Bob O'H
Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Out of boredom I wandered back over to the Blyth thread, and found this:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1518#comment-57129
| Quote | #
In the OP scordova wrote:
“My hypothesis is that Edward Blyth should have been given far more credit for the theory of natural selection. Because Blyth was a creationist, he did not see natural selection as an adequate mechanism for biological innovation. He believed natural selection as primarily a means of preserving species, not primarily creating large scale biological innovations. Even though a creationist, he seemed open to some forms of evolution (as creationists are today), and it would be hard to argue that he believed in the absolute fixity of species. Blyth’s position on natural selection would be consistent with many IDers and creationists today.”
Well, let’s do it then, give Edward Blyth more credit. But shouldn’t we then in all fairness also give him more blame?
scordova quoting Blyth (1836):
“…. The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to its natural habits than any modification of that form; and, as the sexual passions excite to rivalry and conflict, and the stronger must always prevail over the weaker, the latter, in a state of nature, is allowed but few opportunities of continuing its race.”
Oh, my, oh my, what have we here? The very proof that we should give credit, where it is due. Clearly, “social Darwinism” is a misnomer, ir should be called “social Blythism”.
This most important information should change a few things. As you all know, Coral Ridge Ministries have released a video and book called “Darwin’s deadly legacy”, which traces social Darwinism from Farwin to Hitler. But clearly the title should be changed to “Blyth’s deadly legacy”, shouldn’t it?
And imagine that we all thought that Edward Blyth was such a gentle and good-tempered human! No, we must the root of evil right, where it is: amongst the evil creationists that have supplied the evolutionists with the idea of “struggle for survival”.
Yes, indeed, credit should be given where it’s due.
By the way, Blyth wrote in 1835 that
“[s]ome arctic species are white, which have no enemy to fear, as the polar bear, the gyrfalcon, the arctic eagle-owl, the snowy owl, and even the stoat; and therefore, in these, the whiteness can only be to preserve the temperature of their bodies …”
If Blyth had done a bit further of thinking, he might have figured out that the whiteness of these predators could have served to make them less easy to spot for their prey.
Comment by Poul Willy Eriksen — August 29, 2006 @ 10:49 am
|
Mr. Eriksen appears to be Scandinavian, and fortunately we have good medical services up here, so they willbe able to operate to remove his tongue from his cheek.
Bob
--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)
|
