| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
An Attack on Darwin by a professor of Classics???,
By
This review is from: What Darwin Really Said (What They Really Said Series) (Paperback)
I was excited to pick this book up at a used-book sale, as the title looked very promising. The first few chapters are straightforward enough: they describe Darwin's private and professional life from his youth until his publication of "The Origin of Species". It is from there that Farrington goes haywire: he tries to make us believe that a) Darwin believed in a Creator and, b) Darwin's theories about the similarities of man and animal (i.e., how man evolved from lower forms) is essentially wrong.Darwin died not believing in a God and he regretted using the word "Creator" in the 2nd edition of "The Origin of Species" (see Wikipedia for publication history). With respect to the latter point, Farrington tries to distinguish between instinct and the mind, arguing that man's codes of behavior are not inherited. He calls them "human facts, not animal facts". Because this book was first published (1966) about 15 years before E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology: A New Synthesis", Farrington can possibly be forgiven to think that all behaviors in animals are instinctive. Nevertheless, Darwin correctly stated in "The Descent of Man", "There can be no doubt that the difference between the mind of the lowest man and that of the highest animal is immense...Nevertheless the difference..., great as it its, certainly is one of degree and not kind." As to how Stephen Jay Gould agreed to write an introduction to the 1996 edition of this book, I cannot understand. Perhaps it was because Gould could never come to grips with his belief in a God or get away from his previous attacks on Wilson for his views on human sociobiology (now widely viewed as being correct). Still, that is not an excuse; Gould should have known better and I think posterity will not treat him kindly. As for Farrington, an author on Classics and not a biologist, I hope his book on the Greeks is better.
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
More Farrington Than Darwin,
By Dragon Irish "Canny Celt" (Boulder, CO, USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: What Darwin Really Said (What They Really Said Series) (Paperback)
What would you expect from the title? -An explanation and summary of Darwin's work. You get that. But very lightweight. Fully a third of this tiny book is not Darwin, but Farrington. The author takes the last third to explain Darwin's inadequacies with so-called modern hindsight, but basically turns the 'flaws' in Darwin to bring the book around to almost a repudiation of Darwin's scientific method, so that muddle-mindedness and religion can creep in the back door. I looked for a quick, articulate summary of Darwin, and got Church of England stuff way after Bishop Wilberforce.
1 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
good intro doesnt give credit due,
By A Customer
This review is from: What Darwin Really Said (What They Really Said Series) (Paperback)
a good introduction to darwins thought.it points out many things that he was wrong on but it cannot be said as the author points out as darwin simply pushing on ideas of other people
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
