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.