Well, if challenging the authenticity of the source didn't work I was going to suggest either this tack on my use of a Bolshevik source, or the "out-of-context" maneuver. And you might still have the "out-of-date" (1940) riposte at your disposal, too:^). Nevertheless, sometimes a statement or admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable because the source cannot be accused of bias in my favor.
But neither have anything to do with Darwin.
I know! But I said evolutionists, not, "Darwinists". Darwin and evolution are not exactly synonymous. Darwin popularized and shaped in his own way prior evolutionary theories.
Cordially,
I have yet to obtain the book in question. Inter-library loan is slow.
And you might still have the "out-of-date" (1940) riposte at your disposal, too:
Well, that's certainly true. I would tend to be skeptical of Soviet propaganda issued in 1940, as it doesn't reflect Stalin's postwar persecution of Darwinian biologists.
Nevertheless, sometimes a statement or admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable because the source cannot be accused of bias in my favor.
No, just in Stalin's favor. Whether or not the story was actually printed, I don't think anybody actually believes that the story is true. Stalin didn't read much of anything, and it is almost inconceivable that he read Darwin.
Darwin popularized and shaped in his own way prior evolutionary theories.
No he didn't. Darwin was far more than a popularizer, he created what we think of as the Theory of Evolution, minus the underlying genetics. While previous thinkers had understood that there was no fixity of the species, Darwin explained why and how that is. Darwin's understanding of the world is vastly and fundamentally different from Lamarck's or Lysenko's and it is beyond dishonest to lump them all together as "evolutionists." If Lysenko is an evolutionist, so is every ID supporter.