Darwin or George Smith?

There is an interesting article in the Telegraph, an excerpt about the man who found the lost epic of Gilgamesh. As I was reading it, it struck me as to how this played with Darwin’s beginnings of evolutionary science. Then, I came to this paragraph near the end:

And finally, the horizon of natural history also retreated. Later in the period, the Epic became part of a new philosophy that postulated an even greater age for the Earth than had been hitherto estimated. The geologist Eduard Suess used the implications of the poem’s discovery as part of an introduction to his massive, four-volume, The Face of the Earth (1885-1901).

via The tragic tale of George Smith and Gilgamesh – Telegraph.

By positioning the tale as old as he did, it helped to dismantle intellectual resistance to Darwin’s theories — I think. This is why we should never say never to the help archeology can provide us in the search of human origins.

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

One Reply to “Darwin or George Smith?”

  1. There is a signpost up ahead denoting the intersection of The Unmoved Mover and Turtles All the Way Down. Theologically, we must be on The Road Less Taken and about to enter the Twilight Zone.
    Meanwhile, the unofficial history of mankind may be little more than discovering his relative insignificance in the grand scheme of things. Officially, at least, man starts out being a companion of the gods. Then, he is demoted to being a distant cousin of monkeys. As if that weren’t enough, mankind finds out that, not only is the earth on which he walks not the center of the universe, the galaxy in which it exits is merely one of a bazillion others that apparently don’t like each other very much.
    Why it’s all enough to turn an old-fashioned hubrist into a latter day creationist! After all, that truly is the only intelligent design for the cerebrally deficient.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.