Criticism and argument

The story of Darwin's thought diffusion may suggest interesting remarks about the "weapons" he used in fighting the unavoidable battles after his theory of natural selection had become known.
In this sense, the strength of Darwin's critical thinking could not represent an easily spendable currency as his discussion needed always well-based and pertinent arguments to develop. Darwin was accustomed to compare his ideas with many scientists of the time, with whom he corresponded frequently (as demonstrated by the five books of letters and more than thirteen thousand letters in archives); furthermore, 20 years of study and research were necessary for Darwin before he felt it was time to present in public the evidence for his theory of evolution. His personal notes show the wide range of his interests, his intuitions and how he developed them from different points of view before coming to select, by comparison, the proven ones.
This was the field Darwin excelled in, that is to say the strictest criticism in examining the hypotheses he proposed; and the strongest critic of his was himself, as the hypercriticism that is his main characteristic ("Spacing between words" above average) unavoidably yields to innermost unsatisfaction and rediscussion, which becomes finally a preoccupation due to his endless tending to acquire a higher competence, stricter logic in arguments and evidence, to be proposed only after a long inner elaboration and indefinite slowering down in finding a cause.
Nevertheless, the problem Darwin could not cope with was the fiery struggle born after his theory's diffusion not in the scientific field but in the religious one, as his opponents could attack his ideas taking no account of the evidence he could gather working hard all his life.
To enter the field of argument, graphologically speaking, requires different virtues: in addition to an obviously bright mind, and he surely got plenty of it, it demands also the skill of concentrating upon few essential points, his own strong points but simplified to the extreme and the adversary's weak points. The sign "Spacing between words" so high does not make him an helpless personality, although his criticism, which cannot became hypercriticism, does not allow him to simplify in a clear, well defined way necessary to argument, belonging better to a "sharp" intelligence.
Darwin kept always apart from public life and clamour caused by his ideas; he never held public conferences nor wrote anything more understandable than what he reserved to his colleagues. Darwin was tenaciously defended by others, such as the above mentioned T. H. Huxley, who supported Darwin's theories through several acts of an almost apologethical nature, from contrasting the religious authorities attack to making them known in public conferences.
Darwin himself, though, could not make them simple, could not argue in self-defence without feeling unnatural, and losing his innermost identity which originated from that wide, well informed reasoning, that yielded only after controlling again and again until saturation.
The controversy whether man descends from monkeys, as we state it here, is something so simplified to have nothing to do with the high complexity of his personality and the extraordinary attention he used in examining the natural world, so charming and so well known to him, both as an observer than as a theorist.