Publicly financed Darwin industry:Is the Darwin Carnival coming your way?

Just today, I received a most interesting note from a retired Australian poli sci professor Hiram Caton, late of Griffiths University, noting that the Darwin exhibition, developed at the American Museum of Natural History, is hitting the road, and may stop at a museum near you.

Caton explains,

You are well aware of my former colleague Dave Stove's critique of Darwinism. We are alike in that we have no religious affiliation; also in that we do not believe that Darwinism can provide a basis for ethics or for 'conservative' politics, in the manner of Larry Arnhart.

At his site, Caton offers a most useful anti-docent, "Getting Our History Right: Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence," documenting the following six errors:

1. The publication of the Origin was not a sudden (“revolutionary”) interruption of Victorian society’s confident belief in the traditional theological world-view. Instead, it was another step, albeit a big one, toward a popularly understandable scientific naturalism, including the idea of our primate origins, that was well in place by 1850.

Caton notes, among other things,

The implication of [the Exhibition's] ill-wrought claim is denial that evolutionary theory was extensively developed before Darwin embarked on his Beagle voyage (1831). Not so. Notable contributors were Louis-Constant Prévost, Louis-Melchior Patrin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Julien-Joseph Virey, Jean-Baptiste-Julien d’Omalius d’Halloy, Bory de Saint-Vincent, Ducrotoy de Blainville, Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (Corsi, 1988b). Most of these scientists argued for the key “Darwinian” theses of common descent from an initial few organisms, gradual modification and extinction over great ages driven in part by the struggle for existence, geological uniformitarianism, and the primate origin of the human species. Some, notably the physicist Patrin, argued that life originated abiotically. Darwin’s library aboard the Beagle included Bory de Saint-Vincent’s influential seventeen volume Dictionnaire classique d’historie naturelle (1822-1831).

2. The Origin did not “revolutionize” the biological sciences by removing the creationist premise or introducing new principles. On the contrary, Origin had little effect on the hard biological sciences because they were already mechanistic and experimental. Darwin’s naturalist investigations did not contribute significantly to the experimental biology of his day.

Rather,

Darwin discovered a stunning profusion of adaptations, and made many suggestions about phylogenetic relations (Leach and Mayo, 2005), but he did not prove a single phylogeny or prove a single case of speciation by natural selection. Indeed, by 1900 the only fossil-based phylogeny generally accepted was the evolution of the horse (Gayon, 1998). These facts are ignored. The Exhibition also ignores the Pangenesis theory and its influence on Darwin’s shift to substantial Lamarckian explanation in the 5th and 6th editions of Origin. Indeed, it implicitly denies Darwin’s Lamarckism by baldly stating that “Charles Darwin offered the world a single, simple scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth : evolution by natural selection” [bold face in original].

3. The Origin did not “revolutionize” Victorian public opinion. Public perception considered Darwin’s message to be about the same as Herbert Spencer’s, known today as “Social Darwinism”, which, though fashionable, never achieved dominance.

4. Many leading naturalists and biologists made significant criticisms of Darwin’s work. This includes Gregor Mendel, who believed that his discoveries refuted Darwin’s premises about the heritability of traits, and Thomas Huxley, who rejected natural selection.

(By contrast, Caton notes, the Exhibition promotes "an extreme version of the triumphalist legend".)

5. Darwin made little or no contribution to the renovation of theology. His public statements on Providence were inconsistent and the liberal reform of theology, including rejection of the divinity of Christ, was well advanced by 1850.

Caton offers,

Although the corrosive influence of Darwinism on conventional religious belief is widely claimed to be its most novel and potent cultural influence, the facts speak overwhelmingly against it.

[ ... ]

However, "The Exhibition triumphantly proclaims that Darwin’s “revolutionary theory changed the course of science and society”. Which society? What changes? Rather than attending to Darwin’s contribution to secularization, as I have done, the Exhibition offers a video of half dozen biologists who simply assert the compatibility of religion with Darwinian evolution. Not all religion, however: Intelligent Design is firmly, if politely, dismissed. My response to this gambit was surprise verging on astonishment. If contemporary opinion is relevant, how can today’s atheist crescendo be ignored? Is it to avoid shocking the religious among the visitors? "

6. The Darwinian Revolution was, at the public opinion level, the fashion of free trade economics backed by the perception that Darwin and Spencer had extended that paradigm to all of living nature. This fashion enjoyed prominence in much of Europe and the United States, but began to fade around 1900. It was in no sense analogous to the Copernican revolution, with which it is often compared.

Caton begins his reply,

A soothing aphorism circulates today declaring that “the only thing Darwinism has in common with Social Darwinism is the name”. The Exhibition expresses this view, maintaining that Social Darwinism is a misuse of a “purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purpose” and that Darwin was “passionately opposed to social injustice and oppression”. This is a drastic distortion of historical fact.

Caton's article apparently appeared in Evolutionary Psychology, – 2007. 5(1): 52-69. It must be a kind of unusual article for them to publish. Glad they did.

Read the whole thing. Print it out and take it with you. Try not to disturb people by snorting and laughing in the middle of the Exhibition when a local hagiographer starts retelling the Darwin legend. Remember, when you are at the Darwin exhibition, you are in a house of worship!

By the way, yes, Caton is the prof who documented a good deal of the ridiculous Darwin hagiography. But there's more here.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design. My reviews of movies relevant to the intelligent deisgn controversy.

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Deprogram from Darwin legends - free and fun!

I now have a chance to say more about retired Australian political science prof Hiram Caton's new Web site on the pious Darwin legends that currently infest popular media. (I first mentioned it here but couldn't follow up until now.)

Caton, a friend and associate of the late David Stove, author of Darwinian Fairy Tales, has done extensive research on the real story behind Darwin and his Origin of Species - and no, it is not the pious legends you will be hearing on public television.

Both Caton and Stove are recognized as agnostic philosophers with limited use for pious legends in science or religion (must be something in the air Down Under?) Anyway, here is Caton's beginning stab at hauling away the trash (and his deceased colleague would be proud):

^Belief that the Origin was a 'revolutionary' scientific breakthrough conflicts with the fact that public opinion was at the time saturated with the evolution idea. It was so widespread that in 1860 the showman P T Barnum put on display a freak, styled Zip the Pinhead, alleged to be the 'missing link' between apes and humans.

^The natural selection principle was first stated in 1831 by Patrick Matthew, and was independently discovered in 1836 by Darwin's naturalist colleague, Edward Blyth. Herbert Spencer came close to a formulation in 1852, and Alfred Wallace discovered it in 1858.

^The Origin did not found modern biology. By 1850 it was a thriving science whose leading men were Louis Pasteur, Claude Bernard, Rudolph Vircow, and Robert Koch. Darwin, a naturalist, was not involved in this research mode. Conversely, evolution was not a parameter of experimental biology.

^The Origin did not instigate a 'revolutionary' disruption of science from religious belief. That antagonism became a cultural force thanks to the French Revolution. By the 1830s, French and British radicals invoked evolution as a rebuttal of religious beliefs about God's creation.

By 1860 this position was widespread throughout Europe and Latin America. Conversely, numerous scientists and clergymen believed in the compatibility of science and religious faith. That includes the discoverer of the first quantitative biological laws, Gregor Mendel.

^The only practical application of Darwinian theory with potential cultural impact was eugenics, devised by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Three of his sons were dedicated to the eugenics cause, and one of them, Leonard, was the patron of a key figure in the creation of neo-darwinism, R A Fisher, as well as President of the Eugenics Society

Dr. Caton tells me that his Web page, Whither Progress? on "Major Changes in Evolution Theory" is almost finished, and thanks me for reporting his views accurately, noting

I believe that you know that I don't believe that the extensive revisions and corrections of Neo-Darwinism imply rejection of evolution; rather the improvement of our understanding of it.

Yes, I got that. He argues that " ... the Modern Synthesis is obsolete, and that a new grasp of evolution is in the making, has been argued by numerous authors. My purpose here is to highlight some major innovations that have transformed evolution science.", which he does. Darwintrolls, this is not for you. Serious thinkers, have a look.

Check out his deprogram from Darwin legends here.

Dr. Caton also writes me to record, for historical purposes, the response of one much-feted "religious" Darwinist,

Among the responses I've had from my mailouts is one from a prominent evolutionary biologist , who is giving a paper on Darwin and religion at the Duquesne University Darwin celebration in November 2009. He wrote:

"Your synopsis says a number of truths, but they may amount to half-truths, since they seem to me to miss (but not only) what is the most important contribution of Darwin to the history of ideas: that he completed the Copernican Revolution by bringing the design of organisms into the realm of science. At a non-technical level, I elaborate this notion in my recent Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion (Joseph Henry Press, 2007)."

Caton then offers his response:

Good morning Professor!

Thanks very much for responding to my email. I'm aware that you are among those to whom my evidence is in opposition. Specifically, I maintain that Darwin was but one in a long line of naturalists and experimental scientists whose study of living nature was based entirely on natural causes. In 1859, the British and American public had been exposed to the evolutionary naturalism of Herbert Spencer and the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.

Commentators such as Ernst Mayr dismiss Vestiges as romantic garble of no scientific significance. That view was also expessed by some scientists of the time, e.g., Herschel and Sidgwick.

Nevertheless, Vestiges presented what was for many (e.g. the young Alfred Wallace, Abe Lincoln) a convincing argument that living nature could and should be explained entirely on natural principles (documented in Secord's Victorian Sensation).

Furthermore, there was an extensive purely naturalistic evolution literature, mostly in French, from 1790--1840, documented by Corsi, The Age of Lamarck).

On p. 159 of your book you write: "Indeed, a major burden was removed from the shoulders of believers when convincing evidence was advanced that the design of organisms need not be attributed to the immediate agency of the Creator, but rather is an outcome of natural processes." Perhaps today (not all believers would agree), but not historically. In 1864 Pope Pius IX decreed the Syllabus of Errors. Eighty errors are enumerated under ten headings: Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism; Moderate Rationalism; Indifferentism and Latitudinarianism; Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies; Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights; Errors about Civil Society, Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to the Church; Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics; Errors Concerning Christian Marriage; Errors Regarding the Civil Power of the Sovereign Pontiff; Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism. Under the last three headings, the encyclical deals extensively with varieties of the demand for separation of church and state. Under the first heading, the first six errors are:

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. - Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. -- Ibid.

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid.

6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. -- Ibid.

Notice that Evolution is not one of the ten headings. Nowhere in this document is evolution or Darwin mentioned. Nowhere. So according to the Church, not Darwin, but pantheism, naturalism, and absolute rationalism should be credited for freeing believers from the burden you mention.

Dr. Caton also advises me that

Several other mailout recipients have identified errors in my history, but on inspection they turn out to non-errors, and of course I've responded as I did to (the) Professor.

His email persuaded me that my response to him should go up on the legend website in an expanded form. I'll also include the London Times obituary of Darwin. It's a long-very long-eulogy whose extravagance is matched only by praise of Stalin and Mao. Darwin is the greatest scientist and thinker of all times, &c &c. He's so great that the writer doesn't even compare him with anyone else--except Newton, who, of course, he excels.

Well, Dr. Caton, the BoBos need a god and I guess his name is Darwin.

Anyway, if you have read this far, check this out.

Update!: Aussie prof who protests Darwin Exhibition misrepresentations is NCSE associate

I have recently enjoyed a most interesting correspondence with Hiram Caton, retired poli sci prof and former colleague of the late David Stove who is attempting to set right the many misrepresentations in the current Darwin Exhibition, which has travelled from the American Museum of Natural History to various points (some near you probably). The main problems can be traced to ridiculous hagiography, of course. I have often pointed out (and am certainly not the first to do so), that Darwinism functions as a sort of religion for its fervid supporters, often in desperate conflict with transcendent faiths.

It now emerges that Prof. Caton, who is not affiliated with any religion, is an associate of the National Center for Science Education, the American Darwin education lobby, a relentless promoter and enforcer of Darwin in the tax-supported school systems. Specifically, he tells me that he is

an evolutionist who opposes the introduction of creationist concepts into secondary school biology. In fact, I'm an associate of the lead organization in the struggle against the creationists, the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE is aware of my article.

He is also listed as a supporter of the Darwin Day celebrations.

I should think Caton is trying all these people’s patience rather sorely, and all the more so because he is planning a full scale essay on the discrepancy between the theory and evidence for Darwinism, for which details will likely be available here.

Now, speaking of discrepancies, I don't see any discrepancy in principle between wanting to prevent creationist concepts from being taught in secondary schools and wanting to knock the stuffings out of the Darwin myth.

Indeed, contrary to widespread legacy media mythmaking, even the Discovery Institute, the ID think tank, does not not want intelligent design (ID) concepts taught in schools.

(And I suppose only religious school systems could consider teaching actual "creationist" concepts, as such, since these concepts are clearly linked to theism, the Bible, etc.)

Similarly, I rarely encounter people who do not want evolution taught in schools. They want its baggage train to be unloaded somewhere else. Unfortunately, it often isn't.

Some interesting comments from our correspondence that Dr. Caton has given me permission to post:

Here is the skinny on Caton's key observations:

^The Origin is based on principles, which I specify, that had been in place for about 50 years. ^The evolution concept had *saturated* public opinion in the UK by 1860. The notion that public prejudice against evolution obstructed its publication is nonsense. The idea of a 'missing link' between apes and humans was also widespread. ^The natural selection principle was first published *before* Darwin departed on his voyage and was independently discovered again in 1836 by Darwin's old pal, Edward Blythe. ^The eugenics idea wasn't discovered by Galton; it was clearly stated by the French translator of the Origin in 1863, who attributed it to Darwin; he didn't disavow the attribution. Three of Darwin's sons were members of the Eugenics Society and one, Leonard, was a major force in the society. A key figure in the creation of Neo-Darwinism, R A Fisher, was a dedicated eugenicist. Fisher's patron was Leonard Darwin. ^Darwin's writings had virtually no effect on experimental biology of his day, eg, Pasteur, Robert Koch. ^Two of Darwin's most vocal advocates, Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, denied that natural selection was the generative principle of evolution; for Haeckel it was Lamarckism.

While we are here, in 1969, I studied Victorian literature at a small university in Ontario. While Darwin's Origin was certainly identified as a milestone, it was only one of many milestones. I was clearly given to understand that the mindset it typefied was already a commonplace. That was not emphasized as a talking point. It emerged clearly from our studies. One result is that Darwin hagiography obscures the true history of the modern era.

What has been the reaction to his observations?

A number of leading evolutionists and historians have commented on my essay. None question my facts (well, one questioned one important claim). But some expressed unease about my criticism of the Great Man. My response is that I criticize only the interpretation of his reputation, and its creation in the first place. I state in the article what I think his real achievement was, and I hail it as a great scientific achievement. In correspondence with creationists, I plead that they exaggerate the influence of Darwin/evolution on the secularization process. By far the greatest influences are liberal and socialist blank slate theory. That influence is so great, indeed, that many evolutionists abandon Darwin when it comes to the crunch: the inheritance of behaviors, such as sex, race, and age differences: they endorse the blank slate belief. To put it another way, the Darwinian Revolution didn't happen in the social sciences. The controversy over sociobiology and over the Bell Curve are hot spots on that map.

Hmmm, yes indeed. Although Darwinism and liberal "blank slate" theory (= if outcomes are not equal, society is unjust) are not often in direct, perceived conflict, in any actual conflict, blank slate will win.

One thinks of former Harvard president Larry Summers, completely orthodox in his rejection of intelligent design, but utterly destroyed by "blank slate" political correctness about women in science.

I noted, in response to Caton that I do not think that high school science classes should be discussing the ID-Darwinism uproar:

It is difficult enough to teach basic concepts. Unfortunately, however, some want to import to Canada an American-style controversy by pushing evolution as early as possible, as an antidote to creationism/ID. As I have said, that would greatly help both the creationists and the ID guys - but at the expense of the public and the student. (You see, these kinds of issues can’t get as hot in Canada all by themselves, because our system is not nearly as polarizing as the American one. There is no functional equivalent here of the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, or the Christian Right. Publicly funded voluntary religious schools are legal here, with little controversy. People rarely sue school boards and school boards do not pull “Dovers”. So Canada is not a natural setting for such a controversy. But if it does become a setting, well, business will boom for me. But I don't want it to happen anyway.

That said, I think teachers should not be forbidden to respond to student questions, let alone given documents to read aloud, or propaganda to cite. Teachers are either professionals or they aren't. If they cannot be assumed to generally have good judgment about teaching, it's all over anyway.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design. My reviews of movies relevant to the intelligent deisgn controversy.

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Darwinism: Latest installment of the Darwin legend

Australia's Hiram Caton writes to say,

Hello Denyse!

I'm sending you this latest version of my synopsis of the Darwin Legend. There are two new entries since our last contact--Darwin's Biggest Fib, and Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln and Race. The fib is his claim, in the 6th ed of Origin, to have been the first to have argued the case for evolution. The other article draws attention to belief in the superiority of the Caucasian race espoused by Darwin and Lincoln. Darwin also believed that the lower races were on the path to extinction. Any comments will be appreciated.Cheers! - Hiram Caton

Synopsis of the Legend

++Belief that the Origin was a 'revolutionary' scientific breakthrough conflicts with the fact that public opinion was at the time saturated by the evolution idea. It was so widespread that in 1860 the showman P T Barnum put on display a freak, Zip the Pinhead, alleged to be the 'missing link' between apes and humans. In the Historical Sketch preface to the Origin, Darwin acknowledged 34 prior evolutionists.

[When I was in school 45 years ago, we learned that Evolution was a big, general idea in mid-nineteenth century Britain. It wasn't until I had to listen to wearisome rants by new atheists and Darwin lobbyists seeking funds that I discovered that Darwin had invented the idea.]

++The natural selection principle was not Darwin's world-changing discovery. It was first stated in 1831 by Patrick Matthew and was independently discovered in 1836 by Darwin's colleague, Edward Blyth. Herbert Spencer came close to a formulation in 1852, and Alfred Russel Wallace formulated it in 1858. Aware that natural selection did not explain racial variation, Darwin devised sexual selection as a supplementary principle.

[And we know where that led. To all kinds of silliness, actually. = "You cheatie on your sweetie because of your 'selfish genes'" - classic, stupid Valentines Day story]

++The Origin did not found modern biology. By 1850 it was a thriving cluster of cell biology sciences whose leaders were Matthias Schleiden, Theodor Schwann, Louis Pasteur, Rudolph Vircow, and Robert Koch. Darwin, a naturalist, was not involved in this research mode. His unfamiliarity with cell biology is manifest in his Pangenesis theory of the basis of organisms. Conversely, evolution did not become a parameter of experimental biology until August Weismann set out his germ plasm theory of inheritance in 1884.

++The Origin did not instigate a 'revolutionary' disruption of science from religious belief. That antagonism became a major cultural force thanks to the French Revolution. Utilitarianism, positivism, and socialism were the main drivers. By the 1830s these secularists began to add evolution to their rebuttals of religious beliefs. By 1860 this position was widespread throughout Europe and Latin America. Conversely, numerous scientists and clergy believed in the compatibility of science and religious faith, including the discoverer of the first quantitative biological laws, Gregor Mendel.

[Well, Mendel was a monk, right? I suppose he must have thought that the laws of inheritance were compatible with being a good Catholic ... otherwise .. ?]

++The Origin did not set out a single paleontological sequence of evolved species. Reason: methods for empirical analysis of fossil evidence were meager, a predicament that remained until the 1890s. The discovery of the Burgess Shale fossil deposit in 1909 could have supported a blossom of paleontology, yet that did not happen for another half century. The rudimentary level of human paleontology is expressed in the acceptance, in 1912, of the Piltdown Man as a genuine fossil. The hoax was not exposed until 1953.

[Hiram, I have always wondered about the fact that the Piltdown hoax took so long to be exposed, because a smart high school student could have exposed it. I casnnot believe that many people did not know. A sociologist might be able to explain why it was so important to keep the fraud going. Steve Fuller? ]

++Although Darwin opposed slavery from an early age, he did not believe in racial equality. In the Descent of Man and in correspondence, he arranged humanity in a hierarchy, with Caucasians at the top, and he believed that the extinction of 'lower races' was on course and would continue. This widely-shared view was integral to Euro-American imperial domination. Abraham Lincoln is among the anti-slavery proponents who so believed. Post-Civil War America imposed segregation on the freed blacks and Amerindians, while imperial powers treated colonial subjects in that vast empire as inferiors.

++The only application of evolutionary theory with practical effect was eugenics, devised by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Three of his sons were dedicated to the cause, and one, Leonard, was the long-term President of the Eugenics Society who claimed to advance his father's views. He was also patron of a key figure in the creation of neo-darwinism, R A Fisher, who also supported eugenics.

[indispensable reading follows:]

Charles Robert Darwin www.darwin-legend.org
a.. The Darwin Legend
b.. Getting Our History Right - Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence
c.. The Origin of the Origin of Species: Revolution or More of the Same?
d.. Darwin's Illness
e.. The Syllabus of Errors
f.. Darwin's Cathedral
g.. Three Minilegends
h.. Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln and Race
i.. Darwin's Biggest Fib
j.. Soren Lovtrup's Rebuttal of Darwinism
k.. Review of Carroll's On the Origin of Species
l.. Review of Mayr's One Long Argument
m.. Review of Dempster's study of Patrick Matthew

[Well, thanks, Hiram! I don't expect to see this on typical school curricula, which are still fronting Darwin legends and vilifying anyone who doubts them.

But, you know, there are always people who actually want to know what really happened. And, in the end, they are the people who matter.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Aussie poli sci prof: Darwin's main claim to fame was his social status

In a recent post, Sanity moment: Charles Darwin is not a saint, I introduced the spot-on observations of Australian political scientist Hiram Caton, on the ridiculous hagiography of Charles Darwin, posh Victorian Brit. Of course, given that Darwinism is the creation story of materialism, it makes sense that Darwinists would consider its author a saint, but Caton was finding the obsequies a bit much. Ditto me.

(Oh, and some of the greatest of these are following in the master's footsteps and building a replica of the ship he sailed on, The Beagle, for a mere three million Brit lbs and change. About the latter, ... don't anyone ever bug me about the Crystal Cathedral again!)

But in another article Caton also deflates the importance that the materialist gospel assigns to their Book of Genesis, Darwin's Origin of Species, in promoting the materialist outlook:

... Darwin's celebrated book did not deliver an earth-shaking new vision of nature, as creationists believe. The Origin of Species came nowhere close to the bestseller list. It sold about one-third as many copies as did Vestiges. Darwin's main claim to novelty, the discovery of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, was implicit in Spencer's theory and indeed had been clearly stated three decades previously by the Scot Patrick Matthew, who aptly styled it "the natural law of selection".

From the point of view of public uptake, Darwin's most important contribution was his high social status, for it meant that an outlook that previously lacked the necessary social credentials had acquired them.

Based on my reading, Caton is mostly right. Darwin wrote the Book of Genesis for a materialist worldview that had already received its Gospel during the 18th century. But I wouldn't underestimate, as he does, the importance of Darwin's completion of the canon.

He also notes the hypocrisy underlying the science establishment's current spaz about the ID Visigoths at the gates.

The science establishment's horror at the thought of the pollution of biology teaching by pseudo-science is certainly sincere but of doubtful consistency, with its many compromises with social currents too strong to resist. Not only science but all subjects have been made over to be supportive of multiculturalism, equality of the sexes, identity politics, environmentalism and other preferred beliefs. The postmodernist catchphrase critical thinking has been adopted in the titles of biology teaching texts and teacher aids.

Now there, Caton is partly right. No one could be a textbook editor, as I have been for many years, and fail to notice the hijacking of most curricula by fact-lite agendas and fads. (Indeed, I would love to see the science establishment take on the multi culti nonsense, but no dice.) But "critical thinking" is not a mere post-modern catchphrase. Critical thinking is the only weapon the student can wield against overwhelming ideologies, increasingly backed by sanctions against doubters. The postmodernists assault the student, yes, but they have thrown him a sword as well.

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.

Sanity moment::Charles Darwin is not a saint

Oh, it finally happened! Someone - an Australian poli sci prof named Hiram Caton - has commented on the bathetic and ridiculous hagiography of Charles Darwin that the Darwinian evolutionist community has resorted to - I suppose because it is under assault: from ID. I would hate to think this is their normal behavior, but I don't know enough to give odds:

... adroit evasion was not the beginning of the Darwin legend, but it was a landmark in his sanctification as the presiding spirit of scientific enlightenment. Signs abound that the celebration of his bicentennial will reverberate with new hymns and hosannas. Indeed, it has already begun with the opening of the lavish Darwin Exhibition at New York’s American Museum of Natural History in November last year. In June the exhibition will move successively to Boston, Chicago, and Toronto before finally opening in the London Natural History Museum in time for the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth on February 12, 2009..

Indeed, Caton enlarges on the fulsome nonsense:

Darwin revolutionised the biology of his day; he fashioned a new concept of humankind; he challenged basic philosophical and religious ideas about the nature and meaning of life; so profound was his insight that his thought remains relevant to contemporary biology. These surpassing achievements brought a “revolution” equal in importance to the Copernican revolution. Smitten with reverence, my eye falls on the dust jacket to contemplate the photo of the dignified aged Darwin: yes, he looks like a prophet!

As is wont with preaching, no evidence for this litany is offered: evidence implies evaluation and critical scrutiny. But outside the cathedral, old habits disturb my rapture. What grading system ranks Origin as the greatest book in science? What titles were runners-up? What were those signal discoveries that transformed the biological sciences of his day? What was his new concept of humankind? Did it support the actively canvassed universal suffrage and gender equality? What was the secularising element of Darwin’s thought, and how did it relate to the well-established influence of irreligion, industrialisation, engineering marvels, the free press, socialism, positivism, and the notorious laissez-faire doctrine of survival of the fittest?

But I am not going to spoil it for you any more. Enjoy it yourself.

Look, Charlie D. was a nice, wealthy old gent, a Victorian Brit toff who figured that the history of life could be explained by survival of the fittest, the war of all against all, the continual free fight, Darwinian capitalism, or whatever. And it had better be okay to say "On reasonable evidence, I don't think it's true or even very likely."

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Preach it, brother! A regular shower of blessings from Saint Charles Darwin

Hiram Caton who (as regular readers will recall) is the retired Aussie political science prof who enjoys sending up the currently raging Darwin cult, writes to say that he has now drunk deep from the "clear-thinking oasis" available at Richard Dawkins's site.

And he sends back this message to all you peoples who still sit in darkness and have not yet seen the great light:

I just completed my pilgrimage to the 'clear-thinking oasis', as the shrine is called, the RichardDawkins.net. An inspiring, edifying experience that filled my cup with a rosary of blessings.

Marvellous portraits of Mr. Dawkins etched him indelibly on my mind. And the fulsome library of DVDs: The Enemies of Reason, the Root of All Evil, the Four Horsemen, and the most recent, The Genius of Charles Darwin, which takes novitiates into the inner sanctum--Richard Dawkins' splendid library.

He shows us his first edition copy of The Origin of Species and whispers that it's 'not just the most precious book in my library, but the most precious book in the library of our species'.

I suddenly realized that it's the TRUE holy book and that my Darwin doubts exploit the shadows between Reason and the Root of Evil, Superstition. I cleansed my mind by accepting that it's Either/Or: Dawkins and Reason or THEM. The reward was immediate sense of exalted freedom!!

In addition to DVDs, the site offers novitiates a variety of charms and amulets that express the conversion to clear-thinking: T-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs which convey the message of Dawkins' outreach, the 'Out campaign' (copied from the gay/lesbian outing).

The message is simple: Look at me, I am a proud ATHEIST. Lots of potential here, like 'I'm a SELFISH GENE', or, 'ABOLISH the Archbishop'.

And the Four Horsemen? What or who could they be? Why none other than the Four Evangels--Dawkins, Dennett, Chris Hutchins, and Sam Harris, chatting about the evils of religion and the blessings of clear-thinking.

But wait: which one is Pestilence? which is Famine? Death? The acolyte's acquired clear thinking is left to figure it out.

The active atheists assure us that understanding their gospel is easy. Thus, in the Genius of Charles Darwin, Dawkins interacts with school kids, shows them fossils, and tells them that natural selection is a simple idea that they can understand. That should be enough, but they persist in their faith.

The Four Horsemen also take this view: if you just impartially consider the facts, and refuse to comply with social demands, why you are free! This is pretty much a repetition of modern rationalist conviction, although the French enlighteners realized that if you want mass conversion, propaganda and the guillotine are helps.

But isn't something missing? Why is religion historically so ancient, and so persistent even when glamour icons from Madonna to Hugh Hefner market emancipated selfhood with huge success? Might there be an evolutionary explanation of religion that links it with human sociability and the 'struggle for existence'? Dawkins thinks not. Natural selection has given us the big brain capable of emancipating ourselves from our apelike past: we use contraceptives to thwart the drive to reproduce. Well, not all evolutionists agree. There is another point of view at his own Oxford University, where the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion is in the midst of an extensive, well-funded investigation of the evolutionary origins of religion.

Let me wind this up with a quotation from Thomas Huxley that expresses the epitome of the clear-thinking oasis. In an essay, the Influence on Morality of the Decline in Religious Belief, Huxley delivers his acid judgment: 'Few social evils are of greater magnitude than uninstructed and unchastened religious fanaticism; no personal habit more surely degrades the conscience and the intellect than blind and unhesitating obedience to unlimited authority'. This was written in 1877, after France's revolutionary turmoils created secular fanaticisms able to surpass the religious variety.

Thanks for this anointed word, Brother Hiram! Folks, you can watch all the most anointed atheist shows on line at the Dawkins site, but you will have to put down money, I fear, for the atheist kitsch.

And, like I always say, keep those shards and fetters coming!

A comprehensive guide to Darwin legends, with free demolition demonstrations

Hiram Caton, to whom I have earlier introduced readers, is an Aussie poli sci prof and well-informed, trenchant critic of the ridiculous pious legends that have grown up around Charles Darwin. Here is his comprehensive site. More later.