History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Darwin the Ur-bad apple, Ruse the choir boy and all the other bad apples in the science mafia

August 24th, 2010 · No Comments

One Bad Apple, and the Threat to Science
Ruse thinks Darwin critics are going to exploit the Hauser case. Not here. And in general I doubt any such critics would bother. They are too busy with real issues, and could just as well critique the premises Hauser adopts, as to the Darwinization of ethics. That Hauser faked research is and has been a news link here, and of little interest, save as a way to discuss related issues.

Note how nervous Ruse is, in his sly reference to Darwin, about the hidden scandal of Darwin’s fraud, in the founder of the whole science. This should be public knowledge, as with Hauser. Darwin’s scientific miscondust, as recorded in minor research tradition depicted by Roy Davies in The Darwin Conspiracy, included backdating evolutionary references to his Galopagos texts to make it look like he discovered things alone far earlier than he in fact did. So major documents in the history of Darwinism are fraudulent. Yet noone discusses this in public.
Such things make us suspect Ruse is a liar, and a bad liar at that.

Darwin was not patient about his research, btw, as Ruse seems to imply, he was confused and stuck, as Lyell began to suspect, and couldn’t make his so-called theory work, not until Wallace sent him the answers unwittingly.

This archfraud at the foundation of Darwinism is so outrageous it would rock science to its foundations if ever properly discussed in the big media. Not because Darwin, the Ur-bad apple, was a fraud so much, as because the entire cadre of scientists are bad apples to exploit this coverup. And yet Ruse tries to make Darwin an example of science integrity.

Clearly Ruse is aware of this Darwin plagirarism (he reads this blog, let him deny it).

So I don’t think exploiting such issues is a threat to science, even if Darwin critics wished to bother. It is a threat to science to indulge in coverups. The entire integrity credibility of science is at risk from the Darwin plagiarism coverup.
The issue with Hauser would be, for me, to get ready to critique his future book, Evilicious, about evil behavior and evolution. Scientists are on the verge of perpetrating an immense harm, with all these junk Darwinism books on evolution and ethics, and the remarkable thing is not their dishonesty as much as their complete stupidity on the subject. Darwinism and ethics is a nexus of pseudo-science, and yet none of these scientists, the Ruses included, can see through the bad theory.
Maybe Hauser is right, Darwinists are ‘evilicious’, and enjoy this criminal enterprise. Hauser real crime is this variant of a Social Darwinist ideology, with a twist here: doing evolution promotes evolution. Kids lap that up in school, and live it after they leave.

Finally, a word about why the Hauser affair particularly is so upsetting and why it might have bigger consequences. Evolutionary biology today, especially anything to do with humankind, is loathed and feared by a range of critics, from prominent philosophers (like Jerry A. Fodor, author of What Darwin Got Wrong?), to the supporters of intelligent-design theory (like Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial), to the out-and-out young-earth creationists (like Ken Ham, the force behind the Creation Museum in Kentucky). Like sharks in the water, they circle waiting for a sign of blood. They seize on issues that supposedly discredit evolution and parade them publicly as the norm and the reason to reject modern science.

If anyone doubts what I am saying here, think of the recent controversy over global warming sparked when critics of the idea illicitly obtained e-mails and other confidential material of the researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. For several months, much was made of incautious remarks made by the researchers about using “tricks” to conceal unwelcome findings and pushing for the firing of unfriendly editors. More measured reflections showed that in fact the researchers were guilty of virtually none of the sins of which they were first accused and that their work was of good quality. Global warming is a reality. But the damage was done.

Most of us feel a tremor of schadenfreude at the troubles of a prominent Harvard professor, but no one will be following the Hauser story with the unabashed glee of the critics of modern evolutionary theory. Wait for them to start pumping up the publicity, and fear the sideways damage that might be inflicted on all of the good work out there. One man’s mistakes rebounds on every evolutionist. But that’s science for you.

Tags: ethics · Evolution

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment