The following scientists and philosophers have all been subjected to actual or attempted defenestrations: Sir Francis Galton, Sir Ronald Fisher, Karl Pearson, Clarence Cook Little, Carl Vogt, Edward Drinker Cope, J. Marion Sims, H. C. Yarrow, Carl Linnaeus and David Hume.Noah Carl, “The Impending Cancellation of Charles Darwin” at Medium
We don’t hear many Darwinians defending them but then they’re Darwinians, right?
In a recent op-ed, I argued that even Charles Darwin might not be safe, given that his writings “contain ample statements that would put him far beyond the pale of what is now considered acceptable.” Here I want to expand on this argument. More specifically, I want to show that—based on the criteria that have been invoked to cancel other deceased luminaries—there is no reason to believe that Darwin is immune from cancellation. By this I mean that there may soon be an attempt to remove a monument to Darwin, or to rename something that is named after him.Noah Carl, “The Impending Cancellation of Charles Darwin” at Medium
Well, will the people who think the Virgin Mary is racist deterred from trashing Darwin’s statue by claims that Darwin had the single best idea that anyone ever had?
That would make his offenses worse.
Carl offers a number of quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man (1871) and other writings that would probably drive the Outrage Mob into nuke-the-planet mode. Then he adds, “… the point of this blog post is to illustrate that—if you are in favour of honouring Darwin—you should oppose the defenestration of other impugned scientists and philosophers.”
Essentially, he is forcing the biology establishment to admit that they can’t impugn Darwin for his racism because he’s their religion. All those other guys can just be trashed. But not Darwin.
We wish they’d listened when we brought this stuff up years ago.
See also: Darwin’s racism