Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Dr. Bert, Darwin & Blyth!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Here s the more complete commentary from Dr. Bert s article (link previously provided) where he discusses the Blyth factor:
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's the more complete commentary from Dr. Bert's article (link
      previously provided) where he discusses the Blyth factor:

      ########################################

      Creationists never have objected to the idea of natural selection as
      a mechanism for eliminating the unfit, non-adapted organisms. As a
      matter of fact, creationists long before Darwin were advocating
      natural selection as a conservation principle.

      Few people are aware, apparently, that natural selection was not
      Charles Darwin's discovery. A creationist zoologist/chemist by the
      name of Edward Blyth (1810-1873) wrote about it in the years between
      1835 and 1837, well before Darwin.

      Some evolutionists, like the late Loren Eiseley (Benjamin Franklin
      Professor of Anthropology and History of Science at the University of
      Pennsylvania), even have gone so far as to question the incredible
      similarity between Blyth's essays and those of Charles Darwin (1959),
      hinting at plagiarism on Darwin's part. Eiseley wrote that "the
      leading tenets of Darwin's work—the struggle for existence,
      variation, natural selection, and sexual selection—are all fully
      expressed in a paper written by Blyth in 1835" (1979, p. 55).

      That fact has not been lost on creationists. Ian Taylor, in his book,
      In the Minds of Men, discussed Darwin's reading of Patrick Matthew's
      1831 essay, Naval Timber and Arboriculture, which in its appendix
      contained the phrase "this natural process of selection"—a phrase
      that Darwin changed slightly to "natural means of selection" and
      incorporated into his very first essay, published in 1842 (1984, p.
      125).

      ###############################

      Browsing around a bit, it does appear there is quite a history to the
      controversy over the Blyth factor. Compare the above to the
      TalkOrigins article regarding it and Eiseley's work. I suppose the
      TalkOrigins article is a fitting response to the numerous efforts by
      the "young-earth, creation-science" movement to do as Dr. Bert has
      done with the issue. Maybe we will learn more as time goes on.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.