of planaria lugubris is cut off just behind the eyes, there develops at the cut surface of the head-piece another head turned in the opposite direction. "These and other reasons," concludes Professor Morgan (p. 381), "indicate with certainty that regeneration cannot be explained by the theory of natural selection."
The ingenuity of the Darwinian imagination, however, will hardly fail to assign some reason why two heads are more useful than one in the above instance, and thus reconcile the phenomenon with Darwinism. For, according to Professor Morgan "to imagine that a particular organ is useful to its possessor and to account for its origin because of the imagined benefit conferred, is the general procedure of the followers of the Darwinian school." "Personal conviction, mere possibility," writes Quatrefages, "are offered as proofs, or at least as arguments in favor of the theory." "The realms of fancy are boundless," is Blanchard's significant comment on Darwin's explanation of the blindness
It's always amusing to read the attempts of religionists to discredit the facts of science. Especially revisiting old articles that have "proof" that religion is right and science is wrong are always good for a chuckle or two. At The Deathbed of Darwinism is no exception. The writer makes a valiant attempt to use scientific arguments against what he sees as a belief (hence an -ism). He doesn't realize that religion is not a band aid to cover whatever science hasn't explained or discovered yet. . Any good scientist should consider both sides of a story before drawing conclusions. At least the writer has read Darwin's works, even though he doesn't seem to understand the concepts. The main issue today is that religion has adapted it's arguments time and again to fight what they obviously see as the ultimate threat against their way of life and the way they see the world. Don't dismiss this book because of it's title. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
This is quite a fun and actually educational book. The fun and educational qualities are the same, specifically the extremely broad use of logically invalid arguments. The aspect makes it of great use in teaching logic and logical writing. Virtually every device one may imagine are used.
Some arguments are rather odd. The use of Thoman Hunt Morgan, the father of modern genetics, to refute Darwin's Survival of the fittest is surprisint; mutation is used as the refutation. Very strange.
One really fun argument is the
refutation of Survival of fittest, etc by imagining a contest between a mouse and an elephant: In single combat. The mouse standing proudly over the dead elephant is imagined. So Darwin is pronounce absure. Good reading for this purpose. And maybe for historical purposes. There is no science.