[Quotes] [History, #1, #2, #2a: Darwin's dishonesty, #2c: Darwin's lies (2), #2d: Darwin's lies (3), #3, #4, #5]
Note: These are allegations only. I believe that Darwin was dishonest and lied to help get his theory accepted, but I cannot prove it. All I can do is present the evidence that, in its cumulative weight, persuaded me, so that readers can make up their own minds.
"Why do the [creationist] cult leaders tell lies for God? A lie is a falsehood uttered or acted to deceive and, of course, a liar can choose not to lie and knows the difference between a lie and the truth." (Plimer I.R., "Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism," Random House: Sydney, Australia, 1994, pp.271-272). [top]
"WHEN on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist ..." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.7). [top]
"Most biologists would answer `Charles Darwin' when asked `Who was the naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle?' And they would all be wrong. Let me not sound too shocking at the outset. Darwin was on the Beagle and he did devote his attention to natural history. But he was brought on board for another purpose, and the ship's surgeon, Robert McKormick, originally held the official position of naturalist. ... Darwin, to cut the suspense, sailed on the Beagle as a companion to Captain Fitzroy." (Gould S.J., "Darwin's Sea Change, or Five Years at the Captain's Table," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.28-29). [top]
"The problem as the surgeon saw it was simple: was it he or Darwin who was the Beagle's naturalist? As McCormick saw it, custom decreed that he should be the expedition's natural historian, and to all intents and purposes he was right. By tradition, and usually also by inclination, the ship's doctor was the man most obviously concerned with natural history during a naval voyage. The Beagle survey was no exception. Darwin was not responsible for bringing together a natural history collection for the Crown, nor was Darwin appointed, or even called, the Beagle's naturalist except in his own imagination and in a few informal letters from FitzRoy to Beaufort. In the absence of any specific instructions from the Admiralty, it ought to have been McCormick's official duty to fill that role. One or two letters exchanged between FitzRoy, Darwin, and Beaufort before the Beagle sailed suggest the point was tacitly agreed among them: `the Surgeon's collection would be at the disposal of Government.' This, thought Darwin, made it easier for him, as a paying guest, to retain possession and disposal of his own private collections. His appointment was `not a very regular affair,' he admitted to Fox before sailing." (Browne E.J., "Charles Darwin Voyaging: A Biography," [1995], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1996, reprint, p.203).[top]
"Amid the flurry of preparations, a 22-year-old man picked his way. He moved awkwardly around the ship, not only because his 6-foot frame was oversized for the cramped quarters, but also because he felt profoundly out of place. He had no official position on the ship, having been invited to keep the captain company during the voyage and act as an unofficial naturalist. It was usually up to a ship's surgeon to act as the naturalist for a voyage, but this awkward young man had no such practical skill. He was a medical school dropout who, for want of any other respectable line of work, was considering a career as a country parson when the voyage was over. ... The name of this awkward young man was Charles Darwin." (Zimmer C., "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea," HarperCollins: New York, 2001, p.4). [top]
"In the event, CD's appointment was not official. Although CD lists himself on the title page of Journal of researches as 'Naturalist to the Beagle' and in the Zoology as 'Naturalist to the Expedition' this is not to he understood as an official title conferred by the Admiralty. The letters of the next month bear out the contention of J.W. Gruber 1969 and Burstyn 1975 that CD's situation was that of guest of Captain FitzRoy, who sought a 'well-educated and scientific person' as a companion (Narrative 2:18)." (Burkhardt F.H. & Smith, Syney, eds., "The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 1, 1821-1836," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1985, p.130, n.4). [top]
"He then learned from his father and sisters that a letter (which they appear to have read) had arrived from Professor Henslow. Enclosed with it was another letter from George Peacock, a Cambridge mathematician and astronomer who was responsible for nominating naturalists to naval ships making surveys; in it he made that completely unexpected offer to young Darwin of the post of unpaid naturalist aboard HMS Beagle. Here was a bolt from the blue. He had never thought of himself as a serious naturalist, a professional naturalist, or indeed eligible for any scientific job; he was to be a clergyman." (Moorehead A., "Darwin and the Beagle," [1969], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1971, p.30) . [top]
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.462-463). [top]
"It will be some time before we see `slime, protoplasm, &c.,' generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." (Darwin C.R., letter to J.D. Hooker, March 29, 1863, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.202-203). [Note that Darwin isalso lying about having "long regretted that he ... used the Pentateuchal term of creation", because he left it inhis Origin of Species from the second edition (1860) right up to the sixth and last edition (1872).] [top]
"In his autobiography Darwin describes how at Edinburgh in 1826 he was introduced to Lamarckian evolution by Dr Robert Grant: `I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I can judge, without any effect on my mind. I had previously read the 'Zoonomia' of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me. ... the latter is dishonest, as became known when Darwin's notebooks on transmutation were published. In the first one, opened in 1837, Darwin did not hesitate about the source of information on evolution closest at hand, for the first page is headed `ZOONOMIA'. Darwin began the collection of notes from his grandfather's book; he knew where to find information on the subject of evolution. Furthermore, all his copies of Erasmus Darwin's works were heavily marked and commented. Could Charles read these books without getting hints as to 'the struggle for existence', 'sexual selection' and 'mimicry'?" (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, pp.19-20). [top]
"Grant did much more than provide Darwin with this promising professional start. He introduced him to the acute excitement of evolutionary thought. `He, one day, when we were walking together burst forth in high admiration of Lamarck and his views on evolution. I listened in silent astonishment.' But, Darwin added, `as far as I can judge, without any effect on my mind.' [Autobiography, p.49] Grant had long appreciated not only Lamarck but also Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin. ... Grant was probably delighted by the idea that his young disciple was a direct descendant of this famous English evolutionist. ... But Charles Darwin's phlegmatic response was puzzling. Far too disingenuous in his Autobiography, he was in truth well prepared to understand the importance both of Lamarck and of his grandfather. At the time Grant spoke to him, Darwin had already read Lamarck's technical guide to the classification of invertebrates, the Systeme des animaux sans vertebres (1801), which included the text of a lecture in which Lamarck clearly proposed that species change through time. From this lecture he would quickly have grasped the essentials of Lamarck's theory. And he had by then studied Erasmus Darwin's evolutionary works, particularly the Zoonomia. A previously unknown list made by Darwin of the books he read during his second year at Edinburgh makes it plain that he studied his grandfather's volumes closely-closely enough to continue the interest by reading Anna Seward's biography of him (published in 1804) and following up crucial questions about the nature of life and organisation as raised in the Zoonomia and by contemporary debates in Edinburgh in other medical texts of the period. Young Darwin, it now turns out, was well aware of evolutionary views and perfectly capable of grasping the full implications of what Grant had to say. There can be no doubt that he was impressed by his grandfather and his ideas." (Browne E.J., "Charles Darwin Voyaging: A Biography," [1995], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1996, reprint, p.83) [top]
"It has sometimes been said that the success of the Origin proved `that the subject was in the air,' or `that men's minds were prepared for it.' I do not think that this is strictly true, for I occasionally sounded not a few naturalists, and never happened to come across a single one who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species." (Darwin C.R., in Barlow N., ed., "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With Original Omissions Restored," [1958], W.W. Norton & Co: New York, 1969, reprint, p.123-124). [top]
"Darwin also considers the argument that the subject of evolution `was in the air,' `that men's minds were prepared for it.' ... Darwin himself rejected the argument out of hand because, as he wrote, he `never happened to come across a single naturalist who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species,' and he acknowledged no debt to his predecessors. These are extraordinary statements. They cannot be literally true, yet Darwin cannot be consciously lying, and he may therefore be judged unconsciously misleading, naive, forgetful, or all three. His own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, whose work Charles knew very well, was a pioneer evolutionist. Darwin was also familiar with the work of Lamarck, and had certainly met at least a few naturalists who had flirted with the idea of evolution. He actually specifies one elsewhere in the autobiography: a Robert Edmund Grant, professor at the University of London. Of all this Darwin says that none of these forerunners had any effect on him. Then, in almost the next breath, he admits that hearing evolutionary views supported and praised rather early in life may have favored his upholding them later." (Simpson G.G., "Charles Darwin in search of himself," Scientific American, August 1958, Vol. 199, No. 2, pp.117-122, p.119). [top]
* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 1999-2003, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved This page and its contents may be used for
non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created 1 October, 1999. Updated: 1 July, 2003.
