¿Un error del siglo XIX?
Agassiz opina como creyente:
The combination in time and space of all these thoughtful conceptions exhibits not only thought, it shows also premeditation, power, wisdom, greatness, prescience, omniscience, providence. In one word, all these facts in their natural connection proclaim aloud the One God, whom man may know, adore, and love; and Natural History must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe. . .
Sedgwick es más directo:
If I did not think you a good tempered & truth loving man I should not tell you that. . . I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous-- You have deserted-- after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth-- the true method of induction. . .
El profesor Haughton, de Dublín, dijo de los textos de Darwin (citado por el mismo Darwin en su autobiografía): Todo lo que había de nuevo era falso, y todo lo que había de cierto era viejo.
Finalmente, el propio Darwin escribió:
I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my book is the law of higgledy-pigglety.
Si, como acertadamente dice Popper, la teoría de evolución por selección natural es un error, pero no es un error del siglo XIX. Entonces,....¿ de dónde procede el error?. Lo discutiremos en la siguiente entrada,.....