{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier New;}{\f1\fmodern\fprq1\fcharset0 Courier New;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green128\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.21.2508;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\lang1033\f0\fs20 =============================================================\par \cf1\ul\b Marty, Christoph. Darwin Speaks: "How faithlessness stalked me", Scientific American Website. February 11, 2009.\par \cf0\ulnone\b0 =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwin-speaks\par \cf0\b0\par \ul\b Did you have doubts about the content of truth in the Holy Scriptures even while you were on the Beagle?\par \ulnone\b0\par On \cf3 board the Beagle I was completely orthodox, and I recall how several officers \f1 laughed at heartily \f0 when I quoted the Bible as an irrefutable source on some point of morality. But during the period from 1836 to 1839, I had slowly come to understand that the Old Testament, with its evidently wrong history of the world, its Tower of Babel, its rainbow as a sign, and tendency of ascribing to God the sentiments of a revengeful tyrant, were no more worthy of credence than the holy scriptures of the Hindus or the beliefs of a savage. Despite all my powers of deluding myself, it became more and more difficult to find proof enough to satisfy me.\par \par And that is how \f1 faithlessness\f0 stalked me and took hold over me slowly, till I became totally disbelieving.\par \par \ul\b So you are an atheist?\par \ulnone\b0\par I think it would be more and more appropriate to call me an \f1 agnostic\f0 , in general and as age advances.\par \par \ul\b Do you see your lack of faith as a loss, then?\par \ulnone\f1\par \b0 Disbelief crept in \f0 on me so slowly that I did not feel any discomfort, and since then, never have a doubted for even a single second the correctness of my conclusions. And I cannot really understand, either, how anyone might want to believe that Christianity were true, because if it were, then, in the plain terms of the text, it is said that \cf0 people who do not believe would be punished for eternity, and that would include my father, my brother and almost all my best friends. And that is a terrible doctrine!\par \par \cf4\i\f1 The questions in this fictitious interview were posed by Christoph Marty. The answers are original quotes from Charles Darwin from a variety of sources, including The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online*, who died in 1882.\par \cf0\i0\f0\par \cf4\i * http://darwin-online.org.uk/\par \cf0\i0\par =============================================================\par \cf1\ul\b Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 1st edition, 1st issue.\par \cf0\ulnone\b0 =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=207\par \cf0\b0\par If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, \cf5\b\f1 my theory would absolutely break down\cf0\b0\f0 . But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.\par \par We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.\par \par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=210\par \cf0\b0\par Although we must be extremely cautious in concluding that \f1 any organ \cf5\b could not possibly have been produced \f0 by successive transitional gradations\cf0\b0 , yet, undoubtedly, grave cases of difficulty occur, some of which will be discussed in my future work.\par \par One of the gravest is that of neuter insects, which are often very differently constructed from either the males or fertile females; but this case will be treated of in the next chapter. The electric organs of fishes offer another case of special difficulty; it is impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced; but, as Owen and others have remarked, their intimate structure closely resembles that of common muscle; and as it has lately been shown that Rays have an organ closely analogous to the electric apparatus, and yet do not, as Matteuchi asserts, discharge any electricity, \cf5\b we must own that we are far too ignorant to argue that no transition of any kind is possible\cf0\b0 .\par \par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=212\par \cf0\b0\par On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of \cf5\b slight successive variations\cf0\b0 ; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps.\par \par =============================================================\par \cf1\ul\b Darwin, Francis ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 1.\par \cf0\ulnone\b0 =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.1&pageseq=322\par \cf0\b0\par \cf4\i I believe that his reticence arose from several causes. He felt strongly that a man's religion is an essentially private matter, and one concerning himself alone. This is indicated by the following extract from a letter of 1879:\emdash\'86\par \cf0\i0\par "What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. \'85 In my most extreme fluctuations \cf5\b I have never been an Atheist \cf0\b0 in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an \cf5\b Agnostic would be the more correct description \cf0\b0 of my state of mind."\par \par \cf4\i\'86 Addressed to Mr. J. Fordyce, and published by him in his 'Aspects of Scepticism,' 1883.\par \cf0\i0\par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.1&pageseq=323\par \cf0\b0\par \cf4\i I may also quote from another letter to Dr. Abbott (Nov. 16, 1871), in which my father gives more fully his reasons for not feeling competent to write on religious and moral subjects:\emdash\par \cf0\i0\par "I can say with entire truth that I feel honoured by your request that I should become a contributor to the Index, and am much obliged for the draft. \cf5\b I fully, also, subscribe to the proposition that it is the duty of every one to spread what he believes to be the truth; and I honour you for doing so, with so much devotion and zeal. \cf0\b0 But I cannot comply with your request for the following reasons; and excuse me for giving them in some detail, as I should be very sorry to appear in your eyes ungracious. My health is very weak: I never pass 24 hours without many hours of discomfort, when I can do nothing whatever. I have thus, also, lost two whole consecutive months this season. Owing to this weakness, and my head being often giddy, I am unable to master new subjects requiring much thought, and can deal only with old materials. At no time am I a quick thinker or writer: whatever I have done in science has solely been by long pondering, patience and industry.\par \par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.1&keywords=orthodox+beagle&pageseq=325\par \cf0\b0\par \cf4\i Again in 1879 he was applied to by a German student, in a similar manner. The letter was answered by a member of my father's family, who wrote:\emdash\par \cf0\i0\par "Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters, that he cannot answer them all.\par \par "He considers that the theory of \cf5\b Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God\cf0\b0 ; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God."\par \par \cf4\i This, however, did not satisfy the German youth, who again wrote to my father, and received from him the following reply:\emdash\par \cf0\i0\par "I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully,\emdash nor indeed can they be answered. \cf5\b Science has nothing to do with Christ\cf0\b0 , except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, \cf5\b every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities\cf0\b0 ."\par \par \cf4\i The passages which here follow are extracts, somewhat abbreviated, from a part of the Autobiography, written in 1876, in which my father gives the history of his religious views:\emdash\par \cf0\i0\par "During these two years* I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the \cf5\b Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos\cf0\b0 . The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,\emdash is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible.\par \par "By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any \cf5\b sane man believe in the miracles \cf0\b0 by which Christianity is supported,\emdash and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,\emdash that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,\emdash that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,\emdash that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;\emdash by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually \cf5\b came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation\cf0\b0 . The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me.\par \par "But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often \cf5\b inventing day-dreams of\cf0\b0 old letters between distinguished Romans, and \cf5\b manuscripts being discovered \cf0\b0 at Pompeii or elsewhere, \cf5\b which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels\cf0\b0 . But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. \cf5\b Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.\par \cf0\b0\par "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 from 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. \cf5\b There seems to be no more design \cf0\b0 in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the 'Variation of Domesticated Animals and Plants,'* \cf5\b and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered\cf0\b0 .\par \par \cf4\i * My father asks whether we are to believe that the forms are preordained of the broken fragments of rock tumbled from a precipice which are fitted together by man to build his houses. If not, why should we believe that the variations of domestic animals or plants are preordained for the sake of the breeder? \cf0\i0 "But if we give up the principle in one case,\'85 no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided."\emdash\cf4\i 'The Variation of Animals and Plants,' 1st Edit. vol. ii. p. 431.\emdash F. D.\cf0\i0\par \par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.1&keywords=orthodox+beagle&pageseq=329\par \cf0\b0\par "At the present day the most \cf5\b usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction \cf0\b0 and feelings which are experienced by most persons.\par \par "Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst \cf5\b standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest\cf0\b0 , "it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind." I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that \cf5\b I am like a man who has become colour-blind\cf0\b0 , and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.\par \par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.1&keywords=orthodox+beagle&pageseq=330\par \cf0\b0\par "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather \cf5\b impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe\cf0\b0 , including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, \cf5\b as the result of blind chance or necessity\cf0\b0 . When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the 'Origin of Species;' and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, \cf5\b can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?\par \cf0\b0\par "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be \cf5\b content to remain an Agnostic\cf0\b0 ."\par \par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.1&keywords=orthodox+beagle&pageseq=333\par \cf0\b0\par \cf4\i * The Duke of Argyll ('Good Words,' Ap. 1885, p. 244) has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. "\'85 in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' and upon 'The Earthworms,' and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature\emdash I said it was \cf5 impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind\cf4 . I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, \cf0\i0 '\cf5\b Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times\cf0\b0 ," \cf4\i and he shook his head vaguely, adding, \cf0\i0 "\cf5\b it seems to go away\cf0\b0 .'"\par \par C. Darwin to W. Graham.\par \par Down, July 3rd, 1881.\par \par DEAR SIR,\par \par I hope that you will not think it intrusive on my part to thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your admirably written 'Creed of Science,' though I have not yet quite finished it, as now that I am old I read very slowly. It is a very long time since any other book has interested me so much. The work must have cost you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for work. You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation\emdash and no doubt of the conservation of energy\emdash of the atomic theory, &c. &c., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that \cf5\b the Universe is not the result of chance\cf0\b0 .* \cf5\b But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.\cf0 \b0 Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Secondly, I think that I could make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance which you attribute to our greatest men; I have been accustomed to think, second, third, and fourth rate men of very high importance, at least in the case of Science. Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. But I will write no more, and not even mention the many points in your work which have much interested me. I have indeed cause to apologise for troubling you with my impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement in my mind which your book has aroused.\par \par I beg leave to remain,\par \par Dear Sir,\par \par Yours faithfully and obliged,\par \par CHARLES DARWIN.\par \par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=17\par \cf0\b0\par \cf5\b A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question\cf0\b0 ; and this cannot possibly be here done.\par \par =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&keywords=result+fair&pageseq=17\cf0\b0\par \par In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration. Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, &c., as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees. In the case of the misseltoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, \cf5\b it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself.\par \cf0\b0\par The author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' would, I presume, say that, after a certain unknown number of generations, some bird had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to the misseltoe, and that these had been produced perfect as we now see them; but \cf5\b this assumption seems to me to be no explanation, for it leaves the case of the coadaptations of organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life, untouched and unexplained.\par \cf0\b0\par =============================================================\par \cf1\ul\b Stix, Gary. Darwin's Living Legacy: Evolutionary Theory 150 Years Later, Scientific American Website. February 11, 2009.\par \cf0\ulnone\b0 =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwins-living-legacy&page=4\cf0\b0\par \par An article that appeared in Scientific American on August 11, 1860, described a meeting of the British Academy of Sciences at which a \ldblquote Sir B. Brodie\rdblquote rejected Darwin\rquote s hypothesis, saying: \ldblquote\cf6\b Man had a power of self-consciouness\emdash a principle differing from anything found in the material world, and he did not see how this could originate in lower organisms. \cf0\b0 This power of man was identical with the divine intelligence.\rdblquote But even then, Darwin had many defenders among leading scientists. At the same conference, the periodical reported, the renowned \cf6\b Joseph Hooker told the bishop of Oxford, another critic in attendance, that the cleric simply lacked any understanding of Darwin\rquote s writings.\par \cf0\b0\par ...\par \par American novelist \cf6\b Kurt Vonnegut \cf0\b0 once remarked that Darwin \ldblquote taught that those who die are meant to die, that corpses are improvements.\rdblquote\par \par =============================================================\par \cf1\ul\b Milner, Richard. Charles Darwin and Associates: Ghostbusters, Scientific American Website. February 11, 2009.\par \cf0\ulnone\b0 =============================================================\par \par \cf2\b http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=charles-darwin-and-assoc\par \cf0\b0\par If early hominids required only a gorilla\rquote s intelligence to survive, Wallace asked, why had they evolved brains capable of devising language, composing symphonies and doing mathematics? Although our bodies had evolved by natural selection, he concluded, \cf6\b Homo sapiens has \ldblquote something which he has not derived from his animal progenitors\emdash a spiritual essence or nature . . . [that] can only find an explanation in the unseen universe of Spirit.\rdblquote \cf0\b0 Wallace\rquote s position did not stem from any conventional religious belief but from his long-standing interest in spiritualism: a melding of ancient Eastern beliefs with the Western desire to \ldblquote secularize\rdblquote the soul and prove its existence. When Wallace published this view in 1869, Darwin wrote him: \ldblquote\cf5\b I differ grievously from you; I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and proximate cause [a supernatural force] in regard to Man.... I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child\cf0\b0\rdblquote\emdash meaning their theory of natural selection.\par \par ...\par \par Darwin, whose beloved 10-year-old daughter Annie had died in 1851, had nothing but contempt for the \ldblquote clever rogues\rdblquote who preyed on grieving relatives. Yet he avoided saying so publicly\emdash On the Origin of Species had stirred up enough controversies for a lifetime. Privately, he wrote Lankester an effusive letter of congratulations. Jailing Slade was a public benefit, he said, and insisted on contributing \'a310 to the costs of prosecution. (Under English law, the complainant paid court costs; \'a310 was a substantial sum, comparable to a month\rquote s wages for a workingman.)\par \par ...\par \par In 1879 Darwin tried to drum up support for a government pension in recognition of Wallace\rquote s brilliant contributions to natural history. Wallace, he knew, had to earn his meager living by grading examination papers. But when Darwin wrote to his friend Joseph Hooker, director of Kew Gardens, the botanist refused to help. \ldblquote Wallace has lost caste terribly,\rdblquote he replied nastily, \ldblquote not only for his adhesion to Spiritualism, but by the fact of his having deliberately and against the whole voice of the committee\rdblquote allowed the paper on mental telepathy at the scientific meetings. In addition, he thought the government \ldblquote should in fairness be informed that the candidate is a public and leading Spiritualist!\rdblquote\par \par Undaunted, Darwin replied that Wallace\rquote s beliefs were \ldblquote not worse than the \cf5\b prevailing superstitions of the country\cf0\b0\rdblquote\emdash meaning organized religion. Darwin and Huxley twisted a few more arms, then Darwin personally wrote to Prime Minister William Gladstone, who passed the petition on to Queen Victoria. In the end, Wallace got his modest pension and was able to continue writing his articles and books; he died in 1913, at the age of 90.\par \par ...\par \par In 1880 Wedgwood sent Darwin a long handwritten manuscript: a spiritualist synthesis of science and religion. Would Darwin read it and perhaps suggest where it might be published? In a melancholy mood, Darwin sat down to reply to his cousin. He may have remembered the times Wedgwood had gone to bat for him many years before: he had helped persuade Darwin\rquote s uncle and father to let him go on the HMS Beagle expedition, and it was to his cousin that Darwin had once entrusted publication of his theory of natural selection.\par \par \ldblquote My dear Cousin,\rdblquote Darwin wrote, \ldblquote It is indeed a long time since we met, and I suppose if we now did so we should not know one another; but your former image is perfectly clear to me.\rdblquote He refused even to read Hensleigh\rquote s paper, writing that \cf5\b\ldblquote there have been too many such attempts to reconcile Genesis and science.\rdblquote The two cousins, who had once been so close, were now hopelessly estranged over the question of science and the supernatural.\par \cf0\b0\par ...\par \par Ironically, in 1912 Lankester, the nemesis of fakers, was completely fooled by the Piltdown man hoax, one of the most notorious frauds in the history of evolutionary biology. For the next 40 years, scientists accepted the \ldblquote ape-man\rdblquote fragments, dug up about 25 miles from Darwin\rquote s home, as remains of the \ldblquote missing link.\rdblquote Fired with enthusiasm for the Darwin-Wallace theory, Lankester and the younger generation of evolutionists uncritically embraced this fossil forgery.\par \par ...\par \par \cf5\b Darwin himself had urged a skeptical approach to unconfirmed observations; \cf0\b0 he believed that accepting flimsy evidence is much more dangerous than adopting incorrect theories. \cf5\b\ldblquote False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often long endure,\rdblquote \cf0\b0 he wrote. \ldblquote But false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, as everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness.\rdblquote\par \par =============================================================\par \cf1\ul\b Rennie, John & Mirsky, Steve. Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You To Know..., Scientific American Website. April 16, 2008.\par \cf0\ulnone\b0 =============================================================\par \par Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.\par \par By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."\par \par \cf6\b A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.\par \cf0\b0\par =============================================================\par \cf1\ul\b Author. Title. Date.\par \cf0\ulnone\b0 =============================================================\par \par \par \par }