In Newsweek (Dec. 12, 2005) we read:
” “Even people who aren’t comfortable with Darwin’s ideas,” says Niles Eldredge, the museum’s curator of paleontology, “are fascinated by the man.”
In part, the fascination with the man is being driven by his enemies, who say they’re fighting “Darwinism,” rather than evolution or natural selection. “It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism‘,” says Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, editor of one of the two Darwin anthologies just published. “Scientists,” Wilson adds, “don’t call it ‘Darwinism‘.””
Here, E. O. Wilson argued that only non scientists use the term “Darwinism” as a “rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith. Like “Maoism” . Wilson says that real scientists rather use the term “evolution” and “natural selection” . Well, first we already presented the bogus “evidences” (likewise the finches) that he and his “pals” own to “prove” their concept of evolution. Second, “Maoism” is “a political imposition of communism” , and third, PubMed presents indexed articles using the word “Darwinism” .
But, who is that fully erratic E. O. Wilson?
David C. Stove, in his Darwinian Fairytales wrote about him:
“There are physiological or behavioural signals of submission which in our species, in dogs, and in many other animals, terminate fights between conspecifics, or prevent them from starting, or at the least usually prevent them from ending in a death. The existence of these signals, according to professor E. O. Wilson, the leader of the sociobiological school, is profoundly puzzling. They constitute, he says, ‘a considerable theoretical difficulty: why not always try to kill or maim the enemy outright?‘ [Wilson, E.O. (1975), Sociobiology. Harvard University Press, Boston, p. I29.] This scholarly enquiry might will cause you, if you are a mere normal man, and can remember being in a school playground fight or two, a sharp intake of breath. But if, of course, you are a Darwinian, and believe that all organisms, including yourself, are engaged in a struggle for life, or if you take for granted that humans and all other animals are selfish – why not, indeed…? (Stove’s p. 82)”
“…. If Professor Wilson were right, it would be a ‘considerable theoretical difficulty’ why Darwin did not try to kill or maim Samuel Butler, for example, or why Wilson himself does not try to kill or maim his bitter enemy and Harvard colleague, Professor R. C. Lewontin. But this is not a considerable theoretical difficulty. It is just a joke, and a stupid one at that (p. 83; see also p. 221)… But it is perfectly obvious that once Darwinian armour plating has reached this degree of thickness, it is completely impenetrable by common sense, or even sanity. The fact is, there is no problem about human altruism. The only problem is Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. (p. 95)”
In the printed edition of Newsweek we read one of the unfortunate statements conceived by Darwin:
“From the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows” (Newsweek, p. 55)
Stove continues witht the portrait of E. O. Wilson:
“….Professor E.O. Wilson. This is, an animal who, in fighting with a conspecific, when getting the upper hand, accepts signals of submission from its opponent. Among humans, as among dogs, such signals may be physiological or behavioural, and they usually have the effect of preventing a fight from ending in the death of the loser. But accepting submission signals is plainly a biological error, or as Wilson puts it, constitutes for Darwinism ‘a considerable theoretical difficulty: why not always try to kill or maim the enemy outright?’ [Op. Cit.]… (p. 213)”
“I hasten to add, in order to be fair to Wilson and Dawkins, that they, in marked contrast to some other sociobiologists, actually approve of human altruism. Far from writing about it with cynicism or even incredulity, they make it quite clear that they think there should be more of it [see for example, Wilson, op. cit., Ch. 5, and Dawkins, R. (1982), The Extended Phenotype, W. H. Freeman and Co., Oxford and San Francisco, p. 215.] Well, according to their own account, there could not possibly be less, since there could not be any at all. We can therefore only ascribe these authors’ enthusiasm for altruism to an amiable inconsistency on their part. Either to that, or to their attempting to manipulate their readers for their own advantage. (p. 82-83)”
“The philosopher Mary Midgley was not guilty of presumption when she examined, lethally though humanely, what passes for thought about ethics in the mind of E.O. Wilson [see Midgley, M. (1979). Beast and Man, Methuen, pp. 169-74.] (in Darwinian Fairytales p. 157).
“Wilson spoke for all sociobiologists, when he said: ‘An organism is only DNA’s way of making more DNA.’ [Wilson, E. O. (1975), Sociobiology: the New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, p. 3.] (Sotve’s p. 160) … Again, Dawkins says that ‘living organisms exist for the benefit of DNA’ [Dawkins, R. (1986), The Biind Watchmaker, Longman, p. 126.]. Similarly, E. O. Wilson, an equal or hiqher sociobiological authority, says that ‘the individual organism is only the vehicle [of genes], part of an elaborate device to preserve and spread them …’ [Op. Cit.] (Stove’s p. 172)”
“New religionists, such as Williams, Dawkins, and Wilson, regard people and all other organisms as the helpless puppets, tools, or vehicles, of hidden purposive agents of more than human power and intelligence, whose only goal is to produce the largest possible number of their replicas in the next generation of organisms. But then, as we have now seen, Darwin, Schopenhauer, Malthus and Hume, regarded all organisms in essentially the same way: as mere means, employed by immensely powerful purposes, utterly foreign and unknown to the organisms themselves, aimed at producing the greatest possible number of descendants of the organisms (p. 208).”
Reference (pages in parenthesis, Stove’s emphasis):
Click to download a complete zipped PDF of David Stove’s classic book Darwinian Fairytales (16 megabytes).
This copy of the book is posted temporarily with the consent of Stove’s literary executor James Franklin.
Casey Luskin wrote the next, related to this board:
“… the American Eugenics Society changed its name to the euphemistic “Society for the Study of Social Biology.” This “new” field of sociobiology, has been heavily promoted by the prominent Harvard sociobiologist E.O. Wilson. In an article titled, “The consequences of Charles Darwin’s ‘one long argument,'” Wilson writes in the latest issue of Harvard Magazine:
“Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. ” However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. “” [Edward O. Wilson, “Intelligent Evolution: The consequences of Charles Darwin’s ‘one long argument” Harvard Magazine, Nov-December, 2005.]
This view of “scientific humanism” implies that our alleged undirected evolutionary origin makes us fundamentally undifferentiated from animals. Thus Wilson elsewhere explains that under Neo-Darwinism,
“[m]orality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. ” [E]thics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.” [ Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson “The Evolution of Ethics” in Religion and the Natural Sciences, the Range of Engagement, (Harcourt Brace, 1993).]
There is no doubt that Darwinists can be extremely moral people. But E. O. Wilson’s brave new world seems very different…
Also see by the same author:
What Is Intelligent Design
And three related articles by Jonathan Marks:
“E. O. Wilson, who would reduce human social behaviour to a special case of animal behaviour (Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology. The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)…”
“The human mind,” writes E. O. Wilson (1998. Consilience. New York: Knopf. p. 286),”evolved to believe in the gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology.” And again, “We evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another” (1998:288). If the human mind indeed evolved to accept religion and not science, that would thereby incidentally issue a blanket absolution to the scientific [evolutionist] community for being unable to evangelise entirely successfully for their views. Carl Sagan (Sagan, C. 1996. The demon-haunted world. New York: Random House) believed religious people were atavisms, throwbacks to stupider times; Richard Dawkins (Dawkins, R. 1995. River out of Eden. New York: Basic Books) believes evolutionary science shows that life, the universe and everything have no meaning, as Jacques Monod suggested some years earlier, when he wrote “The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance” (Monod, J. 1972. Chance and necessity. New York: Vintage.)”
“As the American lawyer Clarence Darrow used to say, that would be interesting, if true. But it is in fact neither provable nor falsifiable, and therefore outside the domain of science as science is generally constituted. If the goal of science [evolution] is to make people generally insecure and miserable, then it is being well advanced by such musings as these…”
“What these all share, of course, is the self-serving utopian goal of supplanting religion with science [evolution], as any number of progress-drunk theorists used to dream a hundred and fifty years ago (Ruse, M. 1992. ‘A threefold parallelism for our time? Progressive development in society, science, and the organic world,’ in M. Nitecki and D.V. Nitecki (eds.), History and evolution, 149-78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)”
Racism, Eugenics, and the Burdens of History
“… the Eugenics Record Office. He [Davenport] was one of the two most influential geneticists [evolutionists] of the age, and he and [Madison] Grant were close friends, and co-founders of the American Eugenics Society. Now, the American Eugenics Society is again not interesting so much for its message — that American social problems lay in the hereditary constitutions of the lower classes and could only be ameliorated by restricting immigration and sterilizing the poor — but in the way that the scientific community reacted to it.”
“Quite simply, they embraced it. Eugenics was scientific, it was technological, it was modern. Every American textbook of genetics of the 1920s advocated it. One of the most popular was Sinnott and Dunn’s Principles of Genetics (1925). Now bear in mind, both authors went on to professorships at Columbia, Sinnott ending up as dean of Yale’s Graduate School, and Dunn becoming an outspoken critic of racist biology after World War II. But in 1925 they have a whole chapter on eugenics in their textbook, telling us that even under the best circumstances, poor people are so genetically corrupt that their stock should be eliminated.”
“Now, that is not the kind of recommendation we are accustomed to seeing in human genetics books today, especially American ones. The history of this textbook is instructive: The entire eugenics chapter was deleted from their second edition in 1932. Now, of course, between 1925 and 1932, most people’s stocks were eliminated — the market crashed — which demonstrated convincingly that wealth was not necessarily a good predictor of genotype.”
“… the American Eugenics Society. One notable exception was Thomas Hunt Morgan, the great geneticist from Columbia University, who worked in the same building as anthropologist Franz Boas, a tireless critic of eugenics. Morgan published some polite reservations about eugenics in the mid-1920s, but not enough either to piss anyone off or to allow people to invoke his prestige to repudiate the movement. In the mid-1920s the only critics of eugenics were non-scientists or soft scientists, like Boas and Clarence Darrow, a great defender of civil liberties. Darrow evolved from biology’s [evolution’s] champion at the Scopes trial in 1925 to biology’s [evolution’s] basher in 1926. ”
Now, the critics of evolution and of Darwin today are not only, in the words of J. Marks: “non-scientists” or “soft scientists”.
We deeply encourage everybody to critically analyze evolution. The real science must be something non-esoteric and non-cryptic, but rather, fully available to everyone’s consideration, and this, of course, is contrary to the views of those supremacist evolutionists in control today.
The most critics of evolution available, the best results for the freedom and for the progress of today’s real science!