In September, 2005, I traveled to London to attend a conference. While in London, I visited Westminster Abbey.
Bury Darwin: A Deep Dive into the Historical and Political Context
It is hard to imagine a place more rich in history–there was so much to see. But I made sure that I took the time to visit the burial site of Charles Darwin. In comparison with many of the other tombs in the abbey, Darwin’s tomb is simple. I risked the “no photography” rule of the Abbey to take a (non-flash) photo:
While walking and meditating at Westminster Abby, I wondered how it came to pass that Darwin was buried there. Lo and behold, the January/February 2006 edition of Skeptical Inquirer contains an article directly on point: “Why Did They Bury Darwin in Westminster Abbey.” (The article is not available online, but you can see a brief description of it here)
The author of the article, R.G.Weyant, starts out as follows:
Late in the afternoon of Wednesday, April 20 6, 1882, a most improbable event occurred. In a ceremony attended by hundreds of individuals, including members of Parliament, ambassadors from the diplomatic corps, scientific notables, Church of England divines, the Lord Mayor of London, and other assorted dignitaries . . . the earthly remains of Charles Robert Darwin were interred in Westminster Abbey, close to those of such other great English scientists as Sir Isaac Newton.
Some of the information from this article came from a 2002 Darwin biography (Charles Darwin: the Power of Place) written by Janet Browne. She wrote that “Dying was the most political thing Darwin could’ve done. As Huxley and others were aware, to bury him in Westminster Abbey would celebrate both the man and the naturalistic, law governed science that he, and each member of the Darwinian circle, had striven, in his way, to establish.”
Darwin’s Burial and Evolution’s Triumph in 19th Century England
It turns out that the plan to bury Darwin in the Abbey was engineered by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton and Darwin’s friend, Thomas Huxley. Through their efforts, a petition persuading church officials to approve the event was signed by various parliamentarians. “For many people, the ceremony in the abbey signaled not only Darwin’s importance to English society but also a kind of reconciliation between science and religion.”
In fact, within a decade after the 1859 publication of origin of species, “most educated Englishman, including many of the clergy, had accepted the fact of evolution. More than a few were uneasy about where the evidence and the reason were taking them, but they went nonetheless.”
As elaborated in the Skeptical Inquirer article, by the time Darwin died, most Englishmen considered evolution to be more than a theory because the evidence in favor of evolution was “simply overwhelming.” At the time Darwin died, his ideas had “become the ideas of his time and culture, and it was convenient for both church and state to recognize that fact.” In fact, by the time Darwin died, evolution had become a source of English national pride.
Times have changed, of course. If Darwin died in the United States today, our government, prodded by fundamentalist churches, would arrange to have his remains unceremoniously thrown in a dumpster somewhere off the beaten path, along with all of those inconvenient fossils documenting the fact that species change over time.
Interesting and well done. Darwin belongs with the other Science Greats in West Minster Abby. He was also a Clergyman, was he still a believer at the time of his death?
Ken Carpenter: It appear that Darwin became a strong skeptic–he described himself as an "agnostic," but not an atheist in his later writings. You'll find lots of details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_v…
Erich, You say that the US government "prodded by fundamentalist churches, would arrange to have his remains .. thrown in a dumpster somewhere … along with all of those inconvenient fossils documenting the fact that species change over time." – Well that's food for thought, perhaps!
But I would be most interested to know what fossils you think exibit clearly that species change over time. I am not aware of any -if we ensure we stick to the evidence (or lack of it) for any inter-species links. All 'missing' links that have popped up from time to time have, sadly, shown no really convincing evidence of the necessary transitional stages that would have to accompany a 'type change' of the animal or plant. The fossil evidence alone has never yet show these to have been present. All phyla and genera appear abruptly, and have not been shown to be trasitional with others. For instance, there are truly no convincing animal fossil groups that undisputibly fit the postulated amphibian ancestors of land dwelling animals. Sadly for some we just cannot make that link. Some might say 'yet'. But there have been millions of fossil finds.
Archeoraptor was faked, Archeopterix although promising, was lacking evidence that it was anything other than a bird ancestor and not transitional from lizards or dinosaur like creatures. And the contenders for the marine to land animal ancestor have been interesting, but are still clearly specialized forms and quite distictly not land dwelling. Huge conjecture was nevertheless the result.
Coming to the origin of birds: The bird lung is so utterly different from anything that lizards have or dinosaurs are thought to have had, that it is impossible to see how such a dramatic change in design for the lung could have coome about slowly. It is so different that many have rejected possible links. That has not I admit stopped the majority accepting it.
Indeed, as an ex biologist I was fascinated by the subject, and tried to find out what exactly we do know about transitional relationships. I was amazed to find that the late Dr Colin Patterson, the British Museum's senior paleontologist, believed that he had never seem any that he could be sure about. A staggering admission which he made reference to many times both in his book and in public. He appears to have been publically 'happy' to share his disillusionment with the absent facts, much to the horror of other believers in the evolutionary model for orgins.
Together with Stephen J. Gould of Harvard's admission that transitional forms were rather rare (in fact, disputably absent, as paleontologists cannot agree on what is or is not), the lack of evidence for these desired forms means that the tree of life drawings are, scientically speaking at best simply ideas, postulates, and at worst meaningless. This has created a real feeding frenzy for evidence, whenever any is found, that i believe had resulted in bad science even in respected journals like Nature and New Scientist.
The evidence for the great age of some fossils is also hard to find. Many fragments still have carbon14 signatures, which absolutely removes them far from their supposed age ranges. Recent evidence of blood vessels surviving in the leg bones of T.Rex (Shweitzer) have clearly shown that proteins in the bone could be shown to be still elastic after extraction and testing. Could these proteins things still be 65 million years old? Many of us feel not.
I hope that you will reconsider your view when you have examined the fossil evidence. The fossils are a marvellous record, and truly fasinating, but they are are record, in the view of an increasing scientific minority, of one or more water borne catastrphopes that took place on our planet. You just cannot get a whole soft bodied animal to stay in one piece, unless you bury and kil it it suddenly.
Many thanks for the opportunity of posting these comments.
S.MacLaren Bsc (Hons)
S. MacLaren: Despite your display of alleged credentials, you would not be able to pass an undergraduate biology class. Don't waste any more of your words here–go try to tell it to the 99.9% of professional biologists who disagree with you. I'm not at all surprised that you are an "ex-biologist." nor am I surprised that you haven't supplied a single link for any of the rubbish you've promulgated. There is no evidence that any of the fossils you mentioned were faked. Further, the fact of natural selection doesn't depend on the fossils. There is a host of corroborating evidence, making fossils icing on the cake (despite what you've claimed, there are numerous transitional fossils). Truly, go read a credible book on evolution. Try doing your reading on Sunday mornings instead of spending any further time in that fundamentalist church you must be attending.
Hi Erich, The last time you replied to me, I was surprised at your invective on my submission relating to the ‘Darwin in the Abbey’ piece. It was rude and pretty offensive, and I felt it best not to reply at that time, but at least it spurred me on to do a great deal more private research and reading.
Just wondered how the quest to understand life’s origins and purpose is going for you and do you have any scientific or other kinds of thoughts to share?
Genuinely interested.
Very best wishes,
SM
SM – Such a strange comment. I’m never commented on this particular post. I’m wrongly accused.
Here is Erich’s (terse) reply to SM:
“S. MacLaren: Despite your display of alleged credentials, you would not be able to pass an undergraduate biology class. Don’t waste any more of your words here–go try to tell it to the 99.9% of professional biologists who disagree with you. I’m not at all surprised that you are an “ex-biologist.” nor am I surprised that you haven’t supplied a single link for any of the rubbish you’ve promulgated. There is no evidence that any of the fossils you mentioned were faked. Further, the fact of natural selection doesn’t depend on the fossils. There is a host of corroborating evidence, making fossils icing on the cake (despite what you’ve claimed, there are numerous transitional fossils). Truly, go read a credible book on evolution. Try doing your reading on Sunday mornings instead of spending any further time in that fundamentalist church you must be attending.”
S. MacLaren,
Wow, you seem to have struck a nerve with Erich (that happens when you disagree with him, and gets worse when you prove your point). I would also like to see some links to what you wrote (not because I disagree with you) so please post them.
If you keep disagreeing with Erich he will eventually censor what you write (I know from first hand experience). Anyway, have a merry CHRISTMAS everyone.
Merry Christmas to you, too, Erik Brewer.
Regarding S. MacLaren, I've heard that song before and it will end something like this. There is a bit of uncertainty with evolutionary biology, so we must disregard it entirely. On the other hand, despite the fact that there is no evidence for the cranky vengeful God of the self-contradictory Old Testament, we must believe every word of it.
Yes, I'm getting really impatient with selective hyper-skepticism.
Love to watch evolutionists get very defensive and revert to name calling when 2 important facts are mentioned, 1. where did the stuff that evolved come from (what was the uncaused first caused? if there is no uncaused first cause then you have an infinity of events but we know that the "Big Bang" gives us a definite cause) 2. the fossil records (oh no, I said it, shame on me) Why do evolutionists hate these two points so and call everyone who mentions them a fundi? I can feel the names coming my way (brings back memories of 1st grade when the bullies would terrorize anyone who disagreed with them, especially with the name calling).
To MacLaren,
Well, here is a quote from Dr. Patterson concerning his feelings over Creationist attempts to use his remarks as evidence to bolster their claims:
""Chelvam asserts that 'we are drowning' in evidence against
darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed
to me. It seems possible that he confuses two theories under
the name of darwinism, the general theory of common ancestry
or descent with modification, and Darwin's special theory of
mechanism, natural selection. If he knows of evidence
inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he
should tell us what it is. I know of none." (Colin
Patterson in a letter to the editor, _Nature_ 332:580, 1988).
Patterson made a number of remarks which, taken out of context, would seem to suggest he had "lost faith" in evolution, which was entirely not the case.
As for Stephen Jay Gould, read any three of his collections of essays and you quickly become awash in examples and explanations of transitional fossils.
Be that as it may, the problem as it stands is simply this: the proferred alternative to common descent and gradual evolution over time is a form of magical alakazam finger-snapping, engendered by a noncorporeal entity which has exhibited no evidence for its own existence. Any kind of evidentiary science would be rendered instantly invalid by such a being and in such a universe, since nothing could possibly mean what it seems to mean. This is mystical hogwash. It is like saying that because we do not yet have a definitive explanation of mechanism for the fact that particles come in distinct, groupable sizes that all of physics is therefore useless and we should go back to divination, astrology, and searching for philosopher's mercury to explain the universe.
Because the corpus of paleontological evidence is so vast and generally published only in science journals most people do not even know exist, it is easy to make sweeping statements like "Archeoraptor was faked, Archeopterix although promising, was lacking evidence that it was anything other than a bird ancestor and not transitional from lizards or dinosaur like creatures. And the contenders for the marine to land animal ancestor have been interesting, but are still clearly specialized forms and quite distictly not land dwelling. Huge conjecture was nevertheless the result." without fear that the lay person will be able to discredit it, because they don't know any better. It's not something people read about the way they might read about sports or politics.
Of course this denies the existence of several transition fossil forms, one of the most complete being the chain from Pakicetus to modern whale, a treasure-trove of which was recently found in India and Pakistan. (We hear so much about archaeopteryx and how few fossils of it have been found—which also deny the many examples of bird-saurian fossils found in the Gobi Desert—that it has become the poster fossil for Creationist claims of lack of evidence, even though in its instance there is much more than claimed.)
As with the great debate between Darwin and his critics at the time, what made the difference was that Darwin presented the better model. If you hope to overturn that model, you must do that as well. Creationism, whatever you call it, is not a better model.
Erik: Natural selection doesn't even claim to explain where the first life form(s) came from. The answer thus given by science is that we don't know the answer, although legitimate scientists are considering this issue with vigor using the scientific method rather than relying on ancient religious books.
Erich
The first cause is a major hang up for evolutionists, I guess you just need "faith" to believe that it all magically appeared on day and then the great process of evolution began. Now we are back to the faith argument. It really does take faith to believe in evolution. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
By they way, if our brains are a result of random evolution and out thoughts are just based on chemical reactions in the brain then how do we know that human understanding is trustworthy? Since we all evolved then whose thoughts are reliable? Can I trust yours or can you trust mine? Could it be that we have all deceived ourselves and there really is not any knowledge at all in the world? What is the measuring stick since it is all based on evolution? You see, once you remove the standards (i.e. God the Creator) then you have all sorts of problems.
This isn’t really the post for this rehash of commonly raised objections to evolution, so I’ll be brief.
Saying that you don’t know how something happened is not the same thing as saying that you do know. I have no idea how the first life forms appear on Earth. I don't know many other things either. The origin of life is a subject that scientists don’t claim to know (although they have some ideas). “I don’t know” is not the same thing as saying that I “do” know or that I thus know something on “faith.”
No scientist claims that evolution is “random.” Natural selection is the opposite of randomness. It will be impossible for you to link to any reputable scientific text that suggest that evolution is "random" (although there is no dispute that mutations themselves are random).
We don’t know that human understanding is entirely trustworthy. Experiments have shown that we rely heavily on heuristics—we are a big bag of cognitive tricks.
I don’t agree that “God the Creator” is a coherent “standard.”
I’m not trying to be insulting, but please do read one of the many accessible texts on evolution to make CERTAIN that you are accurately putting the best foot forward of the things you are attacking. That is what Jesus would have done, right?
Erich wrote “The origin of life is a subject that scientists don’t claim to know (although they have some ideas).”
Like Dawkins idea with the crystals (sounds like Superman, or a fairy-tale). To make a long argument short, scientists do not know what (Who) set the whole thing in motion and what (Who) created the original matter. That is a pretty big point if you ask me. So again you have to assume/believe a lot of things when dealing with evolution. Faith or belief is required with evolution. We Christians have said that it takes faith in the first place and now science is admitting it as well.
As to studying evolution, I was force-fed evolution both in High School and College (2 Universities worth of evolution). I have read the literature and until evolution can prove how it all got here and set into motion I am afraid I will have to believe what God has said on the subject. You believe evolution and want me to believe it as well but I already have my “faith” in another pov.
You do not have to agree that God is the standard (everyone has the right to his own opinion although not everyone has the right to his own truth, truth remains truth whatever you believe.
Erik:
You are not reading carefully. If you were in my presence, I would ask you to put one finger in one of your ears so it doesn't just go right through: Science is not (yet) offering any definitive answer on how it was that life first appeared on Earth. The study of biological evolution most certainly doesn't suggest such any answer. When someone says "I don't know," it is not a request that you believe in anything at all. It is not a request that you have faith in anything.
"I don't know" is an exceptionally good thing to say when one doesn't know.
Erik writes:—"if our brains are a result of random evolution and out thoughts are just based on chemical reactions in the brain then how do we know that human understanding is trustworthy?"
By that reasoning, we don't, of course. But that would include any claimed "understanding" of extranatural phenomena as well—so claims to "know" god are by definition just as suspect as any other.
Erik B is again demonstrating that he considers a book edited together by bronze age nomads from a collection of oral traditions to contain the definitive truth about everything. It doesn't matter to him what has been discovered and learned in the intervening 2,700 years. If provable facts disagree with his peculiar interpretation of the holy text, then they are wrong.
No use arguing.
Karl, on the other hand (in other posts) engages us by diligently trying to find purchase on the certainly steep slopes of modern knowledge, even while clinging to sections of those same texts. The outcome of our dialogs may be the same, but the fray is more entertaining.
Erich
I read everything very carefully. I am a trained critic so please do not make your usual generalizations about me. Again, evolution is asking us to “believe” them even though they cannot explain the most important point about the origin of life (is not that part of the name of Darwin’s so called masterpiece?) You can try to talk around the point all that you want but the fact is the fact. I want to recommend that you take your finger and stick it in the Bible and read It carefully.
Nice to see you back Erik,
Merry Christmas!
The attempts by naturalists to discover how science can explain how the world got here leaves their imagination to work overtime and to trust in a faith filled process that can never be falsified even though it constantly runs into one road block after another.
Apparently, you haven't trained carefully enough, since you can't accurately read and retain a 5 word title.
Thanks Karl, and a Merry CHRISTmas to you.
Erik writes:—"origin of life (is not that part of the name of Darwin’s so called masterpiece?)"
No, Erik. It is not. It is "Origin of Species". You should read it some time, if only to know precisely what you're talking about. Not even knowing the title suggests strongly that you have not read it. The balance of everything you've posted on the subject demonstrates that, even had you read it, you didn't understand it. But I doubt you ever even saw a copy.
I'm going to say something to you that I have not said to either Larry or Karl, who both demonstrate a more profound grasp of what it is they're talking about that you do.
Go away. You're wasting electrons.
Karl writes:—"…and to trust in a faith filled process that can never be falsified even though it constantly runs into one road block after another."
And works past them.
Whereas your alternative is entirely self-referential and thus yields no point in attempting to falsify.
What I have read in the Bible says that robust variation in healthy species is nearly entirely a matter of physical laws and variation can easily be increased through selection. (Genesis chapter 30). The rods or stakes at the watering trough apparently served as a way for Jacob to prevent the Ewes from jumping over the water trough to avoid a male that had grown accustomed to looking at a non-white (i.e. a speckled, spotted or brown) potential mate.
Jacob used techniques of breeding sheep and goats that totally pointed to an insightful understanding of the laws of population genetics well before Gregor Mendel. Jacob was aware that he could increase non-white coat color if the full population was split into homogeneous coat colored groups and the healthy white Ewes weren't allowed to chose a preferential white mate as they were inclined to do.
Someone tell me the science here was faulty, or that Jacob was using magic to trick old uncle Laban.
Karl, an interesting argument. Genesis 30 begins with good, moral Rachel pimping her virgin maid to Jacob to beget Daniel 😉 prompting her sister/co-wife to likewise pimp a maid to Jacob to beget Gad. Good old fashioned family values.
But then they discuss culling all the non-white sheep and goats. If any get of the white flocks is born with color, it is to be considered stolen from the non-white herd to be returned to it. This does indicate that they knew the dominance of darker heredity, and what was necessary to create a white herd (much more valuable because the wool can be dyed any color).
But the principle of literary deconstruction allows all sorts of fanciful ideas to be attributed to writings that the authors had no way of knowing or intending. That some folk wisdom has been verified by science is no surprise. What works, works (this tautology is the essence of folk wisdom). But science figures out how it works, and often even why.
What Mendel proved systematically was that both parents contribute to the make-up of the offspring. Before that, most scholars "knew" that the male planted the seed in the female in much the same manner as plants. That sometimes offspring resembled the mother more than the father was attributed to all sorts of things, but not to the matrilineal heredity of the mother.
If they had a clue that matrilineal descent was significant, then the begats would list more than strict patrilineal rosters. Women were always considered the end of a line.
Erik and Karl are the long-lost twins that got separated at birth due to some scientific experiment!
Dan says:
What works, works (this tautology is the essence of folk wisdom). But science figures out how it works, and often even why
Please tell me how science can answer even any one question as to why somethong works the way it does that is based upon a scientific measurement or observation.
It is my contention that every single "why" question that science attempts to answer comes from the mind of an individual that puts some kind of trust or even hope in some believed naturalistic idea that is really makes it a faith based proposition.
Merry Christmas!