[Quotes] [History, #1, #2, #2a: Darwin's dishonesty, #2b: Darwin's lies (1), #2c: Darwin's lies (2), #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.
"After my return to England it appeared to me that by following the example of Lyell in Geology, and by collecting all facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals and plants under domestication and nature, some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole subject. My first note-book was opened in July 1837. I worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale, more especially with respect to domesticated productions, by printed enquiries, by conversation with skilful breeders and gardeners, and by extensive reading." (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.119). [top]
"Darwin's case is notorious. In his autobiographical sketch, contemporary with the sixth edition of The Origin of Species, he said of himself that he 'worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale'; but later in the same work he said that he could not resist forming a hypothesis on every subject, and he gave away his true opinions (as opposed to the opinions which he felt became him) in letters to Henry Fawcett and H.W. Bates. ... To Fawcett he wrote (18 September 1861): 'About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service.' To Bates (22 November 1860): 'I have an old belief that a good observer really means a good theorist.'" (Medawar P.B., "Pluto's Republic: Incorporating The Art of the Soluble and Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought," [1982], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1983, reprint, p.80). [top]
"Many historians have commented that the most curiously revealing statement in Darwin's autobiography comes close to being an unconscious lie-his claim that he "worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale." For Darwin did no such thing. He tested theories from the start and abandoned several of them before fixing on one that he derived by creative transference from such disparate sources as the Scottish economists, the French positivist Comte, the Belgian statistician Quetelet, and the grimly conservative parson Malthus, leavened by some turtles, toxodonts, birds and five years of contrary argument from the devout Captain FitzRoy (Schweber 1977)." (Gould S.J., "The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, pp.96-118, p.97). [top]
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess." (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.120). [top]
"According to his Autobiography Darwin read Malthus' work An Essay on the Principle of Population in October 1838, and this, he asserts, gave him the idea that if there is a struggle of existence, then natural selection may be responsible for evolutionary change. Eiseley ... finds it unnecessary that Darwin should resort to this author to hit upon the idea of 'the struggle for existence'. For besides the articles by Blyth ... this notion had been dealt with in the works of his grandfather Erasmus, in Paley's Natural Theology, in Lyell's Principles of Geology and even in Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique - all works well known to Darwin. His own son, Francis, was surprised that he needed Malthus for inspiration, pointing out that Darwin had formulated the outlines of his theory in 1837 ... In fact Eiseley [Eiseley L.C., "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York NY, 1979, pp.67-68] pointed out that, considering the importance of Malthus conceded in the autobiography, it is remarkable how little this author is mentioned in the 'Sketch' of 1842 and the 'Essay' of 1844, and even in the early correspondence. For instance, in the letter to Gray in September 1857, read before the Linnean Society in July 1858, Darwin mentions De Candolle, Herbert, and Lyell as authors on the struggle for life, but not Malthus. Wallace later told how his inspiration came from reading Malthus' book, and this influence is evident in Wallace's small paper from 1858, even if the name of Malthus does not occur in the text. The passage from the 'Essay' of 1844, which was selected for the Darwin-Wallace contribution at the Linnean Society, is the only one in which Malthus is mentioned, and it is possible that is was chosen 'because of its correspondence with the subject matter of Wallace's essay'" (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, pp.27-28). [top]
"According to Darwin, his recognition of the principle of natural selection came in October of 1838 when he chanced to read Thomas Malthus on population and perceived that the geometric increase of living forms would create a struggle in nature which would in turn promote the survival of advantageous variations. Actually, however, this statement now appears open to some doubt. In the first place, it was not necessary for Darwin to read Malthus in order to realize the intensity of the struggle for existence. Leaving aside Blyth's contribution, mention of it occurs in the writings of Darwin's grandfather Erasmus, in Paley's Natural Theology, and in the Principles of Geology by Sir Charles Lyell. Even Lamarck mentions it in the Philosophie Zoologique. All of these were works Darwin had read when he was young and impressionable. His own son Francis expressed surprise that he should have had to turn to Malthus for inspiration. Furthermore, Francis pointed out what we know to be true, that in 1837 he had already given vent to the essential aspects of the principle." (Darwin, Francis, ed., "Foundations of the Origin of Species," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1909, pp.xvi, 242n)". (Eiseley L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York, 1979, p.67). [top]
"There are, it is true, a few references to Malthus in the trial essays before the Origin, but not to the exclusion of other workers such as de Candolle. Oddly enough, in confiding his great secret to a few of his intimates, Darwin seems to have placed little emphasis upon Malthus. One reads with surprise a letter from Hooker to Darwin written in January 1863. `Did you ever read that painful book, Malthus on Population?' Hooker writes. `I did the other day and was painfully impressed by it.' If one turns back to Darwin's letters of the 1840s, one gets the same impression of neglect. Though Darwin wrote often to Hooker, Gray and Jenyns about his work, and about the struggle for existence, Malthus remains unmentioned. In fact, the indices to the first three of the five volumes of Darwin's published letters record no reference aside from the single remark in Darwin's autobiography; and the following two volumes contain only three brief references, two of which concern letters to Alfred Russel Wallace." (Eiseley L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York NY, 1979, p.67). [top]
"A second obstacle to a complete acceptance of Darwin's statement lies in an unnoted half-discrepancy of the Autobiography itself. Darwin says he read Malthus in October 1838 and at this point glimpsed how the principle of artificial selection could be transformed into natural selection in wild nature. Yet farther on in Darwin's own reminiscences (p. 127) he tells us that he was studying the cross-fertilization of flowers with an eye to the species problem as early as the summer of 1838. As I noted (pp. 64) this same interest in the conservative aspects of intercrossing is expressed by Blyth. It seems a little unlikely that if Darwin first grasped the Malthusian principle in the fall of 1838 he would have been so intensively occupied with the conservative aspects of crossing in the summer of the same year unless his thought on natural selection was already well advanced. Rather it suggests, once more, that Darwin was engaged in seeking a way through this obstacle to divergence observed by Blyth and of which Darwin was already aware through a perusal of Blyth's paper." (Eiseley L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York NY, 1979, pp.242243n. Emphasis in original). [top]
"My colleague and former student, Dr. Gerald Henderson of Brooklyn College, has raised an interesting point in this connection. He maintains that after Darwin had received Wallace's sketch of 1858 and preparations were made for the joint papers to be given before the Linnean Society, the passage from the essay of 1844 which was selected by Hooker, Lyell and Darwin to be incorporated into Darwin's announcement was the only one in which Malthus was mentioned. Dr. Henderson points out that the famous letter to Gray of 1857 contains no reference to Malthus. Instead, de Candolle, Lyell and Herbert are extolled as Darwin's authorities. It is Dr. Henderson's considered opinion that the passage referring to Malthus was deliberately chosen for presentation to the Linnean Society `because of its correspondence with the subject matter of Wallace's essay.' From the time of Wallace's appearance on the scene, Dr. Henderson contends, the significance of Malthus began to bulk larger in Darwin's public declarations about the origin of his views on species. As I have pointed out, to have referred to Lyell, for example, as the direct source of one's ideas upon evolutionary struggle in nature would have been to quote a man publicly opposed to evolution in support of that doctrine. Since Malthus was active in a quite different field, and was, in addition, the basic source of much of the thinking on the struggle for existence in early nineteenth-century England, it was convenient to have recourse to him as the `authority.' It is also possible that Darwin found it easy to fall in with Wallace's use of Malthus partly because a natural rivalry dictated his desire to show he was no less aware of Malthus than Wallace was. This curious chain of events had, in any event, the effect of obscuring ever more deeply the real origin of Darwin's evolutionary system. Some of Darwin's hesitations, long delays over publishing, and almost neurotic anxiety can now perhaps be better understood. He had his secrets, and, as I hope to show a little later, he had his justification for them." (Eiseley L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York, 1979, pp.67-68). [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: 3 August, 2003.