Darwin and racism: Did Darwin change his mind?

British physicist David Tyler notes this article:

Did Darwin change his mind about the Fuegians?

Gregory Radick

Endeavour, Volume 34, Issue 2, June 2010, Pages 50-54 | doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2010.04.002

Abstract: Shocked by what he considered to be the savagery he encountered in Tierra del Fuego, Charles Darwin ranked the Fuegians lowest among the human races. An enduring story has it, however, that Darwin was later so impressed by the successes of missionaries there, and by the grandeur they discovered in the native tongue, that he changed his mind. This story has served diverse interests, religious and scientific. But Darwin in fact continued to view the Fuegians as he had from the start, as lowly but improvable. And while his case for their unity with the other human races drew on missionary evidence, that evidence concerned emotional expression, not language.

Also,

From the Intro: Like the notorious tale of Darwin's deathbed conversion to Christianity, this story of a near-deathbed conversion to a more enlightened view of what his generation called the ‘lower races’ has proved tenacious. And as with the former, the evidence for the latter is, we shall see, uncompelling. But in considering it we have the chance to take up a number of worthwhile questions. There is, most obviously, the question of Darwin's attitude to race, the subject of a major new study from Adrian Desmond and James Moore."

[ ... ]

Does it matter that, in all probability, Darwin never changed his mind about the (improvable) lowness of the Fuegians? One might think that the enterprises of missionaries and scientists stand or fall on their merits, whatever Darwin would have thought. And even the most worshipful of his admirers will admit that, by the light of present-day science, Darwin got lots of things wrong, so the possibility of another mistake should hardly be surprising. The stakes are considerably higher, however, for anyone concerned to understand what Darwin wrought and how science and society have changed since his time. Darwinian biology no longer orders the human races hierarchically, of course. But it once did. Learning to live without the myth of a race-egalitarian Darwin is a long way from learning what brought about the change. But it is a step in the right direction.

News around here, actually, that Darwinists would admit that Darwin got anything wrong. If they did, the posterior would be far too big to cover.

Incidentally, Darwin's co-theorist, the much-neglected and subtly maligned Wallace, was not a racist.

Alfred Russel Wallace vs. Charles Darwin on cruelty in nature

In World of Life, Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin's co-theorist, directly addressed one of Darwin's key reasons for rejecting design in nature, in a letter to American supporter Asa Gray:

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.— (Letter 2814 — Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 22 May [1860])

Now, Darwin was a slippery character, as biographers have acknowledged, and he had been a materialist atheist long before he had any theory of evolution to propose, so his pretense of coming to these conclusions reluctantly was just that - a pretense. (See Flannery on this.)

However, Wallace addresses both examples in The World of Life. With respect to insects, he notes,

There is, of course, a large body of facts which indicate that whole classes of animals, though very highly organized, suffer nothing which can be called pain, as in the insects; and similar facts show us that even the highest warm-blooded animals suffer very much less than we do. (P. 185)

Now, re insects, Wallace is surely right, and I have never been much impressed by Darwin's example of the Ichneumon wasp laying its larvae in caterpillars. There is little evidence that the caterpillar knows or cares that it simultaneously gorges and is gorged. Whether a given caterpillar pupates or dies is not an instance of any great evil in the world, provided no ecology is upset.

About "the highest, warm-blooded" animals, I am not so sure. However, one source of human suffering that animals don't have is a "metacognitive" understanding of their condition. That is, the old dog Rover may think, ''I feel sick. I have no appetite, no energy. I just want to sleep all the time." His people know, "Rover has an inoperable cancer. Sedatives and painkillers for now. Later, we must make a decision ..." Rover is forever barred from knowing the nature of his condition, in the human, metacognitive sense, so there are many sources of suffering he simply cannot experience.

With respect to cats, Wallace notes, "It must be remembered that in a state of nature the Carnivora hunt and kill to satisfy hunger, not for amusement; and all conclusions derived from the house-fed cat and mouse are fallacious." (p. 181)

One might add that the biggest worry for a wild cat or other small carnivore that its catch might be stolen by a bigger animal. Swallowing the prey whole is a common preventive tactic. (The prey may be disgorged later, of course, for offspring - but meanwhile, it is secure down the hatch.)

See Michael A. Flannery's Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution (Erasmus, 2009) for more.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

New Book: Ben Wiker's Life and Lies of Charles Darwin

A friend writes to draw attention to Ben Wiker's new "very balanced" biography of Darwin, which argues that he "deliberately set out to create a 'godless' science and that the theory preceded his collection of evidence."

Don't be put off by the title, "The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin." As I will describe in an upcoming review of a different book, the ol' Brit toff told lots of stretchers during his career and deliberately misled people on many occasions. If the recent ridiculous hagiography around Darwin has accomplished anything, it has forced people who know the facts to make them public.
Wiker, in my friend's view, argues rather convincingly that the divorce of science and theism dates to Darwin.

Yes, absolutely. That is precisely what makes "theistic evolution" so stupid. The whole point of Darwin's theory was to get rid of theism - as stories like this clearly show. Theistic scientists are reduced to mumbling that they believe "in their hearts" that there must be a God somewhere out there, but they are not allowed to use any evidence to support their view. They should just holler from their guts about Jesus, or whatever.

My friend also expects a cascade of rote negative votes from Darwinist trolls and combox morons against Wiker's book, people who are their own best demonstration of why their belief system doesn't promote human civilization, only animal rights - which makes a lot of sense if we are the animals, right?

Meanwhile, Mike Flannery, whose book, Alfred Russel Wallace's theory of Intelligent Evolution, I shall shortly review, also wrote, to say,

That Darwin deliberately set out to establish a materialistic metaphysic supported by some biological speculations is clearly supported from Darwin's early university years and his notebooks, a point which I have already argued in my book. That Darwin clearly did not follow the evidence, as he claimed in his autobiographical boilerplate (largely a promotional effort instigated by Francis, his son), is also very true. I was able to read portions of Wilker's book in Amazon and have ordered a copy. I do indeed look forward to reading his entire assessment. This could be the most completely honest and frank analysis of Darwin yet; it certainly appears as though he's asked the right questions of this Victorian paterfamilias.

Of course Darwin did not follow the evidence. He knew what conclusion his culture compelled him to come to, and he obliged, as soon as he had cobbled together a theory. It's high time someone started asking the right questions.

David Warren: Darwin and our lady

Darwin was an honest, capable, plodding man. Alas, of his great hypothesis of "the origin of species, by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life," it must be said that what was true in it was not original, and what was original was not true.

Go here for more.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwin reader: Darwin's racism

In the face of systematic attempts to efface from public view, Darwin's racism, a friend writes to offer quotes from Darwin's Descent of Man:

Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

"It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but 'a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla' and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.

"The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals--to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races."

"The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races....Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used."

[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn't very difficult, with a bit of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art if they wanted to. Most human beings don't even try to develop their sense of smell - we are mostly occupied with avoiding distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I don't of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin's idea here is basically wrong and best explained by racism. ]

"It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. ... In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasian races.

"It is an interesting fact that ancient races, in this and several other cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors."

[From Denyse: The nice thing about teeth is that, if they give trouble, they can simply be pulled. I would be reluctant to found a big theory on the size or convenience of teeth, given that thsi fact must have occurred to our ancestors many thousands of years ago.]

"It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country."
[From Denyse: Native North Americans often perished from human diseases to which they had not become immune in childhood. That is probably unrelated to the inability of anthropoid apes to stand cold climates.]

This includes the degraded morals of lower races:

"The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind.... A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. ... With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. ... It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable."

"As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity is an unknown virtue..... Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian."

[From Denyse: If early modern Europeans in Canada had not trusted "Indians," they would all have died off pretty quickly.]

"The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations. The greatest intemperance is no reproach with savages."

"I have entered into the above details on the immorality of savages, because some authors have recently taken a high view of their moral nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to mistaken benevolence. These authors appear to rest their conclusion on savages possessing those virtues which are serviceable, or even necessary, for the existence of the family and of the tribe,--qualities which they undoubtedly do possess, and often in a high degree."

[From Denyse: Charles Darwin, let me introduce you to Hollywood, before you say any more silly things about the supposed immorality of "savages." ]

Making slavery understandable, though of course distasteful now:

"Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters."

[From Denyse: Not really. In ancient times, slaves were typically unransomed captives in war, convicted criminals, or people who had fallen into irrecoverable debt. In Roman times, there would be nothing unusual about being a slave to someone of the same race as oneself. Slavery based on race alone was an early modern legal invention, aimed against blacks.]

Mass killings of savages is understandable as a type of species extinction:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

"The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known....When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race.... The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element in the success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared the inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be ridiculous."

"[Flinders Island], situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and the natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly in health....With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the natives." [--Obviously the problem was trying to civilize these barbarians!]

"Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes which differ in different places and at different times; it is the same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the higher animals."

Of course the degradation extends to the intellectual:

"There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,--as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body ...Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea."

[From Denyse: I would imagine that the aborigines of South America felt some resentment over the loss of their continent to invaders from Europe ... ]

" A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in progress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races."

"So far as we are enabled to judge, although always liable to err on this head, none of the differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be excepted from this remark."

And... drum roll.., the main conclusion:

"The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind-such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. ... He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins."

[From Denyse: Sounds like a local rave to me. Not my ancestors (who were, as it happens, rigidly correct people, but my 2009 fellow Torontonians.)]

"For my own part I would as soon be descended from ...[a] monkey, or from that old baboon... --as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

[From Denyse: Yuh, I know. I know women who have divorced guys like that too ... but, when founding a theory in science, it strikes me that ... ]

And let's not forget sexism!

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman--whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands...We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on 'Hereditary Genius,' that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman."

"The greater intellectual vigour and power of invention in man is probably due to natural selection, combined with the inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have succeeded best in defending and providing for themselves and for their wives and offspring."

[From Denyse: Re women vs. men: Actually, if we leave Darwin's obsession with natural selection out of the matter for a moment, we can come up with a simple explanation for the difference between men's and women's achievements. Men are far more likely to win Nobel Prizes than women - but also far more likely to sit on Death Row.

For most normal achievements, women will do as well as men, given a chance. Women do just as well as men at being, say, a family doctor, an accountant, a real estate agent, a high school teacher, etc.

It's only in outstanding achievements - either for good OR for ill - that men tend to dominate. One way of seeing this is that the curve of women's achievements fits inside the curve of men's achievements, either way.

Natural selection does not explain this because most men who have outstanding achievements do not contribute a great deal to the gene pool as a consequence.

Either they produce few or no children, or their children do nothing outstanding. So Darwin did not really have a good explanation for this fact.

What should we do? Breeding of people and letting the weak die off:

"The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."

"We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

[From Denyse: But how would anyone know who the "worst animals" are among people?]

Message to Darwinists: Quit lying about Darwin's racism. It is not doing you any good.

Darwinists: Re the white–black-gorilla thing Quit lying about the fact that Darwin thought that black people are closer to gorillas than white people are. Just own up to it, reject it, and move on.

Of course, you must then admit that Darwin's whole idea of how different species develop is not a good one. Because you know perfectly well that Darwin's key point in Descent of Man was that different races are in the process of becoming different species.

Do you believe that, or not? I suspect you don't. Disowning Darwin's theory is surely a small price to pay, to move on to a post-"scientific racism" world?

And if not, why not?

Scholars also turn a blind eye to the argument for racism that eugenicists drew from The Descent. Darwin there claimed that the break between apes and man in evolution fell "between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." West argues that Darwin's allegation about blacks belonging to "a more primitive stage of human evolution" soon became a powerful scientific rationale for racist public policies, including laws against miscegenation*.

*Miscegenation means marrying a person of a different skin shade from oneself, and then having kids. It is the kind of offence only a demented society could invent. Darwinism helped dement societies in that specific way, because Darwin and his followers thought human groups were separating into different species. If Darwinists refuse to repent of such nonsense, I recommend disbelieving everything else they say.

Darwin's odd musings on circumcision: Believe whatever you like ... he certainly did

Friend Malcolm Chisholm, who is "finding that the Darwin we have been taught about is not the same as Darwin in his own words" has been reading Darwin's odd musings on circumcision, from the second edition (1875) of Darwin's The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, which he is "wading through." Of this book, he notes,

It was first published in 1868, but the second edition has the chapter on Pangenesis largely rewritten. Since Darwin died in 1882, this is pretty much as close as we get to the synthesis of his life of thought and final positions.

And what were these? Well, certainly not what the Darwin cult will tell you ...

First, he found, Darwin confirms himself as definitely Lamarckian. That is,

He absolutely believes that if a part of the body falls into disuse - or is removed - an inherited effect will reduce the appearance of this part of the body in subsequent generations. The mechanism he proposes for this is "Pangenesis" whereby every bit of the organism is responsible for getting itself inherited into the next generation.

He sees this being achieved via "gemmules" - units of inheritance that each cell (or maybe part of the body) passes on to succeeding generations, where they cause the same character to be expressed. If a bit of the body is removed, it cannot send its signal via the gemmules to the next generation, and so disappears. If a bit of the body falls into disuse, it produces fewer gemmules, so is less well expressed in succeeding generations.

Now, why does this matter? Because the Darwin fanatics attribute magical powers to natural selection (survival of the fittest) to produce major changes - and typically denounce Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics).

Now, Lamarck (the early French biologist who gave his name to Lamarckism) and Darwin might be right about the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Generations of environmentalists have worried that they are - that eggs and sperm may be damaged by environmental effects, for example, thus introducing acquired characteristics to inheritance. But Lamarckism is nonetheless Bad Thought, Wrong Thought, as you doubtless learned from your Darwinist biology texts.

From what Chisholm has discovered, Darwin himself wouldn't have agreed with those texts. But with the Founder safely dead, the cult carries on regardless.

Which brings us to circumcision. Darwin had given careful thought to the practice, often a religious obligation, and in that case usually performed in early infancy.

Chisholm writes,

If the foreskin is removed, according to Darwin's Lamarckian view, it should be reduced or missing in descendents. No foreskin means it cannot pass on its gemmules. The problem is that foreskins are still with us.

Let's review how Darwin tackles this difficult problem.

(a) He craftily dismisses Mohammedan circumcision in an indirect manner as being practiced "at a later age than the Jews".

But, trying to have it both ways, he notes that Dr. Riedel, Assistant Resident in the North Celebes, "writes to me that the boys there go naked until from six to ten years old; and he has observed that many of them, though not all, have their prepuces (foreskin, removed at circumcision) much reduced in length, and this he attributes to the inherited effects of the operation".

In some Muslim traditions, circumcision is performed in infancy, but in others around seven (traditionally, the "age of reason") and in still others, at puberty. Chisholm notes that there is "quite a bit of sophistry in this writing, allowing Darwin a lot of wiggle room while apparently building his case" - which becomes very difficult when he addresses the Jews because Jewish circumcision is performed on the eighth day.

(b) The situation of the Jews is a lot more difficult for Darwin. He recognizes this as follows: "With respect to Jews, I have been assured by three medical men of the Jewish faith that circumcision, which has been practised for so many ages, has produced no inherited effect."

Even so, Darwin is still able to find empirical evidence for his view: "Blumenbach, however, asserts (12/57. 'Philosoph. Mag.' volume 4 1799 page 5.) that Jews are often born in Germany in a condition rendering circumcision difficult, so that a name is given them signifying "born circumcised;" and Professor Preyer informs me that this is the case in Bonn, such children being considered the special favourites of Jehovah."

Darwin continues: "I have also heard from Dr. A. Newman, of Guy's Hospital, of the grandson of a circumcised Jew, the father not having been circumcised, in a similar condition. But it is possible that all these cases may be accidental coincidence, for Sir J. Paget has seen five sons of a lady and one son of her sister with adherent prepuces; and one of these boys was affected in a manner "which might be considered like that commonly produced by circumcision;" yet there was no suspicion of Jewish blood in the family of these two sisters."

Unconvinced? I gather that Chisholm was too, for he writes,

(c) Just in case the reader is still baffled by all of this, Darwin immediately disposes of any uncertainty by stating at the beginning of the next paragraph: "Notwithstanding the above several negative cases, we now possess conclusive evidence that the effects of operations are sometimes inherited."

Do we?

(d) Later on, Darwin is forced to return to the problem as he expounds on the gemmules:

"But it appears at first sight a fatal objection to our hypothesis that a part or organ may be removed during several successive generations, and if the operation be not followed by disease, the lost part reappears in the offspring."

A few lines later: "Circumcision has been practised by the Jews from a remote period, and in most cases the effects of the operation are not visible in the offspring; though some maintain that an inherited effect does occasionally appear."

Immediately following this he says: "If inheritance depends on the presence of disseminated gemmules derived from all the units of the body, why does not the amputation or mutilation of a part, especially if effected on both sexes, invariably affect the offspring? The answer in accordance with our hypothesis probably is that gemmules multiply and are transmitted during a long series of generations--as we see in the reappearance of zebrine stripes on the horse-in the reappearance of muscles and other structures in man which are proper to his lowly organised progenitors, and in many other such cases. Therefore the long-continued inheritance of a part which has been removed during many generations is no real anomaly, for gemmules formerly derived from the part are multiplied and transmitted from generation to generation."

Hence the continued appearance of foreskins actually supports Darwin's Lamarckianism based on Pangenesis implemented through gemmules.

In other words, based on almost no serious evidence, Darwin insisted on a Lamarckian interpretation of circumcision (why?) And insisted on having both ways. If the evidence didn't support him, it really did.

And this is the Great Prophet of evolution?

Chisholm adds,

This stuff is very significant. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" was intended by Darwin to show how evolution works in detail and provide evidence for it. What is does show is that Darwin had views very different from those attributed to him today, but it was these views that created the foundation - at least in Darwin's mind - for the Theory of Evolution.

Maybe in Darwin's mind. But when Richard Dawkins reverently whispers that "whispers that Darwin's Origin of Species is "not just the most precious book in my library, but the most precious book in the library of our species," he does not have in mind a real book. The real book, Origin of Species, like Variation, which Chisholm has been reading, is just an old book about a theory about how species originate that is now slowly being disconfirmed for most of the cases cited.

The book that materialist atheists like Dawkins read and adore is not an earthly book, it is a heavenly book - the creation story that shows how they slowly ascended from gibbering apes to gullible devotees.

Oh and, by the way, here's one of Richard Dawkins's "Four Horsemen" of atheism, Christopher Hitchens, carrying on against circumcision. Hat tip to Mariano at Life and Doctrinaire Atheism blog.

Aussie prof on Darwin's fibs

Regular readers will recall that agnostic retired Australian political science prof Hiram Caton has been tackling the huge industry of pious legends and ridiculous reverence around Charles Darwin single-handed - but having a fair bit of fun, I gather. Anyway, he writes to alert me to a fresh batch, "About Darwin's fibs":

There's a website that discusses the issue in detail.

Darwin did indeed come up with some whoppers, the most startling being his claim, on two occasions, that none of the many naturalists of his acquaintance doubted the permanence of species. Does he think we've forgotten a chap named Wallace? Or the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation? It's so far off the screen that it looks a bit pathological, like his comment to Asa Gray in 1858 that he feared being "cruxified" for publishing his theory.

My guess is that Darwin suffered from a combination of Avoidant Personality Disorder and Narcissism. But that's only an approximation because it doesn't clarify his moments of amazing candor about himself and his condition.

Of course, psychodrama around Darwin won't save his theory.

Anyway, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis is past its shelf life. I've given a precis of the new position on my other website , should you wish to have a look. One of the contributors to the new position, Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, a botanist at a Max-Planck Institute, also states an ID position. Some years ago atheist evolutionists launched a massive attack on him that carried on for some time. The documentation is on his website, should you wish to look.

Loennig, you have lots of friends in North America.

Here are some key areas that Caton thinks have changed so much that the Darwinoids huff in vain for their old tyme Judge Jones-style "evolution":

Bacteria are social creatures, not "survival of the fittest" ones

Genes can hop from one species to another (lateral gene transfer) and life forms can merge (endosymbiosis)

Archaea (or archaebacteria), a new domain of life, challenge Darwin's notion of common descent

Oh well, tThe Darwin fans can, of course, comfort themselves with reruns of TV science specials. Or new ones, for that matter. No doubt several such films are being made as I write this, assuring the public that Darwin Spake the Truth.

Pass the popcorn.

Darwin: Now that it's all in ruins, they're fighting over the rubble?

In Science or Monkey Business?: A Review of Roy Davies’ The Darwin Conspiracy, Flannery talks about the oft-raised question of whether Darwin routinely made unattributed use of the work of others.

I've often wondered about that, ever since - in 2002 - a Darwinist prof informed me that the reason people raised that question was that they didn't really believe in Darwin.

It was one of those moments of recognition - he sounded just like a certain type of fundamentalist informing me that the reason people analyzed the Bible critically was that they didn't really believe in Darwin. It strengthened me in my resolve to write By Design or by Chance?

In fact, people have raised the question over the years, and now Roy Davies throws in his hat:

The central theme of this rather slim 204-page volume is that Darwin lied and cheated his way into prominence as the principal discoverer of modern evolutionary theory and hence into the annals of science and world history as arguably the most influential theorist of Western Civilization. Who did he cheat? Several people - Edward Blyth for one, but most notably Alfred Russel Wallace. How was he able to do it? It’s a long and elaborate tale, but basically with the help of his friends Joseph Dalton Hooker and Charles Lyell, who “agreed to put their own reputations on the line” and read a joint Darwin/Wallace paper for the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858, the two men in an unseemly collaboration “to ensure priority for Darwin” (their longtime friend and fellow gentleman of rank and standing), manipulated key dates and events to make it appear that Charles had indeed come up with the crucial features of adaption and natural selection independently of Wallace who at the time was away collecting specimens in the Malay Archipelago (see p. 153). They informed Wallace of the reading (selecting the details carefully, of course), and so half-informed and ignorant of most of their machinations, Wallace (a man of much more middling means and social class) was delighted to be thrust into such rarified atmosphere as that inhabited by the Linneans elite. He could never have done it on his own. But this joint paper exercise wasn’t really about Wallace; it was about Darwin. In fact, the whole preemptive reading was railroaded into the Society agenda rather quickly after Darwin received the now-famous Ternate letter from Wallace laying out in detail the essential features of natural selection. The whole scheme was designed to deflect an almost certain trumpery on the part of Wallace if something wasn’t done and done posthaste.

Much in this history depends upon what Darwin knew and when he knew it.

From this account, Darwin does not emerge as a very pleasant person, let alone the object of the ridiculous hagiography (pious saints' legends) I have mentioned here in the past. Actually, Darwin's theory and the huge anti-traditional religion enterprise it has spawned is in a state of collapse, because (1) Most of the evidence is against either Darwin's original theory and its "neo" version, and no one can say any longer what is correct.

Meanwhile - for public consumption, the hagiography and misrepresentation go on. One thing the Darwinists can count on is that few legacy media would dream of exposing this stuff.

See also:

Darwin misconceptions in textbooks slammed in biology journal

Darwinism as a religion and the courts