John Wilkins has a nice post up regarding the deification and demonization of Darwin. With regards the latter, he particularly discusses something I have intended to blog since I heard about it through a Wall Street Journal article - Roy Davies' book, The Darwin Conspiracy, which repeats the historically inaccurate (and unfortunately perennial) claim that Darwin plagiarized Wallace. Davies is a retired TV producer. Wilkins is an historical philosopher. Jim Lennox - who has replied to Davies' claim - is a Professor of History and Philosophy of Science. I'm not saying that Davies has to be wrong regarding Darwin, but he is definitely wrong here.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Olivia Judson is absolutely right - let's get rid of the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism". She writes, among else:
I'd like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the…
I have not been shy about my contempt for the crackpot, Roy Varghese — he's one of those undeservedly lucky computer consultants who struck it rich and is now using his money to endorse religion. He's a god-soaked loon who pretends to be a scientific authority, yet he falls for the claim that…
Just giving everyone a heads up. If you're an atheist and you're starting to get a little demented make sure someone is there to protect you from religious people with an axe to grind. The story of the so-called turning of Antony Flew is sad, and really very cruel, as IDers and religious…
Last week Kate pointed me to this post about heroic stories of science saying "This seems relevant to your interests." And, in fact, a good deal of the post talks about Patricia Fara's Science: A Four Thousand Year History, the Union library's copy of which is sitting on my desk, where I had looked…
Wallace and Darwin?
Is an historical philosopher someone who should be dead and buried?
Dead *or* buried.
I don't see a link to the Wilkins article!
@ Ian
D'oh! My bad. Fixed.