Charles Darwin - an Extraordinary Man
69Darwin
An Ordinary Boy
Charles Darwin was born into a well-off family. His father was a physician and his mother died when he was 8 years old. His older sisters helped raise him.
Charles said about his schooling: 'Nothing could have been worse for the development of my mind than Dr Butler's school'. The traditional classics subjects like Greek and Latin bored him.
He preferred being out of the classroom, immersed in the natural world. He was a compulsive collector, of coins, shells, minerals and particularly beetles. 'The passion for collecting, which leads a man to be a systematic naturalist...was very strong in me.'
Charles and his older brother built a chemistry lab in a tool-shed. They read chemistry books and made gases and compounds late into the night. 'This was the best part of my education at school, for it showed me practically the meaning of experimental [hands-on] science.' The headmaster ridiculed him for 'wasting time on a useless subject.'
His family lived in a big house with vast gardens on a hill overlooking the river. He enjoyed fishing and taking long walks in the gardens. He became interested in outdoor sports, especially shooting. He spent time hunting small birds and animals.
Charles was told by his father, 'You care nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching; and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.' He wanted his son to have a career, not be rich and idle.
Charles Darwin Facts
Born: 12 February 1809
Birthplace: Shrewsbury, England
Qualifications: 1831 BA (Theology), Christ's College, Cambridge
Unpaid work: Naturalist on 5-year voyage of Beagle, 1831-1836
Career: Scientist and author - biology & geology
Most important publication: Origin of Species, 1859
Authored: over 20 books
Lifelong interest: collecting beetles
Married: Emma Wedgewood, in 1839
Children: 10 children; 3 died before maturity
Most famous for: Theory of evolution by natural selection
Awards: 1854 Royal Medal, Royal Society of London
1864 Copley Medal (Royal Society's biggest honour)
1877 Honorary Doctorate, Cambridge University
Died: 19 April 1882
Receiving an Education
At age of 16, Charles was sent to university to study medicine at Edinburgh University.
In those days, no anesthetic was used for surgery, including the amputation of limbs. Surgery was painful, bloody and dangerous. Hearing patients scream haunted and repelled him.
He transferred to Christ's College, Cambridge to study theology (religion) for the next three years. In his spare time, he learnt to stuff birds, collect and dissect tiny marine creatures and studied earthworms. His interest in geology and botany caught the attention of his professors, who introduced him to scientists.
One of his professors took him on a geology field trip to Wales. Another recommended Charles for a sea voyage to circumnavigate the world. An unpaid naturalist was required to collect plant and animal specimens.
Charles needed his father's financial support, and his father needed some convincing to allow him to go, especially after he had already invested in his son's education and he wanted him to settle down and start a career.
Voyage of the Beagle
Branching Evolution
Beagle Voyage
Darwin collected 1,529 species and 3,907 other specimens on his voyage.
The Trip that Determined His Career
he Beagle was cramped and Charles suffered terribly from seasickness. He spent more than 3 years on land, exploring foreign lands with exotic plants and animals. The Beagle travelled around South America and the Galapagos Islands, and also visited Australia and New Zealand.
Charles was amazed at everything he saw at sea, including an octopus that could change colour and squirt dark ink. 'A child with a new toy could not be more delighted,' Captain Fitzroy said about Darwin. Fitzroy was of noble birth and was also a christian.
His hunting and animal trapping skills were a necessity, for collecting animal specimens as well as providing fresh food for the ship's crew. Over 1,500 specimens, including fossils, plants and rocks were meticulously labelled and shipped back to England in batches. He recorded observations of natural history in 18 notebooks.
At first he saw himself as a half-trained amateur for the experts back in England. His confidence grew when he learned that naturalists back home were dependent on him for specimens of new species.
He witnessed a volcanic eruption, earthquakes that shifted land and observed layers of seashells on cliffs high above sea level.
His confidence as a scientific thinker started to emerge. He started to question everything he had believed in - that God made set species that never changed on an Earth less than 6,000 years old.
The huge diversity of species and changing landscape contradicted the bible. He began thinking about what he called the 'mystery of mysteries' - how new species came about. No longer aimless, he resolved to figure out this mystery.
He witnessed slave-trade and was disgusted. He argued with Fitzroy, who supported slavery.
Charles was amazed at the 'savages' in Tierra del Fuego - naked with long hair, with hideous shouts. 'Their appearance was so strange , that it was scarcely like that of earthly inhabitants.' Charles was struck with the thought, 'such were our ancestors.'
Common Origins
Science History Timeline
1735 Living things classified according to 'divine order of God's creation'; humans named Homo sapiens meaning 'wise man'; humans grouped with apes - Linnaeus
1749 Natural history book with idea that all living things modified from single ancestor through natural laws. With no proof, was forced to publicly withdraw views - Leclerc
1809 Theory of evolution published, but easily discredited (wrong ideas were evolution moves from simple to complex; humans are ultimate perfection; animals adapt because want to) - de Lamarck
1817 Fossils of creatures no longer living are extinct (had wrong idea thought that Earth shaped by catastrophes, the last one being biblical flood) - Cuvier
1830 Reshaping of Earth is by gradual changes, not 'major catastrophes' - Lyell
1831 Beagle voyage around world, 5-years, evidence that Lyell correct - Darwin
1842 Darwin writes first essay on evolution by natural selection
1846 Anesthetic discovered - Morton
1859 Origin of Species published - how new species are formed by 'natural selection' - Darwin
1864 Disease causing germs (bacteria) discovered - Pasteur
1865 Inheritance - Mendel
1869 DNA discovered - Meischer
1870 Need for sterile surgery discovered - Lister
1871 Descent of Man published - humans share common ancestor with apes - Darwin
1872 The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals published - sparked interest in animal behaviour - Darwin
1880 The Power of Movement in Plants published - climbing plants evolved ability to grow upwards to get more sunlight - Darwin
1880 Seismograph invented - Milne
1896 Radioactivity in uranium discovered - Becquerel
1905 Relativity Theory - Einstein
1905 Radiometric dating invented (to date rocks) - Rutherford
1909 Discovery of well-preserved fossils - Walcott
1912 Continental Drift - Wegener
1927 Big Bang Theory - Lemaitre
1928 Penicillin discovered - Fleming
1931 Electron microscope invented - Knott & Ruska
1943 DNA's role in inheritance - Avery
1953 Structure of DNA - Crick & Watson
1955 Vaccine against polio - Salk
1977 First home computers hit market
1978 First IVF baby born
1990's to present - Human ancestry projects
2003 Human Genome Project completed
A Professional Scientist
On his return to England, the massive collection of specimens was sorted and sent to experts for identification and drawings. He was invited to speak to leading scientists, and published books about his travels. He was soon famous in London and beyond.
Charles later wrote in his Autobiography 'The voyage of the Beagle has been by far the most important event in my life, and has determined my whole career.'
His new ideas about evolution, he kept private. He worked on his theory of evolution by natural selection for more than 20 years. He knew that his ideas would challenge strongly held beliefs, and he had to back up his claims with evidence. Putting the evidence in order would be a time-consuming process.
He lost his zeal for shooting, later declaring it 'useless slaughter.' Instead he worked on his theories. "I discovered...that the pleasure of observing and reasoning was a much higher one than that of skill and sport."
He observed human and ape behaviour. He was fascinated with a tame orangutan called Jenny, who had human-like behaviour and was convinced animals have memory and emotions. This was contrasted with the human wild 'savages' he'd seen at sea.
He did studies on pigeon and plant breeding, and dissected barnacles. The barnacles revealed surprises under the microscope - strange sexual arrangements that had meaning from an evolutionary sense, but were ridiculous if one was looking for God's wisdom in nature. Most barnacles were hermaphrodites; some were male or female; some males had two penises; some females had 'two little pockets, in each of which she kept a little husband.'
He published books on his research. His experimental research provided further evidence to his theory of evolution, which he kept private for twenty years.
He eventually published the The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. He was jolted into going public with his theory, as another naturalist, Wallace, had come up with near-identical ideas. He didn't discuss human origins until a later publication, The Descent of Man.
Some scientists supported him; others ridiculed him. The church opposed him. The Origin of Species was sold out on the day of publication, and again on reprint.
Many people were shocked. Humans were considered superior to animals, according to teachings from the bible. Animals were referred to as 'brutes.' To imply that humans were another animal was an insult in Victorian times.
Charles paid so much attention to evidence, that his theory still stands today. It is even more rock solid with more discoveries of fossils and genetics (genetic inheritance was not yet understood in Charles' time, which makes it even more remarkable at how insightful he was).
In his autobiography, he wrote: 'My views have often been grossly misinterpreted, bitterly opposed and ridiculed.'
'My chief enjoyment and sole employment throughout life has been scientific work; and the excitement from such work makes me for the time forget, or drives quite away, my daily discomfort.' (of his chronic health problems).
Darwin's Finches
Controversial Best-sellers
The Origin of Species had two main points about evolution:
- Today's plants and animals come from earlier plants and animals
- That differences are from small changes arising from a process called natural selection.
The Descent of Man - where Darwin compared humans with apes caused an uproar, with cartoons depicting him as a gorilla. Darwin said that humans and apes have a common ancestor, not that humans were descended from apes.
Marriage and Family
At age 29, Charles made a pros and cons list of marriage. Marriage was in favour and he asked his cousin, Emma Wedgewood. Although marrying a cousin was common in Victorian days, the Darwins and Wedgewoods had at least four generations of intermarriage between cousins.
Emma had studied piano in Paris with the famous pianist Chopin. Charles did not have much in the way of a musical ear. Emma about Charles, 'He is the most transparent man I ever saw and every word expresses his real thoughts.'
Charles and Emma lived in Down House, in Downe, a village outside London. They produced ten children. Three children died before maturity.
Their home, Down House had large gardens, farmyard animals, pet dogs, orchards and a deep well for drinking water. There was no bathroom in the house, nor any hot water except in the kitchen.
They hired staff, such as maids and gardeners. Charles treated his staff respectfully. He scolded the head gardener for abusing the second gardener. Charles was good-natured, but spoke out forcefully if he witnessed cruelty to animals or people.
They were more liberal parents than most Victorian families that didn't mind the children using the furniture for playing with or an untidy house. The maid was only asked to tidy it if it became unbearably messy.
Charles and Emma encouraged play and free-thinking. Emma played a galloping tune on the piano, while the children stomped noisily around the house. Charles was very tolerant of the children's noise and antics, and never told them to be quiet so he could work. He worked from home, and only his study was out-of-bounds (as it hard sharp blades for dissections).
When their child Annie died, Charles wrote an essay in her memory, and Emma kept a box of Annie's writing and sewing things. Annie was rarely mentioned again, though Emma and Charles each carried private pain. In his old age, he wrote: 'Tears still come to me when I think of her sweet ways.'
There were never any quarrels, but nor did the family discuss their personal and private issues issues. The children acquired their parents' reticence. They were so reserved that conversation was often difficult. They presented an image of ease and contentment to the outside world.
Human and Ape Cousins
Independent Thinker
"I am not apt to follow blindly the lead of other men. I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free, so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it."
Charles Darwin
Paradox of Suffering
Charles had been robust and healthy in his youth and his health problems started on the Beagle. His symptoms including frequent vomiting, heart palpitations, weakness and dizzy spells and 'dying sensations.'
My speculation that accounts for his symptoms is that he suffered an anxiety disorder and food intolerances (as experienced some relief with dietary changes).
It is likely that not being able to share his personal thoughts on faith and his most important ideas with Emma caused him great anxiety. He knew there would be opposition from the church. He told his friend Joseph Hooker, a fellow scientist, that discussing his belief in evolution was 'like confessing a murder.'
His children were unaware of his private torment over his faith. He stopped attending church with the rest of the family, but otherwise was silent about his personal struggle.
Charles and Emma were particularly hard hit by the death of their 10-year old daughter, Annie, probably of tuberculosis. Charles wrote in a private memorial of Annie, 'We have lost the joy of our household, and the solace of our old age: she must have known how we loved her...'
Charles fretted whether marrying a cousin was the reason for their health problems and three children dying. Their tenth child was slow in development, and appeared to have what we now call Down Syndrome. Charles was mourning his death when a public meeting was called by Bishop Wilberforce to attack Darwin's theory.
The whole family was frequently ill. In Victorian times, 1 in 5 children died in their first year of age, and many women died during childbirth.
Modern studies show that inbreeding carries a higher risk of health problems, death and infertility. Three of Charles and Emma's surviving children were infertile.
Twenty-six years after Annie's death, in 1877, it was discovered that bacteria can cause infectious disease like tuberculosis.
Charles wrote: 'I well remember saying to myself twenty and thirty years ago, that if ever the origin of any infectious disease could be proved, it would be the greatest triumph to science; and now I rejoice to have seen the triumph.'
Bacteria, considered the least of living things, were also the mightiest.
Human Species
Small Regrets
"If I had to live my life again I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied could thus have been kept active through use."
Charles Darwin
Losing Faith
Emma was a christian. She didn't see a need to question her faith.
When Charles started on his voyage with the Beagle, he was a newly qualified to become an Anglican minister. During the voyage, making his observations, he started to question his faith. When he saw the marsupials in Australia, compared to placental mammals elsewhere, he thought it was like two 'Creators' had been at work.
He saw ground movement from earthquakes, and witnessed a volcanic eruption. He saw bands of seashells in cliffs high above sea level. He had been reading a new book in geology by Lyell about a gradually changing earth, and realised Lyell was right. Previously it was believed that Noah's flood from the bible laid down fossils.
He dug up huge bones from extinct fossils - which were later reported to be important finds.
The huge diversification of species along with species that no longer existed meant that it couldn't be true what the church taught - that God made fixed species of animals that never changed.
Charles expressed his doubts about his faith before they married, Emma was upset and wrote a letter pleading him to reconsider, as she feared a 'painful void' between them. Years later he wrote on the fold of the letter, 'Know when I am dead, that I have cried and kissed many times over this. C.D.'
Emma accepted the christian doctrine that sickness and pain result from sin and was for moral improvement. To question God was to question God's wisdom.
Emma refused to discuss Charles' doubts and evolution. The 'painful void' remained throughout their marriage, despite their devotion to each other. After his death, Emma said to her son, 'Your father's opinion that all morality is grown up by evolution is painful to me.'
For Charles, death and suffering made sense from an evolutionary perspective, but not with God. He was puzzled by the paradox of diversity and death, beauty and pain. 'What advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?'
He'd observed the cruel paradox of the natural world - death and survival, beauty and cruelty like the wasp-like insect that fed on the flesh of living caterpillars. It made sense from an evolutionary sense, but didn't make sense with the teachings in the bible.
Charles reflected:
'I gradually came to disbelieve Christianity as a devine revelation.'
'... I was very unwilling to give up my belief...disbelief crept over me at very slow rate...(I) have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." He said this process was complete at age 40.
'The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.'
Movie on Darwin's Struggles
I Recommend
 | Amazon Price: $1.00 List Price: $15.00 |
The movie Creation, released in 2009, is a drama about the struggles Darwin experienced losing his daughter and his faith. I found this movie touching, and it helped with appreciation of what life was like in Victorian English times. It portrayed Darwin as a family man, with internal private conflicts.
My only criticism is that if one had absolutely no background, then it might have been a bit confusing in places. Knowing a few basics about Darwin, like reading this hub is helpful.
Struggle for Existence
The numbers game:
Out of HUNDREDS of froglets:
- MOST are eaten by predators;
- MANY die from sickness;
- SOME die from starvation;
- ONLY 1 or 2 live long enough to breed
Frogs have hundreds of babies but only a few survive!If all the froglets survived, the world would be knee-deep in frogs within 10 years.
Evolution Revolution - Robert Winston
Evolution lives on after Death
Charles died at the age of 73 and was buried in Westminster Abbey, the most famous church in England. It is the scene of the coronation of English monarchs and many famous English citizens are buried there.
The year before he died, he wrote his autobiography, a private memoir to his family, which is now public.
His controversial book, The Origin of Species, is one of the few books from the Victorian era to still be published today. Conflict between science and religion continues. These conflicts result from misconceptions about evolution.
Politics of anti-evolutionists
Evolution & Unintelligent Design
 | Amazon Price: $18.00 List Price: $27.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $1.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $17.00 List Price: $27.95 |
References
Autobiography of Charles Darwin
Annie's Box - Charles Darwin, his Daughter and Human Evolution, Randal Keynes
Charles Darwin, Heidi Moore
The Rough Guide to Evolution - Mark Pallen
Charles Darwin - The Man and His Influence, Peter Bowler
Charles Darwin's Big Idea - The Revolutionary Theory of Evolution, Robin Steward
Charles Darwin and the Origin of the Species, Jim Whiting
CommentsLoading...
Juicy data, Baileybear. Well done. A work of art.
Thanks rotl. I was most intrigued when I read about Darwin. Sadly, there's a lot of negative, ignorant, biased stuff on the web about him
Thanks lonestar. The biography 'Annie's Box' written by his great-great-grandson is a fascinating read. He used the many letters and diaries of Darwin and Emma to piece together their life.
Fabulous job Baileybear...I very much enjoyed this honest account of Darwin. His natural curiosity was evident from a young age it seems. I was pretty impressed that he and his brother built a chemistry lab in the tool-shed, making 'gases and compounds' into the night. I don't think too many parents would be keen on that idea..lol.
I'm also struck by that early painting of him and how unlike Hitler he is...;)
Yes, I love the picture of Darwin in his younger years! He actually looked intelligent (for a blond)!
You did a lot of work on this hub and it shows. It's excellent. I did find one passage that has a grammar error, but I know you will correct it. Sorry, I can't help myself. I'm a closet copy editor.
"It made sense from an evolutionary sense, but was didn't make sense with the teachings in the bible."
Is that "was" supposed to be in that sentence?
It's a beautiful hub and I learned some new things today, thanks!
Jane, it was fun to research. I thought it was ironic how the headmaster said that chemistry was a 'useless' subject, given the huge role chemistry has had in "modern" living - at a cost of course! And schools in those days didn't believe in doing practical experiments to help reinforce learning. Charles was all practical, and his thinking developed later (but always based is findings on practical evidence). He didn't see any evidence for God, that's why he quit believing.
I see the Darwin-haters pick a pic of Darwin as an old man. That Darwin-Hitler hybrid was just disgusting. I have to wonder sometimes if some people have more than 1 brain cell to rub together!
Austinstar - good spotting; I always miss things when I proof-read my own work, and hubby won't read my hubs. You're welcome to proof-read them all if you like! I don't mind someone correcting me if I know they are trying to help me, not attack.
Had to laugh when the Darwin-hater attacked you for a grammatical error and spelled 'grammar' wrong (and at least one other word!). Obviously hit some nerves.
Just have a few finishing touches to add - links & a few info boxes. This hub got culled - it was twice as long, but I didn't want to split it in two, as each part would depend on other part.
Did you see that Gallup Poll this week? I was shocked at what a low per cent of people there are that agree with Darwin.
A most enjoyable read, Baileybear. It seems you do put your heart into research. If nothing else James has inspired this most excellent hub of yours. He seems to be good at getting people to write about Darwin. Not all of them however have done as good and as decent a job as you have done. Jane calls your work an honest account. I find I must agree.
Excellent hub,very scholarly and convincing.
Yea, it's like having formal training in photography and English. (I minored in both). I can't look at anything now without the flaws jumping out at me. Very distracting sometimes when I'm trying to understand the gist of a thing rather than the construction of it.
And there are some people like Wayne Brown for instance, who has so many grammatical errors I can't list them all, but he is still fun to read. And for sure, I'm not perfect and don't spot all of my errors either. I depend on MS Word to catch a lot of them.
But back to the subject at hand. I really appreciate this hub simply because you are presenting it in an informative way. It is a concise and sometimes amusing look at a man that simply told the truth in spite of ignorance around him and he was right. Darwin paved the way for science. He introduced the method of "free thinking" which, in my opinion, was his greatest contribution to humanity!
Thanks for writing, yet, another great hub on the life of Darwin. I guess his research and publications were the most damning evidence against the long-held view that God had created all species and the earth from fiat, 6000 years ago.
Very nicely done, Baileybear. An honest man who sought nothing less than truth. And he got it right.
Perhaps some creationists out there reading this will learn to see the man in more than one dimension, rather than a caricature of their nightmares.
"I am not apt to follow blindly the lead of other men. I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free, so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it."
Excellent quote. If only more minds thought this way--imagine how different the world would be!
In spite of all the death and problems of that age, it must have been a fascinating time to be alive, to see natural science uncover the roots of so many mysteries that were foundational to the human experience--disease, genetics, evolution.
It would have been equally fascinating to see the supernatural explanations of old crumble before the power of modern science. Imagine believing your entire life that disease was a punishment for sin, and then one day learning that it was really caused not by a superior being, but by inferior ones, and poor sanitation and hygiene. Truly amazing developments.
FCEtier - I don't follow polls. Is that in America? Wouldn't surprise me.
Rod, actually, this is what I originally intended to write, before getting side-tracked with James - the other one was written because of him, not this one.
ram_m - thankyou. I hope it will help put truthful and correct information out there to counter the lies spread about Darwin. Some of the garbage out there is quite shocking & offensive - claims that Darwin was a psychopath etc (all propaganda from the creationist political groups, of course)
Austinstar - I was a good at essay writing at school, which came in handy when I studied science at uni, as they wanted essays for exams in biology & earth science.
I learnt more about grammar in German language class than English class. Of course, that was all years ago. Winning an Australasian prize for an essay I wrote a few years ago on mental health gave me confidence to start writing again. Hubby found hubpages for me, as I was keen to write magazine style articles with freedom of topics, but wasn't sure how to go about it.
I'm sure I break all the rules with grammar, but I think my writing voice is starting to emerge. I agree that numerous errors is distracting, but I still miss things even if I've spell checked & read several times. I keep intending to go back over all my hubs and clean up any ugly grammar etc, but somehow I never get around to that - much more fun writing new hubs.
getitrite - yes, his detailed research and observations that he published was the turning point, and why organised religion hates him so much (because indirectly, they get exposed as nothing but mythology).
Curious too, how he actually trained to be a church minister, but the voyage came up, and he got to go with his natural passion.
I think he's an incredibly brave man to be a pioneer in presenting science that challenged a long-held view. And what is more remarkable, is that he didn't have knowledge of genetics back then, although, he was definitely on the right track.
Secularist - I admire Darwin greatly. I had no opinion on him previously, as I knew nothing much about him (only knew about evolution, having studied science).
He represents a great thinker - open-minded, looks for evidence. Like me, he gave away christianity, because he found the reality of the world didn't match the christian story and he never found evidence for God.
It seems religion is a powerful force, as people are still regurgitating the same false arguments as back in Darwin's day, 200 years ago. This is after correct information is widely available, and science has only developed more and supports and improves on what Darwin originally came up with. Sadly, religious activists are attempting to destroy confidence & credibility in science.
Fair enough, Baileybear.
'The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.'
I found this quote to be the most fascinating. As dogmatic as creationists get, they should realized that even Darwin said, "I don't know the origins."
Creationists don't know either. Many theories try to create a link between science and religion--and it isn't that hard if one admits, "I don't know." It allows for the liberal education any mind requires to try to answer questions that continue to be unresolved.
Rod, I could write so much about Darwin, but I think it would be best to direct to someone that has written a fantastic account in the book "Annie's box" - some very interesting stories, like when Darwin was urged to see a psychic that could see his insides (he had gastrointestinal problems). He was skeptical, but finally agreed. He decided to test the psychic. He put a bank note in an envelope and said he would be happy to receive a reading of his insides, but would first like to know the number of the banknote in the envelope. Of course the psychic was unable to, and proceeded to give him the most revolting 'reading' of his insides!
Great Hub, BaileyBear - He was a great scientist, worthy of mention alongside the likes of Galileo and Newton. As a biologist, I raised a glass or two on his 200th birthday!
Don't worry about the writing - you have a nice, easy voice and a nice flow to the words, so the rest will follow. I enjoyed the read very much :)
ranslam - Darwin conducted himself with great dignity - he didn't get wrapped up in the evolution/science debate - he went straight back to work, gathering more evidence & publishing more books (each would have made him famous in their own right, but ultimately added more weight to evolution).
The church were cruel and viscous, along with some religious scientists, including his ex-professors that previously admired him.
He never said awful things about the church, just that he saw no evidence for God and it was his opinion that 'there was no (christian) revelation.'
And, despite knowing so much, he was willing to admit that there is no certainty (unlike the apologists who pretend they have all the facts and are never wrong).
Sufidreamer - thanks for the feedback about my writing style. Even when I had to write an essay at uni, I would take something complex and break it down for the layperson. It's academic arrogance when people think they have to write "above" everyone to make out they are intelligent.
I recall having to write a 10,000 word essay on the oxides & hydroxides of manganese - imagine all the boring journals I had to wade through for that! This was back in the days when I had to physically dig out journals - the internet was only very primitive back then. I've been enjoying revisiting science and catch up with the many developments in my break from science - I've written at least one science hub, and hope to write more.
Some considered Darwin to be a genius. I'm not sure if this is true, but certainly he was at least gifted, and very advanced for his time. What makes him more accessible, is that he made practical observations that could be understood by the layperson. Whereas Einstein was more abstract that even I don't understand much of what he said!
Walter Isaacson's bio on Einstein is a wonderful read...a little bit dry, at times...but the last chapter and what happened to Einstein's brain after his death are strange.
As for the grade level of a writer's voice, one can always use the Flesch/Kincaid levels available @ your tools option to indicate at what grade level your writing is reaching--as a creative writer/teacher--we use this tool all the time to see where an author's voice is located in academia.
Interestingly, most popular authors write at a fourth grade level--it makes for easy access to ideas and concepts.
As for writing academically, it has often made me chuckle when technicians write over the heads of their audience only confusing them instead of bringing understanding to the masses.
Einstein's life was a good example of a complex mind trying to live a simple life--and making it work--even though he felt his life not complete in solving the ultimate mysteries. Ahh, but that would be a different hub...lol.
Ranslam - I've just added a link "Darwin - Genius or Plodder" to my hub. I believe he was a different kind of thinker to others like Einstein - I actually think Darwin was a 'plodder' (ie diligently put the hard yards in) rather than a 'genius.'
Yes, I came across that grading via another hub, and apparently I am targeting readers of approx 14-15 years literacy level, which reaches a wide audience, apparently.
Some speculate that Darwin had Asperger's Syndrome. It is possible, but none of the sources I read indicated that Darwin experienced difficulty with social skills (just unverified stuff over net saying he had stutter and expressed himself better in writing than in person).
He certainly had strong obsessive-compulsive traits, an anxious temperament and was a 'concrete' thinker & had lop-sided abilities like many with AS. But I don't think it's clear whether he had AS.
All things can be presented in a way that is understood. I have difficulty with advanced maths, and most physics is bogged down with maths. But if explained in a way that draws out the concepts and makes them understandable to the layperson, physics can be fascinating.
I intend to write more science hubs since "purging" myself of memoir hubs. I like that I can chop and change as I please.
BB, I hope I didn't mean to sound fussy over the construction of this wonderful hub. You DO have a great voice! I wish I could write as easily as you and Jane Bovary. I get very tied up with sentence structure and nouns and adverbs and the truth is that it is just a waste of time.
Like a photograph, an amateur can snap a pic that is just totally awesome and not know one whit about aperture sizes and shutter speeds. Ansel Adams once told a prospective customer how to recognize a good photographer - "By his photographs, of course!"
And I recognize a good hub when I see it too. This is a good hub. Well written and thank you.
Austinstar - thanks for the encouragement. I used to be a perfectionist (my Dutch father is) and it was extremely unhealthy for me, trying to make things perfect. It was very liberating for me to let go of my 'need' to be perfect and instead go with my intuition.
I did this with music, when I moved from classical piano (and fretting over 'mistakes') to improvising on piano (where 'mistakes' are creative inventions). Did the same when I dabbled in painting - I enjoy doing abstract more.
I don't let the perfectionist beast back into my life - I'm happier living with imperfection. My husband and child have perfectionist tendencies too - but instead of nearly killing themselves with exhaustion trying to 'perfect' it; they wouldn't start a project at all. My husband now realises he may as well build his model trucks, even though they are not as 'perfect' as he would like, simply for the process of enjoyment.
I can't see myself writing a book, as such a huge project would become a chore. At least with hubs, I can indulge in a short project of my interest.
But those, unwashed dishes won't wash themselves unfortunately (they've been sitting there since last night; my father has to get all work done first, otherwise it makes him anxious). I no longer feel guilty that our house is never immaculate. I don't fret about my writing, or else I wouldn't write at all.
I actually work for the image library of a publishing company - I get to look at nice images all day - has technical stuff which I find interesting and also uses my natural visual skills. I'm happy to do visual checks on images. Now proof-reading - that would be very tedious for me.
Now, must resist the urge to reply to comments write now and leave them until later
Have added some links and some additional info to hub
Baileybear, it sounds like Darwin really did have an open mind and used the scientific method on the psychic thus proving to his own satisfaction that the psychic wasn't for real. I like it!
Rod, there were lots of great stories in Annie's Box.
I found reading his story fascinating, as I had drawn a lot of the same kinds of conclusions myself - unsatisfactory explanation for pain & suffering; some creatures are butt ugly, scary or dangerous; so many creatures; the only thing creationists go on is a belief (zero concrete evidence); earth is older than bible says; etc.
I thought is was interesting how he joked about 2 different creators when it came to Australia. Actually, it was Australia's wildlife that got me looking at evolution again, then venturing into the religious forums to get the same antagonism, threats of hell & zero answers again - they all believe in an invisible being they never saw just like I used to.
Baileybear, I remember going to this petting zoo with my nieces and sister and brother-in-law some years ago. My nieces thought lizards were horrible, ugly creatures because they had scales and didn't conform to the impressions of beauty my nieces had at the time. I gave them my own view that they were attractive creatures and that there was beauty in the scales and also unexpected color if you looked closely. They looked and nodded. It was only my opinion. I didn't think anything would come of it.
A year later they had moved to a pretty little fishing village. I visited them and my nieces couldn't wait to tell me all about the blue-tongue who visits their back yard and the water dragon they see on occasion. To this day I wonder if I helped turn them into junior naturalists. I am proud of my nieces and very happy with the way they are being raised.
It has been a while since I went bushwalking. I hope to go soon.
Rod, I like lizards. In my job, I look at lots of images of Australian wildlife. I like the mammals and lizards the best. Some of them have golden eyes, some bronze, some green & I saw one that had light purple eyes. The dragons are cool how they change colour.
I really like seeing colourful birds, lizards and frogs in the wild. I've only seen one wild snake, a poisonous one, so I got out of its way fast. I've seen a wild platypus that comes and goes from a wildlife centre - much smaller than I expected. We get flying foxes fly over. I think their faces look like dog's faces (some of the cave bats have ugly faces, I think).
NZ doesn't have much wildlife. I'm not so keen on spiders & other creepy crawlies (always been a bit scared of spiders - I think mainly the sensation of them crawling is horrible to me).
We got a blue-tongue after one visited our garden for several days. We were told they are very easy to look after. Now that he's full-grown, he only wants food once or twice a week - very low maintenance.
I think the sugar-gliders are cute. I see they are popular pets in the US, but they aren't fed the correct food, and suffer fragile bones & other problems from malnutrition. I hate it when people treat animals as commodities.
Baileybear, I too hate it when people treat animals as commodities. There are sugar-gliders that come into my dad's backyard but they come and go as they please. They're not pets and belong to the forest which is next door. Sugar-gliders do have sweet little faces. I am not so keen on spiders and do prefer lizards and birds. Blue-tongues are good to see as are water dragons. Sounds like you have a nice job.
Rod, I get the impression when people that consider themselves 'superior' to animals are offended at being called an animal, that they thing animals are their for their own use ie to hunt, eat etc.
How many rats have died to provide insight into human diseases etc? Yes, because humans are animals, they have similar body anatomy to other animals, hence vets and animal behaviourists now exist thanks to Darwin's ideas.
Imagine if modern medicine was still like it was 200 years ago in Darwin's time - no knowledge of genetics, microbes, anaethesia, sterile conditions, immune system, IVF etc etc. Now believers in God just say they are trusting God works through the doctors (even though most doctors believe evolution).
Scorpions are my nemesis. Do you have them in NZ? If not, I'm going to start packing and move there. Do you have a spare room? Do they need blood bankers?
Seriously, this part of Texas is so full of scorpions I'm scared to walk barefooted in my living room! I've been stung twice in my own bed and now I shake out the covers every night before getting in. (shuddering)
Austinstar, Nah, NZ doesn't have much at all - in the way of non-poisonous & poisonous animals. My dad is anaphylactic (sp?) to bees.
There are scorpions in Oz - I've never seen one. Not sure if just in certain areas.
It was funny when our dog first saw a wallaby. We were in the car and a wallaby hopped past. Our dog had his head out the window and just stared. It's like we could see the cogs in his head going around, like he was thinking, "what the heck is that? It hops like a rabbit, but doesn't smell like a rabbit, but it's big like me."
Rod, the cat, dog and lizard all enjoyed roast turkey for xmas lunch
In terms of the turkey dinner, good for the cat, the dog and the lizard.
Maybe your dog thought the wallaby was a giant mouse like in the Warner Bros cartoons. Some dogs are good mousers, they have that bred into them but to take on a hopping mouse THAT size ...Wooo! Shades of Sylvester! (a cartoon cat claiming to be a good mouser.)
I read somewhere that the sting of most scorpions isn't fatal. It would be my luck however to come across a scorpion whose sting really can kill.
Rod, our lizard is a fuss-pot, and only likes banana & chicken & soaked cat-biscuits. He wolfed turkey down too. He used to eat crickets, but got too lazy to chase them.
Cat is moderately fussy, ie won't eat fresh fish, but likes canned. Dog will eat anything (including cat poo & his own poo - ugghh!)
Ok, where is Oz? Is there a New Zealand and an Old Zealand?
Bee venom and scorpion venom are somewhat related and if your Dad is anaphalactic to bees, he could be to scorpions too although scorpions are in the spider family.
About 8 people a year die from scorpion stings. Mostly old people and infants. That's in the U.S. though. Don't know about worldwide.
Our Christmas is tomorrow and I have to work. You guys are a day ahead, please call me with the lottery results and I will share the proceeds, OK?
nah, call slang name for Australia is Aussie, or Oz. Australia is a huge continent with many unique animals. New Zealand is smaller islands between Australia & Antarctica.
Hello BB. The comments you have received on this excellent treatment of Darwin shows that good articles, with super graphics, will get the attention they deserve. You will have read, of course, that Darwin may have been suffering from Chaga's Disease. This terrible infirmity has become a scourge in Mexico and all points south. Thanks for following me, by the way; I have reciprocated and also enjoyed the "old men" hubs. Bob
diogenes - I very much enjoyed your fossil hub. Yes, I read that a speculation was Chaga's. He managed to be very productive despite being ill so much.
Baileybear said, "It's academic arrogance when people think they have to write 'above' everyone to make out they are intelligent."
My reply:
That hits a nerve! Many textbook writers fall into the "ego-pumping" category, especially mathematicians. And in the area of math, those who write calculus textbooks seem to be the worst offenders. The basics of calculus are very simple and easy, yet you wouldn't know that by reading any of the entry-level college textbooks on the subject. My favorite book on the subject was a 1910 bestseller, "Calculus Made Easy" by Sylvanus P. Thompson. It has been through a surprising number of reprints since that date a century ago. I highly recommend it.
And I highly recommend anyone writing a textbook take courses in creativity and entertainment. A few seminars in humility might help, too.
Education is too important to be left in the hands of those who put "self" before their audience.
lonestar - I took two maths papers at uni, and they were the most dry, boring, painful lectures.
Agree about textbooks - they need to be clear, appealing, factually correct and helping the person learning, not inflating the ego of the person writing it
"Another feature of Wells’s [IDiot] book, and creationists in general, is the obsession with Charles Darwin. I like the guy, I think he was brilliant, and it was his insights that launched modern evolutionary biology. But come on—he’s been dead for 124 years. He didn’t have all the tools we do now: no genetics, no molecular biology. Science has moved on well beyond Darwin’s day, but not for the creationists, who still think they can whimper and whine about errors in a book almost 150 years old and thereby dent work that nowadays depends in large part on molecular and genetic and population genetics…fields that didn’t even exist for Charles!" PZ Myers http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the-politi
Baileybear, I reckon Darwin did well with the tools he had at hand.
The scorpions we have in the land of Oz are in desert regions such as the Simpson. Since I haven't spent any time in an Australian desert I haven't seen a scorpion in the wild.
Rod, I thought so too.
The creationists shred him to pieces for using language of that era that is now not considered PC eg 'savages' etc. He was human, and had some things wrong, but was very forward thinking for his time. He opposed slavery & was against the abuse of animals. Those morons that say he was responsible for Hitler murdering etc need their heads examined.
They also rant on about all the scientists that were christians 300-odd years ago - well back then, if anyone said anything against the bible, they were tortured & burned at the stake. Christianity influenced all thinking, not necessarily in a positive way.
I suspected the scorpions were from the desert. Have seen pics of the 'thorny devil' lizard - jagged all over
There are idiots here in TX that keep scorpions as pets! Crapping ugly is what they are. They are indeed mostly desert dwellers, but I live in the Hill Country (Central TX) and they have migrated here to the limestone and rocks.
I did not know that Australia was called Oz. Interesting. My husband has been to both countries and loved them both. New Zealand is described as heavenly! But aren't there a lot of volcanoes and earthquakes there?
Hawaii was nice even with the volcanoes and small earthquakes and while I never saw scorpions there, I did not like the centipedes. Creepy crawlers that sent many people to our emergency room for bites. Some of these bites would be in very delicate below the belt places.
NZ was the scenery used in some movies eg Lord of the Rings & Avatar (with digital manipulation of course). Yes, has nice scenery, especially in South Island. Australia has some awesome & diverse scenery too.
Yes, NZ has some active volcanoes, hot mud-pools in places and has lots of earthquakes, because it's on a fault-line). Most aren't felt, but the city of Christchurch had a big one a few months back and have had thousands of aftershocks since.
Ouch! Yes, plenty of stuff bite here too. The ants hurt like bee-stings here.
There was a movie made back in the '70s. It was a take on The Wizard of Oz only it was set in what was then modern day Australia. I think the creature without a heart was a mechanic and the one in search of a brain was a surfer. I think there was a biker that looked tough but lacked courage. There was a song, Living in the Land of Oz, which I liked. In any event saying Oz instead of Australia is shorter and snappier and fun.
There is a beach I would love to visit in NZ. You dig in the sand and up pops hot water.
We have armor plated insects called bull-ants in Oz. Best keep your distance from them. They are large for ants and the soldiers are fearless.
I like the look of the thorny devil lizard but have never come across one in the wild. They don't live in my part of Oz.
Rod, sounds like a funny movie.
Even the cold-water lake next to the town I was born in has parts you can dig up and hot water comes out. There's lots of geothermal areas in North Island - the hot steam is used to generate electricity. My father used to take us for walks to boiling mud-pools & blow-holes at the back of the golf-course - lots of steam and sulfur. Sometimes they would explode into geysers. Wouldn't like to fall into a boiling mud-pool
Sounds like Yellowstone National Park here in the U.S. We call Australia the land down under (the equator). I never heard it called Oz, but I like that much better. Easier to say and spell :-)
I'll have to look up the thorny devil lizard.
Yes, Baileybear it was a funny movie but also a fun movie.
I have never seen boiling mud-pools in Oz. Definitely something I would like to see if ever I get the chance to visit NZ. That golf course sounds like it had a few hazards. Stand too close to the end of the course and you could be in trouble. What if your ball fell into a boiling mud-pool. Would you take a penalty or play it where it lies? Fascinating game golf played the NZ way.
Austinstar, our equivalent of your Yellowstone would be the Royal National Park in NSW. We don't have geysers but it is magnificent bushland.
I like Oz too.
Austinstar, since my name is Rodney I could always call myself Sir Rodney and we could talk about the Land of ID as it The Wizard of ID. Unfortunately I don't have such a prominent nose. Even so I think I would look spiffy in chainmail. But maybe that is going too far. Rod and Oz are fine.
Austinstar & Rod, I write Oz, 'cause easy. People say/write Oz/Aus or Ozzie/Aussie.
The mud-pools were not on the main golf-course. Probably was rather reckless of my father to take us there (he used to let me stand on top of the roof of the house too), but it was fascinating.
I say 'reckless' tongue-in-cheek, as my father is a very serious and responsible man.
We used to collect jars of different coloured pumice soil - green, bright sulfur-yellow, red etc. Found a horses skeleton too - got some photos when I was a kid somewhere holding up the bones - maybe I should dig them out & post them? I think my dad would have been a geologist if he'd had the education for it (he's been a builder all his life).
"Old Zealand"...hahahaha
Not only is Australia OZ but Sydney is Emerald City!
I will go along with you there Jane. Nowadays we have a female wizard who better get into her balloon and fly away come the next state election.
Bailybear, my dad would have made a great naturalist and/or zoologist but he didn't have the education. If I have an inquisitive mind I get it from both parents.
Wonderful hub Baileybear. You've done the HP community a great service by writing this engaging and informative portrait of Darwin the man--I feel I know him a little better now. Thank you for this effort.
Interesting discussion about the land of Oz. I've always wanted to visit there...
I have seen many photos of Emerald City and it looks like a fine place! I think I would prefer the Outback? Lots of open land and billions of stars! I would love to see the Southern Cross one night.
My brother did take a trip to Oz and he raved about the profiteroles. I had to look it up to know what that was. Sounds yummy.
Bob (my hubbie) describes New Zealand as "the Rocky Mountains of Colorado meet the South Pacific Bora Bora"
Must be amazing. And the flora and fauna is unimaginable to me. They evolved quite differently than other animals and plants.
I suggested to JC that this hub and JC's hub should be combined and presented as required reading for schools. James would disapprove.
Even though we have seen how Darwinian Evolution plays out over time, it is interesting to learn about Darwin all the same. I think many thought he was on to something for a very long time, and Darwin is a good example of how people shouldn't let their held worldview dictate what can be true and not true with science. Good science and whatever the truth is, will win out every time. I think that is how it should be.
I appreciate your careful attention to the details of his life and sharing that here.
I have been to the USA, Austinstar but I have yet to visit Texas. I would like to also see Colorado and the black hills of Dakota. I would love to see real cowboy country. My dad's a big fan of westerns.
Yes, we do have some pretty wild looking creatures in the land of Oz. The USA has its only marvels and oddities too. I think the rattle snake with its rattle is pretty much out there. I wonder just how that rattle evolved.
Rod, neither of my parents had much high-school education. My father started learning carpentry at age 14 in Holland and moved to NZ with barely a word of English. My mother had poor, rural Maori upbringing.
oaceansunsets - I addressed some of the confusion about Social Darwinism in my hub: http://hubpages.com/hub/Darwin-The-Man-Who-Killed-
Social Darwinism is politics, not science. Darwin gets the blame for all the bad things Social Darwinism did. Does Newton get the blame for cruise missiles? Koch for biological warfare?
oaceansunsets - I addressed some of the confusion about Social Darwinism in my hub: http://hubpages.com/hub/Darwin-The-Man-Who-Killed-
Social Darwinism is politics, not science. Darwin gets the blame for all the bad things Social Darwinism did. Does Newton get the blame for cruise missiles? Koch for biological warfare?
Thanks for reading. Me writing history hubs might be a rare thing. Writing about politics even rarer, but I'm tackling a political hub at the moment connected to evolution.
Joyous - I enjoyed very much researching Darwin and was also saddened by all the negativity on the web accusing Darwin of being responsible for ugly political stuff since.
I felt a connection to Darwin, as I independently reached a lot of the same conclusions eg I found it amusing how he said there must have been 2 Creators at work when he checked out Australia (as the animals etc are unique). And how he saw no evidence for God, just personal convictions. I hung out on the religious forums for several weeks asking hard questions, and it all came down to that. No evidence what-so-ever (and no thinking either).
Joyous & Austinstar - the australian animals is what got me looking at evolution again, then researching history of christianity etc and moving from a point of agnostic theism & agnostic atheism. This is all very recent, and that's when I felt brave enough to start writing about my de-conversion.
I have read some very interesting things about Australia connected to evolution. eg the marsupials see strange colours as they have a UV colour channel (have 3 different colour channels to humans); turtles have wider colour vision than humans - 4 colour channels); australia has some interesting 'transitional' animals eg platypus & lungfish; koalas are one of the few non-primates to have fingerprints. Mode of reproduction is different - no placentals evolved in Oz.
I'm pondering a hub about the above, but would want to research it in more depth first.
Both Australia & NZ have diverse and beautiful landscapes; strikingly different from one another. Most of Australia is desert with red sand, but when it rains, wildflowers grow in the desert.
Baileybear, I think somewhere along the way your parents instilled in you the joy of discovery. Formal education is a wonderful thing but when you do talk about your father I get the impression he taught you to get out there and be an observer of nature.
My dad did the same thing. I have my degrees but I also have my memories of bushwalks with my family. Even today there is still a lot my dad can teach me even if he didn't complete high school. He has a kindly sense of humor and a more gentle nature than my own.
Rod, yes my father used to take us for long walks (which we used to whinge about at the time). We also had many pets.
He is very interested in going to open days etc & finding out how the thermal power station works etc. He loved his career as a builder, but I think he would have been a great geologist or engineer or similar if had the education. He's a very practical man - I learnt about changing washers on taps & tyres on cars even if not interested.
My mother is a very people-orientated person & emotionally open. She wanted to be a nurse (she had the caring nature, but she was a bit of a worry because she gets her ideas all mixed up/reversed when it comes to factual stuff).
I joke that if my parents were lotto-ball machines, Dad would have all his balls neatly in numerical order; Mum's would be leaping about in a flurry; and mine would be grouped in patterns. Dad is very logical; mum is not logical at all, but intuitive; I'm analytical and have an intuitive thinking style.
Baileybear, sounds like your parents are good value. So are mine.
I get a lot from books and from hubs like yours but sometimes there's nothing like getting out there and seeing and experiencing for yourself.
I am very much into history and I have no idea where that came from.
Rod, the main conflict I have with my parents is they are pentecostal christians (my father resisted converting for a long time though, being so rational - he's always been 'conservative' about his faith; my mother is very comfortable with the whole pentecostal scene), and they are upset that I am no longer a christian.
Also, I used to plaster a smile on my face and always did as I was told as a child. I ended up getting burnt out (ie had a 'breakdown'). My family are uncomfortable with the 'real' me - outspoken, independent, skeptical etc. Having an Asperger's child and then learning why I am the way I am was very revelational to me.
Apart from that, I had a good (but perhaps overly strict) upbringing.
How did a man from Holland meet a Maori woman? Then they got married and moved to NZ? Whoa! What a pairing.
Rod, I've seen enough cowboys to last me a lifetime. Really the best one I ever saw was in a movie about Australia with Hugh Jackman as "Drover". He was a typical cattle man, just like we had here a hundred years ago:-) Now they all drive pick up trucks and occasionally work with cows and horses. I used to work on a ranch and took care of a few horses in my time. Haven't been on a horse for over 30 years now. I would probably be thrown off and killed. Cows I can live without until it comes to barbecue time!
I'm working on an RSS feed so we can all link our hubs together automatically. More to come.
Austinstar - my father moved to NZ, and met my mother in a cemetery while on holiday with the family he was boarding with.
My father is white with blonde hair and blue eyes; my mother is brown with black hair and brown eyes. My sisters and I are different shades in between. I've often been mistaken for being Italian or Spanish. Once a white Italian woman 'insisted' that I was Italian.
Austinstar - my father moved to NZ, and met my mother in a cemetery while on holiday with the family he was boarding with.
My father is white with blonde hair and blue eyes; my mother is brown with black hair and brown eyes. My sisters and I are different shades in between. I've often been mistaken for being Italian or Spanish. Once a white Italian woman 'insisted' that I was Italian.
I don't know how the RSS feeds work
Austinstar - my father moved to NZ, and met my mother in a cemetery while on holiday with the family he was boarding with.
My father is white with blonde hair and blue eyes; my mother is brown with black hair and brown eyes. My sisters and I are different shades in between; all with brown hair and eyes brown or green. I've often been mistaken for being Italian or Spanish. Once a white Italian woman 'insisted' that I was Italian.
My husband has pale skin & blue eyes and our son has light green eyes. My sister has one dark child (dark as my mother) and one fair child - they don't look like brother and sister.
I don't know how the RSS feeds work
Both sides of my family have an English background. Both my parents were born in Australia. My eldest sister married a guy whose family has a Finnish background and they have children so I suppose we have a mixed heritage in that direction which is fine with me. My nieces and nephew are very fair.
The RSS feeds are very easy, you just add the RSS capsule and the link you want. First we have to have a code word to put in our tags. I'm thinking Darwinclub or Darwinfans. But if we want to link all of our hubs the code word should be something like freethinkers or enlightenedbrains. Something like that. Then the URL to use in the RSS capsule would be something like:
http://hubpages.com/tag/Darwinclub/latest/?rss
So who wants to be in the club? And what codeword/tag do we want to use?
me, you, Rod, Manna, Jane, lone77star, diogenes, randslam, secularist10, who else?
Here's a hub that explains it well:
Hey guys! I have created the hubclub hub - please go to http://hubpages.com/hub/Darwin-Fans-Theory-of-Evol and add your info and sign up to join the club and start generating automated links to all our hubs! I will try to contact everyone individually in the next few days.
Austinstar - is the fan club moderated by you, so it doesn't get trashed by the anti-evolutionists?
Hey, this is a great hub! Darwin is certainly a Top 5 persons of all time
Thanks, copernico. I didn't know much about Darwin until I researched this hub. He certainly was a very interesting man
I will have a go. Not sure if i am computer literate enough.
It seems okay. Thanks Austinstar.
Have just found out this hub has been nominated for a top of the class contest. Please vote for me. Thanks
I voted for you baileybear. I am working on my own
Darwin hub right now. It will take a more historic view.
thanks, Rod. I'm being very brave and tackling a political hub (about anti-evolution politics). Have written draft, but need to clean it up and add pics before publish
One of the best hubs I've read here. Excellent!
thanks TahoeDoc - I read lots of very interesting bios before I wrote it
I have just put together my own hub on Darwin. It looks at Darwin from the perspective of the 19th Century. Check it out if you like.
Rod, yep already read it and linked it to a hub
Thanks Baileybear. As for looking at Darwin, as Frank Sinatra would say, I did it my way.
Yep, Rod. He's an inspiration to independent thinkers like me! ha ha
In Oz we call Frank Sinatra cranky Frankie or old black eyes because he once punched a photographer in the eye and gave the fellow a shiner. As a singer and an actor I always thought he was good value.
Brilliant Hub - thank you.
Love and peace
Tony
Thanks, Tony. Thanks for reading
This was very informative and well put together. Thank you for sharing.
thanks for the positive feedback, Wintermyst
Hi Baileybear :)
I somehow managed to miss this until now!
It's really good. I think that it really helps to get to know the real person behind the (in)famous reputation.
Trish - glad you found it and enjoyed it. This is what I originally set out to write about Darwin, and ended up writing the other one first after reading THAT hub.
Late with my response ~ again ~ but I can understand how you became side-tracked. I have really got into studying evolution, as a result of all of the hubs and the discussions. It's even more fascinating than I thought :)
Trish - you have so much stamina debating with people that refuse to listen! I've hardly scratched the surface with evolution - would like to look at it in more depth. I'm doing some on colour now, so might be a while before I feel inspired enough to come back to it (I get bored if stay on one theme too long)
I was struck with how easy this is to read and how captivating. Although I don't mean in a patronizing wya, it reads like a junior high school science, which I think makes it all the more remarkable: my daughter just entered junior high and she has a lot of interest in science. I plan to show her this in the hopes it will pique her interest further. Thank you so much!
mjfarns - thanks. I don't believe in writing 'above' people to sound important. I've written a series of hubs on colour in nature which she might find interesting - I wrote them so the layperson could understand them
rotl 17 months ago
Very enjoyable and informative. Thanks for being so thorough. Darwin was quite a remarkable man.