Even on his birthday, don’t say Darwin unless you mean it (updated)
How Darwin’s name is taken in vain, with mini-reviews of some of the worst offenders. And when I wrote about this last year, I did not expect to have to add a US Vice-President to their number.
Charles Darwin never thought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that someday it would be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor have we. – Representative (now Vice-President) Mike Pence, 2002, via Forbes
Trump’s Education Secretary Nominee DeVos Should Challenge Darwinism* – David Klinghoffer, CNS, 13 January 2017 
Don’t say Darwin unless you mean it. Don’t say theory when you mean historical fact. And don’t say you believe in evolution, when you mean you accept it on the basis of the evidence.
Don’t say Darwin unless you mean it. Above all, don’t say “Darwin” when you mean “evolution”. It’s like saying “Dalton” when you mean atoms. Our understanding of atoms has moved on enormously since Dalton’s time, and our understanding of evolution has moved on similarly since Darwin’s. Neither of them knew, or could have known, anything about what caused the phenomena they were talking about, and both would be delighted at how thoroughly their own work has been superseded.
Imagine if a lot of people decided that atomic theory was against their religion. We would see a parallel world of sacred science, in which molecules were “intelligently constructed”, and real chemistry would be referred to as Daltonism, or possibly, these days, neo-Daltonism. The scientific dissidents
from Daltonism would invoke Dalton’s name on every possible occasion, and draw attention to the many inadequacies of atomic theory as he presented it in 1808. Dalton didn’t know anything about the forces that hold atoms together, which depend on electrons and quantum mechanics. In fact, he didn’t even know about electrons. Worse still, he was hopelessly muddled about the difference between a molecule of hydrogen and an atom of hydrogen. He thought that the simplest compound between two different elements A and B would have the formula AB, so that water must be HO, not H2O. And of course he knew nothing about the origin of atoms, a problem not solved until the 1950s, over a century after his death. Shot through with errors and inconsistencies; nonsense, the lot of it!
Darwin was ignorant of transitional fossils, and in words still quoted by creationists deplored their absence as the greatest objection to his theory. He was equally ignorant about the origin of biological novelty, which comes from mutating genes. In fact, he didn’t even know about genes. And because he did not realise that inheritance occurred through genes, he could not explain why favourable variations were not simply diluted out.
It would be decades after his death before we could even speculate coherently about the origins of life, and despite tantalising clues it remains a largely unsolved problem. But despite this, we have learnt an enormous amount since the publication of On The Origin of Species, and everything that we have learnt is consistent with, indeed requires, the key concepts of evolution and common descent.
Finally, he saw evolution as driven by natural selection, embracing Herbert Spencer’s reference to “the survival of the fittest”, whereas now it is increasingly apparent that much evolution depends on neutral drift, and that major evolutionary changes may even require passing through marginally less fit intermediates (see my next post here). So, ironically, the term “Darwinian evolution”, describing as it does evolution driven by natural selection, is now used in the scientific literature to refer to just one special case.
And while we’re on the subject of how words are used, don’t say “theory of evolution” when you mean the well-established facts of change over time and common ancestry. And if you find yourself in the position of explaining the difference between a scientific theory (coherent intellectual structure developed to explain a range of observations), and the use of the word “theory” in everyday use (provisional hypothesis), you have blundered into a morass. Back out again.
And don’t say that you “believe in” evolution. It’s not a matter of believing, with its suggestion of committing oneself beyond the evidence; it’s a matter of accepting where that evidence leads.
“Accepting”, indeed, might be a very useful word, especially when dealing with religiously motivated creationist students. If such a student accepts that the evidence points towards evolution, and understands why, then any religiously motivated inner reservations are a matter for the student, not for you.
But back to Darwin. Why is discussion of evolution still saturated with his name? In part, I think, because that’s the way his opponents want it. By identifying evolution with Darwin, they continue to breathe life into the controversies of the mid-19th century. At the same time, it helps them pretend that modern biology is just one individual’s point of view, rather than a mature science based on the work of thousands of investigators. Recently, creationists have even taken to invoking Darwin himself for their cause, in such titles as Darwin’s Doubt and Darwin Strikes Back. This is an extremely powerful rhetorical tool, whereby anything that puzzled Darwin can be used to undermine us “Darwinists”. Closely related is the device of presenting creationism under the guise of even-handed debate, as when a creationist pseudo-textbook (which mentions Darwin on almost every page, but not in the index) calls itself Explore Evolution; the arguments for and against neo-Darwinism, or in the list below, where a creationist comic goes by the name, What’s Darwin got to do with it? A friendly discussion …
You can see what I mean if you just look at the names of the books written by the enemies of scientific biology, from Darwin’s Doubt (Meyer, 2013) back to Darwin’s Black Box (Behe, 1996) and beyond. There are other examples, such as The Darwin Conspiracy (Roy Davies, 2006), which portrays Darwin as a plagiarist, and, while checking its details, I discovered an even more lurid book of the same name by John Darnton, which portrays him as a murderer. To be fair, Darnton does not pretend that he is writing anything other than fiction, although surely he was writing with half an eye on the creationist market.
To further test my idea, I went online to Amazon.com, and typed “Darwin” and “Darwinism” in the search window (I regularly search on Amazon, but prefer to buy from Better World Books or Wordery). Here are some of the books by creationists that I came up with; a lot of the names were all too familiar, but I never realized that Rick Santorum had actually got his name on a book. There were also references to “materialist neo-Darwinism”, but since I don’t pretend to know what a “materialist” is, and whether I or for that matter Darwin would qualify, I decided to let those ones go. The most recent entry (December 2016) is one I heard about through the Discovery Institute, who also published it.
Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates, 2016, by Tom Bethell who “presents a concise yet wide-ranging tour of the flash points of modern evolutionary theory, investigating controversies over common descent, natural selection, the fossil record, biogeography, information theory, evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, and the growing intelligent design movement.” Bethell is a philosophy graduate, despite which he repeats the myth  that Popper regarded evolution as mere tautology.
God vs. Darwin: The Logical Supremacy of Intelligent Design Creationism Over Evolution (M. S. King, 2015): “Ever since its inception, the edifice of Evolutionary Darwinism has rested upon a foundation of sand, propped up solely by media hype, public ignorance and extreme intellectual bullying.”
Darwin’s Doubt (Meyer, 2013) For the fashioning of this phrase in the creationist quote mine, see here. For Donald Prothero‘s devastating review of the book, see here.
Dehumanization: A Product of Darwinism (David Campbell, 2012)
The Dark Side of Charles Darwin (Jerry Bergman, 2011) Blurb: “A single man stands behind the greatest deception in history.”
Evolution by Intelligent Design: Debate is Over – Darwinism is Extinct (Gabor Lingauer, 2011)
The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (David Berlinski, 2010; I have written about Berlinski here)
What Darwin Got Wrong (Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, 2010) Apparently based on confusion between mutation, source of novelty, and selection, imposer of value.
The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin (Benjamin Wiker, 2009)
Exposing Darwinism’s Weakest Link: Why Evolution Can’t Explain Human Existence (Kenneth Poppe, 2008)
Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against NeoDarwinism, (Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker and Paul A. Nelson, 2007; this fraudulently misnamed creationist pseudo-texbook is discussed further here on the Briths Centre for Science Education website.
Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots (Ken Ham and A. Charles Ware, 2007)
The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Michael Behe, 2007; since Behe clearly believes that biological complexity is the work of a designer who operates independently of natural laws, I include him as a creationist, although he would deny this)
Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science John G. West, 2007)
Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design (Thomas Woodward, 2007)
Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement (William A. Dembski and Rick Santorum, 2006)
Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design (Thomas Woodward and William Dembski , 2006)
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Jonathan Wells, 2006)
Reclaiming Science from Darwinism: A Clear Understanding of Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, (Kenneth Poppe, 2006)
The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed (Antony Latham, 2005)
Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (William A. Dembski, 2004)
What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution (Geoffrey Simmons, 2004) Blurb: What Darwin Didn’t Know shows the human body to be a marvellous system constructed by an infinitely wise Designer.
Darwinism, Design and Public Education (John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, 2003) Blurb: if science education is to be other than state-sponsored propaganda, a distinction must be drawn between empirical science and materialist philosophy.
Darwinism and the Rise of Degenerate Science (Paul Back, 2003) Blurb: many of the constructs of evolution are based on fantasies devoid of scientific credibility.
The Collapse of Darwinism: Or The Rise of a Realist Theory of Life (Graeme D. Snooks, 2003)
Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory (Michael A. Cremo, 2003)
The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined (James Perloff, 2002)
Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (Benjamin Wiker and William Dembski (Jul 12, 2002) Abortion. Euthanasia. Infanticide. Sexual promiscuity. And it’s all Darwin’s fault.
Darwinism Under The Microscope: How recent scientific evidence points to divine design (James P. Gills, 2002)
Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil (Cornelius G. Hunter, 2002) It’s just an excuse for atheism.
Darwin’s Demise (Md. Comninellis Nicholas and Joe White, 2001)
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Richard Milton, 2000)
What’s Darwin Got to Do with It?: A Friendly Discussion About Evolution (between a bright young creationist and a stuffy stooge; Robert C. Newman, John L. Wiester and Janet Moneymaker, 2000)
Darwinism Defeated? (J. I. Packer, Phillip E. Johnson and Denis O. Lamoureux, 1999) (Lamoureux says no, by the way)
Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism (Harun Yahya and Mustapha Ahmad, 1999)
Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism (James Perloff, 1999)
Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the False Religion of Evolution (John Ankerberg and John Weldon, 1998)
Darwin’s Enigma (Luther Sunderland, 1998) Blurb: No legitimate fossil evidence exists that shows one species changing into another
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Phillip E. Johnson, 1997)
Darwin’s Black Box (Michael Behe, 1996)
In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order (Ian T. Taylor, 1996) Blurb: Creation Moments is pleased to bring you what has been hailed as the classic work on the creation-evolution issue!
Darwinism, Science or Philosophy? (Phillip E. Johnson et al., 1994)
Darwin on Trial (Phillip E. Johnson, 1991)
Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth (Soren Lovtrup, 1987)
And so on, all the way back to The Refutation of Darwinism: And the Converse Theory of Development; Based Exclusively Upon Darwin’s Facts (T Warren O’Neill, 1879)
This version is an expansion of what appeared on 3 Quarks Daily, 6 Feb 2017
1] Betsy DeVos herself has not ccommented publicly on the issue. When asked about junk science teaching at her confirmation hearing, she said that she supports science teaching that “allows students to exercise critical thinking.” In the US,this unexceptionable objective is code for teaching, as if scientifically valid, denialist objections to evolution and climate change science.
2] At one point, Popper described Darwinism as “not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” However, as other passages show, he is using “Darwinism” here in its proper restrictive sense of the theory that evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest. Popper repeatedly made clear his acceptance of the historical fact of evolution; for a full discussion see here.
Posted on February 11, 2017, in Charles Darwin, Creationism, Education, Evolution, Fossil record, Politics and tagged Betsy DeVos, Creationism, Intelligent design, John Dalton, Klinghoffer, Mike Pierce, Popper. Bookmark the permalink. 30 Comments.
Reblogged this on Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin and commented:
More good thoughts on Darwin from Paul For the 12th I preach on creation looking to Genesis and the Origin of Species
LikeLiked by 1 person
A more damning review of “Darwin’s Doubt” is the one by Aaron Baldwin (an invertebrate zoologist)
Detailed, powerful, authritative. Thanks, Christine
I don’t see link to Baldwin’s review, I’d like to add that to my #TIP anticreationism dataset www,tortucan.wordpress.com, btw I took note of Meyer’s clumsy dismissal of punctuated equilibrium in http://www.tortucan.com/chapter1/intelligent-design-doesnt-fare-much-better-including-stephen-meyers-darwins-doubt.html (I catalog all antievolutionists on that in that TIP 1.3 module, Meyer represents the longest “hit and run” treatment I know of in the antievolution canon)
The link worked ok for me; you have to work bac from Christine’s feedback to the original comment.
See, for the “Darwin’s doubt” meme, the piece of quotemining by lantinga analysed here:<a href="https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/darwin-god-alvin-plantinga-and-evolution-ii-plantinga-in-the-quote-mine-and-epistemological-creationism/“>https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/darwin-god-alvin-plantinga-and-evolution-ii-plantinga-in-the-quote-mine-and-epistemological-creationism/
So many familiar books, and especially note the obsession ID has on the subject! I’ve lit into a great many of the works at the source methods level in #TIP http://www.tortucan.wordpress.com, and most recently dissected Steve Meyer et al’s Explore Evolution on their truly pathetic coverage of the reptile-mammal transition in my own https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540736296/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1481509663&sr=8-2&keywords=Evolution+slam+dunk
A very wise way to go.
I particularly like the bit Pence’s speech where he complains that, now they’ve found a new hominin skull, the “textbooks will have to be rewritten”. I guess he doesn’t know that all college-level textbooks get rewritten every 3-5 years to keep up with the accelerating amount of new knowledge in all sciences.
OT but van’t resist: IMO a lot of new editions are completely unnecessary, driven by the fact that otherwise the market dries up because students sell their books on. Introductory chemistry does not change as quickly as the textbooks, either in content or in preferred method of presentation. And even in biology… see https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/great-books-on-evolution-going-cheap/
The link to Baldwin’s review somehow ended up as a link to the book in general. Amazon is making it harder and harder to search for the reviews of their books. Baldwin’s used to be the “number one negative review”, with 170 people who “found this helpful”. Now the “top reviews” are random — the third top review had 2 people finding the review helpful, and the top critical review has 1 person finding it helpful!
If you go to the one star reviews, with the default option of “verified purchase”, then it comes up at the top of 9 reviews (the other 82 are hidden unless you click on “all reviewers”)
I think this link now works: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3E06SO1WP1QBA/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0062071483
What Amazon now does with their rankings is beyond me. They changed procedures to avoid gaming, but the cure may be worse than the disease
I did work back and located the Baldwin review, added that to my #TIP dataset http://www.tortucan.wordpress.com
🙂 Christine Janis btw is Professor at Bristol, having earlier been Professor at Brown. But I haven’t amnaged to track down Baldwin’s current location (difficutl with a relatively common name)
Aaron Baldwin is a fisheries biologist in Alaska. He’s been quite involved in the creation/evolution debates for a number of years. He was the person who first got me really drawn into this by contacting me to ask about something that a creationist (Russ Miller) had quotemined from a textbook chapter that I wrote.
Got him now! https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron_Baldwin4
Got him now! https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron_Baldwin4
I think you must be a little forgiving of laymen like me when we talk of Darwin he is so famous and stirs up such emotion. I don’t see any reasonable alternative to evolution, it makes a lot of sense to the average man in the street. I know it’s a blow to the religious and perhaps also to our pride. Scientists can be a bit too meticulous when dealing with ordinary people, we can’t enter into complex scientific discussion.
I accept the consensus of the experts after all that’s part of their job.
Many thanks for your interest here. I assure you that there is nothing to forgive. I seek to inform and persuade, not to blame. And I aim, wherever possible (as I think it is regarding evolution) to present the evidence so that it convinces an interested non-expert; such people are my main and most valued target audience.
So if there’s anything you don’t follow, ask away in comments and I’ll do my best to respond
Love this even more the second time around.
Thanks. Unfortunately, there is new content …
Yes, I am looking at Ronald Numbers’ book on creationism and it says that since the 80s in the US some 65% of adults (including 63% of university graduates) believe that creationism is probably or definitely true according to 2005 Gallup poll… wow, I had to re-read that three times.
Bad, but not quite as bad as it sounds. Much depends on how the question is worded, and if I recall correctly the term “creationism” as used here includes the belief that evolution happened but under divine guidance. That last position is so vague that it could include religious believers who strongly support evolution, such as Ken Miller or my friend Michael Roberts
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope you are right (I am sure you are right, actually) regarding that seriously high percentage. To supplement a religion and science class I am auditing at Caltech, I am listening to this Great Courses series on audible, and the second to last lecture was all about why Americans took evolution so badly in the early 20th century (and its effects down to today) … I just happened to listen this morning! If you ever get a moment and are inclined, it was actually extremely interesting. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/science-and-religion.html
On this very topic, I’ve written about the Scopes trial at The Scopes “Monkey trial”, Part 1: Issues, Fact, and Fiction https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/the-scopes-monkey-trial-part-1-issues-fact-and-fiction/ and The Scopes “Monkey trial”, Part 2: Evidence, Confrontation, Resolution, Consequences https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/the-scopes-monkey-trial-part-2-evidence-confrontation-resolution-consequences/
One strange phenomen is how creationism has shifted from the political Left (Bryant) to where it is today. Does your course shed any light on that?
My course at Caltech did not shed any light on it (I sent your wonderful article to the professor though and will also share your Scopes trial posts since he loves the film so much)! The Great Courses lecture, however, links the new post 1940s creationism upsurge with what the Great Courses professor calls the rise of Fundamentalism. He said that anti-“Darwinism” is much stronger as a movement today than the previous incarnation under Bryant. And this he links to the strong rise in Fundamentalism in the US. In one sense it is interesting since these same people do not have an issue with Heliocentricism for example. It is arbitrary probably that that became their push button issue?
Reblogged this on Quaerere Propter Vērum.
But what if I mean Erasmus?
Pingback: An Earth Family evolution rationally harmonized by Homines pacifice responsabiles – Peaceful Ethical Humanism
Pingback: Whewell’s Gazette: Year 3, Vol. #26 | Whewell's Ghost
Pingback: Darwin does devolve. Sometimes. So what? | Primate's Progress