“Making a Monkey out of Darwin,” by Patrick Buchanan

_{William Dembski

June 30, 2009

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s nice to see people like Pat Buchanan feeling more at ease about going after Darwin. In citing Eugene Windchy’s THE END OF DARWINISM, Buchanan writes:

Darwin … lied in “The Origin of Species” about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

SOURCE: worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102589

Comments

Clive: "They are either more evolved or less evolved, either way you have racism." Aren't you bringing in your teleological worldview here? Isn't unique just unique? By what benchmark are you measuring a particular state of evolution against? Less or more evolved compared with what? And going back to basics for a minute, here's a standard definition of evolution: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. How is this racist?JTaylor_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Clive, By trying to paint the theory of evolution as racist you are effectively implying that anyone working in a science that relies on evolutionary theory is also racist - this would include many thousands of scientists with a vast range of ethnic origins from across the globe. It is deeply offensive and sadly, onlookers, a poor reflection of the state of our society. please stop. now.Excession_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

I'll refrain from such language. Apologies: I just could not believe you made that claim. It does not mean either "more evolved" or "less evolved." It means that by a certian socially constructed measure using population genetics, you look at population genetics, the only group that appears to have covariation in "a small number of genetic traits, such as skin color, hair form, nose shape" is Australian aborigines. That makes sense, given their isolation from the population of the rest of the world for a long time until recently. The whole essay is an attack on the notion of race as a biological reality.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, He does say that the Aboriginals are a "unique group". Please tell me what he really means by that. They are either more evolved or less evolved, either way you have racism. And you need to watch your tongue in who you call idiotic, it is idiotic to call people names.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

KRiS_Censored, If something is true, it is true in a broader way than evolution is, incorporating our actual humanity. Yes, a theory that demands something less than humanity out of humanity, should be regarded as false, for it is not in accordance with the known facts, the known facts being that we know what humanity is, and it isn't racism. That question of yours is, quite honestly, an argument against evolution. That it has a stranglehold, a political atmosphere in academia and among certain secular hold-outs, that want the view stay in place, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the theory---it should not be overthrown, so say the evolutionists, of course. But this is just the opinion of one man :)Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Clive, A quick search picked up the paper you probably mean. To read this paper as racist is so wrong as to be idiotic. But you must not know much about Lewontin. Here's the part where he mentions aborigines, in a paragraph pointing out that the concept of race has virtually no biological reality:
Thus, the classically defined races do not appear from an unprejudiced description of human variation. Only the Australian Aborigines appear as a unique group.
Nowhere does he say the Aborigines are "less evolved," much less "inferior." That's a mind-numbingly wrong statement. Here's the conclusion of the essay:
There has been an interesting dialectic between the notion of human races and the use of race as a general biological category. Historically, the concept of race was imported into biology, and not only the biology of the human species, from social practice. The consciousness that human beings come in distinct varieties led, in the history of biology, to the construction of “race” as a subgrouping within species. For a long time the category “race” was a standard taxonomic level. But the use of “race” in a general biological context then reinforced its application to humans. After all, lots of animal and plant species are divided into races, so why not Homo sapiens? Yet the classification of animal and plant species into named races was at all times an ill-defined and idiosyncratic practice. There was no clear criterion of what constituted a race of animals or plants that could be applied over species in general. The growing realization in the middle of the twentieth century that most species had some genetic differentiation from local population to local population led finally to the abandonment in biology of any hope that a uniform criterion of race could be constructed. Yet biologists were loathe to abandon the idea of race entirely. In an attempt to hold on to the concept while make it objective and generalizable, Th. Dobzhansky, the leading biologist in the study of the genetics of natural populations, introduced the “geographical race,” which he defined as any population that differed genetically in any way from any other population of the species. But as genetics developed and it became possible to characterize the genetic differences between individuals and populations it became apparent, that every population of every species in fact differs genetically to some degree from every other population. Thus, every population is a separate “geographic race” and it was realized that nothing was added by the racial category. The consequence of this realization was the abandonment of “race” as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology. However, that abandonment was never complete in the case of the human species. There has been a constant pressure from social and political practice and the coincidence of racial, cultural and social class divisions reinforcing the social reality of race, to maintain “race” as a human classification. If it were admitted that the category of “race” is a purely social construct, however, it would have a weakened legitimacy. Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary.
David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

What paper is that? I missed the reference. Lewontin is as anti-racist as any scientist alive.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

JTaylor, ------"So is the modern theory of evolution also racist? And if so what is the empircal evidence for that?" Read Lewontin's paper on race. The aboriginals are markedly different from all other races on the planet, meaning they are less evolved, and therefore inferior, and therefore that position is racist, empirically racist, much like The Bell Curve was.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver, When I wrote "The point is that the “empiricism” of the theory, as you say, was proof to Darwin that savages were less evolved than he was" I was discussing the theory, so that is not an ad hominem my friend. The theory itself is racist. Racism is a conclusion, not a happenstance of the adherent.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
She’s arguing that the theory is inherently racist; not that racism makes the theory wrong, but that the wrong theory makes racism.
I get the sense that what you, or perhaps just O'Leary, would like to argue is that whether evolution is true or false is irrelevant. If it's possible that it could lead to racism then it should not be pursued and/or taught as a valid scientific theory, even if (or maybe especially if) it could be proven to be 100% true. Is this your view, Clive? How about you, O'Leary?KRiS_Censored_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Clive: "She’s arguing that the theory is inherently racist; not that racism makes the theory wrong, but that the wrong theory makes racism. " So is the modern theory of evolution also racist? And if so what is the empircal evidence for that? Why are we having these endless discussions about the theory of evolution as it was 150 years ago what we should be discussing is whether the current theory is still valid and the best representation of the data? BTW, on a slightly different tangent but inspired by the discussion here - as much as I love Richard Wagner's music I've decided to stop listening to it, because he was obviously an anti-semite and I don't want to be tainted with anti-semitic music. In fact I'm going to start a campaign to the Metropolitan Opera that when there are future performances of The Ring, that a label is affixed to the theatre programming stating "Warning: Wagner was an anti-semite and if you subject yourself to listenting to this performance you may likely start exhibiting anti-semite tendencies".JTaylor_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Clive,
Darwin could have become a racist as a result of his theory, regardless of whether he was one before his theory and read into the theory his own racism. The point is that the “empiricism” of the theory, as you say, was proof to Darwin that savages were less evolved than he was.
You're still attacking the arguer, rather than the merits of the theory itself. This is the very definition of ad hominem.SingBlueSilver_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand, ------"Darwin was a racist” is not an attack on Darwin’s theories, or even a cogent observation regarding evidence for or against those theories. Nor is it an ad hominem simply because it’s a personal calumny. Denyse is arguing, rather explicitly, that Darwin’s theories are wrong because he was a racist. That attempt to substitute criticism of the person for criticism of the argument is the definition of the ad hominem fallacy." She's arguing that the theory is inherently racist; not that racism makes the theory wrong, but that the wrong theory makes racism. And she is exactly right. Darwin could have become a racist as a result of his theory, regardless of whether he was one before his theory and read into the theory his own racism. The point is that the "empiricism" of the theory, as you say, was proof to Darwin that savages were less evolved than he was. This is empirical racism. Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

anthony09, you just committed the fallacy that Learned Hand warned us about.jerry_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Anthony09, you forget: once Pat Buchanan signs on, the youth will follow. Also Phyllis Schlafly: the kids love her. Evolution is doomed.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

It's kind of nice to see the Discovery Institute associating itself with people like Pat Buchanan. It's one more piece of proof that the DI's objections to evolution are not scientific or evidence-based but rather wholly religious.Anthony09_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

" 'Darwin was a racist' is not an attack on Darwin’s theories, or even a cogent observation regarding evidence for or against those theories. Nor is it an ad hominem simply because it’s a personal calumny. Denyse is arguing, rather explicitly, that Darwin’s theories are wrong because he was a racist. That attempt to substitute criticism of the person for criticism of the argument is the definition of the ad hominem fallacy." A couple things. Much of Darwin's ideas were wrong on evolution and a legitimate question is were these wrong ideas affected by his racial attitudes. On another issue let me rewrite the above paragraph as a template. " 'Thaxton (substitute any pro ID advocate) was a creationist' is not an attack on Thaxton's theories, or even a cogent observation regarding evidence for or against those theories. Nor is it an ad hominem simply because it’s a personal calumny. A typical anti ID advocate is arguing, rather explicitly, that Thaxton's theories are wrong because he was a creationist. That attempt to substitute criticism of the person for criticism of the argument is the definition of the ad hominem fallacy." Whenever an anti ID person wants to criticize ID the sprinkling of the term "creationist" is not far behind. Just look at the Wikipedia excerpts for Charles Thaxton and Dean Kenyon.jerry_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

I don’t think it’s exactly an ad hominem when looked at in the light of Darwin’s proposition of descent. In other words, his views of non-protestants would not be an issue, for example, because such views did not impinge on his theory. However, Darwin’s racism did in-fact impinge on his theory, and was shown to be false. Darwin's "proposition of descent" is an empirical theory that can be tested to determine its empirical validity. Even assuming arguendo that the author was a racist, that is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the empirical proposition. It’s therefore not a personal attack on Darwin as an ad hominem would be, but on the idea he forwarded regarding common descent and how it was occurring as evidenced in his own time by the different races, and a comparison between the “savage” and the more “civilised” races. "Darwin was a racist" is not an attack on Darwin's theories, or even a cogent observation regarding evidence for or against those theories. Nor is it an ad hominem simply because it's a personal calumny. Denyse is arguing, rather explicitly, that Darwin's theories are wrong because he was a racist. That attempt to substitute criticism of the person for criticism of the argument is the definition of the ad hominem fallacy.Learned Hand_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

What’s kind of interesting about the Buchanan column is to put it together with the post showing overwhelming support for design over Darwininsm in public polling. There is a clear disconnect between the self-appointed cultural elite and the culture. Most consumers of news and opinion would not be shocked at all to see columns like Buchanan’s that cast doubt on Darwin and embrace design. No, it’s the news editors who are shocked by dissent from the party line. It’s the illuminati, including smirking conservatives like Brooks, Krauthammer and Derbyshire. Buchanan is a maverick, tolerated for his quirkiness. We won’t know that the tide really has turned until some more mainstream commentators feel “more at ease” about coming out of the closet and admitting their doubts about Darwin. Right now, it looks like fear and groupthink are still suppressing Darwin dissent, just as they are suppressing dissent over AGW. Columnists want to be part of the in-crowd, too.allanius_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

——”Clive, I’m curious: what are we supposed to notice about that?” That Darwin was wrong. That the Origin of Species is, by extension, a piece of civil war era speculation on the same level.
Does that mean that if I can find one single instance of you or anyone else here being wrong then everything else you or they have ever said or done is wrong by extension? That might explain a few things.Excession_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

dbthomas How nice to have someone contribute who knows what they are talking about.Mark Frank_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, I don't think it's exactly an ad hominem when looked at in the light of Darwin's proposition of descent. In other words, his views of non-protestants would not be an issue, for example, because such views did not impinge on his theory. However, Darwin's racism did in-fact impinge on his theory, and was shown to be false. It's therefore not a personal attack on Darwin as an ad hominem would be, but on the idea he forwarded regarding common descent and how it was occurring as evidenced in his own time by the different races, and a comparison between the "savage" and the more "civilised" races. I would agree with you if Darwin's racism had nothing whatsoever to do with his theory, but in fact it did.CannuckianYankee_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

He was certainly not the wors(t) offender, but he was an offender. Failing to acknowledge that makes his theory immune to rational examination... Calling an author a racist is not a "rational examination" of his work. It is an argumentum ad hominem--a logical fallacy intended to discredit an argument without engaging its merits. The nature of Darwin's character is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of his ideas.Learned Hand_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Oh, and Clive? Origin didn't cover gemmules or any other aspect of pangenesis. Darwin didn't publish about that until nine years later after which the word "pangenesis" appeared, once, in the 5th Edition of Origin:
The possibility of characters long lying latent can be understood according to the hypothesis of pangenesis, which I have given in another work.
Origin hardly dealt with heredity at all, originally, beyond acknowledging that it existed and accepting that it was a physical mechanism of some kind. Since nobody understood heredity then, you can't really expect much else. He did accept some generic Lamarckian ideas, as did a great many others, and he discussed possible effects of use and disuse, but didn't really spend too much time on them. All that really mattered for his purposes was that: a. Heredity was real b. There was a source of variation in organisms and: c. Some of that variation was heritable All of those could be quite readily observed without understanding the actual mechanisms involved. The theory was of course vulnerable on any of those points (for example: was there only a limited pool of variation? Were traits merely shuffled about?), which is why later editions did expand on the topic and he eventually proposed pangenesis. Of course Mendelism came along, and was in fact thought by many, if not most, to have basically killed Darwinism in the early 20th Century because of those aforementioned vulnerabilities. Until population genetics came along, that is. But anyway, getting back to your actual comment, none of that really matters as your linkage of Origin's main subject matter to the much later hypothesis of pangenesis fails on historical grounds alone. In no way can you say Origin was an extension of pangenesis, thus Origin cannot "by extension" be dismissed along with it. Sorry.dbthomas_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

That Darwin was wrong. That the Origin of Species is, by extension, a piece of civil war era speculation on the same level.
Hilarious. You do know the reason that he was forced to propose the theory of pangenesis (or something similar), right?Tajimas D_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

To clarify: Fisher started population genetics off in 1918. Haldane and Wright followed soon after with work of their own in the period up to 1932. Of course, they all kept at it and were joined by many others.dbthomas_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Clive, you expect people to say he was wrong, period? Why would they, when he wasn't wrong about everything? Besides, it's not like it's any secret that Darwin got heredity wrong. Hardly anyone even bought his ideas on it back then. It's also very well known that that whole selection deal Chuck also liked to write about (not to mention the gradualism thing) works just fine with Mendelian genetics, as Haldane, Fisher and Wright started proving, mathematically, back in 1918. But, OK: Darwin was wrong...and he was also right. Also, what's with "civil war speculation"? Darwin was a British subject and in any case the American Civil War hadn't yet started when Origin was first published in 1859 (not to mention the decades of work that preceded said publication).dbthomas_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"Clive, I’m curious: what are we supposed to notice about that?" That Darwin was wrong. That the Origin of Species is, by extension, a piece of civil war era speculation on the same level.Clive Hayden_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

"Notice no one talks about his gemmules theory." Clive, I'm curious: what are we supposed to notice about that?David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

Notice no one talks about his gemmules theory.
Yeah, strange that.Tajimas D_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply