Motorcycle Mama

Some thoughts on Darwin

I have read, over the last few months, two biographies of Charles Darwin. There are two chapters remaining in a third; they shall not be read. These few comments presented here offer reasons why I have decided to abandon reading this last biography and have taken a vow to read no more.

These biographies shared a common trait, the authors ultimately assumed an obsequious position. They differed only in when that position became obvious, at the very beginning, in the middle or near the end. In spite of the praises sung to the talents and scientific contributions of Charles Darwin, the biographers still presented adequate detail to see below the flattering words and descriptions, to see that Darwin was a man obsessed with acceptance by authority, including the English scientific community, and one willing to let others engage in debate about the meaning of his views. But in reading the third biography, Darwin by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, I finally reached the stage where I could no longer accept the fawning accolades to a man of questionable ethics, courage and morals and of limited intellectual capabilities.

There was one extended quote from Darwin that was most offensive and turned my opinion of Darwin from that of a person whose contribution to biology was badly inflated to a man pernicious beyond belief. The quote was from a friend of Darwin, W. R. Gregg.

The careless, squalid unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits; the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts - and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed - and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.

Darwin did not reject, out-of-hand, these degrading and racists comments but was concerned solely with how his theory of evolution by natural selection could be saved from arguments leading to the conclusion that his theory would lead to the degradation of the human race, a conclusion unpopular with Darwin. This he eventually found in a military metaphor by Walter Bagehot "Civilization began with obedience, a respect for law, and a 'military bond'". "Through imperial blood-contests, new human racial and national types emerge, honed and heightened by selection, and this is a moral boon. 'The characters which do win in war are the characters which we should wish to win in war'" Darwin equated these attributes with the colonial English.

That Darwin was concerned more about his theory than human dignity is not surprising; he was a racist. He viewed aborigines as an inferior form of human, one which would not achieve its proper place in society until it had abandoned its pagan ways and accepted Christianity. In this respect he differed from Alfred Wallace who viewed natives as of higher moral character than those who made up the cut-throat and competitive English society.

Darwin was also, as a result of his theory of natural selection, an unrepentant sexist. When J. S. Mill's book, On the Subjection of Women was recommended to him as perfect for his study on human descent he responded "... that Mill 'could learn some things' from biology. Men's superiority was the product of the 'struggle for existence;' their special 'vigour and courage' came from battling 'for the possession of women.'" After hearing that comment an acquaintance offered Darwin a copy of Kant's writing on 'moral sense' to sort out his obvious ethical problems. He politely declined. Darwin's sexist views were also seen in his The Descent of Man where he argued that women were incapable of the superior thought processes seen in men. He even argued that education beyond the basics was wasted on women. At one time I thought that such a view might be the product of his time when virtually all the scientists, intellectuals and businessmen were men. But, during Darwin's time Lamarckians were arguing in favor of education for women for the marriage between educated men and women would produce superior offspring as they inherit the attributes acquired from parents of equal educational experience.

Darwin also did not reject the eugenic views of his cousin Francis Galton that in order for the human race to advance, it must be treated like any other animal. Galton's article "Hereditary Talent and Character" "...galvinized Darwin. It stressed the inheritance of every moral and mental trait, from drunkenness and stupidity to sobriety and genius. Races and classes assume the character of their individual members, and Galton called for better breeding, as with 'horses and cattle,' to ensure that the 'nobler varieties of mankind' prevailed over the feebler. Above all, advancing civilization was to be saved from 'intellectual anarchy' by the rise of scientific 'master minds' to power." What was being presented here was a new priesthood, the scientist with his careful observation was to replace the country vicar and his Anglican moralizing. Darwin seems incapable of realizing that Galton was arguing for a replacement deity, science for God, a replacement even more flawed than its predecessor. It is also clear that it was the English who formed the "nobler varieties of mankind."

Darwin is presented in these biographies, as well as in popular literature, as a man concerned with honest enquiry, one who would accept only calm reason and fact in arriving at decisions. Yet he takes vicarious delight in Huxley's battles with Darwin's enemies, particularly Owen, battles marked by bombast, non sequitor and insult rather than calm reason. In a confrontation with the vicar of the church over use of church buildings in his village Darwin sends a note marked by not by calm reason but insult and arrogance. When he does enter into debate over religuous matters, especially when sufficiently angered, he ultimately assumes a stance of that he occupies a level of perfection reserved for the divine. And then has the audacity to accuse his opponents of narrow mindedness saying, "Dogmatism of their sort needed a dose of liberal humanitarianism; closed minds needed to be opened by the thrust of a reforming science." Yet it was just such a mind that Darwin displayed to his religuous critics or Huxley used when acting as Darwin's aggressive apologist. It is also ironic that Huxley did not understand Darwin's theory. He used it as a means to attack the scientific and religuous establishment of England.

Darwin can not be considered as a kindly man or one with an open mind. Viciousness or a closed mind are, of course, common human faults. They may be set aside in a person of superior intellect who has made a valued contribution to an understanding of the natural world. This has been done in the past. Richard Feynman was profligate after his first wife died but still there is no doubt that he was a genius and made significant contributions to modern physics. But Darwin is wanting in both respects. The inadequacies of his theory of evolution are not of concern now, his intellectual abilities are.

In his attempt to destroy Mivart's argument about the impossibility of Darwin's theory to account for new structures because partial structures such as semi-lungs would have no selective value he argues for the transference of function, lungs evolved from swim bladders in fish. But by doing so Darwin is obviously unable to see that he leaves the origin of swim bladders unaccounted for. Darwin himself, in his discussion of correlations, gives an argument as good as Mivart's when he says that small structures that are unnecessary for the economy of the individual will be eliminated by natural selection. But any novelty in an organism must begin its existence as a minute structure, one of no significance in the economy of the individual.

Darwin also argues that the force of evolution, natural selection, will directly produce features that, if used to identify the products of evolution, will give misleading results. This apparent contradiction has an adequate explanation, the force of evolution affects certain traits but others, those adequate to identify the products of evolution, are carried along because they are correlated in some manner with the characteristics directly affected by evolution. But his few words on correlations do not address that. Instead they are about how features in young individuals will be correlated with similar attributes in older individuals or how natural selection destroys correlations.

There are weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection that were pointed out to him by friends. One, a point raised by Lyell, was the incongruity in his analogy between artificial selection and natural selection. It is obvious that artificial selection has a goal and is the product of an intelligent designer. If Darwin is to use artificial selection as a model for natural selection by what criterion does he abolish an intelligent designer, in this case God, and a goal. Darwin vehemently denies any sort of intelligent designer in nature or any goal but seems unaware that denial, regardless of how it is presented, is not refutation.

The problem of the source of variation upon which selection can act was acknowledged by Darwin, it was the result of the effect of the environment, i. e., the incorporation of acquired attributes. But when Asa Gray asked how Darwin knew that the variations were not guided by divine intervention his response, again, was denial, but not refutation.

It is clear that Darwin wanted to excise God from science. But he failed because he offered a mechanism, natural selection, rather than a cause which could be used to answer the question, "Why does evolution occur?" Yet he seemed unaware of this fatal explanatory lapse. Because Darwin relied on a mechanism instead of a cause to account for evolution he ended up, apparently unbeknownst to himself, firmly embedding God in science; God is the cause of evolution, the mechanism used by God was natural selection. Numbers, in his book The Creationists, made this very clear. There are Young Earth Creationists who see no conflict between their religuous views that Genesis is fact and Darwinian evolution, i.e., evolution through natural selection.

In his arguments against a world created by God he presented example after example of geographic variation in nature with the statement that what was seen was not consistent with them being created. He also argued that a benevolent God would not create disease organisms or parasites or allow "good" people, including his daughter, to die. I am not theological sophisticated but believe that someone who argues for a world run by divine intervention would believe that God can do what God wants to do. And for any mortal to presume to know what God wants to do or would do in any situation is arrogant in the extreme and is embracing the sin of pride. What is amazing is that Darwin was educated to be an Anglican clergyman and one would expect that such an education would include the notion that the wisdom or plan of God is beyond human understanding.

Afterward

These few words are not meant to offer deep insight into Charles Darwin and his theory. They have been produced as a catharsis designed to empty my mind of the evil presence that is Charles Darwin, a man capable of dealing in detail but a petty and vicious man, concerned with himself and his place in history. He viewed himself as a man who has risen above the constraints of behavior and belief that constrain mere mortals. What makes Charles Darwin even more disgusting is the recognition he received while he was still alive and that he continues to receive, honors accumulated at the expense of many others.

Charles Darwin is dead. Natural selection is to be credited to Alfred Wallace or the man from India who published it in the 1830s (name forgotten), a tree diagram is the product of Herbert Spencer and the founder of evolution is Lamarck.

You ask why I post these scurulous comments? The answer is simple. Until you abandon Darwinian evolution the anti-creationists are doomed to lose the battle for the minds of school boards, and of what are called creationists.

pz

This is a pretty damned silly line of argument.

First of all, Darwin the man is completely irrelevant to the theory. It wouldn't matter the slightest if Darwin had been a cannibalistic serial killer -- the theory stands on its own.

Secondly, for someone who claims to have read two biographies of Darwin, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the facts.

Darwin's theory is Darwin's, by right of priority. As you should know from your books, he had documented evidence from 1844 of his thinking, in the form of letters to Hooker and Gray that outlined his theory. Wallace arrived at the same theory in the late 1850s, and Wallace and Darwin published together. Darwin's account was the most thorough and best documented.

They were the first to propose a mechanism for evolutionary change, and that is the primary reason their work was revolutionary. You could argue that transformationism/evolution was around since Aristotle...but that is irrelevant. Darwin was justly famous for coming up with a novel and testable, specific theory to explain change that did not rely on the vague handwavings about orthogenesis of prior investigators.

You also misjudge Charles. He was a 19th century man, with all the biases of the time. However, he actually was remarkably tolerant and liberal minded compared to his fellow. The claim that he was a racist bigot gets brought up time and again, and it is simply ridiculous. In the same vein, you should take a look at what Abraham Lincoln had to say about the negro question. It wasn't pretty by our standards, but by the standards of his contemporaries, Lincoln, like Darwin, was an extremely enlightened fellow.

MrDarwin

We might also point out that Charles Darwin was human. Who's going to cast the first stone? Oops, looks like somebody already has.

KC

You did not get this from Desmond and Moore-- nor would you see it in Janet Browne's recent biography. For example, both books specifically point out Darwin's reaction to the genocidal war against the aboriginal population waged by Argentinian General Juan Manuel De Rosas, where he wrote:

Cheers,

KC

Dr Rick

What is "Darwinian evolution," and how does it differ from the type of evolution that you think we should embrace?

Rick

lpetrich

As to slavery, Charles Darwin recalls some interesting anecdotes in his Voyage of the Beagle. In Brazil, he noticed someone torturing a slave with a thumbscrew, and he asked how people who profess to believe in Xianity can commit such atrocities. Also, he challenged his captain, Robert Fitzroy, on the issue of the beneficience of slavery. Fitzroy claimed to have evidence, in the form of slaves claiming that they do not want to be freed. Darwin commented that they could simply have been telling their master what he had wanted to hear. Fitzroy got furious, charging that Darwin had accused him of lying.

Darwin and Fitzroy were on opposite sides of other issues, Darwin supporting progressive measures like the 1832 Reform Bill, which made more Britons eligible to vote, which Fitzroy opposed -- Fitzroy was, by our standards, a hard-boiled right-wing fundie.

And would Motorcycle Mama like it if Darwin had claimed that God Almighty had intended northwestern European males to rule the world?

KC

Motorcycle Mama:

Well, let's see what Wallace himself had to say in a letter to Darwin:

Cheers,

KC

lpetrich

Also, Darwin tried to be conciliatory about religion, despite having become a deist and eventually an agnostic.

He also sat on his Big Idea for several years, apparently hoping to build an unimpeachable case for it. It was Wallace independently rediscovering it that goosed him into publishing.

And while Darwin was doing that sitting, he published big tomes on other subjects, like his Beagle voyage, volcanoes, coral reefs, and barnacles. Yes, barnacles, to which he devoted 8 years of study.

As to the Origin of Species, it holds up very well even after nearly 150 years, with only a few parts now being discredited, like Lamarckian inheritance and fossil-record gradualism. He was also in error about the origin of lungs from swim bladders -- it's almost certainly the other way around.

Darwin was remarkably careful, covering such issues as biogeography; he showed that the inhabitants of oceanic islands are the sort that could naturally get to those places. He also anticipated several criticisms, such as how natural selection would explain worker insects and how elaborate structures like eyes had formed.

His answer to the "half an eye" conundrum was that an intermediate eye had been a low-quality eye that was nevertheless partially functional. Which is a reasonable answer for lungs -- that simple throat pouches could serve as partially-functional lungs. And why might a fish have use of lungs? To assist it if the water it lives in has gotten low on dissolved oxygen, which can happen in swamps and the like. Perfectly-functional lungs are not necessary for that -- only partially-functional supplemental ones.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

lpetrich

Much like Wallace, Thomas Henry Huxley had commented about natural selection:

pz

Are you aware of the inconsistency in your claim here? You claim that the biographies are hagiographies, yet you bring up these incidents where Darwin revealed his all too human qualities...which you learned about in the biographies. Since these incidents and more were discussed in these books, your claim is invalid.

Actually, looking at your whole screed, it seems to be a morass of such biases and contradictions, fueled by a rather appalling (for a retired botanist) ignorance of basic ideas in science and the history of biology.