Skip to comments.
Darwin Versus His Colleagues
Discovery Institute ^
| June 12, 2009
| Sonja West
Posted on 06/12/2009 8:49:22 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
This is the second part of a review of The Darwin Myth by Benjamin Wiker. Part one is available here.
An element of the Darwin story that may surprise many readers of Benjamin Wikers fine new biography The Darwin Myth is the ultimate disconnect between Darwin and many of his colleagues.
Wiker points out that many of Darwins avid supporters, who accepted and helped popularize his theory, rejected Darwins materialistic reductionism. They argued, indeed, that the evidence did not support Darwins materialistic understanding of evolution.
Biologist Asa Gray at Harvard was Darwins strongest champion in America. However, as Wiker tells us, Gray believed that the human mind could not be explained as the material result of natural selection. He did not see how mind could arise from instinct. Charles Lyell, Darwins friend and an eminent scientist in his own right, and Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Darwin of the theory of evolution through natural selection, both believed that the evidence did not show an evolutionary continuum between the mental faculties of apes and man. So-called savages (members of tribal and other non-European races) have intellectual capacities that far exceed their survival needs; there is no Darwinian way to account for this.
Darwin would have none of it. Privately, he let these friends and fellow-scientists know his displeasure. In the case of Asa Gray, Wiker writes:
The problem was, of course, that Darwin himself had designed the theory to eliminate any connection to God whatsoever. He disagreed with Grays theological spin entirely, and was perhaps peeved by some of Grays implicit criticisms of his atheism, and the materialistic foundation of his argument. That is not what he meant the theory to do, and in private letters he politely made his objections known to Gray. Yetand this was typical of Darwinhe had no qualms about using Grays argument if it would smooth the way for acceptance of his theory. Once the theory was accepted, the theistic patina would be ground away by the hard, anti-theistic core of the argument.
According to Wiker, the motive behind Darwins endeavors was not to follow the evidence wherever it led. His real motive was to insist that science must embrace only unintelligent material causes. It was not enough that his mechanism explain a great deal. The mechanism must explain everything, so that all intelligent causes could be ruled out.
The repercussions of Darwins materialistic understanding of evolution can be seen in his later writings. Wikers biography of Darwin is notable in that it examines the ideas of not only The Origin of Species but the companion book The Descent of Man, or, as Wiker describes it, One Long Argument, Two Long Books.
Many writers on Darwin pay scant attention to The Descent of Man. Yet it is there where Darwin demonstrates the sweeping way that he applied his theory to human beings and human morality. Darwin makes clear in the book that the noble qualities of his own character, his devotion in marriage, his love for his children, even the compassion that fueled his opposition to slavery have no inherent value in his evolutionary system. If adultery or infanticide or even slavery of the weak by the strong (as practiced by red ants enslaving black ants) promoted the survival of a species, including the human species, then those things would be equally good according to the logic of Darwins argument, Darwins personal misgivings notwithstanding.
Anyone wishing to probe the broader implications of Darwins theory, as well as the contradictions of Darwins character, will want to read Wikers book.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; christian; creation; cretinism; cult; darwincult; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; moralabsolutes; pseudoscience; science; socialdarwinism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...
To: GodGunsGuts
Another comedy book!
Where do you find this stuff? Between the issues of “Cracked” and “Tales from the Crypt?”
3
posted on
06/12/2009 9:09:19 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
To: GodGunsGuts
This is how Wikipedia describes Discovery Institute:
The Discovery Institute is a conservative non-profit public policy U.S. think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.[2][3][4][5][6] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[7][8][9] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[10] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[11][12]
No fair and balanced reporting here.
4
posted on
06/12/2009 9:11:22 AM PDT
by
stanz
(Those who don't believe in evolution should go jump off the flat edge of the Earth.)
To: GodGunsGuts
Copernicus was at odds with his contemporaries, as well. Should we dump the heliocentric model of the solar system?
5
posted on
06/12/2009 9:11:24 AM PDT
by
gundog
To: freedumb2003
That means alot coming from someone who has embraced Darwood’s mindless creation myth...LOL!
To: GodGunsGuts
Many writers on Darwin pay scant attention to The Descent of Man. Yet it is there where Darwin demonstrates the sweeping way that he applied his theory to human beings and human morality. Darwin makes clear in the book that the noble qualities of his own character, his devotion in marriage, his love for his children, even the compassion that fueled his opposition to slavery... So why does GGG hate Darwin so much?
If adultery or infanticide or even slavery of the weak by the strong (as practiced by red ants enslaving black ants) promoted the survival of a species, including the human species
But those things don't benefit the human species. What's the problem?
7
posted on
06/12/2009 9:18:53 AM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: GodGunsGuts
Biologist Asa Gray at Harvard was Darwins strongest champion in America. However, as Wiker tells us, Gray believed that the human mind could not be explained as the material result of natural selection. He did not see how mind could arise from instinct. Charles Lyell, Darwins friend and an eminent scientist in his own right, and Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Darwin of the theory of evolution through natural selection, both believed that the evidence did not show an evolutionary continuum between the mental faculties of apes and man. So-called savages (members of tribal and other non-European races) have intellectual capacities that far exceed their survival needs; there is no Darwinian way to account for this. This was relevant news 150 years ago. Not today.
8
posted on
06/12/2009 9:22:44 AM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: gundog
Copernicus was a creationist—and modern creationists are in full agreement with his notion that we live in a galactocentric Universe.
To: GodGunsGuts
To: GodGunsGuts
You are cleaver enough to understand that paradigm shifts are ofter reluctantly embraced? As someone up-thread pointed out, Copernicus wasn't immediately embraced. What IS important, is that virtually every working biologist understands and embraces evolutionary theory.
11
posted on
06/12/2009 9:34:48 AM PDT
by
stormer
To: GodGunsGuts
Galactocentric? WTF? Talk about moving the goal posts! LMFAO! Copenicus had NO IDEA there was any galaxy other than the one he lived in.
Take a look at this picture - how many galaxies do you see? How many billions of stars does this represent? In what twisted universe can you possible imagine your "galactocentric" view.
12
posted on
06/12/2009 9:45:24 AM PDT
by
stormer
To: stanz
Looks like they’ve got their number.
13
posted on
06/12/2009 9:46:24 AM PDT
by
steve-b
(Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
To: GodGunsGuts
14
posted on
06/12/2009 9:46:24 AM PDT
by
steve-b
(Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
To: stormer
that’s “Copernicus” and “possibly”
15
posted on
06/12/2009 9:46:58 AM PDT
by
stormer
To: GodGunsGuts
“That means alot coming from someone who understands science.”
There — fixed.
16
posted on
06/12/2009 9:48:34 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
To: GodGunsGuts
...and modern creationists are in full agreement with his notion that we live in a galactocentric Universe.So, you're open to post-modern Creationists debunking it?
17
posted on
06/12/2009 9:56:52 AM PDT
by
gundog
To: Moonman62
>>So why does GGG hate Darwin so much? <<
There is a personality type that needs to be “special” (usually a as result of being ignored or abused as a child). These people look for niche opportunities to make themselves “special” to make up for the attention they didn’t get as children.
Finding a niche spot of small-minded people who espouse a perspective that can only be understood and reinforced by others with the same need to be “special” is how they survive.
Some of these people become complete conspiracy nuts and trvthers, others Scientologists and the like, and others creationists (note these are not mutually exclusive groups). To be fair, I need to note that people who have not been exposed to science and are only taught creation are a special case. But they don’t understand science out of ignorance. The special crowd aggressively decry and refuse science even though it is clear as a bell.
You notice that anything that is said, like noting the billions of solid scientific facts and millions of practitioners across hundreds of years is dismissed with “you are just part of the Grand Conspiracy” (paraphrasing).
ggg is Exhibit 1. He posts these articles to prove he is “one of the Chosen” and thus convince himself, once again, he is “special.” Then, the echo chamber shows up and they ricochet across the thread “yes, you are special” “you are special too” “you too” “we are all special.”
On a good day, he gets me to show up so they can all say “a Heretic! He isn’t special like us! Attack! use ‘darwinism’ derisively! Say science is a religion! We need PROOF we are special!” Internally, they are saying “THANK YOU THANK YOU FD2003 for helping us prove we ARE special!”
Pretty easy analysis if you follow more than one of these threads.
18
posted on
06/12/2009 10:01:08 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
To: steve-b
That is SO hilarious -- and stolen!
19
posted on
06/12/2009 10:02:19 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
To: gundog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson