This is just a reminder that Darwin Day is just around the corner. This year promises to be the best ever!

http://www.darwinday.org/

Some fascinating educational claims there. Besides the standard that evolution is a central organizing principle in biology, which of course it is, they also claim that "evolution" plays a "central role in astronomy and cosmology".

And they define evolution as simply "change over time".
Interesting.

Also, an interesting comparison to Abraham Lincoln. Fortunately, they don't go into things like Darwins views on race, women's rights, and vaccinations.
Even more interesting.



spelling edited

I would assert that their claim is, at best, misleading.

While the universe may "evolve," it does not do so in a way that is in any way 'Darwinian.'


Can you provide evidence that his views on any of these subjects was more reactionary or retrograde than the societal norms of the 19th Century? One can hardly fault him for being a product of his times.

In answer to your question, on what basis would you fault ANY man for being a product of his times?
But I certainly agree that their other claim is "at best" misleading.
But "at worst" they are lying.

Diana:

Did nobody ever teach you that it is rude to answer a question with a question?

This is particularly so as your question in no way provides an "answer to [my] question" -- so I'll ask it again:
Can you provide evidence that his views on any of these subjects was more reactionary or retrograde than the societal norms of the 19th Century?

And in answer to your question: I would generally not "fault ANY man for being a product of his times" -- except for some extreme situations (e.g. I would probably fault somebody for being a Nazi, even in Nazi Germany).

As to cosmological evolution... I can see that it is not the same thing as Darwin's idea - but it does share the idea of change over time, and of one state providing building blocks for the next state. True, there is no mechanism for heredity or natural selection.... but perhaps the concept gave cosmologists a new way to view the development of the cosmos?

If so, then far from a lie, it is an example of a concept, fruitful in one field, being seeded to another (where it is used in a novel way) – which is indeed a reason to celebrate.

In respect to the phrase about evolution playing a "central role in astronomy and cosmology": we discussed this in the state science standards. Evolution as a general word means changing in a way that happens gradually over time, with one state leading into another different state. Biological evolution is a specific type of evolution that involves living things evolving through specific biological processes.

The idea that the universe could evolve and did evolve is a relatively modern idea - early notions, including that of the times not too long before Darwin, were that all major features of the universe were as they had always been. The idea of the evolution of species was part of an intellectual movement that included the broader notion of the evolution of other, non-biological features of the world.

I think my problem with emphasising evolution's "central role in astronomy and cosmology" on a page celebrating Darwin Day is that Darwin did not originate the idea of biological evolution (the likes of Lamarck preceded him on this), but rather a viable Theory of (biological) Evolution (the descendant of which is still Science's best explanation of evolution today).

Because of this, I think that appearing to credit Darwin with the results of that idea is illegitimately overplaying his (quite legitimately weighty) legacy.

It's worth noting that natural selection has been shown to operate on stars, and there are cosmological theories that explain the properties of this universe by reference to natural selection as well. It is certainly the case that Darwinian evolution has found applications in astronomy and cosmology. To say that it is "central" is not correct, though.



He was anti-slavery and favored more equal race relations. By our standards, he was not very enlightened, but given that enlightenment on sexual and racial issues happened a century after he wrote, that's hardly surprising. Given his disgust with racist behavior in society and progressive attitude for his day, it's hard to predict whether his attitudes would have been as advanced had he lived in our day.

As for vaccination, I take it this is a reference to a passage in the Descent of Man:



Taken without context, this passage might seem to indicate an opposition to vaccination. If you read the next paragraph, though, you find that:



In other words, deleterious mutations might survive because of medicine, but denying access to that medicine would be "a certain and great present evil." Hardly an anti-vaccine argument. Indeed, it's hard to see any statement in that passage that is untrue, or that society today would dispute.

It is interesting that two great men were born on exactly the same day, but isn't it also a cause for celebration that many other lesser great men and women were born on the same day?

In time I think we will discover the laws that govern biological evolution and find out that they are a consequence of physics and chemistry. That doesn't make us any less wonderful, especially in our own eyes; perhaps more so.

And wouldn't it be cool to discover that the relationship between what we call biological evolution and cosmological evolution is the same process!

As Sagan said, we are star stuff.