benja burns

I was talking with a Catholic friend about Darwin and she said that Darwin came up with the theory of evolution in order to spite his parents who were both religious. Is there any truth to this? My thought is that it's just a rumor.

Clivedurdle

Absolute rubbish!

He was a very honest and thoughtful person who was always investigating and trying to make sense of things.

He delayed publication of origins for twenty plus years because he clearly understood its implications!

I recommend Darwin and the Barnacle.

ZouPrime

Well, in some sense it is always possible. But I don't see how it could be used against the theory of evolution itself.

For example, I could be a fantastic hockey player, after many years of practice against the wishes of my intellectual parents. Maybe its true, but how it is relevant to my talent? I can be the greatest hockey player in the world whatever my actual motivations are.

Peoples who try to attack the theory of evolution by attacking Darwin are completely missing the boat. The theory is believed true on its own ground of evidences, not because it is the opinion of some guy�*. Darwin is credited for it, but it doesn't mean that someone else could have thought about it a few years latter if Darwin wouldn't have been there.

By today standard, Darwin isn't even relevant anymore. The Origin of Species is an interresting book in a historical context, but it is now hopelessly outdated on a scientifical basis.

Mikie

Actually, Darwin didn't come up with idea of evolution - he read about it. The idea that humans might have evolved from more primative life was around for thousands of years before Darwin put his slant on it. Darwin tried to come up with a mechanism to explain why evolution might be true. In my opinion, he failed.

simian

Grumble, grumble, grumble. I was raised Roman Catholic. I know the Church's stance on evolution (or at least what it was 20 years ago) - which is that "truth cannot contradict truth". The Catholic Church, as an entity, has no problem with evolution and that humans and other animals have a common anscestor. The view is one of theistic evolution - kind of along the line where when a creature capable of understanding god came about, god gave it a soul.

Here's the problem: most of the preists and heirachy either don't know the Church's stance, or refuse to state it. I saw this with Kansas back in 1999. Now, of course, with Opus Dei and other fundimentalist Catholic groups taking over, the stance of the Catholic Church may be changing. Until then, however, I see the refusal to speak up for truth (a "lie of omission" as I was taught in the denomination) as cowardice.

Not that this helps you convince your friend, but it does give you the potential to search on the Vatican website for useful info...

Simian

Sven

Care to elaborate on this?

Is it just along what ZouPrime already posted, or what?

Worldtraveller

Also, you could do what I'm doing....go to the source. I'm about 2/3 of the way through right now, and am constantly struck by how much real thought was put into this.
Darwin is constantly giving referencees in the book to papers and research done by his contemporaries, strongly suggesting that he wasn't the only one thinking along these lines.
For what it's worth, from the introduction to Origin of Species, He does make occasional references to the fact that special creation does not jibe with the evidence, but so far, I haven't seen anthing to indicate for sure that he may not have been a theistic evolutionist. I don't think he was, but who knows.

Cheers,
Lane

Oolon Colluphid

I’d say it’s not even a rumour -- it’s the first I have heard of it, and I spent thirteen years at a Catholic school run by a teaching brotherhood.

It is also total cobblers. Darwin’s mother died when he was eight (off the top of me head, something around there), and he’d had little to do with her, having been raised more or less by his older sisters to that point. On the one hand, Susannah Darwin was frequently sick, and on the other, children then did not associate as much with their parents as now. Her death seems to have had little impression on him. So he wouldn’t have been trying to spite her.

And with his father Robert, Charles got on very well (contrary to other rumours). His father was disappointed that both Charles and Erasmus failed to get on with medicine, but relations were always cordial, with Charles always referring to Robert as the greatest, most noble, well-informed etc of men he’d ever known. In later life, many a comment would start with “As my father would have said...�? (or words to that effect).

Also, his father was no great religious fan. Certainly no atheist, but between his medical practice and his countless business dealings, religion never figured highly.

His father Darwin respected beyond the call of duty; his mother he never really knew. So your friend’s talking nonsense, I’m afraid. I prescribe a dose of Browne’s biography of Darwin. Or tartar emetic, whichever you think’s more appropriate .

Oh, and the Darwins were low Church of England. And as anyone here will tell you, the Church of England is the only church where agnosticism is a requirement.

And another thing: thought it up to spite his parents? And I suppose his ardent interest in natural history from his earliest days (which his father encouraged), his reading of Lyell and Malthus, his voyage with Fitzroy on the Beagle and everything he saw on it, and all his subsequent researches... were irrelevant, of course.

And another: Darwin was far too kind and reticent a Gentleman to do anything out of spite. Certainly not to a father he loved dearly nor to a mother he never knew.

Cheers, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Opinions are two-a-penny. Evolution is an observed phenomenon; natural selection is an observed phenomenon; evolution is a scientific fact. Darwin did not fail.

Feel free to disagree, of course. But as they used to say in school, please show workings.

Oolon Colluphid

Doesn't fit too well with his famous comment about the Ichneumonidae though. If he could not persuade himself that a benificent and omnipotent God would have designedly created them, I'd have thought he'd struggle to think a loving god would have allowed them to evolve either, let alone guided the process. As he said just before that passage, "With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically." Yet, that's how he found himself seeing it.

But I've not read far enough in Browne yet to make a better guess...