Posted date: 2010-02-08

Posted By : Marc

I have read On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. I found it a profound work. I really need to automate my searches, because I ended up digging back over three years to find my review of that book. I failed to note perhaps the most important single consequence of that book. And it wasn't science. In the early 19th Century, most naturalists were deists. The writings of scientists like Thomas Jefferson and political philosophers like Thomas Paine reflect a disdain for religion, but a belief in the existence of a greater being. Up to that point, no overarching theory provided an adequate explanation for the diversity of flora and fauna throughout the world.

What changed with Darwin?

To begin with, Darwin took great pains to document supporting evidence in excruciating detail prior to presenting each individual conclusion. In this manner, he was able to answer most challenges before they were even presented to him. The careful reader would be hard pressed to find any thesis without support. Next, Darwin was very reserved in the presentation of just how certain his conclusions were. In many cases, he seemed to invite others to attempt to disprove points. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he actively avoided any wording overtly attacking religion. This forced critics to make unsupported claims in order to attack Darwin. By that time, however, he had become such a giant among the great minds of the day that friends like Huxley were able to eloquently and decisively swat down detractors like so many flies.

While no claims were made by Darwin as to the origin of life, science was now able to explain so much of the natural world as to render a "creator" superfluous. Darwin allowed the intellectual a reasoned means for dispensing even with the "deist" cloak.