Darwin a has-been?

Alex Duncan (aduncan@mail.utexas.edu)
3 Nov 1995 14:11:01 GMT

In article <hubey.815368930@pegasus.montclair.edu> H. M. Hubey,
hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu writes:

>One does not read Aristotle to learn physics. Neither does
>one read Newton to learn physics. Darwin's time is gone.
>It's like asking economics students to read Adam Smith
>or Marx. These days, through the generosity of their souls,
>and because of habit, economists still call them economists
>but "literary economists". That's one step away from
>calling Jules Verne a physicist.
>When the field becomes more developed Darwin will fade
>into where he belongs. Marx will probably be called
>an economics fiction writer, and Darwin a popularizer :-)..

WOW! Hubey boldly blazes new paths of ignorance.

Have you ever read Darwin?

Darwin is certainly outdated in a lot of ways, and was ignorant of a lot
of things we're aware of today. Frankly, that makes his accomplishment
all the more astonishing. The "Origin" is still assigned as a required
text by some of the premiere evolutionary biologists, and with good
reason. Not only is it a compelling argument for evolution (in the days
before evolution was a fact) and for natural selection as a primary
mechanism of evolutionary change, it is also a fine example of how a good
argument is constructed. When I think of what "the scientist" should be,
Darwin is the image that comes to mind. It might do you well to read
some of Darwin's work.

Alex Duncan
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1086