Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Stock up on Darwin for the holidays! Okay, well…

arroba Email

A reader who loves surfing the net to see what turns up writes to inform us of “Darwin, evolution & science books for holiday gift giving (2020) atThe Dispersal of Darwin, especially books for younger readers:

Darcy Pattison, Pollen: Darwin’s 130 Year Prediction (Little Rock, AR: Mims House, 2019, 33 pp.; illustrated by Peter Willis) ~ This award-winning book looks at a very specific aspect of Darwin’s work: his predicting that a type of moth would be found that would be adapted to pollinating a specific orchid flower… And thus, Darwin’s prediction 130 years before was shown as correct.

It’s probably a good enough story but it ties into the whole Prophet Darwin thing.

And here is Darwin’s On the Origin of Species as the new Bible:

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species adapted and illustrated by Sabina Radeva (New York: Penguin/Crown Books for Young Readers, 2019, 64 pp.; see some images here) This is a beautiful adaptation of Origin for elementary-aged children. The author, a graphic designer with a background in biology, begins by sharing a Biblical view of creation via illustration (without mention of the Bible or Christianity), followed by a brief overview of Buffon’s and Lamarck’s thoughts. Then comes Darwin, the Beagle voyage, and his return home to England and his long, hard work on his theory until he publishes Origin… The book largely follows the organization of Origin, and toward the end the author shares a quote from Darwin – “In the distant future I see open fields for far more important research… Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” – next to an image of the familiar, but unfortunately erroneous, depiction of the evolution of man from apes as a linear process ending in Darwin himself (this type of illustration is known as the “March of Progress”). While I adore the rest of this book, I am bummed that this depiction of evolution crept in – it remains pervasive in people’s understanding of the subject.

Aw come on. The illustration the reviewer complains of has absolutely been the dead white male Darwinians’ perspective and the author is right to make sure kids get used to that.

The underlying assumption that evolution proved the right people to be superior has been a key element in the difficulty getting any serious criticism of Darwinism accepted. It made a thesis that seemed highly plausible to many Europeans irresistible. Put another way, the highly evolved human never seemed to look like Evander Holyfield, fitness notwithstanding.

Time warp. Honestly. Kids who grow up with this sort of thing are not going to know what hit them when they discover hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, and the many other ways evolution can work.

A world is arising that knows not Darwin. Many have never heard the Word of the Beard.

See also: Man with two fingerprints also has his donor’s semen. Well first, as commenter Latemarch put it at the previous story, “He is still the same “person.” His DNA has changed but he’s still the same person. Another blow to materialism…think about it.”

It’s very odd to describe the linear images of evolution as “the dead white male Darwinians’ perspective” considering that the very issue Darwinists have with the depiction is that it seems to suggest that evolution is orthogenetic – i.e., non-Darwinian. I actually disagree with objections to the linear images of the evolution of man (or of the horse) as being “wrong” or “erroneous”. Yes, there are multiple “branches”, but it isn’t wrong to leave them out, anymore than it’s wrong for Google Maps to leave out streets you’re not using when you ask how to get from point “A” to point “B”. But while showing how point “A” got to point “B” isn’t wrong, it does give a better perspective of how evolution works by displaying an evolutionary tree showing side branches and related species. goodusername
I hope the kid's version includes the phrase "Preservation of Favored Races" somewhere. Be a shame to leave that part out when "simplifying" it. EDTA
In this case the illustration is unscientific fantasy, which should never be given in the name of science to any child. ET
We often use overly simplified illustrations (either in word or in picture) to introduce complicated subjects to children. I don’t see anything wrong with this. The illustration of the evolution of man is a good example. It is overly simplified and not factually correct but it is correct in getting the point of change over time across to children. Starting with the complexities of DNA, HGT, epigenics, meiosis, transpositions, mutations, genetic drift, etc. would be ineffective as this is not how we learn new concepts. For example, we don’t introduce children to the US process of developing and enacting laws by giving them a copy of the constitution and legal texts. We start by showing them the cartoon of how a bill gets through Congress and the senate. We then get into more detail. The same applies to religion. We don’t give them the bible and expect them to figure it out for themselves. We start them in Sunday school with overly simplified versions of the stories in the bible, with nice little illustrations. And, I might also point out, we don’t start with the more controversial aspects of the bible like stoning homosexuals or slaughtering the children of your enemies and taking the women for yourselves. Ed George

Leave a Reply