Posted: May 02, 2012 9:45 am
Well Mendel was doing his experiments between 1856 and 1863, so Darwin can't be blamed for not knowing about them. Mendel did not publish till 1866 in the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn and while copies were sent to the Royal society and Linnean Society no one appears to have paid any attention; Darwin as far as I know never mentions Mendel once in his correspondence. Mendel was fully aware of Darwin, owned On the Origin and in 1870 as I recall points out an error in botany made by Darwin with regard to pollination. The two chaps were simply doing their work at the same time, and Mendel gave us the basis for genetics, Wallace and Darwin natural selection.
I don't think Wallace's spiritualism would have made any more impact on his science than his radical politics did if he had actually published first.Hundreds of thousands of later scientists would have as with Darwin refined his ideas, and Wallace kept them nicely separate in his scientific writing in line with the principle of methodological naturalism, not that anyone had outlined it then. I think it would have had no more impact than say Newton's weird religious beliefs have had on the development of physics - in fact I think that may be a good analogy.
As to Darwin's atheism - I'm not convinced Darwin was particularly atheist, or atheist at all. He wrote in 1879
The letter is here, on the Darwin Correspondence Archive - http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041
He was however absolutely a rational sceptic, and his ideas seem similar in many ways to Huxley, in terms of what Huxley meant by an agnostic. Now to be fair, Darwin's personal beliefs matter not one jot more than Huxley's or Wallaces do - after all if having extremely strong religious beliefs automatically messed up your science then we are in trouble, as Mendel (a devout monk) and Newton demonstrate, but obviously the idea that the personal religious beliefs of the advocate fo a scientific theory are in any way relevant tot the truth of their science is clearly untrue.
Poor old Darwin, who seems to have resisted the urge to talk about his religious doubts in public throughout his life (indeed his public statements in the Voyage of the Beagle era are very pro-Christianity: his doubts came later) has had his religion cross examined ever since. I think it's a matter indifferent. What was really horrible was the Lady Hope story, of Darwin's "death bed conversion". Still, that is probably based in truth in as far as i think it very likely Lady Hope visited Darwin (despite the denials of his children) and they talked about religion, and Darwin may well have muttered some pious platitudes out of deference and so as to not offend his visitor, and perhaps to speed her on her way. Answers in Genesis utterly refute the story, as you might expect - a pious Darwin is the last thing they want. So do most Darwin enthusiasts who happen to be atheists. The disgusting thing is that everyone has tried to claim Darwin as there own in terms of faith: I don't think it matters ta all, and rather wish people would respect his wish not to have his work associated with his personal religious beliefs, or have those a matter of public scrutiny.
Still while discussing Darwin and faith and Lady Hope, I think Livingstone (2005) gives a wonderful overview, and strongly encourage anyone interested in this stuff to read it - here is the pdf of the relevant chapter -- http://being.publicradio.org/programs/d ... aplain.pdf
Anyway, these are just historical questions, not science ones.
j x
I don't think Wallace's spiritualism would have made any more impact on his science than his radical politics did if he had actually published first.Hundreds of thousands of later scientists would have as with Darwin refined his ideas, and Wallace kept them nicely separate in his scientific writing in line with the principle of methodological naturalism, not that anyone had outlined it then. I think it would have had no more impact than say Newton's weird religious beliefs have had on the development of physics - in fact I think that may be a good analogy.
As to Darwin's atheism - I'm not convinced Darwin was particularly atheist, or atheist at all. He wrote in 1879
[Down Beckenham | Kent
May 7th 1879
Dear Sir
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.
Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin
The letter is here, on the Darwin Correspondence Archive - http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041
He was however absolutely a rational sceptic, and his ideas seem similar in many ways to Huxley, in terms of what Huxley meant by an agnostic. Now to be fair, Darwin's personal beliefs matter not one jot more than Huxley's or Wallaces do - after all if having extremely strong religious beliefs automatically messed up your science then we are in trouble, as Mendel (a devout monk) and Newton demonstrate, but obviously the idea that the personal religious beliefs of the advocate fo a scientific theory are in any way relevant tot the truth of their science is clearly untrue.
Poor old Darwin, who seems to have resisted the urge to talk about his religious doubts in public throughout his life (indeed his public statements in the Voyage of the Beagle era are very pro-Christianity: his doubts came later) has had his religion cross examined ever since. I think it's a matter indifferent. What was really horrible was the Lady Hope story, of Darwin's "death bed conversion". Still, that is probably based in truth in as far as i think it very likely Lady Hope visited Darwin (despite the denials of his children) and they talked about religion, and Darwin may well have muttered some pious platitudes out of deference and so as to not offend his visitor, and perhaps to speed her on her way. Answers in Genesis utterly refute the story, as you might expect - a pious Darwin is the last thing they want. So do most Darwin enthusiasts who happen to be atheists. The disgusting thing is that everyone has tried to claim Darwin as there own in terms of faith: I don't think it matters ta all, and rather wish people would respect his wish not to have his work associated with his personal religious beliefs, or have those a matter of public scrutiny.
Still while discussing Darwin and faith and Lady Hope, I think Livingstone (2005) gives a wonderful overview, and strongly encourage anyone interested in this stuff to read it - here is the pdf of the relevant chapter -- http://being.publicradio.org/programs/d ... aplain.pdf
Anyway, these are just historical questions, not science ones.
j x