In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

TGTACAATCCCGAAACCTTCATATTGCACGCCAACACTATCGT

Thomas Malthus

Thomas Malthus

Malthus' most influential work is :An Essay on the Principle of Population as it affects the Future Improvement of Society.

In this work, Malthus hypothesized that a nation could ever reach nirvana - a point where there were no laws and everyone lived a  fulfilling life; void of laws, prospering in eternal happiness. That the agony of human existence was incessant population growth which would inhibit its ability to feed itself. Malthus' work was of an economic importance because it looked at humans in mass, as a population and not as individuals and pointed out that entitlements  to the poor would hasten the demise of a nation by allowing them to bear more off-spring, eventually overwhelming the resources needed for survival.  One difference: Malthus' theory was based on devine intervention. He was a God-fearing man. Darwin was not. He pointed out that these forces were also at work in the plant and animal kingdoms-that plants and animals produce far more off-spring than could survive based on the natural resources available. Upon reading Malthus' work, it became clear to Darwin that humans must evolve as animals do.               
                                                 From Darwin's autobiography:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".

2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14

3. What is preventing organisms from reproducing at their potential?

Darwin's rejection of religion allowed him to formulate his theory using nature as proponent of natural selection both in terms of ultimate reason for and the outcome of, whereas Malthus' perspective was derived from his religious belief that natural outcomes such as poverty,  famine, plagues, disease or natural disasters came from divine intervention thus creating the roadblocks to reproducing to potential. Darwin, on the other hand, surmised that competitiveness among siblings for limited resources and the outcome would be influenced by traits that would give some a greater chance at survival.
 
4. Could Darwin have developed his theory of natural selection without the influence and ideas of this individual?  No, with a big "if". Darwin's work was built upon Malthus' hypothesis.  Malthus was an economist concerned with over-population of London's poor and purposed limiting the number of off-sping allowed to them. Malthus believed it was divine intervention in the form of plagues, natural disasters and famine that kept population growth in-check and not natural selection. Darwin's approach was that of "favorable variations" or traits would preserve a spices and it was his "thinking out of the box" approach, one that discounted God's existence, that led Darwin to develop his theory.



5. How did the attitude of the church affect Darwin and his eventual publication of his book On the Origin of Species? 

The church of England or the Vatican?

Darwin’s theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church decreing that "evolution was a valid scientific approach to evolution."

It was the criticism by the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, that led to the erroneous belief of the Church of England as a whole condemned Darwin's theory. Darwin saw and supported the Church of England as and only as a social institution.

The Church of England wants to correct the impression that Darwin’s relationship with Anglicanism was contentious. The Anglican Church as a whole did not condemn Darwin or his beliefs. It says that although he lost his faith (1830), he did not become antiChurch or antireligious.

Neither the views of the Vatican nor the Church of England have any effect on its publication.