Reply to comment

Reading the original Darwin years after studying modern evolution has been a real pleasure.  It is incredible how foresighted his ideas were.  Despite lacking any sort of scientific basis Darwin, on observation alone, realizes the key to evolution is hidden within reproduction.  This is an extremely powerful observation, especially considering Professor Grobstein's "science is a story based within our factual understanding" model.  Darwin's story is still absolutely correct, even though the factual framework on which it is based lacks every hallmark of modern biological understanding.

That being said, an interesting limitation of Darwin is his hesitation to fully ascribe his theory to human society.  Most of his examples involve domesticated animals being manipulated by a skilled breeder.  He recognizes that similar natural forces are responsible for wild animal form and function but stops there.  He does not wish to cross the line by ascribing humanity’s condition to a simple randomness of environmental pressure.  Though his theory is completely applicable to humans he stops just short of explaining their existence with it.  Darwin quite intentionally leaves room for God in his work.  Part of me wishes to indict him for this lack of conviction but I also understand his predicament.  It is a large fundamental leap to move from beak size corresponding to diet to environmental factors favoring the evolution of a brain capable of metacognition; thinking about thinking.  It is this most abstract of abilities that truly defines our humanity yet it’s unclear evolutionary advantage makes it a puzzle piece that is hard to fit together with the rest of Darwin's theory.  Darwin recognizes the imminent value of man's defining ability yet struggles to apply the "life / death" nature of natural selection to such an organic concept as abstract thought.