by Denyse O'Leary
Just today, I received a most interesting note from a retired Australian poli sci professor Hiram Caton, late of Griffiths University, noting that the Darwin exhibition, developed at the American Museum of Natural History, is hitting the road, and may stop at a museum near you.
You are well aware of my former colleague Dave Stove's critique of Darwinism. We are alike in that we have no religious affiliation; also in that we do not believe that Darwinism can provide a basis for ethics or for 'conservative' politics, in the manner of Larry Arnhart.
At his site, Caton offers a most useful anti-docent, "Getting Our History Right: Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence," documenting the following six errors:
1. The publication of the Origin was not a sudden (Ã¢â‚¬Å“revolutionaryÃ¢â‚¬Â) interruption of Victorian societyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s confident belief in the traditional theological world-view. Instead, it was another step, albeit a big one, toward a popularly understandable scientific naturalism, including the idea of our primate origins, that was well in place by 1850.
Caton notes, among other things,
The implication of [the Exhibition's] ill-wrought claim is denial that evolutionary theory was extensively developed before Darwin embarked on his Beagle voyage (1831). Not so. Notable contributors were Louis-Constant PrÃƒÂ©vost, Louis-Melchior Patrin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Julien-Joseph Virey, Jean-Baptiste-Julien dÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Omalius dÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Halloy, Bory de Saint-Vincent, Ducrotoy de Blainville, Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (Corsi, 1988b). Most of these scientists argued for the key Ã¢â‚¬Å“DarwinianÃ¢â‚¬Â theses of common descent from an initial few organisms, gradual modification and extinction over great ages driven in part by the struggle for existence, geological uniformitarianism, and the primate origin of the human species. Some, notably the physicist Patrin, argued that life originated abiotically. DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s library aboard the Beagle included Bory de Saint-VincentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s influential seventeen volume Dictionnaire classique dÃ¢â‚¬â„¢historie naturelle (1822-1831).
2. The Origin did not Ã¢â‚¬Å“revolutionizeÃ¢â‚¬Â the biological sciences by removing the creationist premise or introducing new principles. On the contrary, Origin had little effect on the hard biological sciences because they were already mechanistic and experimental. DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s naturalist investigations did not contribute significantly to the experimental biology of his day.
Darwin discovered a stunning profusion of adaptations, and made many suggestions about phylogenetic relations (Leach and Mayo, 2005), but he did not prove a single phylogeny or prove a single case of speciation by natural selection. Indeed, by 1900 the only fossil-based phylogeny generally accepted was the evolution of the horse (Gayon, 1998). These facts are ignored. The Exhibition also ignores the Pangenesis theory and its influence on DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s shift to substantial Lamarckian explanation in the 5th and 6th editions of Origin. Indeed, it implicitly denies DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Lamarckism by baldly stating that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Charles Darwin offered the world a single, simple scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth : evolution by natural selectionÃ¢â‚¬Â (www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/) [bold face in original].
3. The Origin did not Ã¢â‚¬Å“revolutionizeÃ¢â‚¬Â Victorian public opinion. Public perception considered DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s message to be about the same as Herbert SpencerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s, known today as Ã¢â‚¬Å“Social DarwinismÃ¢â‚¬Â, which, though fashionable, never achieved dominance.
4. Many leading naturalists and biologists made significant criticisms of DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work. This includes Gregor Mendel, who believed that his discoveries refuted DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s premises about the heritability of traits, and Thomas Huxley, who rejected natural selection.
(By contrast, Caton notes, the Exhibition promotes "an extreme version of the triumphalist legend".)
5. Darwin made little or no contribution to the renovation of theology. His public statements on Providence were inconsistent and the liberal reform of theology, including rejection of the divinity of Christ, was well advanced by 1850.
Although the corrosive influence of Darwinism on conventional religious belief is widely claimed to be its most novel and potent cultural influence, the facts speak overwhelmingly against it.
[ ... ]
However, "The Exhibition triumphantly proclaims that DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“revolutionary theory changed the course of science and societyÃ¢â‚¬Â. Which society? What changes? Rather than attending to DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s contribution to secularization, as I have done, the Exhibition offers a video of half dozen biologists who simply assert the compatibility of religion with Darwinian evolution. Not all religion, however: Intelligent Design is firmly, if politely, dismissed. My response to this gambit was surprise verging on astonishment. If contemporary opinion is relevant, how can todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s atheist crescendo be ignored? Is it to avoid shocking the religious among the visitors? "
6. The Darwinian Revolution was, at the public opinion level, the fashion of free trade economics backed by the perception that Darwin and Spencer had extended that paradigm to all of living nature. This fashion enjoyed prominence in much of Europe and the United States, but began to fade around 1900. It was in no sense analogous to the Copernican revolution, with which it is often compared.
Caton begins his reply,
A soothing aphorism circulates today declaring that Ã¢â‚¬Å“the only thing Darwinism has in common with Social Darwinism is the nameÃ¢â‚¬Â. The Exhibition expresses this view, maintaining that Social Darwinism is a misuse of a Ã¢â‚¬Å“purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purposeÃ¢â‚¬Â and that Darwin was Ã¢â‚¬Å“passionately opposed to social injustice and oppressionÃ¢â‚¬Â. This is a drastic distortion of historical fact.
Caton's article apparently appeared in Evolutionary Psychology, Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 2007. 5(1): 52-69. It must be a kind of unusual article for them to publish. Glad they did.
Read the whole thing. Print it out and take it with you. Try not to disturb people by snorting and laughing in the middle of the Exhibition when a local hagiographer starts retelling the Darwin legend. Remember, when you are at the Darwin exhibition, you are in a house of worship!
Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
|<< <||> >>|
Evolution has become a favorite topic of the news media recently, but for some reason, they never seem to get the story straight. The staff at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture started this Blog to set the record straight and make sure you knew "the rest of the story".
A blogger from New England offers his intelligent reasoning.
We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design. We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation.
Website dedicated to comparing scenes from the "Inherit the Wind" movie with factual information from actual Scopes Trial. View 37 clips from the movie and decide for yourself if this movie is more fact or fiction.
Don Cicchetti blogs on: Culture, Music, Faith, Intelligent Design, Guitar, Audio
Australian biologist Stephen E. Jones maintains one of the best origins "quote" databases around. He is meticulous about accuracy and working from original sources.
Most guys going through midlife crisis buy a convertible. Austrialian Stephen E. Jones went back to college to get a biology degree and is now a proponent of ID and common ancestry.
Complete zipped downloadable pdf copy of David Stove's devastating, and yet hard-to-find, critique of neo-Darwinism entitled "Darwinian Fairytales"
Intelligent Design The Future is a multiple contributor weblog whose participants include the nation's leading design scientists and theorists: biochemist Michael Behe, mathematician William Dembski, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, philosophers of science Stephen Meyer, and Jay Richards, philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, and science writer Jonathan Witt. Posts will focus primarily on the intellectual issues at stake in the debate over intelligent design, rather than its implications for education or public policy.
A Philosopher's Journey: Political and cultural reflections of John Mark N. Reynolds. Dr. Reynolds is Director of the Torrey Honors Institute at