I, personally, have a problem with Darwin. His grandfather was the one who seeded the ideas of evolution in his mind. It was a general idea circulating at the time in thinking society and he wrote his ideas down to publish as quickly as possible before Alfred Wallace did the same. Now scientists are making him into the Jesus Christ of evolution theory. What did he do to deserve this? He wrote a book! He wrote a book in which the ideas of his generation were encapsulated. Big deal. Even natural selection was vaguely understood.
According to Sahtouris, he only had half the story....
Kropotkin, misunderstood anarchist that he was, seems to have the other bit of evolution that Darwin missed out.
"In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense – not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay."
Elizabet Sahtouris puts two ideas together to make a very big idea that's thought radical by neo darwinist and common or garden scientists. What do you think?