Re: [asa] Celebrating Darwin's Errors

"I do have to wonder, though, Gregory, why you seem so eager to see us here "celebrate" Darwin's errors. I'm no more anxious to do that than to "celebrate" errors by anyone else, and I don't recommend that we turn this into a litany of negativity, as if there were some perverse pleasure obtained from it." - Ted
 
Yes, surely I agree with not turning it into some perverse pleasure, i.e. to 'celebrate' or gloat over Darwin's errors, which is what Bernie already suspects of Allchin's article. I can assure him that if he reads the article, there is nothing of a sort of gloating. In fact, Allchin is indeed celebrating Darwin's natural scientific achievements as much as he is noting Darwin's faults. This is part of the scientific process, to learn from our mistakes, even though unfortunately we do not always learn well. It's not that Allchin appears anxious to 'celebrate' errors above important contributions, but also that Darwin is not a figure 'like anyone else' in the history of natural science and human thought. The consequences stretch into realms that are indeed humanitarian and not just 'objectively meaningful.'
 
Let me give some context in that I find the 'heroic science' that is evidenced in the very 'Darwin Day' festivities rather difficult to excuse. For me, R. Fisher, T. Dobzahansky, and J. Huxley, along with more recent figures as S. Gould, N. Eldredge, R. Dawkins, E. Wilson and others are also important for the meaning of 'evolutionary theories,' including, but not exclusive to biological sciences, in today's academy. Also to mention that the figure of Abraham Lincoln is in many ways more charismatic than Charles Darwin, yet there is no comparable Lincoln Day. This is likely due to a phenomenon that has been called the 'science wars,' which are now also revealed in the 'culture wars' present in America today.
 
Allchin does a good job, in my opinion of balancing Darwin's errors with his successes. Would that it could be done like this by many more biologists, especially those who uplift Darwin as a cornerstone for their worldview. As George Murphy has sometimes said, there is no similar Newtonianism to compare with Darwinism; scientific ideas progress and change and Darwin will not serve as an feasible 'icon' perhaps for too much longer (prediction: not to the end of the 21st century).
 
I would ask Michael to please consider the tone of Allchin's article, if not my wrestling with Darwin in the realm of human-social thought.
 
Michael writes: "I am afraid my best friend Gregory is doing it to knock Darwin and as you say that is nasty and rude."

Not so at all Michael. I'm glad you speak with such warm words (though I read 'best friend' as sarcastic, since we've never met in person), and hope that this could actually help to clear some of the clouded air between us. I'm not at all trying to 'knock Darwin' but to humanize him, to show that he is not the 'giant' that he is sometimes portrayed to be in the literature. After all, I'm a sociologist of science; what else would you expect?
 
Science is indeed a human activity and Darwin's contribution is imo important and worthy of honour. In this sense, I fully agree with you that "His contributions to geology and biology were immense." I'm afraid you may be projecting onto me some experiences you've had with others who are critical of Darwin to an extreme sense. I am in no way an extremist wrt Darwin, Michael. I do know that you highly respect this man, and imagine the wonderful tours you give of Darwin in the U.K. all the while knowing that he was self-admittedly a theologically confused natural scientist. I'm sure with this you'll agree.
 
Much of your message, Michael, I am quite glad to read and well-respect. Thanks!
 
"However there are some who don't want to allow their hero to make any mistakes but their are also some who just get silly in trying to find errors in Darwin's writings so that they can be what they style incorrectly an iconoclast." - M. Roberts
 
Do you not think that some have turned Darwin into a kind of 'scientific icon,' Michael? And if so, how should a responsible, faithful scientist of integrity respond to the over-inflating of Darwinian thought, if and when it does happen? Isn't Allchin's article a playful and respectful way of putting to a halt the pracitse of making Darwin into a kind of icon, as you mention yourself shouldn't be done?
 
As for me, I do not look merely for errors in Darwin's writing. Nevertheless, a little bit of iconoclasm isn't necessarily a bad thing from time to time! And you'll remember that I'm writing from the land of Eastern Christianity wherein icons are present and prominent in the society. Allchin's paper to me is an icon-breaker in two ways: 1) Darwin made mistakes, full stop, and 2) Dobzhansky's celebrated paper in American Biology Teacher, used as a weapon to smother any criticism of or extension beyond Darwinian evolution, is a time-piece that, like most other scientific contributions to human knowledge, is something that is also meant to be surpassed.
 
Regards,
Gregory

p.s. agree with Ted not to turn this thread into a 'litany of negativity' but rather express freely what we think Darwin's errors to be, in collaboration with Allchin's contribution. It would be great to read from Michael's list of more than 20 errors, as one who knows Darwin's corpus comparatively well indeed!

--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

From: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Subject: Re: [asa] Celebrating Darwin's Errors
To: asa@calvin.edu, "Bernie Dehler" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>, "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Received: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 10:30 PM

I like the example Michael Roberts gives, of Darwin and the parallel roads
of Glen Roy. Martin Rudwick wrote a classic article about this, decades
ago, showing how Darwin was (as Michael notes) trying to outdo Lyell's own
very strong commitment to a strict uniformitarianism, which led him
mistakenly to rule out a priori the possibility that the parallel roads had
been formed by glacial activity and not by the slow rising of the land out
of the sea. (If I misremembered the details, I hope Michael will correct
me.) It's a lovely example, similar to the one in which Einstein altered
his own theory of general relativity to preserve a static universe, for a
priori reasons.

I do have to wonder, though, Gregory, why you seem so eager to see us here
"celebrate" Darwin's errors. I'm no more anxious to do that
than to
"celebrate" errors by anyone else, and I don't recommend that we
turn this
into a litany of negativity, as if there were some perverse pleasure
obtained from it.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 18 16:52:48 2008