Darwin's Greatest Mistake?

I wonder if Darwin's greatest mistake was in selecting a title for his monograph?By using the word Descent, even though technically correct, did Darwin increase the resistance and create much of the controversy that still plagues us today? Is the connotation of Descent, of diminishing or becoming less, of going downward, so great that it was an almost impossible hurdle to overcome? Had he title the work, The Ascent of Man, would there have been less opposition from religious circles?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If it is technically correct - why deny the creationist view?If it is descent, like Natural Selection suggests, then tough cheese.

Hello, jar.The problem with Ascent is that it would give the false impression that evolution leads to progress, and Darwin was very conscious that his theory of evolution was very much in opposition to the more progressive (with the usual positive connotation of the word) theories of evolution that were in existence at the time, like Lamarkism.

To interpret "descent" any differently than what Darwin originally intended would be committing the fallacy of equivocation, period.

---

The Laminator

​

even without "progressive" in the dark spaces between German snails for an claim of Provine against the Museum citing of Johnson,... I think the words "ascent" and "descent" may indeed point to a problem. If any one goes back to my recent longer posts you can observe that I have updated them somewhat and in the end I DO CONCLUDE that Gareth Nelson's failure to use main massings and Croizat baselines could be BECAUSE the macrothermodynamic prinicple that the highest level stability is accomplished by the least stable in the lower level IS the NZ panbiogeographic baseline representations. The failure to reveal this could be due to the conceptual difficult of free thought inversions of "ascent" and "descent" with or without technical progress I suggest electrotonics be used for the probe of...But I dont know if any one is bothering to try to follow"" me (to Sweden? and back...).

The underlying issue with Creationists, IMHO, is not as much about Creation vs Evolution, as being hung up on the idea of the superiority and Dominion of Humans. They couch their arguments in terms of being anti-evolution, but under it all, I believe their real point is that they do not want to be just another APE.They are insecure and threatened, and go to rediculous lengths, making all kinds of illogical assumptions, just to avoid being only Just Another Primate.Although they claim to take the Bible literally, they easily and enthusiatically accept, even assert, that from the beginning it is only Figurative.Day doesn't mean Day, it is an indefinite period.Let there be LIGHT doesn't mean Light was created, just that the clouds parted to let light through. And on and on.They are not looking at the meaning of words, but rather the emotional content that the words carry. For them, Descent is a diminishing.You, I and Darwin know that Evolution is not a Progression from lesser to greater or from worse to better, and even if he had used the term Ascent instead of Descent, we would not make the mistake of seeing it as Progress but rather of Progression.The people that today are Creationists, would most likely make the error of seeing Evolution, as you suggest, as Progress. But instead of opposing Evolution, would they be more likely to instead support Evolution?Their reasoning would still be flawed. But would they still be in opposition?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The why would Eldridge on the positive side say that Dominion is related in his any past theological mind to agriculture LEAVING humans out of ecosystems rather than into them and why was this positive content NOT addressed by this reviewer?? » Page not found

Could you give the Eldrige works that you are referring to with a small quote? It is hard to understand what you are getting to. It doesn't seem that it is likely to be a part of the book that this reviewer is discussing.Thanks for the reference to the book. It sounds useful.

It seems to me, from what is posted at this site, that most creationists carry the popular misconception that evolution is "progress" already.

Ned I dont have my copy with me. IT IS in this book and Niles comments that he couldnt help but mention it as it was ALSO going to be a part of another book he is? was going to write. It is possible that the reviewer simply choose not to address this as it was rather an aside in the"Triumph" book but it indicated to me HOW to really write about Niles' views taking into account any past Baptist influence that may have influenced him to think about man as leaving ecosystems in the formation of civilized agrigulture. I would be arguing a different notion of "ecosystem". That is all. I know what he meant by FIRST being a hunter/gatherer and THEN having cities exist because of crops but I am unsure that this is actually LEAVING nature behind. Sure URBANIZATION is but KNOWLEDGE IN/OF Agriculutre may not (be). If you would like some detailed quotes out of THIS BOOK I linked a reviewer of to, just say so one more time, and next time I am at the computer I will bring the book and try to do justice to his comments where he said he wanted to put the c/e issues behind and get to the broader issues of extinction and survival in the future(protection of the envirnoment).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2004 10:31 AM

I agree. And as I said, that is to be expected. They are, IMHO, speaking from emotion rather than reason. I don't think that will ever change. It is simply their approach to language and they cannot seperate the emotional content from the information.But, if the Title had said Ascent rather that Descent, do you think they would still oppose Evolution?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then YOU jar, must be of the opinion that Gladyshev's reasoning of deacceleration of evolution is only "emotively" concieved but he as indicated (UNLIKE ME) that he is NOT with "creationists". The notion that the lowest of the lower levels components support the stability of the highest stable entity on the higher level INVERTS the picture that Huxley DREW of anagensis in vertebrate linegaes but I give you a reciprocal conversion of this for invertebrates but by mathematical reasoning (Like Mendel used by Naglei first rejected etc) the reasoing and faculty of doing this reasoning stands. Furthermore the actual relation of descent with gravity might be more than potentially maintained. Phil Johnson was correct to some aspect that evolutionary theory can not continue without account for the dissent from the rest of "us". THE PROGRESS however as I understand and write it is wholly "technically" (or what Gould called socially Lamarkian) and I suggest the use of electrontonics to PROGRESSIVE invert any GRAPH of devolution in to evolution by fliping the view of deaccerlation but it seems that it would be better not to use these terms but simply to show what grade that might refer to. In my recent update I start to do this working thru Lichens, Toads,and Baceteria as a whole. THIS IS PROGRES OR progessive development IN hyatt's sense that Darwin dissed and Gould continued to support.see please http://EvC Forum: Water under the Bridge -->EvC Forum: Water under the Bridge the involutionThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2004 10:40 AM

Yes. They will not be conected to the "animals" even if "above" them.It is part of the contradictions they carry around. We are "imbued" with an imortal soul but they act as if that can't be the case if we have any physical connection to the "beasts". Since when did the soul depend on how the body arises?

you expound... and on and on.BradThe only opinion I have expressed, and it was part of a question, is that many Creationists seem to deal far more with the emotive value of words than their content.I am not stating what I believe beyond that simple issue.If my belief that Creationists are dealing from emotion rather than information is incorrect, then fine. Please feel free to dispute that.I am just asking others if they believe that Darwin's choice of Title might be part of the reason folk oppose the concept of Evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion