How to Misuse Darwin
And (Almost) Get Away With It
Massimo Pigliucci
Darwinian Myths: The Legends and Misuses of a Theory by Edward
Caudill. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1997. ISBN: 0-87049-984-X
Charles Darwin, the author of the momentous On the Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, is certainly one of the most influential, most revered,
and oft-quoted scientists of all time. Of course, he has also been amply
misquoted, misinterpreted, and misused. Much of what has been falsely written
about Darwin falls into the category of benign mistake. This important book
by Edward Caudill is about seven examples of mischievous uses of Darwin’
ideas and his reputation.
Edward Caudill is a professor of journalism at the University of Tennessee,
and he is not new to writing about Darwin. His previous book is Darwinism in
the Press: The Evolution of an Idea. Clearly Caudill has a knack for
identifying novel and interesting angles from which to tell the Darwinian stor
y, a surprisingly delightful ability of providing new and fascinating
insights into matters that many scientists, and even some historians, might
otherwise consider dull and overanalyzed.
Darwinian Myths is written in an unusual format and style, something in
between a popular and a scholarly book. The prose is easy and captivating,
while the reasoning is rigorous and backed by an ample collection of
footnotes and bibliographical references. The final product is both enjoyable
to the lay reader and very useful for the serious student of Darwinism. I
wish that more books were written with both audiences in mind.
Caudill distinguishes two kinds of abuses of Darwinism: myths and misuses. To
the first category belong misrepresentations of what Darwin and his
supporters did or said. For example, most biologists are given the idea that
Darwin was a very reclusive individual, only focused on his work for its own
sake, and that he was completely removed from any action in defense of the
theory of evolution. The good fight was fought by his “lieutenants”—the
zoologist Thomas Huxley (appropriately nicknamed “Darwin’s bulldog”), and the
botanist Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (who arranged the historic co-presentation
of the theory by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace at the Linnean Society in
1858). Following Caudill’s research, however, Darwin emerges as a very canny
champion of his own theory. It turns out that he orchestrated from a distance
Huxley’s and Hooker’s actions, even to the point of keeping tallies of
favorable and unfavorable reviews, and instigating Huxley to engage Richard
Owen, the main opponent of Darwinism in Britain, at every possible occasion.
Another myth of Darwinism that evolutionary biologists will regret to see
shattered is the one surrounding the epic debate between Thomas Huxley and
Bishop Wilberforce, which occurred in Oxford in 1860, just a year after the
publication of the Origin. The story goes that the Bishop made a saucy remark
about Huxley’s ancestors (he asked him if it was through his grandmother or
grandfather that he claimed descent from a monkey). The legend goes that a
very serious Huxley took the podium and calmly rebutted the Bishop’s
arguments, concluding with the remark that he would rather have an ape for a
grandfather than a man possessed of great means and influence who employed
those faculties merely to introduce ridicule into serious scientific
discussion. This was supposedly followed by applause and cheers, as well as
by the fainting of a woman, allegedly from intellectual exhaustion. Huxley
and science carried the day; Wilberforce and obscurantist religion ended face
down in the mud.
Well, besides Caudill’s remark that the woman more likely fainted because of
the stifling atmosphere inside the crowded room in the heat of summer, what
actually happened only partly follows the story line favored by
evolutionists. First, the debate involved a dozen people, not just Huxley and
Wilberforce. Second, there were at least two more equally prominent
characters, one on each side of the argument: anatomist Sir Richard Owen and
Hooker. Thirdly, the private correspondence of several attendees shows that
Huxley’s remarks were probably barely audible in the midst of the noise
generated by the crowd (no microphones at that time). Fourth, apparently
Hooker, not Huxley, delivered the most significant scientific blows to the
anti-Darwinians. Finally, an examination of the commentaries published in the
newspapers immediately following the debate shows that the event’s importance
was certainly not immediately grasped either by the attendees or by the
public at large. Having participated in such debates myself, I can attest to
the fact that nobody really wins debates, not on the spot, like legend would
have it. But, as Caudill points out, debates are eventually won in the long
run. Here, clearly Huxley and Darwin came out triumphant. The Darwinian
theory of evolution by natural selection is the basis of all 20th-century
biology, and Huxley did deserve the appellative of “Darwin’s bulldog” because
of the effort and skill he devoted over a long period of time to defending
scientifically and making popularly accessible the theory of evolution.
The third and last myth considered by Caudill is Darwin’s apocryphal
recantation of evolution on his deathbed, this one obviously pleasing to
evolution deniers. The story was first narrated by Lady Elizabeth Hope to a
live audience in Massachusetts in 1915, and published that same year by the
Boston Watchman-Examiner. Lady Hope had allegedly visited Darwin during the
final weeks of his life, and he had told her that he had been a young man too
quick to judge when he proposed his theory. He regretted having done so, and
he was now studying the Bible, undoubtedly the most interesting book ever
written. Needless to say, this story has been reprinted many times, and it is
the delight of the hordes of creationists still infesting the United States
and a few other parts of the world. Of course, as Caudill points out, there
is not a single independent shred of evidence that Darwin ever did any such
thing. Furthermore, Lady Hope was an evangelist, unlikely to have been an
impartial witness in these matters. Not only that, there are subtle but
important historical inconsistencies in Lady Hope’s story, among them her
claim that Darwin was bedridden for a long time before dying, and that she
visited him in autumn. Darwin was in fact very much active until a few days
before his death, and he passed away in April, far removed from the time of
the alleged visitation. Caudill does concede that Hope may have visited
Darwin’s estate, since she was preaching in the area around 1882, the year
Darwin died. But that is all that is consistent with historical
documentation. Why would only a stranger, and not Darwin’s close relatives or
friends, know of his troubles with his own theory? Furthermore, Darwin was
not at all a young man when he published the Origin (he was 50). Finally, he
certainly wasn’t one to publish anything under the influence of rash
judgment. In fact, it took him decades to convince himself that he had barely
enough evidence to publish a “preliminary” version of his ideas (that is how
he considered the first edition of the Origin).
Most interestingly, Caudill’s contribution extends from the debunking of the
myths to a brief (in fact, too brief) analysis of how they were generated and
especially of why they are maintained. From this point of view, there emerges
a fundamental similarity among human beings, scientists, and creationists
alike. We all need myths. We feel good if we have heroes and villains to
embody the black and white facets of humanity’s quests, even though we may
realize from our own life experiences that there hardly are any blacks or
whites. For evolutionists, Huxley is the intrepid knight who humiliates the
arrogant bishop. For creationists, Lady Hope is the simple faithful who
captures the final repentance of one of religion’s most pernicious enemies.
Well, I have to admit that my imagination as a young biology student was
indeed fired up by the story of Huxley the “bishop-eater,” and that I accept
Caudill’s revisionism with an iota of regret. But only an iota, for a better
understanding of reality is always more intellectually satisfying than a
convenient and cozy fable.
The second part of Darwinian Myths deals with what Caudill defines as the
“misuses” of Darwinism. Social Darwinism and the role played in it by Herbert
Spencer is shown to be certainly more complex than the widely known
simplified version would have us to believe. Did you know, for example, that
Spencer used the phrase “survival of the fittest” in 1852, seven years before
the publication of Darwin’s Origin? Caudill then re-evaluates the role played
by Darwinism in justifying the Spanish-American war, concluding that it was
much more a matter of imperialism than of science. Also, science was
primarily just a convenient prop for the eugenics movement that swept the
United States before World War II, and it certainly represented only a
serviceable background to the rise of Nazism.
Overall, this second part of the book aims at putting the influence of
Darwinism on history and society in properly reduced perspective. Yes,
Darwin’s thinking was fundamental in science, and was (and still is)
influential to some extent in many other spheres of human activities. But it
would be a myth, and therefore a disservice to truth, to attribute to it a
major role in every tragedy that humans have managed to stage throughout the
20th century.