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
I make no secret that I admire Darwin as a historical figure very much, but I recently submitted a paper for an open access journal for science teachers at secondary level named Resonance, entitled "Not Saint Darwin". I was motivated by some of the rather uncritical, unhistorical and unnecessary…
Iâve been picking on creationists for a number for years now, so it is somewhat strange for me to come out and offer one a gold star but, hey!
Todd Wood, a YEC at Bryan College had had a paper accepted over at Answers Research Journal that gives his take on the whole ridiculous âDarwin was a…
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…
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.