Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Eugene Windchy, the author of the book The End of Darwinism that was being promoted by Pat Buchanan in his absurd column about evolution recently, showed up to comment on my fisking of that column. He unsurprisingly makes more false claims on top of the ones that have already been debunked. I thought I'd move it up to the top to look at them one by one. Let's begin with that tried and absurd claim about Darwin and Hitler:
It is true that whether Darwin influenced Hitler is not relevant to the validity of Darwin's theory. Buchanan said just that in his review. Buchanan simply was making the point that much evil has come from the theory.
Of course, one could just as easily point to the many statements Hitler made about being motivated by Christianity, as I and others have done many times. And to the fact that Hitler was following in a long line of Christian leaders in Germany who called for the Jews to be attacked and killed, beginning with the most important and influential of all German theologians, Martin Luther.
You will, of course, dismiss that evidence while believing similar statements about evolution. This is what logicians call special pleading. I, on the other hand, dismiss both causal arguments and recognize that Hitler used whatever was at his disposal to justify his madness depending on his audience at each moment. But if you're going to make this claim about evolution and Hitler, at least give the whole picture. That's what an intellectually honest person does.
Until recently virtually every public school textbook reported gills in the human embryo. My book mentions a biology textbook published in 2005 by McGraw Hill.
I'd be willing to wager that the text did not claim that human embryos had gills in them. They might have used a term like "gill arches" or "gill slits," which has often been used as a synonym for the pharyngeal arches that develop into different structures in different animals but appear in the early embryos of nearly all vertebrates to be virtually identical, but I doubt very much that it says human embryos have "gills." How about providing a specific citation for the book and a specific quote of what the book said in this regard?
Brayton slides over the feather problem, which is huge. Harvard's Ernst Mayr admitted there was no Darwinian explanation for the feather.
This is a classic creationist red herring. It's quite easy to declare that science has no answer to (fill in the blank) when one knows that A) their audience is not going to go and actually research the question, and B) the question they are talking about is a matter of ongoing research. One can make a short, pithy little claim like this because it would take reference to volumes of ongoing research to refute, research that is dismissed out of hand by those at whom the claim is targeted.
This particular question is, of course, one of the most thriving areas of research by evolutionary biologists because we now know that feathers originated in theropod dinosaurs long before the lineages that led to modern birds evolved. Feathers did not originate in birds, they originated in reptiles. The precise biological pathway that led to their development is not yet known and may never be known, but it is the subject of some very good research and one of the most exciting areas of current research.
And the history of science is littered with a virtually limitless number of things about which someone once declared that science could not explain. Such bold declarations of science's impotence to explain (fill in the blank) are a fool's game engaged in primarily by demagogues rather than by serious analysts.
Nebraska Man began as an error, but the debunking could have been reported much earlier--in time for the Scopes Monkey Trial.
This is absurd. The original article on Hesperopithecus was published by HF Osborn in Nature in 1922. Osborn announced his find very tentatively, saying, "I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae)...Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae."
Knowing that they had to put those two teeth into proper context to get an accurate identification, Osborn arranged for a research expedition to take place at the site where Harold Cook found the original specimen, led by his friend William King Gregory. That field expedition began in Spring 1925. What they ultimately found was evidence that the teeth actually came from an extinct peccary and were weathered to resemble primate teeth. Gregory published a retraction of Osborn's original identification in 1927.
This claim about the Scopes trial is ridiculous for two reasons. First, because the field research was still going on when the Scopes trial took place in July 1925. Second, because Nebraska man didn't have a thing to do with the Scopes trial. Creationists have long claimed that scientists had testified at the Scopes trial and used Nebraska Man as proof of evolution, but that claim is false. Nebraska Man was never mentioned at the Scopes trial.
Piltdown Man was a hoax. This crude forgery fooled the world for 40 years. It was exposed very easily when Piltdown Man no longer fitted the latest theory of human evolution, which, ironically, since has been revised.
Another old red herring from the creationists. Piltdown Man never did fit into the patterns of evidence for human origins in the first place, which is why it was viewed with suspicion by so many scientists. But as I said in my original post, the hoax was discovered by scientists doing science. It was proven to be a hoax by using new dating techniques developed by scientists that were not available at the time the fossil was "discovered." If those techniques had been available earlier, the hoax would have been proven earlier. Again, this is an example of how science self corrects itself.
This whole argument is so idiotic. I would love to hear Mr. Windchy offer an explanation for why Piltdown Man is a problem for evolution. Here, I'll start it for him:
Piltdown Man is relevant because to the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution because it shows....(fill in the blank).
Because it shows what, exactly? Yes, it shows that a century ago some con men were able to pull off a hoax, which scientists exposed by applying the standards and techniques of science because that is what scientists do, continually challenge and question their findings.
Buchanan did not say anything about common descent, and I do not see how that subject is relevant to the validity of Darwin's theory. Darwin himself said life has descended from a "few forms" or one.
The modern theory of evolution IS the theory of common descent.
Politics
Comments
You've got to give Pat credit for writing a review that perfectly represents Windchy's arguments. That said arguments are entirely vacuous is another matter. By the way, my biology textbook in AP Bio in 1980 clearly said, "gill arches," not gills
Posted by: kehrsam | July 6, 2009 9:39 AM
But I am quite willing to believe that he in fact doesn't see how common descent is relevant to evolution. Which means simply that he is not qualified to write anything on the subject.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 6, 2009 9:42 AM
As for the evolution of feathers: Not only is there exciting fossil evidence of feather precursors in dinosaurs, but one should keep in mind that fossils are not the only available line of evidence. Developmental genetics may have something to say in the matter.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 6, 2009 10:02 AM
1. There is, apparently, evidence that some of the late Cretaceous dinosaurs had feathers. In particular, the Troodons appear to have had feathers but were clearly dinosaurs, not birds.
2. Relative to Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, several of his diatribes against Jews and his proposed solutions to the Jewish problem in Germany are as bad as anything in Mein Kampf.
3. It should be pointed out that if we are going to inveigh against Darwin because of Hitler, we should mention that Josef Stalin and his minions in the former Soviet Union explicitly rejected Darwins' theory of evolution by natural selection in favor of the theory of inheritance of acquired traits (sometimes attributed to Lamarck). Biologists who dissented from the Communist ukase ended up in the gulag.
Posted by: SLC | July 6, 2009 10:22 AM
Growing up fundy in a small town where the fundies also controlled the local school board and effectively suppressed the teaching of evolution and scientific methodology, I am well-versed with their lies. The ones Buchanan and Windchy raise bring back dark memories and some surprise there are people who are ignorant or delusional enough to still seriously consider these claims that were discredited so many years ago. I thought they had new set of lies a la' Behe and Dembski.
While older fundies are nearly all incapable of rejecting long-held falsified religious beliefs even when the evidence is convincing like it is with the TOE, I wonder how pervasive and effective the lies told by creationists are with today's younger people given access to information via the Internet? It'd be interesting to understand the percentages accepting evolution vs. belief in creationism by age group and how these age group results have trended over time to understand whether the Internet is providing marginal utility to either camp (or other factors' effects, like fundies taking over school boards to suppress science education). I would speculate that whatever the rate who reject science is; that would be at least a starting point in projecting a reasonable rate of people who haven't been adequately taught science - the evidence for the TOE is that overwhelming.
It's one thing to be a contrarian who honestly challenges conventional wisdom, however I've yet to encounter one honest creationist who makes honest arguments for their notions or their challenges to what science understands. The fact their efforts effectively suppress a large number of bright young fundie students from a proper science education and considering a career in science has me categorizing them as evil and practicing a virulent form of child abuse.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 6, 2009 10:28 AM
If the piltdowm man disproves evolution, does the turin shroud prove christianity wrong?
Posted by: Ramel | July 6, 2009 10:31 AM
It seems to me there's a third reason it's irrelevant: Even if you don't know (or don't believe) that Nebraska Man was never brought up at the trial, or that investigation into the issue wasn't finished until '27, the fact remains that Scopes lost the case. The statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution in Tennessee was upheld and remained on the books for another 40 years.
Posted by: konrad_arflane | July 6, 2009 10:36 AM
Hey, Mr. Windchy, since we all know you're readinbg this blog, and have shown yourself willing to respond to it, why don't you take the time to tell us exactly which evils come from Darwin's theories, and how, exactly, those theories lead to the evils you ascribe to them? A specific cause-and-effect link is what we expect; and that's exactly what you'll provide if you want to be taken seriously.
We're waiting...
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 6, 2009 10:40 AM
To add a little to Raging Bee's challenge, I'd like to know if Mr. Windchy is as eager to decry the evils of shows like CSI. If you don't understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive, those "how to murder" shows must seem truly evil.
Posted by: pough | July 6, 2009 11:23 AM
The whole 'gills in humans' meme comes up often in my Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy class and I have to say that its a problem even among the biologically literate. The problem actually stems from the whole pharyngeal vs. gill terminology. You have to understand that we (Chordates) are defined by having pharyngeal slits. Early on, they were just feeding structures and only attained some sort of serious arch when we moved into the more active feeding styles (including Vertebrates). Much later, they also became important respiratory structures = gills. So, human embryos have pharyngeal bars and slits (well derived versions), not gills or gill slits. I hope you got today's biology lesson...I'll be back in a couple of hours to give you a quiz and see if you retained all that :).
Posted by: Scott Reese | July 6, 2009 11:23 AM
I read the DI's interview with Winchy and started laughing when he claimed that On the Origin of Species is an inaccurate title because Darwin didn't explain the origins of life. I can forgive a layman for that error, but not someone who thinks he's done research on Darwin.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 6, 2009 11:44 AM
@Raging Bee #8 -
I'd like to add on a bit more:
What I'd like to know how those many creationists who insist that they accept "micro"evolution, that is, evolution within a "kind", such as "mankind" -
How those creationists distance themselves from the evil consequences of accepting "micro"evolution.
And I'd like to know how those creationists who insist that purposeful intervention is necessary to prevent deterioration of the "kind" - "downward evolution" or "devolution" -
How those creationists distance themselves from the evil consequences of accepting the need for purposeful selection, rather than natural selection.
Posted by: TomS | July 6, 2009 11:59 AM
I don't think Mr. Windchy will be back to defend himself. Creationists like him know they have neither the intellectual weight nor the balls to stand up to people who have actual knowledge of the subject.
Posted by: Dogbert | July 6, 2009 12:37 PM
An excellent takedown, Ed! And I agree we're not going to see Mr. Windchy here anymore. I'd be willing to bet he's going to avoid any place where people actually know the facts about the lies he spins.
Posted by: Duke York | July 6, 2009 12:59 PM
Am I mistaken, or is Windchy's book published by a vanity press?
I'm shocked to hear that such a book is built on ignorance and non sequiturs. Shocked!, I tell you.
Posted by: Physicalist | July 6, 2009 1:30 PM
I further predict that Windchy will get a permanent gig writing for the Discovery Institute. Or some other creoblog that doesn't allow comments.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 6, 2009 1:35 PM
Physicalist stated:
Nice observation. I find it hilariously ironic that a book proclaiming to have information that will yield the end of so-called Darwinism can't get published even by the conservative Christian book publishers. Maybe I'll self-publish a book titled, "The End of the Germ Theory of Disease: Proof that Only God's Indiscriminate Judgment Inflicts or Heals Us".
I used 'proof' for a double dose of irony.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 6, 2009 2:00 PM
Hmmm, I think I'll title my self-published book The End of Copernicanism.
Let's see, Chapter 1: What Copernicans don't want to to know about epicycles. ("The common claim that Copernicus did away with Ptolomy's epicycles is FALSE!!!
Ellipses? Copernicus didn't even know what an ellipse was! . . . )
Chapter 2: Galileo and the Tides ("Galileo, champion of Copernicus, rejected the possibility that the moon could cause the tides!! His Two World Systems totally ignores the model of Tycho Brahe, which accounts for the phases of Venus! -- and Galileo STOLE the telescope!!! . . . ")
Chapter 7: Relativity Theory Says the World is Flat. ("Motion is relative, so we're no more objectively in motion than we are at rest! And the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation shows we're at the center of the universe! And Riemannian geometry says any small region is flat, so the ancients were right that the world is flat after all!!! . . . ")
Actually, such a book would be far less delusional than those of Windchy and his creationist ilk. I'll have to try harder.
Posted by: Physicalist | July 6, 2009 2:44 PM
Posted by: 2-D Man | July 6, 2009 3:12 PM
Physicalist, LOL. I would probably buy just such a book!
Posted by: threetorches | July 6, 2009 3:21 PM
Speaking of Biblical science, I've always been entranced with the notion of determining the coat coloration patterns of goats by controlling their visual environment.
Posted by: RBH | July 6, 2009 3:26 PM
2-D Man, I'm not sure that's a valid criticism since one is in those cases presumably talking about a direct deific intervention which could alter the genetics just as well. A more clear-cut example of the Bible getting basic biology wrong is in the story of Jacob and Laban where apparently animals seeing colored spots make their offspring more likely to have colored spots.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | July 6, 2009 5:32 PM
I love it when they try to argue that science is wrong because it's constantly changing. We're actually quite proud of the fact that we revise our conclusions to fit new evidence, thank you. The other option is the one you use, which amounts to closing your eyes, covering your ears, and shouting Biblical verses very loudly.
Posted by: Twewi | July 6, 2009 6:44 PM
I feel like I'm the only person that thinks pointing out Hitler was a creationist and thought "Darwinism" was a Jewish plot is the proper rebuttal. What the hell?
It's pretty simple. In Mein Kampf, Hitler:
1) described species in a way a creationist would describe species ("a fox is always a fox") that no "Darwinist" would.
2) he endorsed an anti-Semitic hoax that specifically said Darwinism was a Jewish plot ("Protocols of the Elders of Zion")
What the hell? Am I missing something? That's pretty direct evidence against the Darwin leads to Hitler argument. Instead I always see people arguing "Hitler mentioned God a whole lot", which isn't even a rebuttal.
Posted by: Citizen Z | July 6, 2009 7:58 PM
It's all part of the atheist conspiracy. They've kept this false theory alive for 150 years. They could cover up that, but not Piltdown. Umm... What I mean is they couldn't keep pushing the Piltdown hoax when new evidence was found. By that same scientific community, that lies about the TOE. And they couldn't continue covering the hoax up because that new evidence was undeniable. According to the modern theory of evolution, which is totally wrong. Wait, how does this go again?
Posted by: Citizen Z | July 6, 2009 8:06 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 6, 2009 8:29 PM
Re 2-D Man
We could also mention that Stalin was, at one time, a seminary student studying for the priesthood in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Posted by: SLC | July 6, 2009 8:35 PM
I think it's also important to note that Darwin's books showed up on the list of books to be banned, and burned. Hitler knew nothing of evolution -- most of science was beyond his ken.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 6, 2009 8:58 PM
Hang on, why do creationists dredge up the "Evil Darwin" myth all the time?
1. Genocide and eugenics existed long before Darwin's era.
2. Where does Hitler ever mention he was influenced by Darwin? Why do people keep making the ridiculous claim that Hitler was influenced by Darwin?
3. Darwin never supported genocide or eugenics. Anything which resembles a mention of the "survival of the fittest" is in reference to animals in their respective environments and over numerous generations. Darwin even writes to express how horrified he was of suggestions of eugenics (which was in resurgence at the time) being even remotely related to his theory of the origin of species.
4. People working within the framework of Darwin's theory of evolution have demonstrated that race is a superficial distinction between humans. So the theory of evolution helps us to understand that we really are all equal except on a superficial level. We can say with confidence that anyone who makes claims such as "black folks just aren't as intelligent as white folks" are idiots.
So what do creationists contribute?
1. all fags will go to hell
2. everyone in another religion will go to hell
and innumerable other things which are nonsense at best but which encourage fear and hatred of other people. (I just bet the creatards will jump in to deny they ever espouse evil.)
Posted by: MadScientist | July 7, 2009 7:57 AM
MadScientist makes a good point. Eugenics is an application of artificial selection, not natural, and artificial selection was known long before Darwin.
Posted by: Taz | July 7, 2009 8:46 AM
Madscientist asks the rhetorical question:
Less kids considering a career in science, which leads to less research, findings, and benefits from scientific advancement. Greatly diluted science programs even in public schools. Promotion of anti-intellectualism which has a huge impact on economic growth and the health of our citizens. I could go on and on and on.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 7, 2009 8:58 AM
Because to them, it's all about authority. Their whole reality is based on the transmission of revealed truth. As a result they believe that if they could prove that Darwin was a child molester all of that nasty fossil record, DNA, experimental evidence, etc. would just fade away like a bad dream.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 7, 2009 9:12 AM
Great article!
Posted by: chris p | July 7, 2009 10:11 AM
I've tried asking the "Darwin led to Hitler!" crowd many times to explain, using the concept of natural selection (or any other concept associated with "Darwinism"),
1) How one human population ("race") becomes "superior" and another "inferior";
2) Why the Jews would be classed among the inferior races; and
3) Why it is the moral duty of the superior race to exterminate the inferior.
I say they can't do it. And if they can't do it, what sense does it make to say that Nazism rests on "Darwinism?"
Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer | July 7, 2009 12:10 PM
Darwin, IIRC, was not even speaking of humans when he spoke of "Races" in his title. He was merely speaking of 'strains' or 'types' - I think he gave examples of cabbages!
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 7, 2009 12:13 PM
Three brief points to make: scientific hoaxes like Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, and Haeckel's "Orthogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" were discovered by scientists, not creationists. If a biological feature can't, at present, be explained in known evolutionary terms, the supernatural, or "God" doesn't win by default. Also, the current thought on the evolutionary function of feathers is that they evolved for display, not flight, since recently discovered dinosaurs had true feathers and were incapable of flight (bird chicks, of course, are covered with down, as are a good many flightless birds, a probable throwback to the first dinosaurs, that evolved this feature for insulation.)
Posted by: Raymond Minton | July 7, 2009 4:23 PM
I've never really understood the creationist obsession with Scopes either. Scientists do not cite Scopes as an example of anything. As far as I can tell, the only reason it keeps coming up is because creationists despise the way Inherit the Wind portrays creationists and they're STILL so steamed about it that they forget it has no relevance to the debate.
Posted by: Drew | July 7, 2009 8:16 PM
"1. There is, apparently, evidence that some of the late Cretaceous dinosaurs had feathers. In particular, the Troodons appear to have had feathers but were clearly dinosaurs, not birds."
Not just some, an ever-growing list of dinosaurs had feathers. They were virtually universal among maniraptorans (the theropods closest to birds), and a number of coelurosaurs (including at least one early tyrannosaur).
They may go back even further than that, given the recent discovery of feathers in a non-theropod dinosaur (a small ornithopod, iirc)...
Posted by: Devonian | July 8, 2009 8:24 PM
Much evil has come from the theory of gravity, such as catapults, artillery, air-dropped bombs, and ballistic missiles.
Much evil has come from our models regarding electricity: electrocution, the electrically-powered systems of many weapons, the use of electrical devices such as radios and TVs to spread propaganda, and the use of computers for cyber-crime.
Much even has come from nuclear physics, chemistry (e.g explosives), metallurgy, and the other scientific models used to create weapons.
You could say the same thing about the keeping of horses.
Does that mean that those things are incorrect, mistaken, or in need of being abolished?
When bad people find knowledge that will help them kill, they will try to use it. That doesn't mean that that knowledge is incorrect or inherently bad.
Posted by: atheistspy | July 10, 2009 3:24 PM
How is it possible for people like Windchy, who obviously have below room temperature IQ's, to get published?
Posted by: day2knight | July 10, 2009 5:38 PM
Thought I'd fix a statement for you:
"Yes, it shows that a century ago some con men were able to pull off a hoax, which scientists exposed AFTER FORTY YEARS by applying the standards and techniques of science because that is what scientists do VERY SLOWLY?, continually challenge and question their findings."
Posted by: Alex | July 16, 2009 5:00 PM
Alex - of course, you deliberately ignore what preceded that line:
Posted by: Taz | July 16, 2009 5:58 PM