Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kerry edwards
I made it about halfway thru the Origin of Species a few years ago. I found his suggestion that the deliberate modification of pigeons by humans might be repeated by natural conditions to be a compelling line of thought. It's a very simple proposition which opens up the possibilities of evolution.
It's odd that science majors do not routinely read the classic texts in their field. I'm betting few Physics majors have ever read Newton. That would never happen in the Humanities.
|
I tried reading Newton's "Principia" when I was taking lots of math and physics. I found him not much more difficult a writer than Darwin. Newton was the last of the pre-scientific natural philosophy giants and Darwin, the last of the biologists who felt badly for the theological rift.
At least Newton preferred to be succinct while Darwin never lacked for more words than necessary. My problem with Newton was symbology rather than concept. With Darwin, I was already convinced of the argument but I just haven't the patience for the obscure verbosity affected by 19th century Brits.
I can only admire and feel sympathy for the integrity of these men. Their intellectual honesty destroyed that which gave their contemporaries hope. What a burden to assume! And for what?
B