Origin of Species book debate signup

[otseng]

I will be starting a book debate of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859 first edition) in the next coming months.

If you'd like to join, reply here to sign up.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

the only concession to theists I know of is the "by their creator" addition found in the conclusion of the sixth edition. Second, later editions incorporated a number of very specific responses to criticisms that made the book more robust, IMHO.

I know my presence on this site has been restricted to lurking, but as this is a favorite text of mine, I'd like to be included in the discussion, if that's possible.

As ever, Jesse

OK, cheers for that As I’ve stated elsewhere, I’ve never read this book before so I could only go by what I’ve read about it from various sources. Cheers for clearing that up. Which edition would you recommend then? Specifically in reference to responses to criticisms.

[lao tzu]

OK, cheers for that As I’ve stated elsewhere, I’ve never read this book before so I could only go by what I’ve read about it from various sources. Cheers for clearing that up. Which edition would you recommend then? Specifically in reference to responses to criticisms.

First, allow me to apologize for mispeaking. On further review, I discover the "creator" reference in the conclusion was first inserted in the second edition. Dawkins has famously trashed this, but I don't think his criticism is justified. Darwin never claimed to be anything more than an "agnostic," as the term was coined by his "bulldog," TH Huxley. I think Dawkins is on firmer ground criticizing the "clutter" of the later editions, but I will respectfully disagree.

In any case, you can't eliminate references to the "Creator" by choosing one edition over another. By my count, from files available through the Gutenberg Project:

1st edition 7 references to "Creator"
2nd edition 9 references to "Creator"
6th edition 9 references to "Creator"

As the 6th edition is also the last, in the spirit of cutting edge criticism, I'd recommend using it for discussion as it seems likeliest to align best with "authorial intent."

As ever, Jesse

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Well, since I’ve started reading the 1st edition (according to its introduction the subsequent editions change the page references, presumably because of extra material), I’ll finish it. Also, the poster who instigated the debate specifically mentioned the first edition:

I will be starting a book debate of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859 first edition) in the next coming months.

However, after I finish that I’ll see if my local library has a copy of the 6th edition .

[lao tzu]

Well, since I’ve started reading the 1st edition (according to its introduction the subsequent editions change the page references, presumably because of extra material), I’ll finish it. Also, the poster who instigated the debate specifically mentioned the first edition:

I will be starting a book debate of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859 first edition) in the next coming months.

However, after I finish that I’ll see if my local library has a copy of the 6th edition .

A trip to your local library is unnecessary. You can retrieve an immense amount of material by and about Charles Darwin at the Gutenberg Project.

On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection,
or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1st edition)

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (2nd edition)

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection (6th edition)

I've no problem with reading all three versions of each chapter if anyone is interested in following the changes across the editions, a study I've never undertaken before. But I will point out that the Historical Sketch I've commented on in the "general observations" thread is not included in the first edition, and to my way of thinking, by rights, should be included in this discussion in order to frame the context.

As ever, Jesse

[otseng]

I've no problem with reading all three versions of each chapter if anyone is interested in following the changes across the editions, a study I've never undertaken before. But I will point out that the Historical Sketch I've commented on in the "general observations" thread is not included in the first edition, and to my way of thinking, by rights, should be included in this discussion in order to frame the context.

Main reason for choosing the first edition is that you have to choose one edition to debate, so why not the first one. Also, it would be the 150 year anniversary of the first edition.

However, we can as well debate other chapters not in the first edition. But, I'm not so ambitious to read more than one version of the same chapter. But, if you would like to bring that perspective into the debate, that'd be welcome.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Wow, the Project Gütenberg’s a resource and a ½ or what! Thanks for introducing me to it .

[Zzyzx]

.
Kindly add my name to the list.

What, exactly, is the purpose of debating a scientific book that is 150 years old and is based upon ideas that have been refined / modified in response to extensive work and study?

Is there any intent to discredit theories regarding evolution based upon discussion of antiquated ideas?

[otseng]

.
Kindly add my name to the list.

Added.

What, exactly, is the purpose of debating a scientific book that is 150 years old and is based upon ideas that have been refined / modified in response to extensive work and study?

Next to the Bible, I would say the OoS is the most influential book ever written. The author has probably been referenced the most outside of Biblical authors on this forum. Also, next year is the 150 year anniversay of the publication of the book. For these reasons, I think we should read and discuss this book.

Is there any intent to discredit theories regarding evolution based upon discussion of antiquated ideas?

From my viewpoint, there is no intent to introduce modern ideas to critique the book. On the flip side, I think we should also avoid introducing modern ideas to support his ideas. We should try to limit the discussions to the book only and examine the logic and evidence that he presents.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

It’ll prove a bit difficult. I mean, he has stuff about blended inheritance in there which makes sense, but we know is wrong from modern knowledge about genetics.

[lao tzu]

It’ll prove a bit difficult. I mean, he has stuff about blended inheritance in there which makes sense, but we know is wrong from modern knowledge about genetics.

Is this a meaningful issue? As far as I'm concerned, this is not and should not be a debate or discussion about modern evolutionary biology, but rather about Darwin's presentation and development of the twin theses he presents in this work: that species are not fixed; and that new species can, do, and have arisen by descent with modification through natural selection. Our modern appreciation of the influence these theses have had on science represents a retroactive coronation that need not concern us here. Let us consider Darwin on his own merits, within his own frame, "warts and all."

(I would respectfully disagree that blended inheritance ever made sense, and would further maintain that the lack of a discrete mechanism for inheritance was the most telling criticism of Darwin's theory during his lifetime.)

As ever, Jesse