Darwin = Darwinsim?

As we dig deeper into Darwin's theories and writing, I couldn’t help but notice was our read on Darwin right? People interoperate things differently, who are we to state Darwin’s theory as the define theory of the nation? In some way or another, I feel that even Darwin, himself, has no idea how his theory would be drill on this much. In my belief his theories are just one of the theories not THE theory about evolution. He had concluded his idea based on his observation with the nature, as many had already said he is naturalist. As Shaw declared, Darwin is not the original theory about evolution. The reason why people believed in Darwin is because Darwin’s theory was easier to understand. “Darwin becomes tedious in the manner of a man who insists on continuing to prove his innocence after he has been acquitted.”(Shaw, P.46) As Darwin repeats himself over and over again, people become convinced with the idea and justify his duplication as the reason of his statement. Yet, can his duplication of words really be induced? So as we go on to say an idea is provable or/and doubtful, we left with only one question. Is Darwin’s idea about evolution a theory or a fact?

On the lunatic (pg.13-16) in Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”

With Chesterton’s religiosity and Christian stance, one could say (and even I admittedly have to write this out to think it more clearly): there is a fine line between the madman and the devout religious man (a believer of an Abrahamic to be specific).

The lunatic’s scope of reality is small and he is at the centre of it. Everything causeless has cause and everything is full of meaning, according to Chesterton, too much meaning. The delusional madman sees himself, not as the observer but as the original cause of all the causes: the purpose of his reality (although we would say that “reality” is actually constructed delusion). Chesterton says to the madman: “if you only knew that these people cared nothing about you! How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller in it” (16). He shrinks the individual, makes his grandiose self less important and less worthy of the attention the madman perceives.

The devout religious man’s “people” is God. God is concerned with the small movements of the believer, like the lunatic is concerned with the spy watching his every move. A sinful thought or not washing completely in wudu (the Islamic practice of ritually washing before daily prayers, with the recommendation of washing each area three times to be sure of complete purity), everything matters and little of what we think and do is without significance, or in the worst case, consequence. In the strictest mind of the believer, salvation and punishment could not be more self-focused.

However, to be clear, the believer’s reality is not as limited as the madman. He sees greatness and purpose outside of himself and his life, although his self importance somewhat remains. He is certainly not Jesus but he is important enough that every word is heard in thought and prayer by God and the details of his life and person are in a continual process of being recorded and erased (through sin and repentance/ forgiveness).

All of this seems somewhat mad, in the context of Chesterton’s lunatic, but we must remember the believer’s perception of the individual. All individuals are distinct, in that Suzie was created especially by God to be Suzie, with all of her unique Suzie-like qualities, but the importance of the individual’s struggle is lessened without degrading the actual individual (by “struggle” I refer to the apparent madness of God as a spy and the believer at centre of it all, struggling to avoid sin under the watchful eye). While Suzie is struggling and is at the very centre of that struggle, she is not unique in her situation. All individuals, in the mind of the believer, are involved in this reality and no individual or individual’s struggle is greater than any other: faith “leave[s] you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down” (16).

For those who remain critical of religion: do we call the devoutly faithful partially mad? For the believers: where do we find the individual, ourselves, in the scheme of prayer, judgment and salvation and how much of “I” is too much or too little? It’s a hard process to reconcile or put finely in definitive terms. Since, for Chesterton, reason is what “breed[s] insanity” (12), I pose the question to him: to what extent does religion reason before it becomes lunacy?

Shaw's reflection on evolution theory

Shaw opposes Darwin that everything in life has created by accident. He states that even behind evolution there is a will. But how can we say that animals have will? It is true that giraffe stretches its neck to get the more tender leaves at the top of the tree and it causes giraffe to have longer neck. However, this change has happened because of giraffe's instinct not its will. He believes that it is the will behind evolution that causes change and creating of new tissues as he says "The will to do anything can and does, at a certain pitch of intensity set up by conviction of its necessity, create and organize new tissue to do it with". This might be true for human being who has the will to change his/her situation in life, but in my opinion is not the case for animals.
Shaw affirms Lamarck's theory of evolution but neither Darwin's theory of evolution nor Bergson's philosophy of creative evolution as he says "Lamarck, whilst making many ingenious suggestions as to the reaction of external causes on life and habit, such as changes of climate, food supply, geological upheavals and so forth, really held as his fundamental proposition that living organisms changed because they wanted to. As he stated it, the great factor in Evolution is use and disuse."  In my opinion, Darwin's theory of evolution is problematic for Shaw because then Shaw has to accept that nothing in life has a purpose behind it and he has to question himself that what the purpose of living this life is. Therefore, Shaw's problem with the theory of evolution and Darwin is that Darwin did not mention that there is a will and purpose in evolution process and it is all random and accident.

ironically......

we live in a world full of irony. things are never what we seems to be since we all perceive the world differently. personality, i love irony. it's a way to reveal who really knows you the best. cause the one who knows you will understand your irony. every word always have double meaning (sometimes even more) it is for whose who truly appreciate and understand the irony. in the case of Darwin, i think we should focus on critique Darwinism rather than Charles Darwin because Darwinism is NOT Darwin. Darwinism is the study of Darwin's theories not Darwin as a person. Darwinism is what we think of Darwin's theory not what Darwin think of his own theory. *ironic* Dr. Bruce Alexander stated that Darwin is a psychologist. Yet, does Darwin think of himself as a psychologist when he wrote his theories? i doubt it. i feel that many criticism on Darwin are unfair as i don't think that was his intention when he propose his theories. for example, his natural selection, many believe the theories is the ONLY explanation to evolution. however, i don't think Darwin was insisting others to believe that it IS the only explanation as there are still many other evident that he can not prove his point of view.

Alfred Russel Wallace

The pressure was on once Darwin had realized Wallace was coming to the same conclusion towards evolution. It was because of Wallace Darwin was rushed to complete the Origin of the Species. Although there were many similarities between the work of Darwin and Wallace, there are some difference in regards to environmental differences, and individual differences of the same species. Looking through the literature there were also differences in how each had come to the conclusion. Unlike Darwin, Wallace was able to explore the world at an earlier age, while Darwin had started much of his work near his home. In 1859 when Darwin received Wallace’s work on natural selection, Darwin created what was actually an abstract of the Origin of species, as he wanted credit towards what he had worked his life towards.

Darwin's religious views on the Voyage of the Beagle

At the beginning of Voyage of the Beagle Darwin was supporting the Uniformitarianism view. "In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. "It holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world. Darwin believed that landforms had been created based on Uniformitarianism view. Also, for reconciling the formation of landforms to Biblical account of Noah's ark, Darwin and Sedgwick both supported Diluvialism. "Diluvium is a term in geology for superficial deposits formed by flood-like operations of water. The term was formerly given to the boulder clay deposits, supposed to have been caused by the Noachian deluge." Darwin's notes shows that he rejected the connection of formation of lands with Noah's flood.
On the Galapagos Islands Darwin affirmed Charles Lyell's idea of species spreading from centers of creation. In his later autobiography, Darwin wrote "Whilst on board the HMS Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

Darwin's views on women: a product of his time

Earlier in this same blog I posted regarding Darwin's seemingly extreme views on women, yet perhaps the post was a bit too judgmental of his character considering his environment.
In the Victorian era, women held barely a fraction of the respect, opportunity, and esteem that they hold today.

Women were not entitled to the same legal rights or educational opportunities that men were, and primarily expected just to take care of the households and the children.
With this in mind, Darwin was really no different than society as a whole regarding his views on women. In fact, he only briefly mentions his opinions on female status and no doubt could have taken more opportunity to express his views.

It IS true that if Darwin had interpreted his theories the same way as they are interpreted today (a prime example of Darwin vs. Darwinism), he would have realized the selective functions of woman's characteristics throughout time.
However, Darwin was a revolutionary in terms of his theories of Evolution- Not his theories of feminism, and perhaps he should be forgiven for merely being a product of his time and furthermore for not realizing the full implications of his speculations.