Over the past month or so, with my posts about the truth about evolution, it might appear that I've built up a certain good will with a lot of anticreationists out there. OK, maybe "good will" is a bit strong. Whatever it is, I'm about to squander it. I am a creationist after all.
The truth about creationism is that it's not stupid, illogical, or irrational. Creationism is not based on "blind" faith (whatever that is). Creationism is not a modern theological abnormality, nor is it an outmoded pseudoscience. Creationism is not a threat to science or to science education or to human rights.
Don't get me wrong. I can see how all of these things could be true, given the present state of things. (Except maybe the "threat to human rights." That's just stupid.) Tracking the reaction to my posts on evolution has led me to some seedy corners of the internet. I've seen up close that most of what passes for creation/evolution debate bears little resemblance to profitable conversation. It seems to have degenerated from rehashing old, unconvincing arguments to the even trade of personal insults. There's a hardened hopelessness on both sides. I actually heard this hopelessness directly from a prominent creationist author. He told me, "I don't really care what scientists think of my work. We'll never convince them anyway."
Call me idealistic, but I tend to think there's a way out of this mess. I'm not naive though. I know there are deep-seated cultural resentments that will not be easily resolved. In fact, I'm not sure there could ever be a real cultural resolution, but within the realm of science, I do think there's a way forward.
It starts with going back to the most basic convictions about origins that I have. For me, that starts with my convictions about the mode of scriptural inspiration, i.e. verbal, plenary inspiration. I don't believe that the Bible is merely a human book that contains the word of God. I believe it is the Word of God. I also do not accept the modern and popular doctrine of accommodation, which basicallys says that by putting His revelation into human language, God was forced to use terms that were not precisely accurate. As a result, science takes an active role in interpreting the Scripture, since any part may be accommodated and therefore not literally true.
I do accept a form of accommodation, but I tend to think the modern form is theologically deficient. On the one hand, I think God is clever enough to accommodate His revelation with perfect precision. On the other, I don't think science is so infallible that theology ought to yield to it unconditionally.
Anyway, when it comes to reading Genesis 1-11, I read it as history. It seems the most natural way to read it, and historically, that's the way that most commentators have read it (with notable exceptions like Augustine). I don't buy the modern debates about the genre of Genesis 1-11, since such debates never address the historicity question directly. History can be recorded in any genre.
I also find arguments about the meaning of yom (Hebrew for "day"), gaps in the genealogies, and the extent of the Flood to be useful, but they do not convince me to abandon young-age creationism. The meaning of Genesis 1-11 is not merely in one specific word but in the entirety of the passage (and frankly, in the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch as well). Yielding too much of Genesis 1-11 to some kind of figurative interpretation can threaten the orthodox understanding of the Fall, which then directly threatens the doctrine of redemption, which I know to be true by faith, so we're back to basic faith issues again.
I am sincere in my interest in such exegetical issues, however. As I noted in a recent post, even such seemingly well-established doctrinal issues as the identity of the serpent might not be so certain as we think. There are certainly lots of open questions about the early history of the earth, given the brevity of the Genesis narratives. None of these ambiguities mean that the basic historicity of Genesis 1-11 is threatened, in precisely the same way that ambiguities about evolutionary theory do not necessitate that evolution itself is invalid.
OK, here's where a lot of people are really going to choke on their cheerios. If Genesis 1-11 really is an accurate historical record of the history of the earth from an infallible source, then that account is a kind of data. Genesis provides another kind of "observation" that must be explained by any theory of origins. That's where I start biblically. It's not just a blind faith nor a hyperliteralistic reading of Scripture.
The second step forward in creationism is to simply acknowledge that there are many things that we don't know. The theological doctrine of creation simply does not provide a complete scientific account of origins. For scientists, there's still plenty of questions to be answered, and there's plenty of room within the doctrine of creation for profitable scientific research. In origins, however, many of the questions scientists ask might only be answerable within a theological context, which is why I firmly believe that science cannot be properly done if it is divorced from theology. Science and theology must work in cooperation if we wish to understand the mysteries of origins. Given the popularity of materialistic accounts of origins and the way militant atheists have used (misused?) such origins theories to proselytize for their lack of faith, I think there should be an urgency among Christians to support such integrated science/theology research.
My third step is to study carefully the findings and theories of modern evolutionary research. That means not just arrogantly dismissing evolutionary claims but really listening to evolutionists. If nothing else, we can follow Jesus' own "golden rule" here: Hear and respect others as you wish to be heard and respected. In doing so, I can do nothing less but acknowledge that Darwin made a convincing argument, albeit not an inerrant one. But I don't see Darwin's errors as anything to celebrate (since we all make similar errors). Instead, I think Darwin was onto something important. At the very least, the patterns of similarity between organisms, biogeographical relationships, and the natural variability of species are all important factors in biology that must figure into a theory of origins. Though it seems compelling, I don't think universal common ancestry is the answer, because it is inconsistent with the historicity of Genesis. That leaves me with essentially no answer, since theological or philosophical explanations do not deal directly with this kind of scientific data.
That's why we need to develop a new model of origins that explains both the scientific and scriptural data. Merely dismissing evolution and arrogantly asserting that creation explains everything doesn't work, and it hasn't worked. This way of research might not resolve anything and it will be quite unsatisfying in the short term, but I can see no other option. I cannot yield my theology to science, and I will not degrade to arrogance and name-calling. That leaves two options: Come up with my own creationist explanation of origins or get out of science altogether. I'm too much of a scientist to give it up, so research it is.
Will this research convince anyone? Hard to say. Theologically, probably not. "Convincing" requires faith, and that's not something evidence and theory can do. On the other hand, my approach certainly attracts attention, and I think that I've given pause to some hardened anticreationists. Is that progress? I don't know, but it sure beats name-calling.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Darwin Week: The Darwinian Revolution
Shortly after becoming a genuine college professor, I started getting catalogues from The Teaching Company, which manufactures and sells video and audio recordings of special courses taught by genuine college professors (like me, only smarter). Their catalogue includes titles on just about every subject, and a year or so ago, I finally decided to give them a try. Since I travel a lot, I'm always looking for ways to pass the time in airports, and lugging around big, scholarly books isn't always ideal. Reading while I drive is also ... challenging. I can now say from personal experience with about six of their courses that they really deliver quality material. So when I saw "The Darwinian Revolution" on sale earlier this year, I couldn't resist.
The course is taught by Frederick Gregory, a professor of the history of science at the University of Florida and a graduate of the history of science programs at UW Madison (M.A.) and Harvard (Ph.D.). As usual, I opted for the downloadable mp3 format, but the course also comes in DVD or CD, and you can buy an optional course book for $25 more. Dr. Gregory frequently refers to materials (both primary and secondary) in his lectures that are cited in the course book.
The course itself is divided into 24 half-hour sessions that begin with the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and takes us up to modern debates with intelligent design advocates and within evolution itself. He doesn't spend too much time on the pre-Darwinian state of affairs, jumping into Darwin's early ideas on evolution in lecture 7. The structure of the course is understandably similar to Ed Larson's course "The Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy," but with twice as many lectures, Gregory can take his time to develop themes only touched on by Larson.
I found Gregory's lecture on the Scopes trial particularly interesting. Instead of reviewing the history of the antievolution crusade in the United States, Gregory begins with a history of the ACLU. That's quite appropriate, since the trial began with their interest in a test case of the Tennessee antievolution law. He's also quick to point out that the trial was not a failure on the part of American fundamentalism, although he does portray Bryan's testimony as a failure. I find this opinion about Bryan common among historians, even though from what I understand, the local eyewitnesses at the trial felt that Bryan won the day, and it's pretty clear from the transcript that Bryan frequently (but slyly) mocks Darrow. I need to look at that issue more carefully.
I also found Gregory's lecture on intelligent design to be almost sympathetic. He stresses that a main point of the ID movement has been that the success of methodological naturalism (allowing only natural causes in science) should not be confused with evidence for philosophical naturalism (the philosophical position that physical material is all there is). Gregory sees the equation of ID with creationism as a confusion, since IDers like Behe accept a form of evolution. I think Gregory is almost too generous here, since so much of ID has become a rehash of antievolutionary arguments originally advocated by creationists, despite the presence of Behe and those like him in the ID movement. It's hardly surprising that ID would be equated with creationism given the circumstances.
Gregory doesn't shy away from other evolutionary controversies either. He devotes a lecture to eugenics, where he discusses the popularity of the eugenics movement in the United States. He definitely explores the association of eugenics with evolutionary ideology, although he does not go so far as to lay the blame directly on Darwin. His presentation of debates within evolutionary biology, especially about sociobiology, were particularly helpful to me.
If you're balking at the price of the course (currently $129.95 for mp3, $254.95 for DVD), keep watching the Teaching Company's website. They have crazy sales throughout the year, and you can get most of their courses for much less that the list price if you're patient. If you're interested in understanding the controversy over Darwin's theories, Gregory's course is definitely worth it.
The course is taught by Frederick Gregory, a professor of the history of science at the University of Florida and a graduate of the history of science programs at UW Madison (M.A.) and Harvard (Ph.D.). As usual, I opted for the downloadable mp3 format, but the course also comes in DVD or CD, and you can buy an optional course book for $25 more. Dr. Gregory frequently refers to materials (both primary and secondary) in his lectures that are cited in the course book.
The course itself is divided into 24 half-hour sessions that begin with the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and takes us up to modern debates with intelligent design advocates and within evolution itself. He doesn't spend too much time on the pre-Darwinian state of affairs, jumping into Darwin's early ideas on evolution in lecture 7. The structure of the course is understandably similar to Ed Larson's course "The Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy," but with twice as many lectures, Gregory can take his time to develop themes only touched on by Larson.
I found Gregory's lecture on the Scopes trial particularly interesting. Instead of reviewing the history of the antievolution crusade in the United States, Gregory begins with a history of the ACLU. That's quite appropriate, since the trial began with their interest in a test case of the Tennessee antievolution law. He's also quick to point out that the trial was not a failure on the part of American fundamentalism, although he does portray Bryan's testimony as a failure. I find this opinion about Bryan common among historians, even though from what I understand, the local eyewitnesses at the trial felt that Bryan won the day, and it's pretty clear from the transcript that Bryan frequently (but slyly) mocks Darrow. I need to look at that issue more carefully.
I also found Gregory's lecture on intelligent design to be almost sympathetic. He stresses that a main point of the ID movement has been that the success of methodological naturalism (allowing only natural causes in science) should not be confused with evidence for philosophical naturalism (the philosophical position that physical material is all there is). Gregory sees the equation of ID with creationism as a confusion, since IDers like Behe accept a form of evolution. I think Gregory is almost too generous here, since so much of ID has become a rehash of antievolutionary arguments originally advocated by creationists, despite the presence of Behe and those like him in the ID movement. It's hardly surprising that ID would be equated with creationism given the circumstances.
Gregory doesn't shy away from other evolutionary controversies either. He devotes a lecture to eugenics, where he discusses the popularity of the eugenics movement in the United States. He definitely explores the association of eugenics with evolutionary ideology, although he does not go so far as to lay the blame directly on Darwin. His presentation of debates within evolutionary biology, especially about sociobiology, were particularly helpful to me.
If you're balking at the price of the course (currently $129.95 for mp3, $254.95 for DVD), keep watching the Teaching Company's website. They have crazy sales throughout the year, and you can get most of their courses for much less that the list price if you're patient. If you're interested in understanding the controversy over Darwin's theories, Gregory's course is definitely worth it.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Darwin Week: The Darwin Myth
This book has an unintentionally accurate title, since the version of Darwin's life presented in this book is mostly mythological. The Darwin Myth was written by Benjamin Wiker, who holds senior fellowships with the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and the Discovery Institute, according to the book jacket. Of course, the book jacket's accuracy is open to question. It also raves that the book "casts aside Darwinism's politically correct veneer and offers a critical, scientific analysis of Darwin's life and his history-changing theory." Scientific? Not even close.The book suffers from a basic lack of evidence. It's a lot like Davies's The Darwin Conspiracy in that regard, inflating a story in the missing pieces of Darwin's life (to be fair to Wiker, this book does not repeat the "Darwin is a plagiarist" myth). Wiker's Darwin differs from the real Darwin in two significant ways:
(1) Wiker's Darwin is an evolutionist from the start, thanks to the influence of Lamarck, Grant, and Erasmus Darwin's Zoonomia. The problem is that there is no evidence for this. There's certainly reason to believe that Darwin was acquainted with the basic idea of the development of species, but the earliest comment we have from Darwin that could possibly be construed as sympathetic to the view is from his ornithological notes. Darwin wrote these notes near the end of the Beagle voyage, and in the passage in question he discussed the mockingbirds of Galapagos:
In each Isld. each kind is exclusively found: habits of all are indistinguishable. When I recollect, the fact that the form of the body, shape of scales & general size, the Spaniards can at once pronounce, from which Island any Tortoise may have been brought. When I see these Islands in sight of each other, & [but del.] possessed of but a scanty stock of animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure & filling the same place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. The only fact of a similar kind of which I am aware, is the constant asserted difference - between the wolf-like Fox of East & West Falkland Islds.According to Darwin's diary, his interest in species transmutation began with pondering South American fossils and Galapagos animals in March, 1837. That's it. That's all we know about what Darwin thought about species before he began his transmutation notebooks. Much later, Darwin claimed that he knew about other evolutionary ideas but that they made no impression on him. The evidence from his notes, correspondence, and diary supports this. I suppose Wiker's interpretation is possible, but given the facts as we know them, I seriously doubt he is correct. At the very least, I see no reason to accept Wiker's interpretation.
- If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes - will be well worth examining; for such facts [would inserted] undermine the stability of Species. (Darwin Online)
(2) Wiker's Darwin insisted on creating "an entirely godless account of evolution" (p. xi). This seems to be Wiker's main theme and main complaint. Here's a few passages from the book that illustrate that theme:
- "Evolution was a family affair, yet it was to be his theory, profoundly materialistic and curiously designed not to let a divine foot in the door." (p. 63)
- "... he didn't shudder, like Lyell, at the entirely godless mechanism of natural selection. In fact, he was very proud of it because it so neatly eliminated the necessity for God." (p. 98)
- "... something about the way Darwin approached things led him to define science against belief in God." (p. 120)
- "Darwin's theory did not prove that there was no Creator God; it began from the assumption that God did not exist, and so his theory was contructed and expressed in such a way as to dismiss the possibility without seriously engaging it." (p. 125)
- "Insofar as Darwinism has swallowed up all of evolution into itself, the evolutionary theory partakes of the deep anti-theistic bias that Darwin built into it. It in fact does lead to atheism because it was designed to do so." (p. 166)
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. - I am bewildered. - I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. ... On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. - Let each man hope & believe what he can. -
Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. ... I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.
According to Wiker, this passage is an example of one of Darwin's lies that he told himself (p. 136: "we have found Darwin to be disingenuous, even with himself"). That's a staggeringly arrogant position to take. Darwin himself confesses that he did not intend his work to be understood as anti-God, Origin focuses its arguments on the origin of species (not life), and all of Darwin's biographers agree that his position on religion was complex to say the least. Should we therefore disregard the evidence from Darwin's own hand and accept Wiker's speculative dismissal of that evidence to favor his own antitheistic Darwin? I think not.
As I said above, this book is not based on evidence but on Wiker's speculation about Darwin's life. In fact, as I perused the 167 endnotes, I saw lots of secondary sources (Browne's biographies with 29 citations seem to be his main source of information about Darwin), but citations of, e.g., Darwin's correspondence (seven citations) or notebooks (six citations) are infrequent. Wiker is fond of using Darwin's autobiography (21 citations), and some of Darwin's other published works (Voyage of the Beagle, Origin, Descent of Man) are referenced. Call me crazy, but if I were going to write a radical reinvention of someone's life, I would want to reference it to the hilt from primary sources. As it is, this book just asks us to take Wiker's word for it. Well, I'm sorry, but that's just not enough.
This book is not recommended. This is not the real Charles Darwin. This is nothing more than a Darwin Myth. Please don't fall for it.
(It seems to me that this theme of Darwin's alleged atheistic intentions is worthy of further attention. Stay tuned.)
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Darwin Week: The Voyage that Shook the World
I finally watched The Voyage That Shook the World, the new Darwin documentary from Creation Ministries International. From the accounts I've read, it cost CMI more than $500,000 to make, and it definitely shows. It's quite a lovely film, and the re-enactments are fairly decent. CMI's strategy of setting up a production company called Fathom Media to covertly arrange the filming of historical sites and interviews generated some controversy, which of course they dispute. You can find a positive review by Ted Baehr at Movieguide (no surprise there) and a critical review from Jim Lippard here (also no surprise). To be fair, Lippard's review is pretty balanced and not overly fanatic, unlike Baehr's.Initially, I thought I'd write a detailed review of the film, but after seeing it, I changed my mind. To be honest, it wasn't really all that bad. It wasn't great either. It's pretty much what I expected. If you're familiar with CMI's talking points on Darwin, geology, and evolution, you won't be surprised by anything here. I don't agree with all the claims of this film (like the peculiar idea that species fixity "overturned the religious scholars' belief in a Biblical flood"), but I'm not really in the mood to nitpick. There's a lot more complexity to Darwin and the development of evolution than the vastly oversimplified story in the film, but they only have about an hour, which is not a lot of time to accomplish their agenda.
Though I disagree with some of the content in the film, the creationism and antievolutionism is softened by a genuine attempt at a less strident tone, which for the most part worked. For example, no one makes the explicit claim that Darwin was a racist or that evolution led to Hitler. On the other hand, Darwin's negative views on race are presented without being tempered by his passionate antislavery beliefs. Pre-Darwinian views on evolution (Erasmus Darwin) and natural selection (Edward Blyth) are mentioned, but no one claims that Darwin was unoriginal or a plagiarist. In the end, it could have been a lot worse.
I guess that's the sum total of my review: it could have been worse. It has too many odd claims to make me want to recommend it, but it isn't so outrageously bad that it makes me want to nitpick and denounce it. It just ... is.
I couldn't recommend this film to anyone who is familiar with creationism or with Darwin, but if you want to learn what many creationists think about Darwin and the history of nineteenth century science, this is certainly a pretty way to do it. If you actually want to learn about Darwin and nineteenth century science, I recommend skipping the movie and reading Browne's biographies instead. Or just watch Darwin's Darkest Hour.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Darwin Week: The Works
With all the hubbub about the 150th anniversary of Origin, it's easy to forget that Darwin was more than just the father of modern evolutionary theory. He originally established his reputation with his geological research on the Beagle voyage. That was followed by the first extensive study of barnacles, published in four volumes (1851-1854). After that came Origin, which was followed by a book on orchid pollination. Darwin revised Origin five times and wrote related works on variation in domesticated animals and plants, the descent of man, and the expression of emotions in humans and animals. He produced other books, too, on such diverse topics as carnivorous plants and the action of worms.
I'm delighted to report that the works of Darwin have been reprinted once again by New York University Press. Previous hardback editions of this set of 29 volumes are priced at thousands, but this new paperback set goes for just $525. (Yes, CORE has a set on order.) Along with Darwin's published works, the set also includes Darwin's Beagle diary and what Francis Darwin called the Foundations of the Origin, transcriptions of Darwin's sketch of 1842 and essay of 1844. The Origin comes in both first and sixth editions. This is a terrific way to add the works of Darwin to any library.
If you can't afford the complete printed works of Darwin, you can still get access to all his written work through the Darwin Online database and the Darwin Correspondence Project. Darwin Online is an amazing website. Not only do they have his published writings (including everything in the series from NYU Press), but they've also amassed and transcribed Darwin's articles, manuscripts, notebooks, and works about Darwin. Most English versions of Darwin's works are present (including all six Origins), and numerous non-English books are also available. Voyage of the Beagle in Swedish? Got it. Origin in Polish? Got it. Insectivorous Plants in French? Got it.
In the manuscript database, Darwin Online has some very significant works. Both the original sketch of 1842 and the essay of 1844 (collected as Foundations of Origin in the NYU Press series) are available in PDF (if you feel like deciphering Darwin's handwriting for yourself). The original manuscript chapters of Natural Selection, the big book that Darwin abandoned in favor of the shorter Origin, are also present (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Users can also browse or search various notes and diaries made while aboard the Beagle.
In fact, there is so much material available at Darwin Online that wading through search results becomes daunting. It's actually helpful to know a bit about Darwin's life and work before trying to do a search. Otherwise, the volume of results to a nonspecific search like "creation" can be a bit overwhelming.
For even more Darwin writings, check out the Darwin Correspondence Project. The website is a companion to Cambridge University Press's Correspondence of Charles Darwin series, which just published its 17th volume (letters of 1869). The first fifteen volumes of the series are available in the database, covering Darwin's life up to 1867. There are 5000 letters transcribed in the online database, which is about a third of Darwin's total surviving correspondence. With Darwin's published and unpublished works at Darwin Online, the Correspondence Project is an invaluable tool for exploring the mind of Charles Darwin.
These online resources make Darwin studies easy even for an amateur like me. I found both sites indispensable when composing my response to The Darwin Conspiracy. With so much information readily and freely available, anyone should be able to accurately describe Darwin's arguments or opinions (provided, of course, they understand what they read). There really is no excuse for perpetuating conspiracy theories or old wives' tales.
On the other hand, if you're old fashioned like me, you still enjoy curling up on the couch or in bed with a good book, and websites just don't cut it. For us, there's always The Works from NYU Press to give us a gateway into the world of Charles Darwin. For Darwin research, however, the gold standard is online.
I'm delighted to report that the works of Darwin have been reprinted once again by New York University Press. Previous hardback editions of this set of 29 volumes are priced at thousands, but this new paperback set goes for just $525. (Yes, CORE has a set on order.) Along with Darwin's published works, the set also includes Darwin's Beagle diary and what Francis Darwin called the Foundations of the Origin, transcriptions of Darwin's sketch of 1842 and essay of 1844. The Origin comes in both first and sixth editions. This is a terrific way to add the works of Darwin to any library.
If you can't afford the complete printed works of Darwin, you can still get access to all his written work through the Darwin Online database and the Darwin Correspondence Project. Darwin Online is an amazing website. Not only do they have his published writings (including everything in the series from NYU Press), but they've also amassed and transcribed Darwin's articles, manuscripts, notebooks, and works about Darwin. Most English versions of Darwin's works are present (including all six Origins), and numerous non-English books are also available. Voyage of the Beagle in Swedish? Got it. Origin in Polish? Got it. Insectivorous Plants in French? Got it.
In the manuscript database, Darwin Online has some very significant works. Both the original sketch of 1842 and the essay of 1844 (collected as Foundations of Origin in the NYU Press series) are available in PDF (if you feel like deciphering Darwin's handwriting for yourself). The original manuscript chapters of Natural Selection, the big book that Darwin abandoned in favor of the shorter Origin, are also present (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Users can also browse or search various notes and diaries made while aboard the Beagle.
In fact, there is so much material available at Darwin Online that wading through search results becomes daunting. It's actually helpful to know a bit about Darwin's life and work before trying to do a search. Otherwise, the volume of results to a nonspecific search like "creation" can be a bit overwhelming.
For even more Darwin writings, check out the Darwin Correspondence Project. The website is a companion to Cambridge University Press's Correspondence of Charles Darwin series, which just published its 17th volume (letters of 1869). The first fifteen volumes of the series are available in the database, covering Darwin's life up to 1867. There are 5000 letters transcribed in the online database, which is about a third of Darwin's total surviving correspondence. With Darwin's published and unpublished works at Darwin Online, the Correspondence Project is an invaluable tool for exploring the mind of Charles Darwin.
These online resources make Darwin studies easy even for an amateur like me. I found both sites indispensable when composing my response to The Darwin Conspiracy. With so much information readily and freely available, anyone should be able to accurately describe Darwin's arguments or opinions (provided, of course, they understand what they read). There really is no excuse for perpetuating conspiracy theories or old wives' tales.
On the other hand, if you're old fashioned like me, you still enjoy curling up on the couch or in bed with a good book, and websites just don't cut it. For us, there's always The Works from NYU Press to give us a gateway into the world of Charles Darwin. For Darwin research, however, the gold standard is online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
