Darwin proves himself to be a raving, drooling, misogynist racialist. Basically a Nazi – who could not stand the sight of blood. What a shocking, insane accusation!! Please, remember we are civilized!! Counsel will withdraw those comments immediately. This is a court of law. Has counsel a scintilla of evidence for such an outrageous outburst?!
If, M’Lud pleases, the written words of the accused. This was his bracing The Descent of Man (1870). This actively promotes far, far more than that which is celebrated as das Überleben der Stärkeren – the enforced Survival of the Fittest. It is what Darwin suggests to promote the survival of his elite, white, wealthy, Aryan/Caucasian fittest clade that so excited the Germans in 1936. Note again that the slightly unnerving quotes that follow are from, in his opinion, the prophet’s great message to the world, his distillation of all wisdom and knowledge. This is Saint Charlie Darwin’s final message to mankind in his book, The Descent of Man:
The “Hope” of Darwin
“At some future period … the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Read that little beauty again, especially ‘as we may hope’!
Darwin’s Views on Women
And on women – “They are characteristic of the lower races, and are therefore of a past and lower state of civilization’ and ‘the average of mental power in man must be above that of women’ … ‘in whatever he takes up … whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”
Darwin on Humanitarian and Medical Welfare
And on humanitarian and medical welfare – “Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
Will The Real Darwin Please Stand Up?
This exposes the real Darwin, his outdated utterly astonishingly elitist, racialist, anti-female philosophy. The entire edifice hidden within the full title of his earlier world-famous ramble of 1859 – “The Origin of Species or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”. (For now, just note that last bit – ‘of Favored Races …’ that is the elite white upper classes). This man-made idol would have sickened you were you to have discussed almost any topic with him. You would not have wished to sit next to him on the bus. Most in his own generation would have been sickened at his confident final words to the adoring universe. Read them again – “The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races.”
He is clearly absolutely not merely observing his species’ behavior and noting it objectively. Throughout, countless times, he clearly advocates this extermination or laments our being unable to act in accordance with the purest Survival of the Fittest Law.
The Dark Philosophy Behind Evolution
Read again: …“It will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.’ No objective observer writes “As we may hope…” This is a modern “god” passing on his final preferred predictions. It is the dark philosophy behind evolution – racial elitism, the suppression of women, extermination of ‘savages’ and eugenics.
Thus, not only is there not an ounce of evidence for mutation, its central pillar, the whole idea is based on a – well – hideous philosophy – ideas Darwin stole and spread from his elitist, racialist forebears. The faithful weep copiously at such unfair slander against their deity and, rather stupidly, quote ‘in context’ the whole passage on page 168 of the First Edition of the Descent, heavily used in Der Sturmer. The fuller passages absolutely roast him.
It is inescapable that his hierarchy of superiority is as follows: at the top – Charles Darwin, followed in turn by the elite, privileged Caucasian upper classes, some future Caucasian Ubermensch, ordinary Caucasians, others nearly white, the non-white, ‘the negro or Australian and the gorilla’ and then that poor little baboon (or perhaps Darwin’s wife).
Eugenics in Darwin’s Philosophy
Eugenics and Do-Gooders Darwin actually coldly contemplates allowing the weak to die – as happens ‘with savages’. He writes, as below, rather ambiguously – ‘if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit’ – the benefit being – the purification of our race. Jawohl!
What sort of mind can actually write this down, long-hand? We soon discovered. Forgive the lengthy quotes but I do not wish to be accused of [rotten] cherry-picking or misrepresenting such a noble spirit. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. … Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
Caring For The Needy Is Degeneration
And the final sentence is quite astonishing: ‘It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed’ Are we not stupid through care wrongly directed to allow the degeneration of a domestic race? Surely hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed’? The worst animals are you and all you know who are not the wealthiest or top-pedigree Caucasian elite.
Yes, Darwin adds that we are impelled by our superior elite natures to do the above and not to act would be a certain and great present evil! But this is seen as necessary, quite astonishingly, not because helping others is the right thing to do, nor from any moral imperative, but because we must do ‘the right thing’ to prevent the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. That deterioration is the only certain and great evil. To remain superior in spirit we are forced to behave kindly and altruistically. The reason for morality is our own continued elitist status. Nowhere does he suggest that those receiving our largesse are deserving or even benefit. That is irrelevant. Only our benefit is worthy of note.
If Darwin Had His Way
So if Charlie’s ghastly specter were suddenly to return to rule over us about 6 billion humans would be exterminated leaving just enough to serve the elite – oh, sorry – unless he thought this would cause the deterioration in the noblest part of his nature. This noble behavior proves and maintains our racial superiority. Literally noblesse oblige writ large.
Protecting The Noblest Part of Our Nature
There is no hint of compassion, or that alleviating suffering or helping the weak is a moral ‘good’ in itself for their sakes. There is no sympathy with those we condescend to help. The only excuse for helping the weak is protecting the noblest part of our nature. Read the actual words of this great, compassionate, so noble model human: The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused.
Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. And he continues, digging ever deeper: Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind. But there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.” Yes, you read that correctly.
There it is – German eugenics – ‘the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage’ this being ‘one check in steady action’ and ‘to be hoped for’, ‘this check might be indefinitely increased’. Die Reinigung – cleansing – of the Caucasian race. Yes, Saint Darwin wrote that, published and believed it.
Historical Context of Darwin’s Attitudes
I must emphasise powerfully that this was not the typical attitude of ‘that time’. This ogre has no excuse. This was 1870. The later Victorians were entirely different from the educated classes of even the 1800s. Britain’s active role in stopping slave ships and her having a conspicuously powerful woman as ruler, combined with the flood of egalitarian and conscientious socially-conscious literature from 1780 – 1870 caused a quiet but almost complete revolution in attitudes. These were already practically cemented as the middle and late Victorians’ societal mores.
Nobody, but nobody, used these terms in public – whatever his private views were. Malthus had proposed his eugenic programme only for the sake of the indigenous. He saw that controlling population growth would improve the economic condition of the poor. That is all. He absolutely did not even hint at taking active steps to force this on people.
Further, his theory, first published in 1798, had been heavily criticized well before Victoria took the throne in 1837. His controls were presented as the only way of relieving mass starvation and the destruction of society. That was the only motive – a wider good for that same population. There was no hint of using forced eugenics simply to preserve the elite and eliminate the inadequate. It took Darwin’s evil little mind to use this idea as a suggested means of cleansing his race and establishing his supreme elite.
When Europe Longed For a Better World
Egalitarian writings from throughout Europe and reading material from Austen to Dickens’ works had infiltrated themselves into the public psyche. The world that the latter painted promoted a saccharine, all-embracing love and acceptance of the lowest in society – the victims of the heartless elite. But Dickens was taken extremely seriously by his readers. Scrooge repented. Gradgrind is reviled. The wealthy were lampooned as evil, selfish sociopaths. Poverty became a terrible affliction rather than a sign of indolence and depravity.
Similarly, the tide was turning even for women who were still treated appallingly. Educated people simply did not speak as they had done in the 1830s. The virtues they extolled were increasingly liberal and proto-socialist. Marx published Das Kapital in 1867 and had settled permanently in London twenty years earlier because of the prevalent philosophical climate there. Of course, every racialist and evil opinion was still embedded at every level. However, who, in 1871, could dream of writing like Darwin? Only Darwin.
Defenses and Further Evidence of Racism
Again, the faithful shake with indignation at such accusations – even based on the supremacist’s own verbatim writings. They prostrate before him and sacrifice their credibility by quoting gallons of his prose which actually proves the condemnation conclusively. Even his anti-slavery, ‘egalitarian’ verbosity amounts to little. He was plainly racist. His condescending surprise that ‘the negro’ actually might not be so repellent is scarcely impressive:
Darwin’s Admiration For The Africans
“It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population … ” He certainly did think that humans ranged from most superior to most inferior and the question was only how this may be defined. ‘Savages’, but inconsistently not all men, are comparable to ‘distinct species of monkeys.’
‘He … can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattooing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions.
The Root of Elitist Self-Justification
This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys.’ We note that he speaks of savages and not the chaps with whom he dallied away his misspent youth. Now this, of course, is typically unintelligent and illogical. But our Charlie was not particularly bright. Imaginative – yes; supremely over-confident – by birth-right; wealthy – you bet; privileged – a British public school dandy; circumlocutious – woefully; but brilliant – by no means.
Darwin is as obviously wrong as are all elitists who seize on evolution and atheism to justify their position and see in Mother Nature only that which supported their benighted views. Scratch an upper class evolutionist and you will find – not blue blood but elitist self-justification!
Mental Powers Comparison in The Descent
In ‘Comparison of the mental powers of man and the lower animals’ – Chapter 4 of ‘The Descent’ – appears one of the very few, apparently commendable passages – constantly quoted by the Darwin worshippers to exonerate their god. It turns out to be in context nothing more than contradictory, diluted Victorian political rectitude.
We see here that even when Darwin gushes virtuous Victorian values he nonetheless ignores the good they do. He justifies them merely by their effect on the internal flowering of cultivated elite. In his condescending, self-congratulatory conviction in his clade’s superiority, earlier he actually talks of a ‘Law of Honour’. Only the fine hero of the hour, the white man, the British upper class public school champion, can achieve this however.
‘But as love, sympathy and self-command become strengthened by habit, and as the power of reasoning becomes clearer, so that man can value justly the judgments of his fellows, he will feel himself impelled, apart from any transitory pleasure or pain, to certain lines of conduct.’ Ah, those fine lads from my school rowing team, they exhibit such great qualities. ‘He might then declare—not that any barbarian or uncultivated man could thus think—I am the supreme judge of my own conduct, and in the words of Kant, I will not in my own person violate the dignity of humanity.’
We’re Too Civilized To Be Openly Nazis!
The jolly good chaps will be jolly fine fellows, don’t you know. I will not in my own person violate the dignity of humanity because I am superior, proven by that aside not that any barbarian or uncultivated man could thus think. Yes, he wrote that. You have to attend a well-heeled, well-oiled public school for the British upper classes or you cannot ever be civilized. The stench of this attitude of course still lingers. Just listen in to the opinions of the Junior and Senior Common rooms of any Oxbridge college – provided no ‘toads’ – are present. Darwin is simply playing political rectitude, vicariously, for the sake of his own self-importance. There is no moral imperative but merely an observation that ultimately our self-respect and education leads us to this. We are too superior to do otherwise.
Darwin’s Views on Sympathy and Civilization
Strangely, the following is actually used to show what a godly, messianic figure he really was. Here is the gentle, kindly god of all modern gods speaking of his ideal of the fellowship of man – Darwin’s commonwealth. This is meant to prove his love of all mankind. But note that this is cold observation, not a recommended process: ‘As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.’ It is merely the inevitable result of an overflow of truly useful altruism into new, less useful areas.
“Sympathy beyond the confines of man, that is, humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of the latest moral acquisitions. It is apparently unfelt by savages, except towards their pets … This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.’ So we learn from kindness to animals that we have reached a zenith in allowing this to be ‘extended to all sentient beings’.”
Darwin’s Exclusionary Sympathy
We have proven earlier that these exclude women, non-whites and ‘lower vicious savages’. Note carefully that sympathy to all sentient beings is one of the noblest virtues but ‘seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused’. And ‘the simplest reason would tell each individual’ to start this process.
Again, it is over-extended tribal altruism. It may be noble to be nice to Alsatians but Charlie is not recommending it. He is simply observing how morality might progress as a human trait. And tellingly, discussing its transmission, he recounts it even ‘extending to men of all races, to the imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society, and finally to the lower animals’. Ultimately, it is his own elite’s fullest development that has endowed it with its ‘disinterested love for all living creatures’. But the superior race’s Victorian compassion and assistance to the indigent is valuable only to perfect our nobility. Who cares about those we graciously help?
So, again, we do not see Darwin, the ultimate honest moral being, objectively observing mankind’s development. He is interpreting it in his own cheap elitist terms. He is not torn between his British decency and his evolutionary imperatives. Darwin is not torn at all.
The Sickening Black Soul of Darwin
He has revealed his black soul. This kindly old man wrote ‘and this check (enforced celibacy) might be indefinitely increased, (how – enforced sterilization?) though this is more to be hoped for than expected…’ Remember, seventy years after Malthus – and not to save mankind for starvation but only to purify the Caucasian human race. In other words, the lower, inferior humans are equal to stock animals, to be bred as required. The really compromised and useless must not breed. The rest must breed only as the Ubermenschen dictate.
The above quotes are verbatim and not taken out of context, and this is why, as mentioned, I made them rather lengthy. Go and read The Descent. Again, these were not – not – commonly held views by his peers. They had evolved. He had not.
Darwin’s Plagiarism and Contributions
And, to top it all, the amazing Charlie Darwin’s great original contribution to mankind was open, blatant plagiarism. All he did was invent suppositions as to how nature fitted in with others’ ideas about evolution.
Yes, plagiarism with a capital P. His immoral, philandering grandfather, Erasmus, had written similar dribble pretending that they were his own novel ideas about evolution and even poems on the subject. His ‘Zoonomia’ of 1794 included almost every idea that his grandson wrote about. Others are lifted wholesale from Lamarke’s works, especially ‘Philosophie Zoologique’, or those of Buffon, Chambers, Lyell, Hooker and Wallace.
All that Charlie boy did was use his inherited wealth to travel and observe. His expensive education taught him to write – albeit badly and illogically – and his elitist background bestowed his uncritical over-confidence which allowed him to do so. His obduracy made him blind to the change in attitudes and his familial bulldog tenacity and energy gave him the determination to disseminate his own supremacist doctrine.
What Would Feminists Say About Darwin?
Feminism had certainly not truly appeared then. But the attitude to and acceptance of women had diametrically changed between 1800 and 1870. They were generally still a slave caste – but exceptions were allowed even in the middle-classes. Men could no longer dismiss those women with attitude, as it were.
Mary Wollstonecraft’s influential writings were in the 1790s, by the 1840s Caroline Norton had achieved mothers’ custody over their children and by 1870 the role of and attitude to women were just beginning to change, in parallel with the attitudes to slaves. Yes, it took another 150 years to begin truly perhaps to alter society. White men had a lot to lose. But what was male chauvinist Charlie writing in that very era?
Well, I hope the quotes herein do not start a campaign to exhume him and put his remains in a compost heap. I fear they just might. He whimsically feared a liaison between his brother, Erasmus, and one Harriet Martineau, a famously strong-willed young lady who loudly and fearlessly championed women’s rights, abolition, the free-market and other controversial and modern ideas. Martineau had toured America, and was bursting with the new Married Women’s Property Act proposals. Darwin wrote these words to his sister, Caroline:
Dear Sister Caroline
Erasmus has just returned from driving out Miss Martineau. — Our only protection from so admirable a sister-in-law is in her working him too hard. He begins to perceive, (to use his own expression) he shall be not much better than her “nr”.— Imagine poor Erasmus a nr to so philosophical & energetic a lady.— How pale & woe begone he will look.— She already takes him to task about his idleness— She is going some day to explain to him her notions about marriage— Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine. I much doubt whether it will be equality in practice. We must pray for our poor “n****r”.
Yes, he is writing a private letter. He is being whimsical. Yes, he is quoting his brother’s use of the ‘n’ word, but his sense of humour rejoices in the ridiculous comparison of Erasmus with a non-white slave. There seems no sympathy there. Yes, he felt sorry for the individual slaves but not because of a revulsion at their degradation and use as forced free labour. Had it been done without cruelty, he would have thoroughly approved. His anti-slavery is simply a family stance. In parallel, he is against any rights for women, is horrified by Martineau and obviously feared women unless they were subservient, sock-darning, broody hens.
This is in the 1830s, when Jane Austen’s novels were read throughout the land and women were at last beginning to win some of their battles. Yet, his worshippers have, and always will have, a thousand answers and excuses for their god. None of these would have been accepted by Darwin’s contemporaries. But, let us be honest, he was not ‘just joking … perhaps in bad taste’.
Queen Victoria Is Characteristic Of The Lower Race
Remember, as we have read, the qualities of Queen Victoria and her half of humanity ‘are characteristic of the lower races, and are therefore of a past and lower state of civilization’ and ‘the average of mental power in man must be above that of women’ … ‘in whatever he takes up … whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.’ Herrenrasse und Untermenschen.
Influence on Nazi Ideology
All this puts his mind and ideas in true context and shows conclusively why the Germans – the Herrenrasse – master race – used Darwin as an intellectual prop in their extermination of the Untermenschen – lower races – a fact acknowledged even by the Oxford English Dictionary.
Race: …Ideas of supposed racial superiority and social Darwinism reached their culmination in Nazi ideology of the 1930s and gave pseudoscientific justification to policies and attitudes of discrimination, exploitation, slavery, and extermination…
The Descent vs. The Origin
If the Descent were as widely known as the Origin Darwin would be dismissed as a rabid racist, anti-feminist and elitist – which of course he was. Nobody mentions this little pot of poison today – although it was Darwin’s seminal work on evolution.
This was his legacy to us. It was his masterpiece. This was his ‘Tristan und Isolde’. ‘The Descent’ is the philosophy behind ‘The Origin’. No one will believe this because I am libelling Santa Darwin who has brought such wonderful gifts and liberated modern man to be able proudly to behave like an animal, so I shall have to repeat this again. ‘The Descent’ really is the philosophy behind ‘The Origin’. Now, having a god as questionable as Darwin, merely means one divorces the message from the man. It certainly does not suggest that you share or condone even one of his political opinions.
But I find the contrast between the world’s take on Darwin and the bare facts rather jarring. I could not worship a god whose quasi-intellectual stolen ideas and fantasies have so obviously grown out of a sewer. Ideas are built upon a human’s actual being. If he is repugnant in his opinions, then might I not harbour some reservations about the ideas he promotes if they reflect these?
Full Title of The Origin of Species
Now we can fully understand the full title of that which we all refer to so glibly as ‘The Origin’. It is horrifically illuminating. The Descent at the end of Darwin’s cosy, moneyed, privileged life fully exposes his soul (if I may use that word). But we should have suspected something was amiss because his earlier, most famous work on which so much of our morality is based is not actually called ‘On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection.’ Read again carefully its full title –
Yes, read that little insignificant, never quoted last bit again: ‘the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.’ ‘Favored races’ does not mean the Grand National or Triple Crown. Nor, as the faithful idol-worshippers tearfully insist, did ‘race’ mean or imply anything different in 1859 from today. That is a piece of dishonest faith-head fantasy. Charlie meant ‘race’ as in ‘race’.
But I Favor The Cabbage Over Cauliflower
Yes, we all know that it can be used to describe a distinct population within a species of animal. Yes, it can also be used to describe a ‘type’ of cabbage or nematode. But all the normal uses in the Complete Oxford Dictionary, quoted earlier, refer specifically or include man: ‘race’ Scientifically it is accepted as obvious that there are subdivisions of the human species, but it is also clear that genetic variation between individuals of the same race can be as great as that between members of different races.’ So, all those apologists for sweet, kind, Onkel Karl Darwin should perhaps get their facts right. Mind you, that is a ridiculous statement. If they could do that they would not believe in evolution.
Criticism Of Darwin’s Poor Writing Style
Further, this model for humanity writes like a poor imitation of a bad 18th century hack. George Eliot (an acquaintance) said ‘The Origin’ was ‘ill-written’. T. H. Huxley is quoted as saying that ‘nothing entertains me more than to hear people call it easy reading… Exposition …was not Darwin’s forte – and his English is sometimes wonderful.’ That ‘wonderful’ is whimsical and means puzzling and incongruous. An entire book on this subject, predictably glorifying this virtuous, humble, compassionate giant of humanity, somehow concludes that he was a great writer. I cannot, I am afraid agree, in any way.
It is hard to believe that Macaulay, Carlyle, the Brontës, Dickens, Eliot, Hardy, Conan Doyle, Wilde and Wells were contemporaries of or buttress this wretched mind.
The Myth of Darwin’s Finches
The Finches Fix His lack of perception and limitations are clearly illustrated by those so famous Galapagos finches. I deal later with the other animals claimed to prove mutation and show how they actually absolutely disprove it. Indeed I call them as witnesses and allow you to cross examine them and see how speculation and faith have perjured their testimony. However I mention the finches here because, even whilst they disprove mutation – yes, you read that correctly – see just below – these little birds show how the Darwin machine began rolling.
The propaganda states that ‘Darwin’s Finches’ clearly ‘proved’ mutation by allegedly mutating into different species with differing beaks. The problem is that the world’s greatest experts, Peter and Mary Grant, devout Darwinists, who lived on the Galapagos for years working on these birds, have proven absolutely that this is fiction and the exact opposite of the truth. They remained precisely the same species with temporary adaptations. Darwin noticed differences between the mocking birds of South America and three Galapagos Islands. This led him to think about adaptation. He did not notice the finches particularly. He collected what he thought were different species of bird and when these were shown to experts in London they told him that many were all one species – finches. Their beaks had adapted to different food types.
Adaptation, Not Mutation
He concluded from others’ observations that these were adaptations within one species. They were not ‘Darwin’s Finches’. This whole idea was invented decades later as part of the proof that new species evolve. Darwin himself clearly stated that in finches there was absolutely no evidence of mutation into another species at all. He wrote in his journals:
… these variations are ‘utterly inexplicable in the ordinary view of the independent creation of each species but are explicable on the view of the colonization from the nearest and readiest source, together with the modification and better adaptation of the colonists to their new homes …’ Now that statement itself is very strange. Why, if you recognize creation, is it ‘utterly inexplicable’ that two different finches with diverse beaks could not be created? And if you reject creation – which Darwin did not – we note his acceptance of ‘modification and adaptation’.
It is relevant to state very clearly that today we know that these famous, fake-news finches are – not – not – different ‘species’. Fact: species means inter alia a group that breeds only within itself – if it means anything at all. These little birds can, do and always did interbreed with one another regardless of their home island, food type or beak shape.
The Bird Brained Theory
Yes, when living in isolation, they married and settled down with the girl next door on that island – and both had the same beak. Yes, they seemed to have adapted their beaks to different foods on different islands. But the Grants – quoted in ‘Nature’ in ‘Speciation Undone’ – clearly state that the finches had always readily interbreed and indeed individual types on some islands are disappearing because of hybridization.
Some have become extinct, 30% of the others are on that path and new hybrids are appearing. Spotted the problem – that’s right – species are defined as creatures that cannot breed together. Huh? If by chance they can – the offspring are infertile like the mule. So although constantly using the term ‘species’ for the different islands’ finches, the Grants repeatedly discuss hybridization between them. Their different ‘species’ inter-breed successfully. And remember that their whole raison d’etre is proving the truth of Darwin’s observations.
So, think of mules whenever you hear someone using ‘Darwin’s Finches’ as proof.
Reasons for Darwin’s Popularity
Why the Darwin Explosion? But how did all this evolve? The success of his book for the socio-political reasons described below made everyone champion his ‘science’ even if it was not science and was blatantly wrong. This was an age of hysterical frenzy about almost anything the press fed to the public. Everything was exaggeration and wonderment – from huge public exhibitions, circuses, carnivals and new, utterly astonishing discoveries. This ranged from the sad story of the original ‘Jumbo the Elephant’ of that era or Clever Hans the counting horse to the Great Exhibition.
Selling The Darwinian Hype
All hype was embraced. And hype sells! This public thirst for the novel and distracting nurtured our very average plagiarist. Darwin’s evil little pseudoscientific book simply happened to appear at precisely the right time. Further, Victorian Britain was revising its mores dramatically almost year by year. Unmentionable ideas were now loudly debated. The prepared firewood on the gunpowder was tinder dry and the winds of change perfect. Darwin was lucky to have lit the kindling paper at that very moment with his apparently anti-establishment, anti-church, anti-class new look at hierarchy. The agenda was elitist but that was ignored because of the underlying libertarian message. ‘The Origin’ presented a tantalising world of unbridled Nature surging beneath the artificiality of manners and morality.
Free From Moral Tyranny At Last!
He meant none of these political undertones and was just putting forward the puerile theory he had stolen. The book was seized on because its implications liberated the middle and upper classes from old-fashioned fetters. It sold out immediately because it was shocking and shameless in its message, as we have said – ‘You come from animals – you can behave like them’.
Now, consider again the ideas of evolution. Survival of the fittest is, as we all know, common sense. The improvement of a species by the adaptation of its features – adaptation – is also common sense and seen in domestic animal breeding and variations between widely scattered groups of wild species (including finches). But Darwin had to show that his elite class resulted from an incredible, permanent and complete improvement. His Caucasian species had become, conceptually, a new species of Ubermenschen – practically incapable of breeding with the savages. Self-perpetuating oligarchies are guaranteed their positions if mutation is true.
Why Darwin’s Views Remain Obscure
Why is all the above not widely known? Finches knew, fruit flies knew – and intelligent, logical men did not? Come on. Be honest, you know why. Evolution even today is a ticket to freedom from religion and morality. It explains very neatly and imaginatively all our questions about the universe. It is very attractive. And there are mountains of fossil ‘evidence’ – until you actually start to scratch the surface. But to scrutinize and expose that mass of ambiguous, non-evidence means academic suicide and ridicule. However, any slight success academically or otherwise I had is long forgotten and, after a certain amount of pomp and circumstance, I rather enjoy being thought ridiculous so.
Leave a Reply