Day 10 – 52 Books in 52 Weeks

After taking a short break to read Dr. Erwin Lutzer’s When a Nation Forgets God, I returned to Darwin’s The Origin of Species and Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. It is interesting to read the three together.

Throughout Dickens’ novel, you see the compassion of man. You see people of weakness who are granted mercy. Darwin, on the other hand, would say that the weaker species needs to die out. And in Lutzer’s book, he shows that by following Darwin’s “law” men lose compassion and have no mercy for others, but that there is still hope.

I’ve mentioned before that it is harder for me to comment on a novel, such as A Tale of Two Cities because I don’t want to give anything away to anyone who hasn’t yet read it. With that stated, I just want to say that it is a beautiful story. There is sorrow and pain; there is happiness and compassion… and it is all masterfully woven together. I’m a little over halfway through the book, and I’m hoping to finish it in the next few days.

The Origin of Species, on the other hand, leaves me with pages full of notes to comment on. I’ve finished chapters seven and eight which cover the topics of Instinct and Hybridism.

As he has throughout the book, he continues to use such phrases as, “Some of these statements differ from those made by the justly celebrated elder Huber, but I am convinced of their accuracy; and if I had space, I could show that they are conformable with my theory” (page 252). Yes, someone disagrees with me, but I trust my own accuracy, and if I had the time, I’d show you why, but I don’t, so you just have to trust me.

Right.

The last three chapters have left me believing that all he is doing is talking in circles. For example, chapter seven is about instinct, yet paragraph two begins, “I will not attempt any definition of instinct.” If you’re doing a research paper and you can’t attempt to define what you mean by a subject you are attempting to validate, how can anyone know what you’re talking about? So instead he goes on to discuss the difference between the undefined “instinct” and “habit.”

To show you how he talks in circles, here’s a quote from page 160. “It often happens that the larger or the smaller sized workers are the most numerous; or that both large and small are numerous, with those of an intermediate size scanty in numbers.” So which is it: are the larger or smaller the most numerous? Wait, it’s both! Who knew?

It drives me batty that his documentation of his facts are either “reserved for a future work” or there’s “not enough space” to print them or, and you have to love this one, “The reader will perhaps best appreciate the amount of difference in these workers, by my giving not the actual measurements, but a strictly accurate illustration…” (page 261). Yes, as a scientist, I just want an illustration – don’t bother with the “actual measurements.” Could you imagine a nuclear engineer building a reactor without actual measurements, but just relying on an illustration? Yeah, makes me feel safer already.

At the end of his chapter on Instinct, on page 263, he states, “…that no instinct has been produced for the exclusive good of other animals, but that each animal takes advantage of the instincts of others… all tend to corroborate the theory of natural selection.”

This poses a couple of questions for me. First, he uses the word “exclusive” hence making his theory subject to just one facet of the equation. I think of the many stories that we hear about dolphins saving humans from a shark attack; or dogs attacking other animals to protect someone. Is that an instinct that was produced exclusively for the good of others? Why else would a dolphin go up against a shark? Why else would a dog attack other animal if not to protect someone else? Why would any animal fight a bigger predator other than to protect its young or a loved one? I can’t think of another reason. There may be one, but none has come to mind in the twenty-four hours since I read this.

Next, he states that each animal takes advantage of the instincts of others. I have no doubt that is what some predators do. Wolves work in packs. One distracts the mother of their prey while the others attack from the shadows. But to state that all animals take advantage of the instinct of others leaves a big question mark. I don’t really have an answer for this – it’s just that very broad statements like that usually mean something’s amiss.

On to chapter eight and “Hybridism.” Right off the bat, I get confused. Page 264, the second paragraph of the chapter states, “…the sterility of two species when first crossed, and the sterility of the hybrids produced from them.”

He had made a similar statement in a previous chapter (mentioned in my blog), and I question it again: how can sterile species propagate?

Page 272, not only is he talking in circles again, but well, no real documentation can be shown. He says, “It has been already remarked, that the degree of fertility, but of first crosses and of hybrids, graduates from zero to perfect fertility. It is surprising in how many curious ways this gradation can be shown to exist; but only the barest outline of the facts can here be given.”

I’m not even a biologist but even I could have guessed that the degree of fertility of anything could be zero to perfect. Duh. But if he meant it climbs from zero to perfect (which I honestly don’t know since it seems unclear from the previous paragraphs), he can only show the barest outline of his supposed facts.

Page 275, more fence jumping, “…the one species having first been used as the father and then as the mother, generally differ in fertility in a small, and occasionally in a high degree.” Yup, I could have guessed that too. Could be ma or pa and it could be small or large. Hand me my diploma! I’m a genius!

Happy reading!