Talk:Religious views of Charles Darwin

message: As it happens, I was reading T.H.Huxley today, and it seems he invented the term agnostic - which may quite possibly have something to do with Darwin's choice of term. This might be OR, though. Adam Cuerden talk 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agnostic

message: It is quite wrong to say, as the intro does, "He [Darwin] still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views". This is simply not true, as evidenced by his discussions of rudimentary, atrophied or aborted organs, which he describes as "extremely common throughout nature". (Origin, 1st ed p320, and similar in later eds). In fact, no theory of evolution makes any sense if all organisms are perfectly adapted all the time, and Darwin was well aware of this. "It would be difficult to name one of the higher animals in which some part is not in a rudimentary condition" p321.
Also, his continual harping on variations carries with it the appreciation that not all members of a population could be equally adapted. In fact it was the natural theologists that thought organisms were perfectly adapted, because they had been so created. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the source, I've changed it to "Until 1844 he followed Paley in viewing organisms as perfectly adapted with only a few imperfections, and only partly modified that view by 1859." to reflect more closely what von Sydow says. If there are opposing view we can reflect that. I think there are views that Darwin was immersed in natural theology and in seeking a law to explain adaptation he found a situation where he could not believe in divine intention for every step of the mechanism. This was a problem for the teleology of natural theology, but the idea of divine laws rather than continuing miraculous interventions was conventional enough to have appeared in Herschel's 1836 letter on the "mystery of mysteries". . dave souza, talk 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have a close look at the Natural Selection 'big book' (Stauffer) to see if I can find a clear statement of his view on adaptation just pre-Origin. The von Sydow ref is good, but the Moore ref should be dumped: too tailored to its market... I find in Huxley (Ev the new Syn) the comment that adaptation is just the problem of efficient function seen from a slightly different angle -- which is, of course, right. So I'm also going to go through the Barrett Concordance to the Origin for uses of both words... Don't hold your breath! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adaptation]] ''not'' always perfect 

message: We can cover Darwin's Theism/Agnosticism/anti-atheism/whatever in his own article. We have the space to put the most important aspects of this page there, I se no need to fork the article into this (which is not even in the slightest as important as his work on evolution and adaption). Darwin was a scientist who studied and gave us our founding views of evolution. His views on religion aren't that important (though worth noting, as I said, just not worthy enough for it's own page). 98.198.83.12 (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many historians don't share your view of the importance or worthiness of Darwin's religious views, and this article is based on these reliable sources. The main article covers the topic briefly, but hasn't the space to cover details which are shown in this article in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. . . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we have this article? 

message: I think it was chosen on a derisive basis. Should it be changed to something neutral?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiar skro (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As the picture info notes, it wasn't his finest photo: On 27 May 1855 Darwin wrote to his friend Joseph Hooker about this portrait: "if I really have as bad an expression, as my photograph gives me, how I can have one single friend is surprising." I've changed it to an alternative, more options are available here. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unflattering Picture

message: I've been tidying the sources for this article and have added a few cites after direct quotes. I've been unable to find the source of a quote at the end of the section "Caution about publication, spiritualism":</br>
If theism were true, "reason might not be the only instrument for ascertaining its truth".
</br>
This isn't in the letter sent by Darwin to Romanes on 5 Dec 1878. The letter is available here. It includes the "very great interest" but not the quote above. Suggestions? Aa77zz (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find, Desmond and Moore p. 631 make it look like a quote, but that must be a typo. Have tried rephrasing the para per D&M while avoiding going beyond the original, you're welcome to reword that if you think refinement is needed, . dave souza, talk 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dave for your reply and your edit. It looks fine to me. I have a question. The article has a large list of uncited publications that I've added to "Further reading". Most of them are general Darwin sources which I don't think are need in this particular article. Would you be happy if I deleted some (or all?) of them? Aa77zz (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea, I've not checked the details out myself but should be ok for you to check them and delete all that aren't needed for the article. . dave souza, talk 23:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  instrument for ascertaining its truth 

message: Darwin was basically a creationist, this should be added to the article 
Latenightjogger (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, you've linked the abstract of a 2005 paper headed "Was Darwin a creationist?", and per Betteridge's law of headlines the answer it that he wasn't. . . dave souza, talk 23:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin was a creationist

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Religious views of Charles Darwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007064257/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-the-church-article to http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-the-church-article
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222020720/http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml to http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021101910/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article to http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002124015/http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/index.shtml to http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified