Darwin believe in evolution without proof?

[Jyera]

Found this on the Internet:

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."


Question 1: Is it true ? Did Darwin say that in his letter?

Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?
It seems to be the case for Darwin. He believes evolution because of it's pragmatic benefit.

 

[Asolepius]

Found this on the Internet:

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."


Question 1: Is it true ? Did Darwin say that in his letter?

Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?
It seems to be the case for Darwin. He believes evolution because of it's pragmatic benefit.

I can't answer question 1, but I have some thoughts on question 2. It has got me thinking about the nature of belief. This is different for science and religion. Christians for example believe the church's doctrine without requiring proof, and indeed this is cited as its strength. That's why it's called a faith. For me as a scientist belief is largely provisional. In Darwin's time there was no actual proof that evolution was working, although he had already collected a vast amount of supportive evidence. Today, we have lots of evidence of evolution taking place during our lifetimes, mainly because we have been looking for it. Therefore Darwin's belief was pragmatic, and I am sure provisional, as he would have been open to new evidence opposing his belief. After 150 years the case for evolution is so solid that scientists mostly accept it as fact, and are rightly very sceptical of seemingly opposing evidence.

 

[Darat]

Found this on the Internet:

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."


Question 1: Is it true ? Did Darwin say that in his letter?

No idea - where did you find the quote, did it not give more details of where it originated (or rather where the website had sourced it from)?

Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?
It seems to be the case for Darwin. He believes evolution because of it's pragmatic benefit.

I don’t see anything unusual with the (alleged) statement from Darwin, it seems a fair comment by an originator or believer in a theory. All he is saying is that he doesn’t have proof (which he didn't and we still don't) however the theory is consistent with the evidence we do have.

Your phrase “pragmatic benefit” pretty much fits all theories e.g. they are only as good as the evidence that supports them and their ability to help us predict the real world.

I’m trying to think of any theory that we have proof for, that we don’t judge on its “pragmatic benefit”. (Outside maths – but mathematicians are just nutcases that refuse to believe the arrow ever hits the tortoise and travelling salesmen need help).

 

[CFLarsen]

Found this on the Internet:

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."


Question 1: Is it true ? Did Darwin say that in his letter?

Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?
It seems to be the case for Darwin. He believes evolution because of it's pragmatic benefit.

What does it matter what he thinks?

What matters is what he can prove.

Shucks, I sound like Tom Cruise in "A few good men"....

 

[Matabiri]

This is very similar to the creation of the Period Table of the Elements. Mendeleev didn't know about the electronic structure of different elements; but he arranged them into a pragmatic classification scheme. He could also make predictions about the properties of elements which had not been isolated yet.

However, the fact that Mendeleev could not explicitly justify his arrangement in terms of fundamental physics does not invalidate the periodic table.

 

[steenkh]

Re: Re: Darwin believe in evolution without proof?

What does it matter what he thinks?

What matters is what he can prove.

I beg to differ! It is probably impossible to prove a theory, but you can collect evidence that suits the theory and disproves alternative theories. This is what Darwin did in his time, and today the evidence is so overwhelming that we consider it proven, although strictly speaking, another theory might turn up that could also fit all the evidence.

Creationism is definitely not a theory that can do this - unless you count fantasies like "God created the entire universe a few minutes ago, and he equipped us all with memories and a history that is entirely consistent so that it looks as if the world is billions of years old".

 

[Asolepius]

Re: Re: Darwin believe in evolution without proof?

What does it matter what he thinks?

What matters is what he can prove.

Shucks, I sound like Tom Cruise in "A few good men"....

I really don't like the term `proof'. I think it only applies to mathematical theorems in its purest sense. The term is widely abused by the general public and the media, who interpret it as meaning something that is absolute fact. Don't forget the legal meaning though - `on the balance of probabilities'. I much prefer to rely on the body of evidence. My creationist friend asks me whether certain parts of evolution theory have been `proven'. This is not the point. There is a huge weight of evidence for evolution, and none at all for creation. A court would find the balance of evidence in its favour.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Darwin believe in evolution without proof?

I beg to differ!

OK, OK..."what evidence he has".

Sheeeshh....."bevis"....

 

[fishbob]

Re: Re: Re: Darwin believe in evolution without proof?

I really don't like the term `proof'. I think it only applies to mathematical theorems in its purest sense. The term is widely abused by the general public and the media, who interpret it as meaning something that is absolute fact. Don't forget the legal meaning though - `on the balance of probabilities'. I much prefer to rely on the body of evidence. My creationist friend asks me whether certain parts of evolution theory have been `proven'. This is not the point. There is a huge weight of evidence for evolution, and none at all for creation. A court would find the balance of evidence in its favour.

Math, law, and you forgot alcohol.

 

[Suezoled]

Take into consideration that Darwin was himself a religious man who was actually going to take a career in the church, before he was offered the opportunity to sail. When he did, he might still have believed in a god, but the idea that the bible was completely correct in terms of understanding the natural world didn't withstand honest scrutiny.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

 

[Asolepius]

Take into consideration that Darwin was himself a religious man who was actually going to take a career in the church, before he was offered the opportunity to sail. When he did, he might still have believed in a god, but the idea that the bible was completely correct in terms of understanding the natural world didn't withstand honest scrutiny.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

Thanks for reminding me about this - it is beautifully argued material. I must read the book in full.

 

[Phaycops]

Found this on the Internet:

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."


Question 1: Is it true ? Did Darwin say that in his letter?

Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?
It seems to be the case for Darwin. He believes evolution because of it's pragmatic benefit.

Hey, I have an idea. How about some context? Or at least a source that we can look at? Where was this website? Also, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

In any event, it seems to me that what Darwin was saying was that even if he didn't have proof, the way that evolution fits into other fields of study is supporting evidence in and of itself. I don't read this as saying good ol' Chuck was believing the theory without proof. Does that make sense? IOW, the "proof" comment was merely colorful language, and was not meant to be taken as him saying there is no proof for evolution.

All that still doesn't change the question of what it is you think this proves.

 

[CBL4]

I did a google search on "Thomas Thompton, darwin and letter. It turned up five sites all of which have Islamic slant. I thought perhaps it was "Thompton" was mispelled but changing the spelling did not find any pertinent links.

This appears to be a myth started by some Islamic creationist and copied by others.

CBL

 

[drkitten]

I did a google search on "Thomas Thompton, darwin and letter. It turned up five sites all of which have Islamic slant. I thought perhaps it was "Thompton" was mispelled but changing the spelling did not find any pertinent links.

This appears to be a myth started by some Islamic creationist and copied by others.

Similarly, searching for the text of the letter only yields Islamic creationist sites.

 

[CBL4]

I looked a little more and the phrase "Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs" is part of the title of Chapter XIV (MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS: MORPHOLOGY — EMBRYOLOGY — RUDIMENTARY ORGANS) of Origin of the Species. The phrase is also used in a letter from Huxley to Darwin and another letter from Darwin to Charles Lyell.

That makes it very difficult to find more about the alleged letter.

CBL

 

[pupdog]

Maybe Darwin said this on his deathbed, right after he recanted.

 

[Soapy Sam]

He would hardly have said it in a letter of 1861 then.

There are extensive collections of Darwin's (very large ) correspondence. Somebody look 'em up

 

[ppnl]

Found this on the Internet:

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."


Question 1: Is it true ? Did Darwin say that in his letter?

Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?
It seems to be the case for Darwin. He believes evolution because of it's pragmatic benefit.

Actually I don't think the scientific community accepted evolution universaly until about 1930. Well they accepted that species had changed over a long time period but there was massive disagreement over the mechanism. Thats how science works. You have different ideas that duel to the death with evidence.

 

[NarrMaster]

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."

Well, I believe in the theory of gravity, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in understanding why I don't fly away from the earth, the motions of the planets, why objects fall at the same rate, the tides, etc....

 

[JamesM]

If anyone is actually that bothered, I could go and look up The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 9 (1861), tomorrow.