So you say her objections are non-scientific and non-religious? What are they based on? The jacket cover design? --Michael Johnson 23:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think she would say logic. 06:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
She doesn't raise non-religious objections, frankly, nor do other creationists, who are universally religious, and wiith good reason - its the only reason to deny it. Titanium Dragon 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] refuting the doctrine of "Created kinds"

Context:

'The work presents detailed scientific evidence that Darwin had accumulated on the Voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s and since his return, painstakingly laying out his theory and refuting the doctrine of "Created kinds", which underlay the then widely accepted theories of Creation biology.'

The quotation marks and sentence in which it occurs implies that this was the objective. Did Darwin use the term "created kinds" in the book? Did he explicitly say that he was tryint to refute it? 170.215.45.95 19:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Last para of Origin of the Species 6th Ed. ....
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
so as Darwin was of a theological-leaning background he knew the implication of that statement. It also shows that he was in the theistic evolution camp and was proposing "common ancestry". Created kinds is a new term but embodies the "young earth" view. He would not have used that but it is not anachronistic to use that in the sentence as what he concludes his book refutes the modern creationist/young earth concepts of created kinds. Again be bold - read the books yourself and edit the article yourself. Ttiotsw 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With the rise of Christianity

'With the rise of Christianity came belief in the Biblical idea of creation according to Genesis, with the doctrine that God had directly "Created kinds" of organisms.'

This sentence is problematic on several counts. First, Christianity predates Darwin. Second, Genesis predates Christianity. This is a not-so-subtle jab. Please reword it or remove it. 170.215.45.95 19:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet

Darwin is not mentioned in the sentence. Without the rise of Christianity this minor Jewish-originated cult wouldn't have promoted a doctrine of "Created kinds". The sentence reads fine. If you see a problem - be bold and edit it yourself. Ttiotsw 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this an improvement? — coelacan talk — 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see a number of problems with Vacous Poet's edit. It implies belief in the idea of the creation according to Genesis was not widespread until the printing press and people started to read the bible. So what did they believe in from "1AD" to say the mid-1400s ? What the heck did the priests say in the pulpits for all that time about he creation ? Did they gloss over this subject ? I think not. You could also argue that it implies a large majority of the people could read the bible when the bible came out and in subsequent years: I have no cite for that and neither does the edit. I'm reverting that as the new edit reaks of illogic and original research for those reasons unless it can be shown that Genesis style creation was not promoted between 1AD and 1455. Ttiotsw 09:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is covered pretty well in Moore's broadcast transcript: "a rigid class structure [which] was held to be divinely ordained, like every condition of plant and animal, fixed and static and eternal. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century had brought biblical certainties to lay people in their own language, and they read the story of creation more literally than the classic theologians had." It's a good idea to clarify and if possible condense that section, using that source, and I'll try to do so in the near future. .. dave souza, talk 10:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I do think it shouldn't be implied that literal interpretation of Genesis began with Christianity. It's probably older than that. Anyway, is it the great chain of being we're talking about here? — coelacan talk — 13:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Two points. On literal interpretation, it's worth reading Moore's statements: my understanding is that earlier priestly readings in all the relevant faiths were that the bible needed interpretation, but the effect of the Reformation and widespread literacy combined with availability of the (printed) bible led to the wording being taken more literally. To cite Moore, "Historically, Christians and Jews and Muslims are all creationists because they believe that God brought the world into existence. A creationist was not a person historically who had any particular views on the origin of biological species, but as one who held certain theological views about the universe and about the soul. The definition of "creationist" became narrowed in the 17th century and in the 18th century. At this time, people were discovering a great deal more about the natural world and were classifying individual species and grouping these species in larger groups and larger groups. And it became a matter of belief during the 17th and 18th century that each of these species, each of these biological species of plants and animals, hundreds — tens of hundreds, thousands of species had been individually created by God in their first pair in the Garden of Eden".
Regarding the "great chain of being", the point about this view is that species as much as social positions are fixed, "nothing in this world happened purely naturally and spontaneously. God was in charge". According to Desmond & Moore's Darwin p39, Lamarckians such as Grant also visualised organisms as being in a chain, but one linked by a "unity of plan" meaning homologies implying a progression from simpler to more complex as they evolved. .. dave souza, talk 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Genesis predates the Christianity. See Genesis. So what did they believe in from "1AD" to say the mid-1400s. I agree. But Genesis existed long before 1 AD. I'm reverting that as the new edit reaks of illogic and original research for those reasons unless it can be shown that Genesis style creation was not promoted between 1AD and 1455. Upon reflection, the printing press was a bad idea, but before I made the edit, I posted a point in this discussion. I was told to be bold. I presumed an original intent of the author, that it was Christian thought that influenced evolution I think saying that With the rise of Christianity came belief in the Biblical idea of creation according to Genesis reaks of illogic and original research as well. Do you have an alternative? Should we just delete the line? Should we replace Christianity with Judaism/Christianity, or just Judaism? Singling out Christianity while citing a Jewish book that later became important to Christians seems illogical. I think rewording like this might be better: 'With the rise of Judaism and later Christianity came belief in the Biblical idea of creation according to Genesis, with the doctrine that God had directly "Created kinds" of organisms.' 65.73.44.65 04:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
That seems accurate to me. I'd like to know if dave souza can work out better wording for this section in general, but I'm good with your edit for the moment. BTW you can make your computer hold a cookie so that you don't have to log in over and over. Just check "Remember me" when you log in next time. — coelacan talk — 04:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I am not sure what the original intent of the author was? Was he trying to say with the rise of monotheistic religions came the belief in the supernatural creation of kinds of Organisms? I agree with this. Is this original research though? I was just trying to correct a logical error. 65.73.44.65 04:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

[edit] James Moore as a Source for Religious beliefs at the time

Dave, I saw your edit, and I read the transcript[4] from which you sourced your additions. I think you summarized James Moore's comments correctly. However, could you help me learn how to evaluate what sources can be used on wikipedia? E.g., an edited radio interview with a biographer may not necessarily be the best source regarding religious thought at the time. And that he was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household and his choice of subject matter might be related, and I wonder to what extent his commentary is influenced by his rejection of fundamentalism.

Especially since Moore quotes a poem, and not the Bible, as influencing the public beliefs at that time. I have no expertise to know if the poem was more influential than the Bible, but the claim raises my eyebrows. Of course, Moore has probably studied the times of Darwin while researching his biographies, so this doubt I have may be unfounded.

Also troubling is Krista Tippett's mischaracterization of the 1925 Scopes trial as though it were some shameful event in American History, instead of the staged event it was, in which the ACLU had to place newspaper ads across Tennessee seeking a teacher willing to be prosecuted, and found one in a phy. ed. teacher who occasionally substituted for Biology class, and who could not recollect ever violating the law, but was persuaded to volunteer to be persecuted by his good friend, the prosecutor, Bryan, a fundamentalist himself, by other civic and business leaders who merely wanted to bring economic benefits to their hometown. (Source: Historian Edward Larson's Pulitzer-winning book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion.)

Also, Moore's the sentence "By the time of Darwin's birth in 1809, it was widely believed in England that both the natural world and the hierarchical social order were held stable, fixed by God's will, with nothing happening purely naturally and spontaneously." doesn't make any sense. If something happened, and was attributed to the will of God, how could it be held fixed?

I also listened to the podcast[[5]] of the program, and found especially troubling the prayer music playing during the readings of Darwin's writings a bit strange, as though Darwin's writings were holy scripture.

If he is correct in his assessment of religious beliefs, the additions you made deserves to stay. But wouldn't it be better to quote a religious historian instead of an ex-fundamentalist with an axe to grind?

I know it was a lot of work to read and summarize, so please don't take this as an insult. I am just not sure this is a reliable source. Perhaps that doesn't matter, though, as long as it is sourced. Your command of written English is outstanding, by the way.

StudyAndBeWise 07:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've a lot of respect for Moore as a biographer of Darwin, and the book he co-authored with Adrian Desmond pays a great deal of attention to the religious and social context in which Darwin developed his ideas. It and Janet Browne's two volumes have been well recommended and are singled out by John van Wyhe here as modern biographies of Darwin. In summary, he's a reliable source with a particular interest in the context of Darwin's life. If a reliable source is available giving the views of a reputable historian of religion that would also be of interest, However Moore's remarks seem to me to fit with the other comments I've seen about this period.
My next aim is to trim and focus the following two sections, and to get the three sections properly cited: the Moore interview wasn't my only source. It's obviously for a program relating to religious views, and his points about the (deistic) religious framing of The Origin appear well founded, though playing the readings to prayer music is rather over the top. Krista Tippett comes over as an interviewer rather than any sort of expert.
Your concerns about Moore's sentence are appreciated: I'll give some thought to framing the point more clearly, preferably with an additional source. Afraid things are going a bit slowly at this time of year, but will try to make some progress reasonably soon. .. dave souza, talk 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Darwin himself might in part be one of the source of Moore's characterization. E.g.,
Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domestic Animals and Plants[[6]], and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.[[7]]--Darwin, from The autobiography of Charles Darwin
But this is possibly a straw man argument on Darwin's part, cherry picking arguments that are easily knocked down. Rationalization is a human characteristic. Even so, I admit that through the lens of modern knowledge, and many if not most modern theologians, it is hard for me to imagine the majority of people believing that every chance event is minutely controlled by the Creator. But then again, even Einstein is quoted is saying that God "does not play dice," which lines up with the Moore summary, I suppose. But it is even more difficult for me to believe that in the face of chance events, the majority of people deemed everything fixed. But again, there is Einstein's famous quote.
To sum up, that a majority of people might have held beliefs, however irrational those views might seem through a modern lens, is possibly to probably true, and it is pertainant to a background, upon reflection, if true. A source from a general historian and/or a religous historian would only benefit the article, though. I will keep looking too.

StudyAndBeWise 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're raising some really good points: Darwin apparently learnt the "fixed laws" concept while at Cambridge uni, and he does tend to set out various arguments in his books before reaching a conclusion. We tend to look at the past from a modern viewpoint, and assume for example that when fossils were found to be extinct creatures, that settled things, when it appears to have taken about 150 years for it to be accepted in science, let alone by much of the public. Browne's Voyaging p 129 gives useful info about the perception at Cambridge around 1830: "All of the perfect 'adaptations' or 'contrivances' Paley saw in nature were correspondingly understood as features specially created by God to fit each and every being for its role in an overall plan; a plan, he went on to say, characterised by stability, by inbuilt hierarchies, and by orderly arrangements reflecting the social and moral structure of Britain. Though not without its theological and political critics in Britain, this form of thinking rose dramatically in the Napoleonic era to become the dominant doctrine of those favouring social stability and maintenance of the political status quo: the ideology, in short, of the British governing classes and of Cambridge dons in particular."
Desmond & Moore p82 note Darwin at Cambridge using a microscope to see a pollen grain spraying out "numberless granules" which from his work with Grant he saw as having self-activating power, but to Henslow "they had no intrinsic vital power. Life was impressed on matter from without. It was an endowment and ultimately derived its power from God. There were no self-activating atoms of life, whatever more 'speculative' naturalists argued." This coming from a scientist at the forefront of botany and studies of variation in plants (within a species, of course).
They also lay great stress on the religious clamp-down on dissenters around 1791 as the French revolution moved towards war with Britain, with Anglican mobs attacking chapels. It's pretty hard to understand the mind set of that time. .. dave souza, talk 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulbic reaction sidebar

In the public reaction section, the side bar "Darwin himself worked over the years with translators who published his work in both French and German as well." exists. This sentence seems to be superfluous, and I will remove it. I am putting this note because the sentence probably belongs somewhere in the article.

StudyAndBeWise 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and a Happy New Year! The publication section can be developed with more info from this bibliograpy etc. with an appropriate statement about translations. I'd like to see the "theory as presented" section redefined to give a closer outline of the book, using Darwin's words rather than Mayr's, and the background and aftermath sections reduced as much as possible. Any comments? .. dave souza, talk 18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the "theory as presented" section should be moved up in the article, and refined as necessary. Of course, since I just did some work on the public reaction, I'd like it to stay. Actually, I think it is an important piece of historical context, that is, background and public reaction, presented from an objective/historical point of view. I've been reading some history books, and I don't think the background at Darwin's birth is as important as the background at the time of publication, and I also think that Moore is not as reliable a source as general 19th century historians on religious beliefs at the time, but probably characterizes Darwin's views of religious beliefs at the time. That it because general historians seem to me more objective than Moore (my own bias). E.g., I read one account that characterized Darwin's ideas as a "bomb". Also, this might fall into the realm of original research, but in reading about Darwin's book, and the way it was promoted, it reminds me of ideas and methods presented in The Tipping Point (book), which disucsses why some movements or ideas are more effective or influential than others (e.g., why Paul Revere was remembered for his famous ride announcing that the Red Coats were coming, and other riders were not). Al Gore oten references ideas contained in The Tipping point in promoting his Global Warming movement. If I remember correctly, however, the book does not talk about Darwin. Even so, in the context of the ideas presented in the book, and the fact that others had previously presented less well known and more succinct statements on evolution, leads me to the conclusion that the promotion of "The Origin of Species" is a classic case of The Tipping Point, and these factors are an important part of why we know about Darwin today.

StudyAndBeWise 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Beware of Huxley's exaggeration of the battle against religion, and the later romanticisation of that struggle that brought us the myth that Columbus was up against a church that thought the earth was flat: for modern historians I refer you to a paragraph from John van Wyhe:
"Although Darwin convinced most of the scientific community that descent with modification, or evolution, was true, many rejected natural selection. Darwin was also not the first to propose that life evolves... more accurate, refined and convincing than his predecessors... We know that a wide popular literature such as George Combe's Constitution of Man (1828) and the anonymous Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) had already shocked and converted vast popular audiences to belief in the power of natural laws to control the development of nature and society. Historians of science now believe that Darwin's effect was, as James Secord put it, a 'palace coup' amongst elite men of science rather than a revolution.
Darwin, as an unquestionably respectable authority in elite science, publicly threw his weight on the side of evolution..."
It's worth reading his biographical sketch which is brief but has interesting insights. Excellent work on the work on the public reaction: I'd thought it was going too far in date terms, but now it's related to an edition of the book that makes sense. .. dave souza, talk 20:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "American" non-scientists.

A minor note, but I think that opposition to Origin is certainly more widespread than just America. I suppose it could be argued that in places like Africa, it's more ignorance than opposition, but it's still far from accepted, so best not to mislead readers into thinking that Origin is accepted everywhere but America. SnowFire 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In my opinion this article at present places too much emphasis on "the controversy", which is amply covered elsewhere, and not enough on the actual book. So when I can tear myself away from other distractions I'll expand book sections and reduce the controversy. .. dave souza, talk 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that'd be for the best. As for Africa - maybe, maybe not. The issue is whether we can source it and whether there is opposition. If people don't even know about it (as many Africans may not) it is kind of hard to -oppose-. Most RSs relate to the first world because of accessibility and education reasons; its hard to know what Africans think on issue X because our polling methodology has a hard time with people in such primitive conditions as exist in most of Africa. I've seen brief mention of Middle Eastern fundamentalism/rejection of evolution, but not much. Titanium Dragon 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory in a nutshell

Per my earlier comment, I plagerized a pre-existing section and combined with the theory as presented in the book into a new section called theory in a nutshell. This is largely based on a quick reading of CHAPTER 14. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION, here.[8] It does leave the problem that this is again recapitulated later in the article. It is a work in progress, but I think putting the theory in a nutshell earlier in the article is high priority.

StudyAndBeWise 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and hardly plagiarising: once I've added references, it'll be properly cited usage, and anyway Darwin's Public Domain. This link is to the section you refer to, but at a first glance it doesn't seem to relate: any particular page number? My intention is to remove the Mayr list anyway and substitute the paragraph Darwin has in his intro page 5.
Have been diverted by a troll lately, will try to get down to it now.... dave souza, talk 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, feel free to adjust the theory in a nutshell. Mostly I used terms Darwin used like "slowly effected" and "interminable", and "varieties." To this extent, and upon reflection, I wonder if I added detail that did not exist in the book. StudyAndBeWise 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Peer review.

Dave and I have been doing a lot of work on this article, and I would like some other feeback as to what I can do to improve this article. I think it is coming along fine, but want other input, being relatively new. StudyAndBeWise 03:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whiggist views of creationism

There seems to be confusion here between the views of creation as espoused in Darwin's time, and 21st Century American Creationism.

The article claims OoS "was controversial because it contradicted religious beliefs and the doctrine of "created kinds", which underlay the then widely accepted theories of biology".

Now when was the "created kinds" created? I don't know - but I doubt whether it is more than 20 years old.

Can someone who knows more about this than me go through and cut out these false Whiggisms please?

Johnbibby 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, don't know what Whig history has to do with it: of course Darwin was a Whig, but then the term's changed meanings a few times since the Whiggamore Raid. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up the intro. Looks to me like an improvement. Fair point about Created kind being a neologism, but in many ways YEC ideas revive concepts that were being pushed around when Darwin was a laddie: that article is framed in post 1941 terms, but a lot of the ideas were current around 1810 – see Moore's broadcast for a brief overview of the context, and History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth for a lot of detail. Think we should pipe the link as "kinds in the Genesis creation"? .. dave souza, talk 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Oddly enough, looking at whig related articles brought up this essay which includes a crack about whig history oversimplifying, then asks for pre-Darwin to be put into the sort of political context mentioned briefly in the background section here. Could be a useful link. .. dave souza, talk 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social Darwinism

“ Neither public welfare nor private charitiy should restrain the natural struggle for existence, he [William Graham Summer] stressed in an 1881 essay: "The law of the survival of the fittest was not made by man and cannot be abrogated by man. We can only, by interfering with it, produce the survival of the unfittest."[19] Darwin's translator, Clemence Royer, made similar arguments in her long preface to the French edition of Origin of Species and in her 1870 book, The Origin of Man and Societies. ”

This is from Larson 2004, p. 187. I am not sure how it could be worked into the article, but that a translator of Darwin's book was making social-darwinistic arguments might merit inclusion in this or another article. (Probably already done in other articles). I just came across this and thought it was interesting. StudyAndBeWise 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Ill informed"

Using the phrase "ill-informed" to describe the creation-evolution controversy is definitely weasel-wording.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.11.83.13 (talk • contribs) 5:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Squeak! ;) dave souza, talk 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Origin_of_Species_12c8.html"