What did Charles Darwin really mean when he said this?

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [The Origin of Species, Chapter 6.]

What conclusions do you come to when you read this?

I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS ONE... I JUST WANT YOURS

edited: to reflect the fact that i misreferrenced the book that is came from

Charles Darwin never wrote a book called The Origin of Man.

Edit:

Well looky here I found the REAL quote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

(From Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species. [New York City: The Modern Library, 1993] p. 227-228)

Source


As for the real quote, well Darwin is questioning his idea... I'm sure every single person questions their own ideas.

If you also look at my source, there are evolution videos there to show how the eye was formed.

Source again

LMAO. Well done Kratos.

Using Misquotes to support your opinion Phantam. thats just laughable.

i didn't post an opinion... nor did i misquote... but i did mis reference... which i will correct right now...

i only asked a question...

The reference is wrong and the quote was misquoted to fit someone's own view. You just can't quote half a quote and expect it to mean the same thing.

I would be like reading only half of Hamlet and expected to leave with the same meaning.

the quote came from a book... would you like my to re write out the whole book to make you happy?

the purpose of a quote is to take out parts... just like when you hear them quote the President... they don't quote the whole speach... just the part they are talking about...

there was no misquote... i took out a few sentences from an entire book... its done all day every day on the news and in magazines and books...

No you didn't give your opinion, but the context of the misquote obviously denotes the opinion of the quoter, when you snip part of a quote off then it is quite likely that the part you have snipped off is the bit you don't agree with.

Posting part-quotes is irresponsible and damn near plagiarism when done so to skew or change to context of the original quote.

Pa frowns upon this very seriously, just to let you know ..LOL

ok, so when people quote bush as saying "I believe that humans and fish can co-exist peacefully." the are misquoting him? because he said a lot before and after that...

what about when people quote bible verses?

or on Jeopardy when they read off quotes from books or poems...

i quoted the full sentence... sorry for not quoting the entire book...

or maybe i do agree with it... that's point... i didn't say if i do or don't agree with it...

By quoting only that part you completely (and intentionally) changed the context of the quote, that is plagiarism which is against the rules of this forum.

Every quote should be looked at in it's proper context.There is no way to do so properly when only one or two lines are used in a quote without some reasonable assurance of what the context is...therefore most will post a quote containing some reference for the context used.

To post only one line allows for others to easily misconstrue the actual context,as well as to support a different opinion or theory than that of the original context which the quote came from.

*boldened relevant section*
Why not? I've seen lots of people do it on here all the time when it comes to Bible passages (and the Koran, for that matter). Interesting that the Bible is somehow exempt from this comment and half-quotes seem sufficient to the non-Christian when it suits an agenda (sadly the same can be said sometimes for some Christians).

Sorry, just had to point that out.

What exactly do I frown upon, Sheri? Maybe I missed something, but it seems fine to me

"the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance , seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God." --Charles Darwin.

I got it from a book I read somewhere, what book I dont know but I wrote this in my journal after reading it in the book whatever it is called.



There have been and still are many philosophic, aesthetic and scientific contemplatives. One-pointed concentration on that which is not the highest may become a dangerous form of idolatry. In a letter to Hooker, Darwin wrote that "it is a cursed evil to any man to become so absorbed in any subject as I am in mine." It is an evil because such one-pointedness may result in the more or less total atrophy of all but one side of the mind. Darwin himself records that in later life he was unable to take the smallest interest in poetry, art or religion. Professionally, in relation to his chosen specialty, a man may be comepletely mature. Spiritually and sometimes even ethically, in relation to God and his neighbours, he may be hardly more than a foetus.

---- Aldous Huxley from the book "The Perennial Philosophy"

thaphantum,

To respond to your question about the quote, a portion of which you placed in your initial post, it was a response by Darwin to those who questioned his Theory of Evolution based on the apparent complexity of an organism or any of its parts.

Complexity does not invalidate Evolutionary Theory as the time scale and the progressive nature of evolution combine to allow for extremely complex structures to arise from simple beginnings. Those who questioned ET based on their ideas of complexity did not take into account, or misunderstood, the role of intermediary forms in ET and assumed a jump from simplicity to complexity. A simple analogy here would be ET describes someone walking from one floor to the higher by using the stairs, those who opposed it would have the person jumped from one floor to the higher without using the small steps.

That's an entirely different thing.. most people who ACTUALLY quote verses out of context do it not realizing the full context.. And that rarely happens here anyway, but the Christians who are debating it create or pull a context out of nowhere to downplay the verse. "You have to look at the time this happened in, it could mean a great many things.. when it says "evil" it could really just mean "not good".
Most "out of context" verses posted here (Such as the "mountain into the sea verse") Are only out of context if you make them that way, when the meaning is clear.

The OP obviously knew he was quoting half a statement to try and make it seem like Darwin believed in God.

Actually its not entirely different, its the same thing. And you do have to take a look at the time line and also the terminology and language of the original writers to top it off. Cant say that it is any different but I do agree that christians do it sometimes too

thank you... i'm glad i'm not the only one who has noticed that...

Interesting, can you show me where I have done that? I've ended up quoting entire passages and surahs recently for discussions. I know I quoted most of Romans to Iams and I posted an entire Surah to truethat (recent discussion by the way).

He got caught trying to do it to and I debunked him. He was clearly using the quote wrongly and I spoke up. Just like *gasps* a christian does when someone quotes Luke 19:27 by it's self.

Or would you rather want to encourage stupidity in discussions? You may or may not want to thrive on the stupidity of this world but I don't think I will.



Why are you thanking him? You still did the misquote out of context. I'm reminded of a phrase...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I KNOW LMAO..he did just that...prolly thinking not one would notice LOL its a joke it really is


Just want to add ...GO EVOLUTION Darwin made it loud and clear

Though i quoted your post, I wasn't necessarily speaking to you. I said "lots of people", not everyone, and certainly not pointing fingers at anyone specific. Most of the recent quotes I can recall from you specifically though have been about how many people God has killed in the Bible. To that, I would enquire that maybe you read further as to why God committed those acts, but that's going a little off-topic here.

As to the original post/half-quote now, I'm not convinced the poster knowingly used only half the quote. He did state that he got it from a book (obviously not Darwin's book), and it may have been only half-quoted in his original reference. He may be just as much a victim in all of this, being led astray by the author of the misquote of the author he read.

If you are going to post something do it right

here it is in FULL

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real" "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?" - Darwin


found here -> http://www.darwin-literature.com/l_quotes.html

NOW PA..thats proof he only quoteted a lil part of Darwin...what he wanted to quote from Darwin to suit himself...click on the link I have posted its the same quote..heck you will find that same quote on ANY darwin website...still not convinced???

here's another from Darwin

I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion" - Darwin

Why even quote me then?

Why? Why would an all knowing and all powerful being even use violence in the worst ways possible against humanity when he could blink and make us learn a lesson with peace? Clearly in context that an all mighty and all powerful being killed and commanded slaughter. There simply is no reason for it but for terrorism. Which in today's world is mostly looked down on.

That's what I actually thought in the first place but it would have been some christian site pushing creation. He doesn't seem to be the victim though according to his last post.

I didn't say he didn't post only half of Darwin's post. But he did state that he read this quote in a book, and I'm not convinced that the book he read had the whole quote in it. I could be wrong of course, maybe we could wait for him to answer before you requote Darwin's post and try and show me what we already know here.

Because it was an easy segue into making a point. My post would have made no sense if I'd just posted it in the thread. You don't need to directly speak to someone when quoting a post. This is a public message board, other people will be reading it also, and what they read between our discussions is just as important as what you read from it.

To the first part, it's off-topic, to the second *re-reads the post* you may be right, why don't we ask him? Hey, phantum - we were just wondering if you had the whole quote in the first place, or did the book you read only contain the part of the quote that you posted?

When he responds, that should clear up any misconceptions that we have

~ PA

Thats why I checked it out for myself..cuz i went to a few Darwin sites that have his famous quotes on them..and all have the exact same quote from which the OP is referring to

rather intresting too I miught add (talking about the quotes from Darwin)

Kratos give me a break. Need I remind you of the time you took the part of the Qu'ran where Mohammed told his followers that they shouldn't befriend Christians and Jews and nonbelievers?

You took it entirely out of context and did the same thing exactly that you are accusing thaphantum of doing.


Frankly I'm getting tired of the people on this message board thinking that they know the motivation of someone they don't even know on a message board.

I like PA took it differently and even if Darwin continued on the OP asks about that sentence. He didn't posit a theory or add any other evidence of wanting to take the statement in any sort of direction.

He even bolded his statement.

Now to the quote in its OP form.


Thaphantum, I think that quote is a good quote to post because it brings up a lot of issues. First off the complexity of a human eye is something that believers have often used as evidence to prove that the universe could not happen in a random way.

However I thought about this a great deal and realized that it only seems complex to us because we don't know how to do it.

Now many people who have a problem with a human form evolving from a single cell, have no problem with a tree growing from a seed.

I think that there are answers to these things and basically it will turn out to be much more simple than we realize.

Take invitrofertilization. Imagine explaining that to Moses or Noah? They wouldn't even at all be able to understand what you were talking about.

I believe one day the simplicity of things will become apparent but now we are unable to understand something that down the line might be so obvious.

Great quote btw in both forms.

Why would I share chocolate with you?

Oh, I remember... That's in context and it's true. Muslims shouldn't befriend the christians or jews. Same goes with killing those awful infidels. I mean if Allah said it... It has to be true to muslims. Surely allah can't be wrong to them.



That's a pretty good example.

not posting a source....is all Pa LOL

^He did give a source - The Origin of Species, Chapter 6 (though page numbers weren't listed, which is why I believe he didn't actually get it from that book). And if he didn't give a source, it wouldn't just be me but every moderator who would have something to say about it