Natural Selection

I do not think the paragraph or two on pangenesis is, in fact, misleading. After all it was taught by Darwin. Mendelian Genetics, being accepted later, was more something incorporated into Natural Selection by the modern syntesizers (i.e. Mayr, Dobzhansky, Julian Huxley and Simpson). One could not blame Darwin too much for his belief in pangenesis for he does not have the technology that we have today, therefore he is unable to make as educated an opinion. The addition of pangenesis in the paper is valuable if only for it's historical purposes.
Apostle

Certainly Darwin's belief in pangenesis does not disprove evolution. As a historical issue it is interesting. Perhaps it was not brought up to be historically interesting. If that is the case then it deserves to be criticized. On the other hand, if Darwin was mistaken about this, perhaps he was mistaken about other things. Yet on the other hand, Darwin's mistakes have likely been corrected by now. Also Lamarck often is given unfair treatment. In truth though, the majority of his concepts are very interesting, and scientifically strong. In my opinion he also deserves credit as a great scientist. (He just went foul when it came to heredity.
Apostle

Mammuthus,
I also think Lamarck is regarded as a great scientist. When I said that he was often not given his due, it was mostly in reference to the fact that a great many creationist pieces of literature attempt to discredit him almost completely because of his beliefs concerning pangenesis. As a creationist myself, I try very hard to not fall into these traps also. I dont feel one gains much by attempting to destroy the image of an intelligent man. Granted, such attacks are also shown in evolutionary literature. That is someone else's problem and so I can only worry about myself.I breifly skimmed over the Lamarck page you posted a link to. It looked interesting and I will enjoy reading it at a later date.Apostle