The study of foundational documents is therefore as pointless to scientists as it is essential to theologians. There is no particular reason why a biologist should read Darwin any more than there is a reason why a physicist should read Newton's Principia. Indeed, I've never met a physicist who has.
As a biologist who has read
The Origin of Species, I disagree. The text itself is, of course, largely irrelevant as is what Darwin thought exactly and whether he was right about any particular detail. However, I think it is foolish to ignore the history of science. Understanding the reasoning behind is both useful in understanding the subject itself, in helping formulate better ideas and in critiquing new ideas.
Kevin's claim that the history is more important than the study is an absurd overstatement but I think you go too far in rejecting entirely the value of the history of science. There is a reason that every scientific paper begins with an introduction setting the paper into the context of pre-existing work, after all.
™ Version 4.2
