I Imagine Him at His Desk, His Ire Rising with Every Sentence He Composes ...

... until he cracks mad.  From an early American review of The Origin of Species:

Theorizing on empirical grounds is no better than theorizing on rational and a priori principles; but rather it is worse, for it is at once more crude and facile, and more pretentious. 

[...]

Mr. Darwin may be no metaphysician, least of all a Hegelian.  He may even hold all metaphysics in supreme contempt.  And yet his theory is but a crude expression or application of the abstrusest speculations of the modern German scholasticism. 

[...]

With all its show, or rather promise, of induction, it is really a pure a priori assumption, an assumption resting on other assumptions which reach down to the bottomless abyss of Hegelian nihilism.

[...]

[Darwin] can more readily believe that the ox, with his lower as well as rudimentary upper teeth, and man with his rudimentary papillae, his hands, feet, head, brain, his eye in fine frenzy rolling, his discourse of reason looking before and after, his conscience, and all, have come by natural generation from the same hermaphroditic, vegeto-animal, primordial form from which have come the gnat and the elephant, the ichthyosaurus and the megatherium, the mammoth and the maggot, the cabbage and the pumpkin, than to believe that God could have made these species of men and oxen as they are.

[...]

Why do men have the same number of fingers on one hand as on the other, and the same number of toes as fingers, if every thing is determined by use, and nothing by creative laws of beauty, proportion and harmony?  Why is not human hair sometimes green or blue, or the iris of the eye purple or yellow?  Why should men have a beard and women none?  If it is of use to men, why should not natural selection have multiplied the few women who have it?  Why are not men eight or ten feet high, and as strong as elephants; would it not be useful to them?  Why are there no races of winged men or flying squirrels; is it only for want of the happy accident for natural selection to start with?  It would be so convenient!

It would!  It really would!

Comments

[Daniel]

I can't count the number of times I've wished I had a race of flying squirrels.

[Ahistoricality]

man with his rudimentary papillae, his hands, feet, head, brain, his eye in fine frenzy rolling, his discourse of reason looking before and after, his conscience, and all...

Something in me wants to try to set this to music, possibly To Anacreon in Heaven....

[Ari]

Does this mean that I can unfurl my wings? Is that what this post is? A call to arms? That would be awesome. Because this harness is totally itchy.

[The Necromancer]

I've often found myself at "the bottomless abyss of Hegelian nihilism." In fact I think you could call it my fall-back position.

[Adam Roberts]

Why are not men eight or ten feet high, and as strong as elephants?

Dude, I am. At least on my right-hand side. Plus my wife's beard makes an excellent home for our pet flying squirrel.

On reflection, perhaps that should be "Dawg, I am."

[Rich Puchalsky]

Underscrew your natural wings, dudes.

Actually, this essay is the protoplasmic first ancestor of the Just-So evolutionary sociobiology essay. "Why don't women have beards? Well, sex selection ensures that [long disquisition that ends up normalizing makeup for women and aggressive beard-jutting for men]".

[scrapiron]

Goggle 'flying squirrel'. You will find them. Bearded women, if not for experts at removing hair there would be plenty of them, all democrats. ex: Peeeelshi, Shrillary. Then you have Reno and Madame NotAllTooBright that didn't bother.

[JPool]

I don't know. My goggling skills aren't all that great. I can barely keep the things on.

Why are not men eight or ten feet high, and as strong as elephants...?

I believe that such men do exist. We call them elephants.
Stupid empirical grounds...

[Luther Blissett]

Somewhere, Rocky of Rocky & Bullwinkle is pissed. And he's bringing his flying squirrel friends.

[scrumptious]

"abstrusest" ?

Speaking of theorizing on empirical grounds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[SEK]

Rich, this is so much more true than you realize:

Actually, this essay is the protoplasmic first ancestor of the Just-So evolutionary sociobiology essay.

I'm digging through the archives for appropriately clever introductory paragraphs (SUCH IS DAMNABLE REVISION!) and have found so many refutations of Darwin that dovetail with the just-so crowd it ain't even funny.

Scrumptious,

I like bananas (and, when 13, wanted to be Mike Seaver) much as the next guy, but ... I've said too much, haven't I?

Adam,

Dude, I am. At least on my right-hand side.

You're 10 ft. tall on your right hand side? I'm about 6'1 on that side, and, I think, about 6'1 on the other. You variably-heighted Brits are weird.

Ari,

Fly! Fly! You are free now!

Ahistoricality,

You beat me to that punch. If I'd wanted to be more funny than accurate, I'd have slotted that graph in last, since that sentence is a monster of Morrisseyian proportions.

Daniel,

I can't count the number of times I've wished I had a race of flying squirrels.

Have you checked out my catalogue yet? You too can have a race of (headless) flying squirrels! (Sorry, but gimmick requires, you know, my gimmick.)

[Martin G.]

The really funny thing: there really is a race of flying squirrels. There really is. My life was incomplete before I knew this.

[Martin G.]

Scrapiron is right: there really is a race of flying squirrels. There really is. I've seen them. They're crazy.

[JPool]

Satire Blindness tragically strikes more people every year. It is estimated to result in more deaths each year than cancer and ultracancer combined. Won't you please, please help.