Evolving Thoughts

India and evolution

I am constantly impressed by the quality and intellectual nature of articles in English language Indian sites and newspapers. This one, by Vikram Doctor, discusses the influence and ideas of Edward Blyth on Charles Darwin. He points out that Blyth is, unfortunately, only remembered because the anti-Darwinians have tried to claim him as a source that Darwin plagiarised:

Blyth found support among among Darwin-haters, who are mostly driven by anti-evolution thinking. He is enlisted both by the Wallace-wuz-robbed school, who try to paint Darwin as a plagiarist, but also in his own right.

However, he says,

The latter point to Blyth’s own early writings detailing an evolution like tree of life that “branches off, & still divides, & subdivides, & resubdivides” as well as – crucially for this school – talking about the divine origin of all this life. Blyth, they say, was both an evolutionist and religious, and hence better than the irreligious, destructive Darwin.

Actually, the tree of life was an entirely different metaphor than Darwin’s historical usage, prior to Darwin. Blyth had nothing like Darwin’s notion of common descent, but used the metaphor of a tree as a way to represent the structure of taxonomic lists. What Blyth did have in common with Darwin was his acceptance of natural selection, although again, before Wallace, Darwin was the only one to think of it as a cause for evolution, rather than a reason why things stayed the same by eliminating those that diverged too far.

This is a quibble. If I saw an article like that in an Australian newspaper, I would be overweeningly proud. I suspect that the so-called “developing coutnries” are in fact benefitting by not being too up-to-date, since so much of the modern western world is profoundly anti-intellectual and anti-modern. It seems that when a nation is in the process of catching up, they value education and science. Only when they get too complacent to they start to elect politicians who oppose them.

Evolution History

Related Posts

Comments (6)

  1. It is a good article, ain’t it? I’ve been talking about the whole Blyth/Matthews thing for a few years now. Not that I expect that anyone one YEC is going to change their mind …

  2. It seems generally more useful to respond to anti-evolution claims that Darwin was a plagiarizer/racist/baby-eater by explaining that science doesn’t rest on who came up with an idea. In the long run this is more useful than just explaining why most of the claims about Darwin are wrong anyhow.

    Claims that Darwin plagiarized strike me as particularly strange. If one simply reads Darwin he takes great pains to credit any ideas even moderately similar to his own. The idea that he would plagiarize simply doesn’t fit his behavioral patterns.

    Incidentally, “remember” should be “remembered” in the 3rd sentence.

    1. Thanks for noting the typo.

      I agree that arguing with anti-evolutioners is more effective if we ignore Darwin’s personality, etc. However, as a quandam historian I think it is important to respect the facts and object when history is used to bolster political and social revisionism.

  3. It’s not as if anybody should have any difficulty understanding what kind of guy Darwin was. Indeed, I don’t have as clear a notion of the character of many of my relatives as I do of Darwin after having read so many of his letters and so many accounts of what he was like. Trying to portray him as some sort of hypocrite or plagiarizer, let alone a racist monster, is simply amazing.

    I guess it’s quaint of me to be offended at the way that Darwin’s memory is endlessly trashed by religious ideologues. They can’t hurt him now, after all. Even so, I guess I’m enough of a Victorian to be offended by posthumous libels on so decent and amiable a person, who would remain an honor to the human race even if he had turned out to be wrong about evolution, which, of course, he wasn’t.

  4. I feel that way about Lord Monboddo who was very wrong on a number of issues.

    He had a tragic life, lost his wife then his son and finaly his daughter in the flower of youth. What shines through his words though is his humanity. If memory serves me correct it was Herder who noted it as well.

    Not the worlds foremost philosopher but his humanity burns bright.

    But it is not just Darwin that is under attack it is our humanity as well and our history that tells us who we are and where we have come from.

    I dont think it is Victorian to be offended by such a mockery that seeks to reject critical thought and reason.

    It is shamefull.

    1. I think it is Victorian. I am very proud to be thought Victorian, in general.

Comments are closed.