Dawkins says that evolution creates the almost perfect illusion of design,
but that it is nevertheless an illusion.

But I think that Darwin only explains the evolution of organs (= artificial
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 its


-----Original Message-----
From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
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
>> Galileo
>> 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  
>> arts.
>> 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  
> that
> needs to be asked is what causes a Galileo to emerge.
> And while there would not be a Waste Land without Eliot, Eliot  
> wouldn't
> have written that poem had there not been a World War and had he not  
> had
> an unhappy marraige.
> You are debating a non-question, like the debate over nurture and
> nature.
> Carrol