I struggle to understand what this piece is about is the author having a go at Darwin or creationist? Or is he simply rambling on.

He appears to be having a crack at the old experimental vs. theoretical research argument. As if the sole measure of a successful scientist is a physical product, rather than a theoretical legacy which further experimentation in based on. One wonders where theoretical physics sits in his estimation (notice how his fields in which 'great scientist' work is dominated by chemistry and biology).

Carl Sagan characterised scientific progress as the continuous and steady theoretical progress, punctuated by experimental leaps. However the two are not mutually exclusive. Darwin's lack of a patentable 'invention' in no way diminishes his stature.

The use of the term 'invention' is also strange, implying a kind of alchemical approach to experimentation, where different questions are squeezed to fit an answer. Pasteur’s initial revelation was just that, recognition of the implications and possibilities of what he observed to be occurring. His 'inventions' came later as he applied the principals of his discovery.

The author also asks who decided that Origin of the Species is the greatest single scientific work. I seem to remember a few months ago a survey of members of the Royal Society nominated Darwin at the top of their list.

But yeah Kenny, it’s difficult to see the point.

A pretty miserable depreciation of Charles Darwin's contribution to our collective knowledge of the worlds evolution.
As a very confused young person, I vividly recall laying my hands on a copy of Origin of Species through Natural selection.
Reading it changed my life....
I am not concerned that he was an 'amateur'....That's probably why he was capable of assessing his own observations and also why he was reluctant to publish being a Christian Believer.
I read nothing in the article that refuted his observations but rather some pique that other great thinkers were not sanctified as Charles Darwin has been honored by interment in Westminster Abbey.
He wont be forgotten as will the author of this critic

After reading it twice - that the author believes in evolution, but is claiming that Darwin's contribution is less than what is usually claimed.

This is possibly correct. However... only those with an solid understanding of both biology and history could say for sure. And many others are probably not particularly interested.

Some of the information rings true to me. Other claims make no sense. For example, there is nothing wrong with amateur science. The nature of Darwins education and income are not a basis on which his work and standing can or should be criticised.

Similarly, not all science requires precision instruments. Conceptual and theoretical work for example, does not always require instruments. My background is physics. Many key breakthroughs in physics have been achieved on blackboards or paper. The author's background is humanities right. Were all key achievements in humanities by professionals, perhaps there were some writers out there who exceeded despite amateur status, a lack of modern pens, and dare I say it, no ruler.

But none of this directly discredits the original point made by the author. Maybe he is correct, maybe Darwins contribution was less significant than claimed. What bothers me is that this sidetracks from the main public issue of the day.... whether science teachers should or should not be forced to teach the creationist theory of intelligent design.

WhiteWombat,
I think you have exactly evaluated the writers position.

Though I believe greater and more rewarding work has been done in the biological sciences to benifit humanity; whereas Darwin concentrated in the philosophy [theory] of science.

Darwin, Einstein are well known now and will be in 500 years time. Why because they are the figure heads of two fundamental shifts in humanities world view. Newton will always be the scientist scientist and many others have made a greater contribution to our daily lives. But these two stand alone in the impact they have had on the way we see ourselves and our place in the grand scheme. So much so that many people still can’t except it. I would love to add a third for quantum physics but it was to much of a team effort to pick someone. Planck or Heisenberg or Bohr…..

Hiram who?

Might I suggest that you go back and do some more reading Hiram; after which you may decide that your article should also be buried without any chance of being discovered.

This is a critique of a scientist and his science. It has nothing to do with creationism or the intelligent design ruse, but just watch the commentary degenerate into atheists vs fundamentalists.

What is puzzeling that Cato doesnt think that a novel explanation for the intricate diversity of living organisms, their apparently complex design, subsequent confirmations of detailed mechanisms of evolution by all the discoveries of genetics, and a unification of biologal concepts in a common theme is not worth mentioning in his essay. It's a Nobel shoo-in.

All the other comments here ring true to me, but for the one about the standard religion-science fight on evolution. That can only come from the comments themselves, as Cato's turgid effort is too dull to get them in.

Hiram is trying to disabuse us of some of the spiritual mumbo-jumbo attaching to Darwin's memory, or legend. His points are interesting and rational. Darwin was bloody lucky to get the job as naturalist on the Beagle in the first place. The ship's captain, Robert Fitzroy, was his equal in intellect and naturalist's ability. Darwin didn't have some earth-shattering revelation about evolution while doing his observations of finches and their beaks. He sat on his butt for years back in England, procrastinating over his samples, and only published when a younger Briton in Borneo contacted him expressing paralell understandings. The reason his work is so revered is that it counters christian notions of a deity which articulate around creation of the universe and the centrality of man as like god and superior to all other beings.

Darwin has his place in time, correct or not.

A cheap shot with a big claim against one who cannot respond or defend themselves.

Hiram Caton, i have not heard of your theory of evolution and you have had no book written about your work.

Admire anyone who was inquisitive, ahead of hs time as correct or not, it is men like him that pioneer our evolution.

The most interesting article for some time. Thanks, Dr Caton.

Many of you seem to be interpreting Dr Caton's critical examination of Darwin as some kind of attack, and several even feel the need to retaliate. I don't read the article that way at all.

Ironically, Caton's main point was to highlight exactly this kind of knee-jerk and emotional springing to Darwin's defence. Humanity loves a champion, but this detracts from what is really valuable - a scientific community collaborating on the advancement of the scientific process.

And, more topically, we should be encouring doubters to particiupate in that process and scrutinize today's theories, rather than those 150 years old. No insult to Darwin intended.

Caton is right in that claiming that

... the Origin is the “greatest scientific book of all time” that “fully explained” the struggle for existence (Wilson). The Voyage of the Beagle “is today regarded as intellectually the most important travel book of all time” (Wilson). Darwin “demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that life evolved”; “no idea in science has shaken society so much as evolution”; “Darwin did more to secularise the Western world than any other single thinker” (Eldredge)'...

is seriously over the top.

On the other hand, his claim that Darwin was an "amateur" because he "had no instruments for measuring speed..." would, if correct, mean that Isaac Newton was also a mere amateur and unworthy of a Nobel prize for inventing Newtonian mechanics and coinventing differential calculus.

If that is so, any scientist would love to be as amateur as Newton.

Now this is some coincidence.
I just read David Stove’s take on . “So you think you are a Darwinian”. A Week ago.
See Here:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/77/

When I read the book "Longitude" by Dava Sobel, I became aware for the first time that frocked and anointed scientists have nothing but contempt for "amatuers" who either beat them to scientific discoveries, or who formulate theories which turn out to be correct from observed facts and reasonable assumptions.

The most challenging scientific problem of the 16th Century was that deturmining longitude for ships at sea. The most briliant scientists of the day worked ceaselessly on the problem to no avail. To their horror and disgust, the solution was found by a village carpenter who simply built a clock that would keep accurate time in a maritime environment.

The British scientists did everything they could to stop this man gaining the recognition which he deserved. Hiram Caton seems to have the same resentments of undeserving "amatuers" as The Royal Society had in 1736. The basis for such contempt appears to be rooted in class consciousness, and the insecurities which the elevated castes experience when a harijan beats them at their own game.

One sniffs resentment in his rant. Perhaps he feels that his own contributions to science are not appreciated?

What this article ignores is that, as with most scientific advancement, if Darwin hadn't proposed his theory when he did, someone else would have within a few years anyway.

The most likely candidate being another English naturalist, Alfred Russell Wallace, after whom the Wallace line has been named. If Darwin hadn't been published when he was, we would probably be calling a very similar theory of evolution 'Wallacism'.

However, if either Darwin or Wallace hadn't come to the conclusion, then someone else would have.

Anyone who is interested can jump to:

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/FAQ.htm

I also find it interesting that modern experimental techniques, in such areas as DNA, indicate that all living species have a common origin.

This is not to say that I don't believe in God and his work,(but I don't like the idea of intelligent design), I can see that God works through evolution, in his own ways.

Good post, Hamlet. I wish that other Christian posters could see the universe in the manner that you do.

I disagree with the article of this article, however, whoever proposed the concept of evolution (in this case Darwin) advanced the cause of science immensely and deserves recognition for his contribution.

curious the ways of political scientists.

the recognition of darwin as the key catalyst of the theory of evolution is not the issue, it is the way amateurs insist on reifying (and deifying) individuals like him.

each of the 'great' of science, indeed of history, are 'revered' by people because it is much easier - perhaps even more human? - to identify with a person than with some ephermeral idea or other that they may have championed. that seems to be quite a natural consequence of human social behaviour and psychology.

the fact that creationism in any of it's various garbs is neither scientific nor has an identifiable human progenitor is it's own crisis to deal with.

the whole 'thing' about darwinism is that it is a cult of presumed personality (people like personality cults) that really has more to do with non-scientists than scientists as far as i see these things. us biologists deal with the theory of evolution, to which many many scientists have contributed.

einstein was pretty special as a person, but physicists grapple with his theories, however much they may admire (or not) what they know of the man himself. it is einstein's work that contributed to, and engages, physics - not the man.

that is not to say that scientists are interested in the people behind the ideas, but the people are not the science - they're the scientists.

if a person engages in scientific enquiry, they're a scientist. the idea of the 'professional' versus the 'amateur' is more important to politics than science - though of course, being comprised of people, the scientific community is no more immune to politics than any other community.

it would be better to ask what the political purpose is before 'ditching' the key figures of science - and perhaps put more energy into recognising some of the other important people. in my experience it is outsiders who talk of 'darwinism'. politics is repleat with 'name'isms.

maelorin,
I agree! Too often persons studying physics or biology who uncover a principle are revered as gods, rather than the contribution they make in uncovering a reality. The reality has always been there. That they discover a principle of its reality is what changes thought and intellectual direction. It is not their reality it is ours, all of us, reality. The reality does not change because they uncovered a principle, so their role is not to be deified. The principle becomes the focus of development and it is not attributed to one who uncovers it as if they are its creator.

I prefer to give focus to the reality and to the originator of the reality over one who might theorise on a principle.

Has any one read Sir Arthur Keith: “Evolution and Ethics” e book available. . His work is indeed interesting and professional. He even looks like me, or I should say I look like him.

Sorry , I should have posted a web link to Sir Arthur Keith’s : “Evolution and Ethics”. It is a big read and very Informative.
http://reactor-core.org/evolution-and-ethics.html