Strange then that Darwin would title a book The Origin of Species.
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Crowther <[log in to unmask]>
> Dawkins says that evolution creates the almost perfect illusion of
> but that it is nevertheless an illusion.
> But I think that Darwin only explains the evolution of organs (=
> parts with substantial matter and accidental form) rather than
> species (=
> natural wholes with substantial form and accidental matter). TWL was
> somehow in TSE in parts and needed a midwife to deliver it whole to
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Of Diana Manister
> Sent: 16 January 2010 14:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
> Carrol, are you saying you don't believe in human evolution?
> Sent from my iPod
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Tom Colket wrote:
>>> Diana wrote:
>>> Most achievements would have emerged in time -- even without
>>> we would not still think the sun revolved around the earth.
>>> Individuals as I say are overrated.
>>> I couldn't disagree with this more.
>>> The importance of the individual is probably most obvious in the
>>> No "Ninth Symphony" without Beethoven. No "Prufrock" and "The Waste
>>> Land" (and this list) without Eliot.
>> This is sort of weird. The 'reason' hheliocentrism would have
>> emerged in
>> time is that a Galileo woudl have emerged in time, so the question
>> needs to be asked is what causes a Galileo to emerge.
>> And while there would not be a Waste Land without Eliot, Eliot
>> have written that poem had there not been a World War and had he not
>> an unhappy marraige.
>> You are debating a non-question, like the debate over nurture and