“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

Sorry, another correction: Marx's letter dates to 1861 and not 1869. I accidentally swapped the link too. Here's the proper link.dbthomas_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

I left off "a good idea" at the very end there.dbthomas_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

I have to say, it bothers me to see this article being promoted when it contains some pretty questionable stuff. Take this:
"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.
No, he did not, I'm afraid. You can find the full quote quite easily in an 1869 letter by Marx:
Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.
It's an odd sentiment, considering his own penchant for teleology in history, but it also shows that Marx only liked certain parts of Darwin's writings. My impression is that he liked it because it gave him license to inscribe his social teleology on nature's now-apparently blank slate. Whether that bit of guesswork on my part is true or not, it is quite certain that Marx departed from Darwin on what most today would consider the quintessentially "Darwinian" ideas:
1) Of the Darwinian doctrine I accept the theory of evolution, but Darwin’s method of proof (struggle for life, natural selection) I consider only a first, provisional, imperfect expression of a newly discovered fact. [much more along those lines follows]
This was actually pretty typical back then: people would call themselves "Darwinists" and yet disagree with Darwin on many and sometimes almost all of Darwin's particulars. Another glaring issue in Buchanan's piece is this:
"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.
Let's see that in context shall we? From a letter to Charles Lyell in 1858:
My dear Lyell Some year or so ago, you recommended me to read a paper by Wallace in the Annals, which had interested you & as I was writing to him, I knew this would please him much, so I told him. He has to day sent me the enclosed & asked me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a vengeance that I shd. be forestalled. You said this when I explained to you here very briefly my views of “Natural Selection” depending on the Struggle for existence.—I never saw a more striking coincidence. If Wallace had my M.S. sketch written out in 1842 he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as Heads of my Chapters. Please return me the M.S. which he does not say he wishes me to publish; but I shall of course at once write & offer to send to any Journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed. Though my Book, if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory. I hope you will approve of Wallace's sketch, that I may tell him what you say. My dear Lyell | Yours most truly | C. Darwin
I'd hardly characterize that as "wailing". In fact, what we have is Darwin telling Lyell, in more current, colloquial language, "Hey, that Wallace kid? Yeah, he figured it out too! You were right: someone was bound to if I kept on holding back from publishing. Well, I'm still gonna do that book-length treatment, so if there's anything to this selection thing, I'll probably be fine. Anyway, he asked me to pass it along, so here's his paper. I think you'll like it. Get it back to me fairly soon, though, because I'm going to ask Wallace if he wants to publish (he didn't say in his letter). If he does, I'll make sure someone prints it." Eventually, Wallace and Darwin issued a joint paper. No plagiarism of Wallce, as is obvious to anyone reading that letter, no nasty priority dispute, and Darwin finally published that book and came out alright, just as he said to Lyell. Quite different from how Buchanan would have it, wouldn't you say? So, here's the deal: this is either very, very dishonest or very, very bad journalism on Buchanan's part, and there is no excuse for either of those. If he can write for a website, he can certainly use Google to get his facts straight (or have someone do it for him). If he already knew better, then he shouldn't have written what he did. Uncovering other equally serious errors of fact is left as an exercise for the reader, but those two alone really ought to be enough make taking everything else he wrote in the piece with a salt-lick or two.dbthomas_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

JTaylor @3:
O’Leary: “To me, this feels important.” Is it? Buchanan has no formal training in biology, history, or the philosophy of science
As opposed to Darwin, I suppose? It is obvious that Darwin and his followers (e.g., P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins) are mathematically challenged and have a great deal of trouble grasping the concept of exponential explosion.Mapou_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

William Dembski: It’s nice to see people like Pat Buchanan feeling more at ease about going after Darwin. I agree, but for different reasons. I think that people like Buchanan attacking Darwin would probably have a positive effect amongst young people in relation to their views on evolutionary theory. This kind of thing makes it clear that the attack is religious/political, and certainly not scientific. We could call it the "Denise O'Leary effect."iconofid_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Borne: "Actually Darwin is being discredited all the way around these days. Maybe take a look at “The Darwin Myth: the life and lies of Charles Darwin” - over at amazon.com. His motives (underlying his speculations as he himself called them) were not even worthy of the name ’scientist’. His pseudo-scientific hypothesis (doesn’t even qualify as a real theory), is also being generally discredited by the rising “mountains of overwhelming” data, coming to us in throngs over the past few years, that clearly indicate that he was seriously in error." Sure, I looked at the book but of course it's written by a Fellow of the DI, so I have to need take into consideration that there may be some confirmation bias at work. But saying things like "discredited all around", "Mountains of overwhelming data" - without if the slightest bit of substantiation just sounds like hyperbolic assertions. I can fully accept Darwin was wrong on many things, I can accept that by the standards of his days he was a racist (probably along with millions of others in Britain - and I grew up there so have some sense of how persuasive racism has been in the culture for a long time). In the end so what? Sure, go fix the text books if that will make you happy. If you want say "Darwin like nearly all of his contemporaries of his class and background would be considered racist by today's standards". I don't personally care (we can also modify the text books to ensure everybody understands Newton practiced alchemy while we're at it). I don't revere Darwin - he is just one of many historical figures that we can learn something from (and whatever you may think, parts of his life and voyages are quite interesting). In the end though, will any of that change any of the commonly accepted science of evolution as understood in 2009? It's still hard not to be persuaded that all of this Darwin-bashing is only to make a stronger case for ID (and perhaps to help cushion the fact that ID's own scientific achievements are weak and undeveloped at best).JTaylor_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Oops, darn it, that quote was from Denyse. Sorry.PaulBurnett_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

I think to say Darwin was not a scientist is in error. He did a lot of stuff and some of it quite good. And his theory of evolution works well in micro evolution and predicts these minor changes in life forms. Where Darwin went wrong was in his commitment to an extension of his micro evolution ideas to everything since the origin of life. And even there people are still peering into puddles for explanations for life's origin. There is no evidence for the wholesale extension of micro evolution to creative events in life and natural selection is essentially a conservatory force not a creative one. But it was his obstinacy in insisting that all life changes flowed from his theories that will be his eventual undoing. He is a poster child of the brook no dissent on this that is so prevalent in the attitudes of those anti ID people here and as expressed by Lewontin in his supposedly controversial review of Sagin's book.jerry_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski wrote: "...lots of 19th century science types were racists." Keep in mind, when Origin was published in 1859, slavery was still legal in the United States (but not in England or Europe). And it would also be fair to similarly say that lots of 19th century religious / political /social leadership types were racists...and that condition remained generally true well into the 20th century.PaulBurnett_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Borne, ------"His pseudo-scientific hypothesis (doesn’t even qualify as a real theory), is also being generally discredited by the rising “mountains of overwhelming” data, coming to us in throngs over the past few years, that clearly indicate that he was seriously in error." Notice no one talks about his gemmules theory.Clive Hayden_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Wow---it looks like WND is a gold mine for accurate info on evolution. I think the following quote is quite appropriate, given the topic of this thread:
Yet none puts it more plainly than Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. "I do not want to believe in God," Wald admitted to Scientific American magazine. "Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." source
I have to at least respect Dr. Wald for being upfront about his religious views, unlike Darwin.herb_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

j Taylor, you wrote, "So why single Darwin out if he was not the worse offender? Or is this part of the strategy - to discredit Darwin, so that his ideas are also discredited, and therefore ID by default becomes more palatable?" He was certainly not the wors(t) offender, but he was an offender. Failing to acknowledge that makes his theory immune to rational examination - which could be the intention, in some cases. At this point, it has gone on long enough that I really have no way of knowing. I suggest we begin by acknowledging certain facts: Darwin was a racist, like most of his contemporaries. He thought that traditional peoples would be wiped out by peoples with access to advanced technology. That never happened. Does it matter to his theory that that never happened? Or is his theory immune from disproof due to failures of prediction?O'Leary_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

JTaylor:
Or is this part of the strategy - to discredit Darwin, so that his ideas are also discredited, and therefore ID by default becomes more palatable?
Actually Darwin is being discredited all the way around these days. Maybe take a look at "The Darwin Myth: the life and lies of Charles Darwin" - over at amazon.com. His motives (underlying his speculations as he himself called them) were not even worthy of the name 'scientist'. His pseudo-scientific hypothesis (doesn't even qualify as a real theory), is also being generally discredited by the rising "mountains of overwhelming" data, coming to us in throngs over the past few years, that clearly indicate that he was seriously in error.Borne_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

O'Leary: "To me, this feels important." Is it? Buchanan has no formal training in biology, history, or the philosophy of science (he has a masters in journalism). Is it what he says that is important or is this important merely because of who he is and what he stands for? O'Leary: "Darwin was NOT a Christian and he WAS a racist." Perhaps it's more illuminating to ask what British person in the 19th. century was not racist? (and probably in all classes). O'Leary: "Yes, it is true, lots of 19th century science types were racists. Darwin was hardly the most vicious example. But he was certainly an example." So why single Darwin out if he was not the worse offender? Or is this part of the strategy - to discredit Darwin, so that his ideas are also discredited, and therefore ID by default becomes more palatable?JTaylor_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Denyse,
Darwin was NOT a Christian and he WAS a racist. Any education text should make this clear. *** If this stuff could just be admitted and put on the record, many of us would forget all about it.
Here, here. Sometimes I just don't know what makes evos tick. If they would just admit that Darwin had these flaws, we could all get on with our lives. But no, all we get is denial, which is odd, since Darwin's views on religion and race have very little to do with the validity of his theory.herb_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

To me, this feels important. People must get over their reverence of Darwin and start speaking out about the facts of the current big tax-supported Darwin story: Darwin was NOT a Christian and he WAS a racist. Any education text should make this clear. But let's take this stuff one item at a time to prevent people clogging the medical system by fainting and crying for help ... If this stuff could just be admitted and put on the record, many of us would forget all about it. Yes, it is true, lots of 19th century science types were racists. Darwin was hardly the most vicious example. But he was certainly an example. Also there is no serious sense in which Darwin was a Christian or theist, as some texts have piously claimed. A Canadian "theistic evolutionist" made that very claim to me a few years ago, and I treated the claim as it deserved. Darwin knew that some facts of nature could not be addressed accurately by the atheism he really preferred. But many Bible school profs front the nonsense that Darwin was a theist without apprising their students of what he really believed ... = Nada. Anyway, it is a good thing that some of this is leaking out to the public. If you must pay taxes for this, you should at least know what you are buying.O'Leary_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply