The Darwinian revolution

In this post I want to briefly review a series of lectures called 'The Darwinian Revolution'. The lecturer is prof. Frederick Gregory. I's a balanced and historical treatment of the subject, and the best introduction to Darwinism that I know of.

Comments;

- Gregory written the massive 'Natural science in Western History' so he knows the subject intimately. The course not only deals with the precursors to Darwin and the Origin, but also with the century that came after. It has the benefit of dealing not only with the English scene, but with European thinkers as well.

I appreciate the fact he gives us a scholarly presentation rather than a polemical one. (e.g. you know who)
In my opinion the historical approach is the only way to teach evolutionary theory. The trouble with the way it's taught to most students is a triumphalist approach. e.g. "evolution is a fact... so memorize the details." The historical approach gives you an idea of how debatable most of the main parts of the theory are. It gives you a glimpse of a time when it was still possible to question this new orthodoxy. It reminds people that many of the best scientists of the day brought pertinent criticisms to bear upon the theory.

To merely pronounce evolution as a fact is to tear the theory out of its context and thus distort the subject. Nothing as complicated as evolution can ever be a fact, as we normally think of facts. e.g. 2+2=4. There will always be more to learn about the history of living organisms on this planet, and as long as you are learning about x you can't say you have the facts about x.

I recommend the series for both creationists and evolutionists. I think it has something to offer to each. (This is one characteristic of a scholarly work; that both sides of a debate will find it illuminating and useful.)

Some comments on individual lectures;

#14. Groundwork for recovery
Gregory talks about how the idea of mutations came to the fore around 1916. Thomas Hunt Morgan said mutations can be good, bad or indifferent. i.e. as far as the survival of the organism is concerned.

- I would claim a mutation can never be beneficial, from a biblical creation viewpoint. Let's compare a genetic code of organism x to a Shakespeare sonnet. Can a copying mistake ever be beneficial? No; at least not as far as the author is concerned. If God indeed created all the original kinds, then a mutation (copying mistake) can never be a good thing, as what was created perfect has changed. That's how I see it, but maybe I'm wrong. (That this change might be part of God's providence is another question.)

Notes;
1. Darwinian Revolution - Frederick Gregory [Teaching Company/24 lectures]