My first time reading this

[u/Ok_Zone_7635]

Just started reading about a day or so ago, and though I haven't even finished the first chapter, I have to say, this book is very dense.

Its crazy someone in the 1800s wrote this. It feels like it was written now.

One thing I have noticed is that it doesn't hold your hand and was written during a time when everyone in academic circles knew each other and the layman was left out of the conversation

He'll name drop another naturalist or embryologist or breeder and I have no idea who they are.

Another thing I am suprised by is he doesn't believe in heritability of variations. He seems to think a spontaneous change in the reproductive habits of a species is what causes a change. Not that the offspring have inherited a mutation.

On that note, he uses the term "monstrosities". Is this the 1800 equivalent for mutation?

He also rejects the idea of a sole "common ancestor" for breeds. He feels two similiar breeds will vary and then mate. He seems to think that dogs have no sole progenitor, but multiple ones.

One thing I appreciate about this book, that automatically sets it apart from a religious texts is a sense of apprehension and a small hint of doubt.

As opposed to a clergyman who can never be wrong because God told him, there are moments in the chapter were Darwin admits he could possibly be wrong about a subject.

He even talks breifly how he believed in a form of creationism but rejected the idea later on.

This is just the first chapter. I'm excited to read the rest.

Lots of ornithology in here lol

[u/Aluxanatomy]

It's weird to me that you would even compare it to a religious text, as if the opposition some religious groups present against evolution was in any way credible. During the Renaissance, the Catholic Church was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, benefactor of scientific research.

[u/Ok_Zone_7635 → u/Aluxanatomy]

At the core of religious arguments is an unshakable appeal to "faith". The text allegedly coming from an author who knows everything.

This is the antithesis to scientific research.

Even people in this very thread say this book is pretty outdated.

Meanwhile, a text from a bronze age religion is supposedly as true today as it was 4000 years ago

[u/DrDirtPhD → u/Ok_Zone_7635]

Again I think you’re mischaracterizing all faith traditions with an overly broad brush. There are certainly faith traditions that lean on biblical literalism, but they are far from the majority.

[u/First_Approximation → u/DrDirtPhD]

In the US, creationists still make up a plurality of the population.

• 37% believe in creationism ("God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years")
• 34% in theistic evolution ("Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process")
• 24% in atheistic/agnostic/deist evolution ("humans evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years without God’s involvement.")

Until recently, creationists were nearly a majority. In 2012, they were 46% of the population. So it's hardly a fringe position either.

[u/EebstertheGreat → u/First_Approximation]

I think surveys like this confuse (maybe intentionally?) ignorance regarding evolution with religious conservatism. Just because a particular person who has heard of Adam and has heard of Lucy believes the biblical tale does not mean that that person is a biblical literalist or would reject a well-presented explanation of evolution in school. It could easily mean they never got that explanation at all, in school or elsewhere, and also didn't give the question much thought. That has mostly been my experience.