Darwin Myths Debunked

Darwin Myths Debunked – By Darwinist   10/28/2008    
Oct 28, 2008 — An aura of legend has enveloped the memory of Charles Darwin.  To many, the white-bearded father of evolutionary theory was like a saint on a white horse, rescuing science from an age of superstition.  The true history is much more interesting.
    Darwin Day is coming next February 12.  It marks Darwin’s 200th birthday and also the 150th anniversary of the publication of his Origin of Species.  The Darwin Exhibition, a multi-million-dollar display produced by the American Museum of Natural History (
09/22/2005), is making the rounds of major museums, culminating in the 2009 Darwin Bicentennial year.
    Hiram Caton (Griffith University, Australia) felt compelled to pen “Getting Our History Right” when he saw the “Exhibition’s devotion to the legend at the expense of fact.” Here are six mythbusting theses Caton defended in his article:

  1. Publication of the Origin was not a sudden (“revolutionary”) interruption of Victorian society’s confident belief in the traditional theological world-view.
  2. The Origin did not “revolutionize” the biological sciences by removing the creationist premise or introducing new principles.
  3. The Origin did not revolutionize Victorian public opinion.  The public considered Darwin and Spencer to be teaching the same lesson, known today as “Social Darwinism”, which, though fashionable, never achieved dominance.
  4. Many biologists expressed significant disagreements with Darwin’s principles.
  5. Darwin made little or no contribution to the renovation of theology.  His public statements on Providence were inconsistent and the liberal reform of theology was well advanced by 1850.
  6. The so-called “Darwinian revolution” was, at the public opinion level, the fashion of laissez-faire economic beliefs backed by Darwin and Spencer’s inclusion of the living world in the economic paradigm.

Where did Hiram Caton print this Darwin-deflating piece?  Not in a creationist magazine, but in Evolutionary Psychology.1  (See 06/06/2008.)  He is no creationist; he just worries that distorting publicity can backfire.  “As a cadre who bear a public trust to get the facts right,” he ended, “we are obliged to correct misrepresentations directed to schools at a time when evolution is under challenge.  Besides, science history that includes the quirks, baseless claims, cheating, and battles is more engaging than the sanitized history meant to instill unquestioning acceptance.”


1.  Hiram Caton, “Getting Our History Right: Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence,” Evolutionary Psychology, http://www.epjournal.net – 2007. 5(1): 52-69.

What, exactly, are we supposed to be celebrating next year?  Ineptitude?  The gullibility of the public?  The power of fashionable ideas to distort history?  The inability of reasonable scientists with their significant disagreements to stop bad ideas at their onset?  Darwin Day can still be a worthy holiday if we make these the lessons.  We agree with Caton; first, we have to get the facts right.
Next headline on:  Darwin and Evolutionary TheoryEducation

  Darwinists refute ID claim about irreducible complexity!  See the 10/31/2005 entry.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Darwin Myths Debunked”

  1. And your point is? Anyone with the ability to read and the interest in truth about evolution knows the six points you put above. Indeed, most people know that theories of evolution had been going around for centuries before Darwin, indeed Darwin’s grandfather originated one of them. The points do not deflate Darwin, they merely point out that some people give him an undue importance.

    Darwin took his time in writing “On the Origin of Species” (it helps if you get the title right). He had previously published his joint paper with Alfred Russel Wallace announcing the theory of natural selection. In the end, it doesn’t matter if you discredit Darwin or not, his theory has not been discredited with any rigour. Indeed, I would say that with the modern tendency of creationists to produce explanations that try to ape science, we see evolution in action: the authoritarian religious world view has failed and it has evolved into the idea of intelligent design. The fitter idea has survived and the less fit idea is failing.

    As a Christian, I find the effort spent trying to debunk evolution profoundly dismaying. Rather than going out and preaching the Gospel and telling people of the Good News that everyone can be saved, if they but repent and accept Christ as their saviour, time and effort is wasted in playing around to no good effect (and many harmful ones) with intelligent design. Satan must surely smile when he sees people ignoring Christ’s command to go and preach the Gospel in favour of poorly informed attempts at scientific debate.

  2. I guess you really are not reading the article. The paper written was by a Evolutionist.. not a creationist.. get it?

    And I’ll quote the line from the article which is public knowledge. Again.. not a creationist but an evoluttionist and it was published in a non-creationist source.. LOL. your problem isn’t with me.. but your own admitting this.

    “Where did Hiram Caton print this Darwin-deflating piece? Not in a creationist magazine, but in Evolutionary Psychology.1 (See 06/06/2008.) ”

    Right from the article.. again, it was a evolutionist that wrote this peace.. LOL.. if this upsets you .. sorry.

    And don’t get it tiwsted… Creationist argue against Macro-evolutoin.. we don’t believe that bacteria.. for example a single cell organism.. over time became a trilolobite a very complex muti-celled organism.. there is no evidence whatsoever that ever occured… that is wishful thinking.. and a pipe dream.

    That in itself..debunks the sad theory… it know becomes philosophy rather then science.

    Just like I challegned a fellow evolutionist to explain where the fossils are from the very bottom layer which is bedrock, where you will find a few bacteria.. to the next level above it where you will find snails, trolobites, etc.. where are the fossils of slow change.. no, you get a explosion of multi-ceullular organisms that just show up.. with no evidence that they evolved from single celled organisms.. none-whatsoever.

  3. “I guess you really are not reading the article. The paper written was by a Evolutionist.. not a creationist.. get it?”

    Yes, I got that the six points were written by an evolutionist. However, the rest of the post was not, nor was your quote, “Where did Hiram Caton print this Darwin-deflating piece? Not in a creationist magazine, but in Evolutionary Psychology.1 (See 06/06/2008.)”. That was not published in a non-creationist source. Then again, I guess you don’t understand about sources and how to use them.

    You cannot lie by implication and attribute the whole piece to an evolutionist when it patently was not, and not expect for people not to notice. And that is what you have done again here, in your comment. Do you really expect to serve God by trying to deceive people? Lies can never bring people to God.

    “Right from the article.. again, it was a evolutionist that wrote this peace.. LOL.. if this upsets you .. sorry.” It is not what the evolutionist wrote that upsets me, it is the fact that the cause of Christianity is being harmed by the effort being put into attempts to debunk a scientific theory. Such efforts make Christians appear closed-minded and as a result pushes people away from God.

    And your blindness to the fossil record is remarkable. The fossils are there if you look for them. But then there are none so blind as will not see.

  4. I have to agree with Haldo Longwidget here, egoeimi. As for that: try debunking this without resorting to replies that start with “Oh the Bible says this so it MUST be true that…”: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

  5. LOL.. again the article was doe by an evolutionist.. I’m allowed to comment on the article.. it’s your problem if you think that my comment somehow changed anything.. LOL..

  6. ArianneG,

    Yeah.. I have head that old news about all you need is time.. LOL.. 15 billion years isn’t even enough time to get the right combiniation to get DNA to come together to have that very first cell.. it’s 10 with how many zero’s behind it.. take a guess ArianneG the odds for a simple cell to form.. 15 billion years isn’t even enough.

    And here is something that I like against the arguments for speciation, and natural selection. By the way.. natural selection and speciation don’t create any information.

    If you want me to read Scientific America… and their bias attitude.. then you can read bias material I post right?

    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

  7. And LOL.. trying to deceive people.. LOL. my comment isn’t deceptive. LOL. i commented on the article.. so who is trying to be deceptive.. LOL.. and who are you to judge if I’m trying to be deceptive or not? LoL, yeah. someone wants to play God by judging that I’m trying to be deceptive.. you have no idea what my motive is.. so don’t even go there.. that is something you have no discernment on.

    OK.. my blindness to the fossil record. ok expert I’m blind am I.

    Ok.. lets take the very first layer.. which is bedrock.. you find what some bacteria there.. then lets move to the next layer.. you find a very complex muticelluar organism in the triolobite.. now. where are the fossils.. and don’t give me that business about soft body animals not leaving behind evidence… and the bottom line is this.. there is no evidence of a single cell organism ever evolving to a multi-celluar organism like the triolobite.. and I’m not interested in ad hoc explinations..

    The fossil record is full of gaps.. and science knows that.. and I can quote evolutionist and creationist commiting on the gaps that this record has.

    And it’s your interpetation that it supports evolution.. no. in my worldview.. it supports the bible.. so speak to me in a nuetral fasion.. not as an evolutionist..

  8. Ah, but I AM what you like to call an evolutionist, egoeimi, so how else should I speak to you, evolution being what I know?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: