Culture Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

A. N. Wilson’s forthcoming book on Darwin as fraud

Spread the love

Further to “Well, we don’t hear this from Brit toffs every day: Darwin was a fraud!,” which seems to have stirred up the underbrush, A. N. Wilson is coming out with a new book (September 17), Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker, A radical reappraisal of Charles Darwin from the bestselling author of Victoria: A Life.

From the publishers:

Charles Darwin: the man who discovered evolution? The man who killed off God? Or a flawed man of his age, part genius, part ruthless careerist who would not acknowledge his debts to other thinkers?

In this bold new life – the first single volume biography in twenty-five years – A. N. Wilson, the acclaimed author of The Victorians and God’s Funeral, goes in search of the celebrated but contradictory figure Charles Darwin.

Darwin was described by his friend and champion, Thomas Huxley, as a ‘symbol’. But what did he symbolize? In Wilson’s portrait, both sympathetic and critical, Darwin was two men. On the one hand, he was a naturalist of genius, a patient and precise collector and curator who greatly expanded the possibilities of taxonomy and geology. On the other hand, Darwin, a seemingly diffident man who appeared gentle and even lazy, hid a burning ambition to be a universal genius. He longed to have a theory which explained everything.

But was Darwin’s 1859 master work, On the Origin of Species, really what it seemed, a work about natural history? Or was it in fact a consolation myth for the Victorian middle classes, reassuring them that the selfishness and indifference to the poor were part of nature’s grand plan?More.

It won’t be at Amazon.com, they say, until December 2017. Plenty of time for Darwinians to beat their iron rice bowls into hatchets.

See also: Thomas Nagel: Daniel Dennett “maintaining a thesis at all costs” in Bacteria to Bach and Back

22 Replies to “A. N. Wilson’s forthcoming book on Darwin as fraud

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    Plenty of time for Darwinians to beat their iron rice bowls into hatchets.

    News, you turn a phrase well.

    Andrew

  2. 2
  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Tribalism

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    And to think, onlt a few years ago Wilson was a “credulous moron“.

  5. 5
    rvb8 says:

    Bob @4,

    well researched. Heh:)

    I’ll try this phrase one more time; ‘UD, “hoisted with their own petard.”‘

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    TBH, I think Seversky nailed it @ 3.

  7. 7
    rvb8 says:

    Yeah!

    He usually does.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Yes, evolutionists often exhibit signs of tribalism. They have to stick together because they are all they have

  9. 9

    Seversky @ 3 through rvb8 @ 7: A/mat tribalism on display. Laughable irony.

  10. 10
    johnnyb says:

    Bob –

    “only a few years ago”…really? That was ELEVEN years ago. You don’t think people can change? It sure looks like he has, if you actually read the article you found.

    In fact, UD actually documents his change of position (2006, 2009). You might know this if you weren’t trying for cheap points.

    People can learn a lot in a few years. You just have to try 😉

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    johnnyb – I was well aware that AN Wilson’s position had changed. My point was rather that the opinions of people in the UD community about a person seem to reflect the closeness of that person’s views to the views supported at UD.

  12. 12

    What a profound indictment O’Bob — imagine people agreeing with other people who agree with them. Some might say you are just being an opportunistic blankety-blank, but surely you are right to point out this alarming facet of the ID community.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    Bob O’H- Evolutionists’ opinions of writers always reflect the closeness of that writer’s views to their own views.

    That pretty much goes for everyone.

  14. 14
    Bob O'H says:

    UB – I think you’re missing the point.Do you really think it’s a good idea to promote your agreement with a credulous moron? Wouldn’t it be better to keep quiet about it?

    ET – I don’t disagree that both sides do the same thing, but it’s striking when the opinion of the same person changes so remarkably when their views change.

  15. 15
    Mung says:

    …but surely you are right to point out this alarming facet of the ID community.

    LMAO!

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Bob O’H- If said “credulous moron” got an education such that he/ she is no longer a credulous moron, then yes, it is OK to promote your agreement with that person. Education can cure many woes, including being a credulous moron.

  17. 17

    UB – I think you’re missing the point.

    I think the point may be on the top of your head Bob. Surely you grasp the idea that someone could change their mind?? Now, in your particular group of choice you may not personally know anyone who has done so — but I assure you it happens. 🙂

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    ET @ 16 – how do you distinguish between someone getting an education, and someone still being a credulous moron, but now being credulous and moronic about something you agree with?

    UB – you, you are still filing to get the point. It’s about how you (as a community) view someone changing their mind.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    how do you distinguish between someone getting an education, and someone still being a credulous moron, but now being credulous and moronic about something you agree with?

    First I find out if said person is an atheistic materialist. If so then that person is a moron who is just saying something that I agree with.

  20. 20

    UB – you, you are still filing to get the point. It’s about how you (as a community) view someone changing their mind.

    No O’Bob, this isn’t about that either. This isn’t about how ID people react to other people changing their minds (your last attempt); this isn’t about some odd concern you have over how ID will look agreeing with someone they once disagreed with (your previous attempt). This isn’t about anything other than you – the committed ID opponent — opportunistically picking up a rock and throwing it at the ID people you oppose. It was a stupid rock to throw, and you threw it.

    Good grief.

    Let me distract you from this important subject long enough to ask you a question. We know that aminoacyl synthetases are the finite set of complex proteins that establish the genetic code. Their tasks in the cell is to perform a double-recognition and bind a particular amino acid to a particular tRNA adapter prior to the act of translation. We can all conceive of their significance to the system.

    They are synthesized from nucleic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a time in earth’s history that none of the set of aaRS had ever been synthesized from that memory. Here is my question: Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?

  21. 21
    Mung says:

    It was a stupid rock to throw, and you threw it.

    And it takes a rather special talent to distinguish the stupid rock from the rest of the rocks.

    🙂

  22. 22

    Perhaps my question wasn’t clear enough. 🙂

Leave a Reply