Paul Broca Quotes

At the time, there were many people who were outraged and offended by the Evolutionary concept that man descended from “brute” animals. Cummings was one of the people who went public against those conservative elements of society who had so much difficulty with the Theory of Evolution.

Here we have a very mockery of the concept of aristocracy and “good family”. This humorous essay was written less than a decade after Darwin published his first treatise on evolution. Here a witty American essayist and critic is giving an insight into the thoughts of the many people who either were scandalized by the concept of human evolution or honestly could not grasp such a new intellectual set of concepts. Many of the great scientific intellectual breakthroughs spread with stunning rapidly—usually amongst scientists, but in the case of evolution to most intellectuals and men of letters, they could use Darwin’s framework and observe evidence of evolution all over. So here, less than 10 years from the inception of evolutionary theory among English scientist, we have American non-scientific literati reading articles in the general (albeit sophisticated) Atlantic Monthly with a semi-serious, semi-comical, analysis of the thinking of people who resisted what had become in just a few years obvious truth to America’s leading intellectuals (except for most of the leading intellectual theologians who would take longer to accept evolution, but, with the exception of the extreme fundamentalists, most did.

This humorous essay was written less than a decade after Darwin published his first treatise on evolution. Here a witty American essayist and critic is giving an insight into the thoughts of the many people who either were scandalized by the concept of human evolution or honestly could not grasp such a new intellectual set of concepts. Many of the great scientific intellectual breakthroughs spread with stunning rapidly—usually amongst scientists, but in the case of evolution to most intellectuals and men of letters, they could use Darwin’s framework and observe evidence of evolution all over. So here, less than 10 years from the inception of evolutionary theory among English scientist, we have American non-scientific literati reading articles in the general (albeit sophisticated) Atlantic Monthly with a semi-serious, semi-comical, analysis of the thinking of people who resisted what had become in just a few years obvious truth to America’s leading intellectuals (except for most of the leading intellectual theologians who would take longer to accept evolution, but, with the exception of the extreme fundamentalists, most did.

Actually no school teaches that. What they did teach when covering Evolution was that some modern apes (chimpanzees and bonobos) and humans were both descended from a common ancestor. The Congressman was at that point an evangelical Christian fundamentalist, Later, DeLay was convicted and sentenced to jail for money laundering and illegally spending and raising campaign funds. He was also reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for unethical methods of fund raising for other earlier actions.

He was commenting on the seemingly brilliant designs of organisms that evolution has brought about, so sophisticated, that planners could hardly have conceived of them. His point is that those organisms are the great successes which the failures have become extinct and the moderate successes have constantly gotten better.

Essentially, he was expressing a Darwinian idea in poetry. See Herbert Spencer {627582} for an even more specific argument for the same point.

This humorous essay was written less than a decade after Darwin published his first treatise on evolution. Here a witty American essayist and critic is giving an insight into the thoughts of the many people who either were scandalized by the concept of human evolution or honestly could not grasp such a new intellectual set of concepts. Many of the great scientific intellectual breakthroughs spread with stunning rapidly—usually amongst scientists, but in the case of evolution to most intellectuals and men of letters, they could use Darwin’s framework and observe evidence of evolution all over. So here, less than 10 years from the inception of evolutionary theory among English scientist, we have American non-scientific literati reading articles in the general (albeit sophisticated) Atlantic Monthly with a semi-serious, semi-comical, analysis of the thinking of people who resisted what had become in just a few years obvious truth to America’s leading intellectuals (except for most of the leading intellectual theologians who would take longer to accept evolution, but, with the exception of the extreme fundamentalists, most did.

What he thought was conceivable in the 1970’s seemed almost certain to come to pass 30 years later. Scientists had already altered the evolution of various plants and animals, and the complete human genome had been sequenced. The question will be not whether man will be able to control and modify his own evolution, but how should this be done and who should decide it. We have realized that man has already—unintentionally—altered the evolution of many species from passenger pigeons which are now extinct and the dog which coevolved with humans. Arguably, man’s development of the ability to control his own evolution is an evolutionary development itself. One great question for society is whether it is better to alter evolution unknowingly or in a planned, relatively controlled manner. For man to participate in the design of human evolution will be the nightmare of the Creationists who insist that evolution is too complicated to be somewhat of a random process and that there must be a designer who they assume is God. When man becomes the designer, that will be very disturbing. For most theologians, there will be little difficulty with the notion that God chose the mechanism of evolution and chose humans to give the intellect and knowledge to implement and design the evolutionary process.

The “brother of the wolf” refers to the evolution of the dog from the wolf which it now appears took place in just a relatively few generations.

Darwin initially did not use the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Herbert Spencer did in another context {627587}. With respect to evolution, some people mistakenly assume that this means that the strongest survive and the weak do not. But “fit” and “strong” are not synonymous. For example, the Lion is the strongest and top predator of the African Plain. An antelope, Thompson’s Gazelle, is tiny, not very fast, and has no defenses against the lions, cheetahs, leopards, hyenas, and wild dogs. He is the most eaten animal on the Plain. Yet this gazelle is growing in numbers and is thriving while the lions are becoming an endangered species. The Thompson’s gazelle are more fit for that environment because they breed so fast and at such a young age and have multiple babies. They are more fit than the lions because they breed more prolifically. Other animals are seemingly endangered in one environment (like beaver in the United States) but thrive in another (the Southern tip of Argentina)

These quotations taken from one of Martin’s books illustrate the extreme language and intensity of feeling that was engendered amongst some Christian Fundamentalists when Evolution began to be taught in high schools. Martin and like-minded fundamentalists truly believed that the youngster who attended classes in Evolution would burn in Hell eternally.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens, 1835-1910

Darwin who had a Protestant Christian upbringing, never precluded the possibility that God had created the universe with the Laws of Evolution and that was the mechanism He selected to allow all the species and diversity of life to develop. But he did not say that explicitly. While he found immediate acceptance and accolades from the scientific communities throughout the world, and enthusiastic approval by most educated people with the exception of theologians and clerics. Their reaction was extreme—almost apoplectic. The book as a best seller and they sold out with each successive printing. In the 6th edition, Darwin not only was explicit about the role the Deity might have had, but Darwin stated that he personally believed that He was the impetus to the creative process. Ironically, almost all the social and political opponents of Evolution have never read Darwin’s work (or much else on the subject) and certainly do not realize that the man they accuse of leaving God out of the Creation, actually believed that God was the critical element and he and other evolutionary scientists were just discovering God’s laws. Dr. Huxley and some other supporters of Darwin were disappointed with this change in the 6th edition, as they were atheists and believed that there was no deity involved in the creation. Today, there are evolutionary scientists who are on both sides of the issue. They just disagree on this point, but they work together on everything else.

The religious theology of the Church of England had accepted the fact based on Newton’s work, that the heavenly bodies followed a set of scientific laws that were themselves created by God. However, the Church could not accept the same principle when it came to the different species of humans and lower order animals. Each species they believe was created with all its characteristics by God directly and species could not change, develop, regress, go extinct unless God specifically ordained that. It was this inconsistency that Darwin was afraid would produce religious attacks on him and his notions of natural selection while astronomy and physics was treated very different theologically. Darwin delayed publishing his findings for 25 years hoping to find a religious atmosphere that would treat biology much as physics and astronomy. It didn’t come and finally he published and took the heat, which actually was not very great. With the exception of some religious fundamentalists, most other elements of society welcomed and supported Darwin’s ideas which today we realize were among the most important ever put forth in the world of science.