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

Evolution

Expand Messages
  • Frank Thomas Smith
    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
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 29 9:47 AM
      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
    • Maurice McCarthy
      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
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 30 12:01 PM
        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

        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
        >
      • Frank Thomas Smith
        ... 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
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 30 1:59 PM
          --- 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
          > >
          >
        • Maurice McCarthy
          Hi Frank The Steiner Study was an email discussion group that I think Jo-Ann moderated. It has been closed a couple of years. I understand where Steiner was
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 30 5:06 PM
            Hi Frank

            The Steiner Study was an email discussion group that I think Jo-Ann
            moderated. It has been closed a couple of years.

            I understand where Steiner was leading but it had occured to me that
            whereas Newton gave a brilliant synthesis, Darwin an analysis no one
            seems to see the two going together to demonstrate the elevation of
            the soul to the spirit.

            Not to worry I know there are some notes in both his autobiography and
            Riddles of Philosophy.

            Thanks anyhow
            Maurice

            On 30/08/2011, 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
            >> >
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • elfuncle
            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
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 31 8:22 AM
              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
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • Maurice McCarthy
              Ah thanks. I had forgotten that. Maurice
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 31 3:25 PM
                Ah thanks. I had forgotten that.
                Maurice



                On 31/08/2011, 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
                >> > >
                >> >
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • ted.wrinch
                You might want to consider his long account of Darwin and Darwinism in Riddles of Philosophy:
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 1, 2011
                  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
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Maurice McCarthy
                  Thanks for the tip. I ve just bought Connor Cunningham s Darwin s Pious Idea, haven t read it yet, and I wrote to him. He wants to discuss after I ve read his
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 2, 2011
                    Thanks for the tip.

                    I've just bought Connor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea, haven't read
                    it yet, and I wrote to him. He wants to discuss after I've read his
                    book. As a Catholic Priest the summary of his book claims to show that
                    evolution is compatible with orthodox faith so it might be
                    interesting.

                    Maurice


                    On 01/09/2011, ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
                    > 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
                    >> > > >
                    >> > >
                    >> >
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.