>How many kids did Darwin have?  Actually I know very little of his personal
>life.  Could you fill us in on a few details?  Who was he married to?  How
>many marriages?  How many kids?
>
>Gerry
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Milton Rosenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 5:56 PM
>Subject: Re: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance
>
>
>> Good heavens! Doesn't anyone here read anything other than Husserl? Of
>> course Darwin had progeny. He had a number of loyal and loving children.
>He
>> was, in fact, a rather typical Victorian paterfamilias. Check Bowlby's
>> biography or any of a dozed others.
>>

        Or the excellent Britannica article on Darwin.
Looking that up revealed the following definition of my dispute with
(neo)Darwinism.



                THE  ESSENCE  OF  DARWINISM

        The 1973 Britannica article on Darwin is by Sir Gavin de Beer
(whose own entry nearby is interesting  -  he was a Lt-Col in the Grenadier
Guards during WW2, as well as a considerable biologist).

        For an authoritative statement of the main defect in
(neo)Darwinism, won't this from de Beer do very well?:

        "One of the most important results of Darwin's work has been the
demonstration that the evolution of plants and animals, and of the
adaptations which they show, provides no evidence of divine or providential
guidance or purposive design, because natural selection of fortuitous
variations gives a scientifically satisfactory explanation of evolution
without any necessity for miraculous interposition or supernatural
interference with the ordinary laws of nature."

        I don't know whether Dawkins quotes this anywhere, but he might
well.  It is his position exactly.
Broom's book 'How Blind Is The Watchmaker' points out that it is, rather
obviously, wrong.  The ordinary laws of nature do not give much
explanation, if any, of the emergence of novel species in evolution.
Indeed, the origins of most or all complex organs, let alone ecological
relations, have not been explained by science.  One or more parts thereof,
if they arose by mutation but had no immediate function, would be selected
against; they would be useless baggage, indeed handicaps, and would  -  on
the basis of Darwin's main idea  -  be selected out.

        Once one has become more or less used to the surprising persistence
of outrageous intellectual bluffs such as this lulu, one can rapidly come
to grips with them.

R

-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949