Talk:Inception of Darwin's theory

"Creator": WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV concerns

I'm uncomfortable with the frequent mention in this article of "the Creator's laws" (and/or similar language) and of Darwin's putative ideas about same. I believe that there are WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV concerns here.
Can we please give exact cites for all Darwin's own uses of this sort of language mentioned (as well as any quotes from other writers on this mentioned) (this will eliminate any WP:VERIFY concerns), and remove from the article any such usage which is not an exact quote (this will eliminate any WP:NPOV concerns). Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is based on reputable biographers, and reflects the views of experts on the subject. As time permits, I'll check through and cite sources more specifically. Any particular mention you had in mind? . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem. This is a scientific topic, and unless we're quoting (or paraphrasing) someone, these shouldn't appear in the articles. Religious mumbo jumbo needs to stay out. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already cited to reference 23, Notebook B. See page 98 "This might be made very strong, if we believe the Creator created by any laws, which I think is shown by the very facts of the Zoological character of these islands" and page 101 "Astronomers might formerly have said that God ordered each planet to move in its particular destiny. — In same manner God orders each animal created with certain form in certain country, but how much more simple & sublime powers let attraction act according to certain law such are inevitable consequen[ces]. Let animals be created, then by the fixed laws of generation, such will be their successors." At the time there was no distinction between science and religion, and this was Darwin arguing against miraculous creations, in favour of creation by natural laws. Desmond & Moore cover the issue on pages 212–220, specifically stating on page 218 that Darwin too came to accept that "the Creator creates by... laws", citing him as complaining that "We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe[s], to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act".[1] This is a biography about the history and context of Darwin's life, not a pure scientific topic divorced from Darwin's views at the time. . . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, D & M seem to have got their version from de Beer, and Darwin returned to the theme in 1842, writing "Doubtless it at first transcends our humble powers, to conceive laws capable of creating individual organisms, each characterised by the most exquisite workmanship and widely-extended adaptations. It accords better with [our modesty] the lowness of our faculties to suppose each must require the fiat of a creator, but in the same proportion the existence of such laws should exalt our notion of the power of the omniscient Creator". . dave souza, talk 12:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I was asked for examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History_of_Science#.22the_Creator.27s_laws.22_in_Inception_of_Darwin.27s_theory:_WP:VERIFY_and_WP:NPOV
Here are a few:
Example, from the Intro: -- "Reading about Malthus and natural law led him to apply to his search for the Creator's laws Malthusian logic of social thinking of struggle for survival with no handouts" (no cite apparent). -- Wikipedia is saying flatly here that Darwin was looking for "the Creator's laws". If he was, then we should cite this to a specific source. If he wasn't, then it's editor's POV and we should remove it.
Example -- "He was convinced by Paley's Natural Theology which set out the Teleological argument that complexity of "design" in nature proved God's role as Creator, and by the views of Paley and John Herschel that creation was by laws which science could discover, not by intermittent miracles." Let's cite that.
Example -- "Darwin was elected to the Council of the Society .... for Darwin it meant joining the respectable élite of eminent geologists developing a science dealing with the age of the earth and the Days of Creation." Cite?
Example -- "Lyell was convinced that animals were also driven to spread their territory by overpopulation, but Darwin went further in applying to his search for the Creator's laws the Whig social thinking of struggle for survival with no handouts." Cite?
- I do by the way believe that Darwin, in his earlier career at least, probably did think of himself as "looking for the Creator's laws", and I do think that cites can be produced for many of the items I'm questioning. But I do want to see those cites. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to look for them and post them here, that will help. Will sort this out in a reasonable time, rather involved with other articles just at the moment. One point, the first example you give is in the lead, which you're calling the Intro. That's a summary of the article, in accordance with WP:LEAD, and inline cites are commonly not required in the lead mention. It's an option, to be determined by talk page consensus. . dave souza, talk 21:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"the first example you give is in the lead, which you're calling the Intro. That's a summary of the article, in accordance with WP:LEAD, and inline cites are commonly not required in the lead mention." -- Well, I should think that even if material is in the lead, if there are legitimate NPOV concerns or if such material is "challenged or likely to be challenged" per WP:VERIFY, then it needs to be cited. IMHO even if there's another cite for the same material further down the page, if it occurs in the lead then we would also need to cite it there. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Checked WP:LEAD. Quoting here. I've emphasized the bits that I believe support my position. I've quoted in full to avoid suspicion that I'm quote-mining.

"The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The need for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

I would have to say that evolutionary theory represents a controversial topic par excellence, and would automatically mandate an especially high level of citation. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason you don't generally have to provide citations in the lead is that the lead is usually just a reflection (or rather a summary) of the contents of the rest of the article, and sure enough in the section "Malthus and natural law" appears the sentence: "Lyell was convinced that animals were also driven to spread their territory by overpopulation, but Darwin went further in applying to his search for the Creator's laws the Whig social thinking of struggle for survival with no handouts." So the crux of the matter is does that sentence have a valid source. Unfortunately there is no citation for that sentence or the rest of the paragraph it is in. Now, the question is can some one figure out what the source for that paragraph was? If not it is indeed subject to being challanged. On the other hand if we can find a source for it there is no need to re-cite it in the lead. I will search through the sources I have. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In general, as stated in the References section, this article is largely based on Desmond and Moore's book. I've added page references to the relevant section, and rewritten a bit to reflect more closely what they say, as well as finding a source for the words they quote from Darwin. Don't know if it's considered significant that they actually say "God's laws", which I'd stated as "the Creator's laws" in summarising their book. . dave souza, talk 10:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, dave. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Franklin

I've removed the following as it's rather distant speculation with no great significance to this topic, and the source is a dead link which isn't available on Wayback or in the Philly's archives. . dave souza, talk 12:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no direct evidence linking Darwin to Benjamin Franklin's treatise "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.." However, Franklin was a friend and colleague of both Erasmus and Robert Darwin, and it has been suggested that this work may have influenced Darwin's study of Malthus' belief on the relationship between population and subsistence. ref name="Franklin" Houston, Alan. "Tracing evolution to a founding grandfather". Philadelphia Inquirer./ref

By the way, better sources link Franklin's treatise to Malthus: am working on this. l dave souza, talk 20:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Museum of Life : mockingbirds, not finches

In Museum of Life (film) episode 1, a curator says that the mockingbirds, not the finches, were the instigator of the theory for Darwin. I don't know how to incorporate that in the article, or how to reference it. TGCP (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this issue is covered well in Sulloway, Frank J. (1982), "Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a Legend" which we use as a source. The initial impetus instigating Darwin's theory was mainly from the South American fossils, the two species of rheas, the mockingbirds and the tortoises, in that order. The first record of him doubting that species were fixed relates to the mockingbirds and the Falklands fox, see Second voyage of HMS Beagle' for that issue. It's probably worth expanding the Background section of this article to give an outline of that point, wo will take that on board, . . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Eventually! Can't promise early action on this, so edits by others will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 20:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inception of Darwin's theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227014518/http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/moore-devilschaplain.pdf to http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/moore-devilschaplain.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222020720/http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml to http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)