A recent article in Cracked, discussing plagiarism, used the careers of Richard Owen and H.G. Wells – both important evolutionists – as 40% of “Five Great Men who Built Their Careers on Plagiarism.”
Read it and see what you think.
30 Replies to “Evolutionists’ careers built on plagiarism?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is an April fool’s joke in advance, right? Also on the list are the Christians T.S. Eliot and Martin Luther King Jr.
Besides, though Owen was an “evolutionist” in a broad sense, he was opposed to Darwinism (his positions seem confused and highly variable). His ethical lapses may also be motivated by anti-materialism. A biographical page at Berkeley notes:
Except that Richard Owen was an anti-Darwinist and early supporter of what some now call “intelligent design” (he called it “ordained continuous becoming”). Indeed, Richard Owen is recorded in the history of science as perhaps the best-known anti-Darwinist of the 19th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen
In fact, Owen was dedicated to the idea that evolution proceeded by “the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things”. He was, in other words, an early supporter of “intelligent design”, and a relentless critic of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.
For example, “…Owen tried to smear [T. H.] Huxley [“Darwin’s bulldog”], by portraying [Huxley] as an “advocate of man’s origins from a transmuted ape”. Owen believed “…that living matter had an “organising energy”, a life-force that directed the growth of tissues and also determined the lifespan of the individual and of the species.” He also strongly supported Lamarck’s theory of evolution (i.e. evolution by means of the inheritance of acquired characteristics), which was, of course, in direct opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection.
One of Owen’s strongest allies was the American anatomist and staunch young-Earth creationist, Louis Agassiz of Harvard (and Cornell). Agassiz was also a virulent racist, promoting the idea that whites and blacks were members of separate species, that blacks were both mentally and physically inferior to whites, and that they had been created that way by God around 4,000 BC.
And H. G. Wells was a writer. Yes, he accepted a modified version of Darwin’s theory of evolution, but so did many other writers of his time.
What does this have to do with the idea that Wells plagiarized some of his writing? Are you trying to assert that “evolutionists” (i.e. writers who accept evolution) are necessarily plagiarists? If so, then the fact that you have mentioned Richard Owen – an avowed anti-Darwinist and supporter of “intelligent design” – as a plagiarist along with Wells, means of course that both “evolutionists” and “intelligent design supporters” are necessarily plagiarists, right?
This particular post is perhaps the most egregious misuse of elementary logical argument I have encountered in many, many years, plus an almost textbook case of guilt by association.
I am sorry. I am not following. How does this show that Owen was not plagiarizing an earlier scientist?
In Owens’ defense, he did argue before the Zoological Counsel that Mantell’s work on the Iguanadon was so good that he wanted to use it in some of his public presentations, but when he tried to purchase it after sending several queries to the relevant parties, he was informed it wasn’t ready.
To follow up on David Kellogg’s post, I’m curious what others here would think if someone used the, erm, Cracked article in support of a post entitled “Christians’ careers built on plagiarism?”
O’Leary wrote:
H.G. Wells was not a scientist, he was a writer, and according to the article to which you linked, Wells plagiarized a historian (Florence Deeks) in two books of history (The Outline of History and A Short History of the World), not science.
In other words, both the title and underlying premise of this thread are completely bogus, except as “anti-evolutionist” propaganda.
Denyse, my comment was meant to show the absurdity in the title of the post. What, out of curiosity, did you tend to convey by it?
It may be worth noting that “Cracked” is a juvenile humor magazine and that the article’s author doesn’t know the first thing about plagiarism (as evidenced by the absurd inclusion of T.S. Eliot). The case of Dr. King is more complicated, but to explore that in detail would require a scholarly explanation of plagiarism and its history — a discussion outside the range of both this website and “Cracked” magazine.
I have to agree that citing a satirical site that claims H.G. Wells is “probably most famous for his radio drama War of the Worlds” is probably something we best shouldn’t do.
Richard Owen was a vehement DENIER of Darwinism. H.G. Wells wasn’t even a scientist.
I’m all for criticizing Darwinists when you have an actual point, but how on earth do these people qualify as “important evolutionists”?
In #9 AmerikaninKananaskis asked:
They don’t if you are trying to make an honest logical argument using evidence, but if you are pushing propaganda, then hey, whatever works, right?
Once again, Herr Doktor Goebbels would be proud…
“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”
—Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion
Hi all,
Tribune7, H.G. Wells is probably “most famous for his radio drama, War of the Worlds.” Maybe he, you, and I would all wish it were otherwise, but it is a fact. I didn’t invent it, honest.
AmericaninKananaskis, I am told that Richard Owen invented the term “dinosaur.” If so, that would make him pretty important in the history of evolution. He did not need to have agreed with Charles Darwin about everything.
(That demand came later, when the discipline was already falling into serious disrepute.)
H.G. Wells was one of the best popularizers of evolution theory ever, and is worthy of a place in the canon of its saints.
I almost feel injured on his behalf that you would deny it.
Denyse, you didn’t invent it but it’s still wrong. H.G. Wells wrote the novel War of the Worlds. The radio drama was a much later adaptation of the novel by Orson Welles (no relation).
Denyse:
By these standards G. Agricola was as much an “evolutionist” as R. Owen. I don’t think that that would make sense.
Owen was a design proponent:
He opposed evolution by natural selection but viewed evolution as a kind of teleology:
His views changed, but I wouldn’t call him an evolutionist:
Biographical Page at Victorian Web
From the Owen biography at the World of Biology (Thomson reference). Alas, it’s behind my university subscription wall:
Encyclopedia Brittanica on Owen:
Sorry if this seems to be piling on, but the identification of Owen as an evolutionist in any sense we would now recognize deserve to be refuted. Further, one does not become an evolutionist simply by coining the term “dinosaur.”
IMHO, he would have been better had he stuck to writing science fiction rather than trying his hand at movies. Sure, Citizen Kane was great, but seeing him in wine commercials toward the end of his life was pitiful.
To put Ludwigs post into perspective:
Now compare it to William Dembski:
HT to Richard T Hughes for spotting that.
-DU-
Denise O’Leary would probably be interested in knowing that Richard Owen was anti-materialist. He believed in intelligent design, and in a mind separate from the brain.
His notoriously bad behaviour towards his colleagues is in no way a discredit to the modern I.D. movement, though, I’m sure she’d agree.
IMHO, he would have been better had he stuck to writing science fiction rather than trying his hand at movies. Sure, Citizen Kane was great, but seeing him in wine commercials toward the end of his life was pitiful.
Perhaps you’ve confused him with Orson Scott Card, a different science fiction writer.
H.G. Wells is probably “most famous for his radio drama, War of the Worlds.” Maybe he, you, and I would all wish it were otherwise, but it is a fact. I didn’t invent it, honest.
Orson Welles gave us the radio drama. H. G. wrote the novel upon which it was rather loosely based.
H.G. used that Time Machine he wrote about for the sole purpose of selling Paul Masson wine, but he had a lot of fun doing it!!!!
WeaselSpotting you are being mean LOL.
Ah, yes, that must be it.
I am told that Richard Owen invented the term “dinosaur.” If so, that would make him pretty important in the history of evolution. He did not need to have agreed with Charles Darwin about everything.
Your point is that he coined a term. And that makes him relevant to modern Darwinism how? Someone would created a term for them either way.
Linnaeus (a die-hard creationist, by the way) is credited with inventing our nomenclature system, although he may have actually lifted it from Peter Artedi. That’s a more relevant case, although it still has nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory.
Let’s at least get our heads together before making irrelevant criticisms based on “Cracked Magazine” articles of all things.
I’m an ID supporter and have to agree with Kellog, madsen and others in wondering what O’Leary’s intended point is. Consider a couple small tweaks to her original quotation:
What conclusions might we be able to draw from stuff like this?
There are some really funny (and interesting) things on cracked.com, but I would not post their stuff here. Just my opinion
C’mon everybody. Did you read the article? Did you notice today’s date? (April 1). Mrs O’Leary is having you on! And you all fell for it – she really had you going. Next she’ll tell you the Curious Case of Syd Finch. Sheesh.
You people are so politically incorrect. Don’t you know that when a hero of the left plagiarizes, it is not plagiarism, but an “authorship issue“.
H.G. Wells was just a writer.
So was Harriet Beecher Stowe.
One major exception, of course, was that Wells wrote non-fiction.
H.G. Wells’ contributions to Darwinism are that he helped popularize eugenics and wrote one of the first true “wedge” documents.