The Origin of Species discussion

I'm reading On the Origin of Species and am thoroughly enjoying it. However, I have friends and relatives who are vehemently against the teachings of speciation through natural selection. Yet none of them have read this book--only books about why the theory is erroneous. My question: if one has strong opinions about any topic or author (the Bible, Rachel Carson, or whatever)...shouldn't they have at least read the original work that they are so exceptionally bitter about? I don't think reading a work from beginning to end is necessary simply to have an opinion, but if it is a strong one, one that is enough for you to create enemies and friends, then I'd say being thorough is absolutely necessary--and I'd assume that, most people who are very angry about the theory have never read this long book.

Difficult to think of people being actually angry against Darwins book, I mean what the hell for?
(Who's Rachel Carson, btw? Have to look her up.)

I'm strongly against the Bible as I think it has little merit.
It's plain badly written, it has no real storyflow and, well, the plot doesn't make that much sense actually, does it?

I actually find the Bible fascinating; I've read it cover-to-cover once--took about 4 years--and am currently doing so again. I don't think it's possible to understand American history and current events without having read the Bible. For better or for worse, reading the Bible is like looking into American consciousness over the past centuries. (I recommend, for example, "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present," a book that illustrates how Americans have used the Bible as a major backdrop for how they see the Middle East.) But, yea, it's not Shakespeare or Toni Morrison, so I don't blame anyone who doesn't care to read it. I'd say most people don't really need to read On the Origin of Species either, but if your blood boils at the mention of Darwin's name, then yes, you absolutely should.

I'd think that reading Origin is more worthwhile than reading The Bible - but long as people can read either one realizing that neither is written in stone, and take equal value from it for themself I guess all's well.

One of my favorite Stephen King quotes:
“Don’t get mad, get even… Run, don’t walk, to the nearest nonschool library or to the local bookstore and get whatever it was that they banned. Read whatever they’re trying to keep out of your eyes and your brain, because that’s exactly what you need to know.”

Of COURSE one needs to read a book in order to criticize it. People who do not want you to read a book because it might change your mind about your faith are people with a faith that will not stand up to close scrutiny.

Natural selection is not a theory and should never be referred to as such. It is fact and therefore 'opinions' do not come into it.

I have no problem with one person calling it a theory, and another person calling it a fact; I was trained in science, and when I see the word "theory" it comes off as a very powerful word, one that implies lots of research and the support of many, many scientists and strong evidence. I find it weird when people say to me "evolution is JUST a theory"--it's like saying to me "Obama is JUST a president." In my everyday thinking, I tend to treat the concept of evolution as a fact, but whether it's the "f" word or the "t" word, I'm happy either way that we have such a comprehensive book like Origin of Species that explains "natural selection through variation."

It is a truly beautiful book, I was surprised at how easy it was to read, how accessible. The real question, is did Darwin get there first?

Tony wrote: "It is a truly beautiful book, I was surprised at how easy it was to read, how accessible. The real question, is did Darwin get there first?" He and Wallace reached similar conclusions at the same time but Wallace deferred to Darwin in publishing.

Tony wrote: " The real question, is did Darwin get there first?"

I find that Darwin himself negates that in his book, he's quite open about the fact that his research did build, as all in science, on other peoples groundwork.

blereader wrote: "I have no problem with one person calling it a theory, and another person calling it a fact; I was trained in science, and when I see the word "theory" it comes off as a very powerful word, one tha..."

The fuzziness of the public perception of theory and thought is frightening to me. That fuzziness or sloppiness is the reason that a huge proportion of the American public disputes the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution. It also explains the disdain that creationists can safely display for what has been shown to be true countless millions of times in microbiology, genetic research, geology, and paleontology. They escape serious ridicule only because the general population is ignorant about the distinction between scientific hypotheses (with results) and nonsense on stilts.

Yes, I borrowed that term from Massimo Pigliucci's book called "Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk." I recommend it to anyone interested in Karl Popper's problem with defining the "demarcation problem" between science and pseudo-science.

"Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk." Thanks Jon! I've added it to my "Want to Read" list.

I like to always read the primary sources before I form an opinion about something. It doesn't make any sense to form opinions based on the opinions of others concerning a particular topic. Anyone who does that should not be taken seriously, as their frame of logic is built of smoke and sand.

Its a great read and puts us to shame for our lack of knowledge of the natural world compared to 19th century naturalists. Evolution deniers would do well to read the primary source if only to recognize their own ignorance on the subject they are denying.

so... yes.

Jack wrote: "Its a great read and puts us to shame for our lack of knowledge of the natural world compared to 19th century naturalists. Evolution deniers would do well to read the primary source if only to reco..."

Origin can stand on its own. But I would also suggest people read Voyage of the Beagle as a companion book to it. The two together may provide a better picture of natural science in those days. I say that because pure natural science generates little interest today, probably because of the thousands of specialty areas that exist now in the hard sciences.

There is a great irony that creationists fail to see that even religion evolves. In my reading of it, it was clear that Darwin was replacing a primitive, static view of creation with a sophisticated, dynamic view, and any religious believers who weren't mere fideists should have embraced what he did for a proper understanding of the Bible. My contention is that for centuries readers of the bible simply mis-interpreted the intention of the first authors of the bible, for example, two creation stories were placed side by side (Gen. ch 1 and 2) that are clearly contradictory if taken in a literal sense, and are full of clues that suggest a symbolic, proto-parable quality. The lack of academic openness to his true findings made his faith untenable, and the Christian community must bear responsibility for that.

Darwin's laying out of the theory and the data that supported it is breathtaking in its studious concern for truth. He discovered and elucidated the laws that govern how life adapts. He overthrew the great Linnaeus' assumption that all species are fixed from creation. He didn't get to the source of how life capable of adaptation came to exist and we are still none-the-wiser about that, but he spelled out a beautiful theory that for believers can paint a better picture of an immanent God, rather an AWOL Creator; that is what creationists miss.

I read Origin of Species when I was about 12 and was very impressed. The book was quite dense and many questions were raised by Darwin, which passed me by on that reading and which have not been completely answered satisfactorially to this day. The Bible is an historical document (The Old Testament is termed A History of the Jews) and is a valuable and sometimes underappreciated historical and archaeological source. No theologian worth his salt will say that everything in the Bible is the word of God; there is much evidence for authors for each of the books. While there have been may biologists that have read the Bible, I strongly doubt that very many clergymen have read Darwin. That is not to say none, however. But if you want to make a point about Darwin or about the Bible, you need to read the source material. And any clergyman, particularly fundamentalist clergymen, who make comments about Darwin without reading it are quite probably in error, as any biologist who makes comments about the Bible without reading it are also. Read the source material. Then read any commentaries on it. You have both for Darwin by biologists and the Bible by theologians. Maybe try the converse, too. See what biologists who have read the Bible think about it and what clergymen who have read Darwin think about that. You will get many and varied opinions.

Tony wrote: "Natural selection is not a theory and should never be referred to as such. It is fact and therefore 'opinions' do not come into it."

Natural Selection is a theory. Ask any biologist. A fact is experimental data. A theory is generated from facts. A theory is never considered proved, only that facts strengthen the theory. Any scientific area of research cannot claim (technically) a theory has been proved. People who work in that subject area may believe it with all their heart, but according to the rules of scientific inquiry, they may not claim it proved. At best it is a working hypothesis that everyone who works with it may consider it true, but they cannot claim it to be so as per the rules of scientific inquiry.

Tony wrote: "It is a truly beautiful book, I was surprised at how easy it was to read, how accessible. The real question, is did Darwin get there first?"

No, it was anticipated somewhat by Wallace, but Darwin put it all together, just as in the same way much of Einstein's theory of relativity was anticipated in part, but Einstein was the person who put it all together.

Richard wrote: "Tony wrote: "Natural selection is not a theory and should never be referred to as such. It is fact and therefore 'opinions' do not come into it."

Natural Selection is a theory. Ask any biologist. ..."
Evolution is a fact. That's enough for me. Life has evolved over time.

Richard wrote: "Tony wrote: "Natural selection is not a theory and should never be referred to as such. It is fact and therefore 'opinions' do not come into it."

Natural Selection is a theory. Ask any biologist. ..."

All theories of science are vulnerable to rejection if they are falsified. They are not unalterable, as opposed to the revealed dogmas of religion. And there are numerous cases in the evolutionary literature of provisional evolutionary theories that were eventually rejected. The belief that a gene can be the direct object of selection is one such refuted theory. Still other rejected provisional theories are transmutationism and transformationism.

The fact that natural selection has survived since The Origin of Species was published gives it great credibility, especially when the research began to look closely at how phylogenetic variations produced new phenotypes in even small populations. Darwin knew this in his own time, but did not know the exact mechanism that produced those changes

Jon wrote: "Richard wrote: "Tony wrote: "Natural selection is not a theory and should never be referred to as such. It is fact and therefore 'opinions' do not come into it."

Natural Selection is a theory. Ask..."
I agree with that; pretty much what I said, from a different perspective

Since opinions originate in ignorance (they fill the void where knowledge should be) the best way to develop an opinion about a book is not to read it.