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

48256Re: Evolution

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Sep 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      You might want to consider his long account of Darwin and Darwinism in Riddles of Philosophy:

      http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA018/English/AP1973/GA018_p02c02.html

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
      >
      > The only example I recall of Steiner talking about any specific details in Darwin's theory, is when he mentions Goethe's discovery of the intermaxillary bone already in 1784, which Darwin had apparently been unaware of.
      >
      > http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA001/English/MP1988/GA001_c02.html
      >
      > Tarjei
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy <manselton@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hello Frank,
      > > >
      > > > I've been lurking in the list for a couple of weeks. We met before
      > > > briefly at the Steiner Study.
      > > >
      > > > In POF Steiner describes how the perception of evolutionary forms is
      > > > excellent analysis by Darwin but it cannot be reversed into a logical
      > > > synthesis of one living thing from another. You cannot predict a bird
      > > > from a reptile something invisible to the senses has to be added to
      > > > make it so.
      > > >
      > > > I'd like to ask if there is anywhere in Steiner's writings that this
      > > > is expounded in more detail as it is something I'd like to understand
      > > > better.
      > > >
      > > > Many Thanks
      > > > Maurice
      > >
      > > Hi Maurice,
      > > Sorry, I don't know of anywhere where Steiner goes more deeply into that idea. In any case though, I think that his emphasis in POF (Chapter 12) is on ethics rather than Darwinist evolution as such. He uses evolution as a comparison for ethical individualism. That a real moral idea must be individually original and not merely derived or deduced from previous ideas - just as the idea of a bird cannot be deduced from that of a snake (if one has never seen a bird). Something like that, as I understand it.
      > > Btw. what's the "Steiner study"?
      > > Frank
      > > >
      > > > On 29/08/2011, Frank Thomas Smith <fts.trasla@> wrote:
      > > > > A member of the WC list wrote this as part of a long post:
      > > > >
      > > > > "I have to balk at Steiner followers' philosophical war with Darwin and the
      > > > > general theory of evolution and natural selection; I do not and can not
      > > > > believe that, as a visiting European teacher lectured in my senior zoology
      > > > > class, that "The good God created this terrible
      > > > > kingdom of the animals so that Man could become Man" and that "Man has never
      > > > > been an animal." sorry, but the evidence refutes that. seriously."
      > > > >
      > > > > I don't know if the visiting teacher was mistaken or is quoted incorrectly
      > > > > or misunderstood. But the phrase 'Man has never been an animal' is at least
      > > > > partly correct. Anthroposophy does not reject evolution; quite the contrary:
      > > > > it is all about evolution. Man's *physical body* followed the course of
      > > > > evolution; but it was only when this body reached its human characteristics
      > > > > that man's spirit incarnated in it.
      > > > >
      > > > > Frank
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic