Friday, August 03, 2007
Another guest to learn about:
Some persons seem to have thought [Darwin's] theory dangerous to religion, morality, and what not. Others have tried to laugh it out of court. We can share neither the fears of the former nor the merriment of the latter; and, on the contrary, own to feeling the greatest admiration both for the ingenuity of the doctrine and for the temper in which it was broached, although, from a consideration of the following arguments, our opinion is adverse to its truth. ...
Although many domestic animals and plants are highly variable, there appears to be a limit to their variation in any one direction. This limit is shown by the fact that new points are at first rapidly gained, but afterwards more slowly, while finally no further perceptible change can be effected. Great, therefore, as the variability is, we are not free to assume that successive variations of the same kind can be accumulated. There is no experimental reason for believing that the limit would be removed to a great distance, or passed, simply because it was approached by very slow degrees, instead of by more rapid steps. There is no reason to believe that a fresh variability is acquired by long selection of one form; on the contrary, we know that with the oldest breeds it is easier to bring about a diminution than an increase in the points of excellence.
Labels: Hull: Darwin's Critics
Electrician, died over 100 years ago.
They have no new arguments, do they? He had them all, expounded at great length.
I'm curious as to anything in the creationist playbook which is new. Most of seem to predate Darwin. The problem with "blending inheritance" is relatively new.
The "racism" one is probably new, given that almost everybody in those early days was a racist, so wouldn't think of blaming Darwin for racism. (They might think of blaming Darwin for not being racist, though.)