Sir William Lawrence, 1st Baronet Quotes

This quotation gives is a view of regeneration, evolution and species development before Darwin. It also shows us that a number of the Founding Fathers were quite current with the thinking of the major intellectuals of Europe.

Actually, while such selective breeding is possible in all animals, the selection for a single trait almost always produces other unintended and unanticipated traits and these could be devastating to the “new generation”, unpleasant, benign, or anything else. At the time selective breeding was the only possible tool to produce “desirable” traits in an animal or to eliminate what someone things of as “undesirable” traits. Today, our understanding of the human genome and genetic engineering offers a much more reliable possibility of affecting animal traits without as many risks of random and unintended consequences that are present with breeding.

Gore who generally was a progressive on almost all issues, was quite conservative when it came to human genetic manipulation and cloning. Scientists for whom Gore was a favorite politician based on his leadership of digital technology and the Internet and his Nobel prize winning work on environmentalism, but his stance in this quotation was puzzling to many.

Not all eminent scientists were fully satisfied with Darwin's theory of evolution. Father of Genetics

Darwin’s work had polarized England into two camps. Spencer was one of the major public supporters of Darwin. Tennyson expressed a similar intuitive view a decade earlier {627586}. Spencer reasoned that if an egg cell and a sperm cell could produce a human in 9 months, why was it not plausible that the cell could become a human in hunreds of millions of years.

Essentially, he was expressing a Darwinian idea in poetry. See Herbert Spencer {627582} for an even more specific argument for the same point.

This quotation elevated geography in its importance, even though the claim was slightly exaggerated.

The “brother of the wolf” refers to the evolution of the dog from the wolf which it now appears took place in just a relatively few generations.

Here we have a very mockery of the concept of aristocracy and “good family”. This humorous essay was written less than a decade after Darwin published his first treatise on evolution. Here a witty American essayist and critic is giving an insight into the thoughts of the many people who either were scandalized by the concept of human evolution or honestly could not grasp such a new intellectual set of concepts. Many of the great scientific intellectual breakthroughs spread with stunning rapidly—usually amongst scientists, but in the case of evolution to most intellectuals and men of letters, they could use Darwin’s framework and observe evidence of evolution all over. So here, less than 10 years from the inception of evolutionary theory among English scientist, we have American non-scientific literati reading articles in the general (albeit sophisticated) Atlantic Monthly with a semi-serious, semi-comical, analysis of the thinking of people who resisted what had become in just a few years obvious truth to America’s leading intellectuals (except for most of the leading intellectual theologians who would take longer to accept evolution, but, with the exception of the extreme fundamentalists, most did.

This humorous essay was written less than a decade after Darwin published his first treatise on evolution. Here a witty American essayist and critic is giving an insight into the thoughts of the many people who either were scandalized by the concept of human evolution or honestly could not grasp such a new intellectual set of concepts. Many of the great scientific intellectual breakthroughs spread with stunning rapidly—usually amongst scientists, but in the case of evolution to most intellectuals and men of letters, they could use Darwin’s framework and observe evidence of evolution all over. So here, less than 10 years from the inception of evolutionary theory among English scientist, we have American non-scientific literati reading articles in the general (albeit sophisticated) Atlantic Monthly with a semi-serious, semi-comical, analysis of the thinking of people who resisted what had become in just a few years obvious truth to America’s leading intellectuals (except for most of the leading intellectual theologians who would take longer to accept evolution, but, with the exception of the extreme fundamentalists, most did.

Actually no school teaches that. What they did teach when covering Evolution was that some modern apes (chimpanzees and bonobos) and humans were both descended from a common ancestor. The Congressman was at that point an evangelical Christian fundamentalist, Later, DeLay was convicted and sentenced to jail for money laundering and illegally spending and raising campaign funds. He was also reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for unethical methods of fund raising for other earlier actions.

See {626813} for another quotation on this point.

What he thought was conceivable in the 1970’s seemed almost certain to come to pass 30 years later. Scientists had already altered the evolution of various plants and animals, and the complete human genome had been sequenced. The question will be not whether man will be able to control and modify his own evolution, but how should this be done and who should decide it. We have realized that man has already—unintentionally—altered the evolution of many species from passenger pigeons which are now extinct and the dog which coevolved with humans. Arguably, man’s development of the ability to control his own evolution is an evolutionary development itself. One great question for society is whether it is better to alter evolution unknowingly or in a planned, relatively controlled manner. For man to participate in the design of human evolution will be the nightmare of the Creationists who insist that evolution is too complicated to be somewhat of a random process and that there must be a designer who they assume is God. When man becomes the designer, that will be very disturbing. For most theologians, there will be little difficulty with the notion that God chose the mechanism of evolution and chose humans to give the intellect and knowledge to implement and design the evolutionary process.

After only 25 years—1998—this material was in the schoolbooks of every industrial democracy in the world with the exception of the United States. At that time a substantial minority of the school children from the South, Kansas, and Oklahoma, had their books censored and were not able to study evolution as a result of protestant fundamentalist objections to teaching anything which contradicts the Bible. It was uncertain what would happen in the years to 2023—the 50 years cited in the quotation. The material is being taught in China, India, Thailand, Korea, and many developing nations where there ideological obstacles have been in the Islamic nations, but not Turkey which is with the other industrial democracies. So in the 25 yeas, the majority of the school children of the world find the material “commonplace” in their schools and books.

Bryan participated as a prosecutor in the infamous Scopes Trial in Tennessee where a school teacher was convicted of a crime for discussing the idea of evolution in a high school classroom. This view of opposition to Evolution was actually considered too liberal by many other Biblical Fundamentalists. They were just as distressed about the other animals as well as man. Evolution explicitly contradicted the literal story of Biblical creationism and therefore was blasphemy.