Darwin: Portrait of a Genius

by Paul Johnson

A “riveting” (The Wall Street Journal) biography of one of the most influential and controversial scientists in Western history

Acclaimed historian and biographer Paul Johnson turns his keen eye on Charles Darwin, the towering figure whose work continues to spur scientific debate.

With his publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin forever changed our concept of the world. While Johnson praises Darwin’s extraordinary skills as a natural scientist and his monumental achievements, he does not sidestep Darwin’s tragic failures as an anthropologist. Johnson argues that by applying his theory of natural selection to humans, Darwin provided a platform for the burgeoning eugenics movement. Lay readers and academics alike will enjoy this concise and unflinching exploration of Charles Darwin, a genius whose discoveries—even the flawed ones—add significant dimension to our understanding of his mind, the era in which he lived, and his everlasting impact on our world.

Genres: Biography, Nonfiction, Science, History, Evolution, Nature, Biography Memoir

177 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2012

About the author

Paul Johnson works as a historian, journalist and author. He was educated at Stonyhurst School in Clitheroe, Lancashire and Magdalen College, Oxford, and first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. He has also written for leading newspapers and magazines in Britain, the US and Europe.

Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815—1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading eleven biographies (and one autobiography) on the life and times of Charles Darwin, I feel obliged to rank Paul Johnson’s effort somewhere in my bottom five. Yes it might be the most unbiased book in the lot but it’s also way too short (176 pages) to provide much depth or insight into the author’s suppositions.

[Peter Tillman · Rating 5 out of 5]

You don't get many scientists as influential as Darwin. He had a lucky life: born rich, Voyage of the Beagle, good wife, supportive colleagues. He was a very sharp observer. And wrote a very influential book! One of the two great biologists of the 19th century -- the other being Gregor Mendel -- and a true polymath. What a pity the two never met! Mendel was aware of Darwin's work, but his own was only published in obscure local journals. Johnson points out in a couple of places that Darwin missed many opportunities by not hiring a personal research assistant, which he could have easily afforded. Oh, well.

Sadly, Darwin was weak in math, and uncritically accepted Malthus as an authority. As was Malthus, in the same era: erroneous arguments, geometric vs. arithmetic. Total BS! Evils of Social Darwinism: many pounced on Darwin's overblown “survival of the fittest” stuff: Marx, Engels, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Somewhere over 100 million people died from this poisonous ideology. Which can't be blamed on Darwin, but he was a man of his time, and sympathetic to the "Ascent of Man" crap then current, with white Englishmen on the top rung of the ladder. He even put in a gratuitous dig at poor Irishmen in a later book -- and wouldn't take it out, despite outraged Irish protests! Darwin is certainly not directly responsible for the poisonous eugenics and ethnic-cleansing horrors based on Social Darwinism, but he wasn't innocent either.

Bismarck's program of German imperialism: "Blood and Iron." The Germans were the most enthusiastic adapters of Social Darwinism. The Aryan Master Race business became popular around the time of WW1, and was enthusiastically adopted by the Nazis a bit later. German biologists of the Nazi era were particularly enthusiastic about the Nazi eugenics program (itself largely adopted from earlier USA eugenics efforts). Over half of German biologists then were Nazi party members, the highest percentage of any professional group.

Johnson is really, really good at these short bios. I should read more of his stuff!

I've now read this book three times, and picked up new stuff every time. It's a short book, and so this reread was an afternoon's job. Time well spent. Upgraded to 4.5 stars, rounded up. Most highly recommended!

If this short bio leaves you hungry for more, I recommend Diana Preston's recent full bio:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

Johnson's biography offers a lucid portrait and valid critique of Darwin until its final pages, in which he connects Darwin's theory of natural selection with the evils of national, racial, and cultural essentialism, such as the mass genocides undertaken by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (but no mention of the evils of U.S. & U.K. nationalism). His tirade could easily lead a less critical reader down the path of believing that Darwin is ultimately to blame, thus (as happens with connections of this sort) his theories deserve less acclaim, if any. Johnson uses a really wonderful buildup to reach a fairly pathetic conclusion, that is that humanitarianism (via vaccination & birth control) is the human race's answer to natural selection, thus trumping nature at her every attempt at the process. What Johnson ignores in his conclusion are the mechanics at play in society that counter humanitarianism daily: war, poverty and starvation, ethnic cleansing, imprisonment, and environmental degradation. All of these are affected by Johnson's so-called humanitarians.

I admit that I disagree with Johnson's politics, but I wanted to like his book. My appreciation of his critique ended when it turned completely polemical. Such bitterness exists in the world, though, so I cannot blame Johnson for wanting to forward the cause against Darwin. However, I also cannot extend to him my full respect for what turned out to be so obviously a politically-motivated diatribe. My sympathies go out to those who fall for Johnson's eloquence and lose sight of what seems to be his malevolence.

[Skallagrimsen]

Paul Johnson tempers his obvious admiration for Charles Darwin with the lament that the greatest atrocities of the twentieth century, Nazi and Communist, drew some measure of justification from Darwin's evolutionary theories. I call bullshit. There's no good reason to hold Darwin responsible for these horrors. Consider the Roman conquest of Gaul, the Mongol eruptions in Eurasia, and the European invasions of the Americas, to take just three extreme examples. All resulted in millions of human casualties long before Darwin was born. If the scale of slaughter was even greater in the twentieth century, this surely owed far more to enhanced technological capacity, together with the bare fact that there were many more humans available by then to be murdered than in previous eras.

Which is not to say that racialist or collectivist regimes never rationalized mass murder with evolutionary arguments. They did. But if evolution had never been discovered, these totalitarianisms would have easily found other pretexts to justify their actions. When have humans have ever lacked for reasons to extinguish each other in vast numbers? They were doing it for thousands of years before the origin of species by natural selection and random mutation had ever occurred to anyone. Responsibility for the darkest chapters of the twentieth century cannot reasonably be imputed to a nineteenth century British naturalist who happened to theorize that man shared a common ancestor with the apes.

This admittedly massive caveat aside, I found Darwin: Portrait of a Genius a decent short assessment Darwin's life and significance. Whatever one thinks of Paul Johnson, it must be admitted he's an engaging writer. Every world historical figure should be the subject of such a concise, informative, and compulsively readable biography. While I do have some problems with Johnson's historical framing of Darwin's achievement, I can't deny I still enjoyed his book.

[Edmund Roughpuppy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book
Charles Darwin lived a fascinating and fortunate life. His writing changed our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Paul Johnson puts new thoughts in my head about this important man. I like the brevity of the book. It stimulated my thinking in exactly the way I want a book to do so.


The subject
Darwin radically influenced his culture. He was also, by all accounts, a nice guy, which is a wonderful relief from the many famous Influencer biographies that reveal their subjects were horrible people. Johnson recognizes the equal roles of Darwin’s methodical study, and the perfect timing of his birth in a wealthy family:

[During the voyage of the Beagle] His father supplied him with ample funds, which enabled him to hire Syms Covington as a valet-assistant at £60 a year (then a huge salary for a servant) and to ensure that all his specimens and notes were periodically sent back to England during the long voyage by the safest and most expeditious route.

Darwin’s book The Origin of Species makes for compelling reading, 164 years after it’s first publication. I wish everyone would read it, before forming a strong opinion about his ideas. Alas, humans are wired to pop off emotionally, not to learn before pontificating.


The author
I met the writing of Paul Johnson when my book club chose “Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky.” Incidentally, that book would be more properly titled, “Intellectuals: Why I Hate Them.” Johnson makes no pretense at impartiality; he’s writing to propagate his opinions about history. This both invigorates his writing and regularly steers it off the road; both occur in “Darwin: Portrait of a genius.” I followed that initial reading with Modern Times, A History of the Jews and A History of Christianity.


The subject’s ideas
The theory of evolution is much more than an argument against the Book of Genesis. It’s the only framework we’ve discovered for truly understanding ourselves and our world, but our primitive brains rarely get that far. Accept it or reject it, most people do not understand evolution. We think we do, but we don’t. The Theory touches too many emotional hot buttons to be tolerated.

Several times, in conversation with modern, secular, college graduates, I stated the obvious, that we were the products of our ancestors’ mating. My respondents immediately protested that some people did not care about sex. I said asexual individuals were irrelevant in this process; we were not their descendants. We were the descendants of horny people. My secular friends resisted this mild observation with all the fury of the orthodox. A few allowed me to get further, explaining women’s demonstrated preference for tall men, for example, but none agreed with it. A consistent force in human nature is at work here.

In his Memoirs, Giacomo Casanova relates a story from his childhood, early in the 18th century, when he traveled by river, from Venice to Padua:

The bed was too low for me to see the land; I could see through the window only the tops of the trees along the river. The boat was sailing with such an even movement that I could not realize the fact of our moving, so that the trees, which, one after the other, were rapidly disappearing from my sight, caused me an extreme surprise. “Ah, dear mother!” I exclaimed, “what is this? the trees are walking!” . . . my mother, heaving a great sigh, told me, in a tone of deep pity, “The boat is moving, the trees are not. Now dress yourself.”
I understood at once the reason of the phenomenon. “Then it may be,” said I, “that the sun does not move, and that we, on the contrary, are revolving from west to east.” At these words my good mother fairly screamed. M. Grimani pitied my foolishness, and I remained dismayed, grieved, and ready to cry.

Something in us repells any indication that we’re not the center of things, or that we can’t control our destinies. Whether from ignorance or aversion or both, few people have the mental capacity to contemplate the work of evolution in forming their being. They don’t know and they don’t want to know. I fear that improved education may never overcome this widespread resistance.


The author’s antagonism toward the subject’s ideas
Paul Johnson is such an individual. Throughout the book, Johnson signals that he must discredit Darwin, who was, after all, just one more contemptible “Intellectual.” Johnson never reveals what I believe to be the root cause of these attacks; he is religious and evolution defeats his Christian doctrine. Don’t bother listing Christians who say they accept it; they literally don’t know what they’re admitting. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible; Darwin knew it, his supporters knew it, his detractors knew it. Reconciling the two explanations was not possible in the 19th century, nor is it possible in the 21st.

Unable or unwilling to argue that Darwin’s theory is false, Johnson runs behind, biting his heels. Maybe it’s true, but the theory is flawed, incomplete, and it directly caused wholesale human slaughter.

Origin, then, was a cleverly written, superbly presented, and even a cunningly judged book, and quite apart from its veracity deserved to have an enormous impact and sell widely. But it was, and is, open to one objection. . . . His emotions convinced him that the “horror scenario” was the way nature operated, and he imparted this feeling to his book. The result, in the long term, was to have malign, even catastrophic, consequences.

At no time reading Origin did I receive it as a “horror scenario,” but that’s beside the point. And what is the point, you ask? Answering this question:
Is.
It.
True?
Spoiler alert: The answer is “yes.” See Jerry Coyne, “Why Evolution Is True.”

Two thirds of the book [The Descent of Man] deals with the role of sex in natural selection. Darwin had become uneasily aware that natural selection, though generally true, did not cover man comprehensively and would not stand up as the sole explanation. He decided to bolster it by examining the way in which mating is decided by either the male or the female or both.

Natural selection does “cover man comprehensively” and sexual selection is part of natural selection, not a force outside it.

In the twentieth century, it is likely that over 100 million people were killed or starved to death as a result of totalitarian regimes infected with varieties of social Darwinism. But then Darwin himself had always insisted on the high percentage of destruction involved in breeding, whether of seeds, embryos, births, of even mature birds, mammals, and species in general.

By this he means that communists and national socialists sometimes justified their brutal re-engineering of society, citing Darwin’s theory. If we take this accusation seriously, what are we to do? Outlaw all discussion of natural selection because it might inspire mass murder? If so, he’s not the first person to suggest this idiotic solution to troublesome ideas. In Samuel Butler’s late 19th century parody, “Erewhon Revisited,” a man returns to a primitive remote country many years after his first visit, to discover the locals now venerate him as a god. When he insists he is not, they urge him to remain quiet, lest the country turn wicked without its worship of him. [summary by Mark R. Kelly]

If Darwin were disproved in the early 20th century, would Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have given up their plans to reorder their countries through violence? Would these men have joined the Order of Saint Francis instead? I don’t think anyone believes that; we are not living in Erewhon. Again our first question can’t be “what will people do with this theory?” but rather
Is.
It.
True?


And finally, but most interestingly
Johnson combines his “Darwinism = mass murder” claims with a related objection: If Darwin was right, then our existence is empty of “purpose.”

Although the process whereby durable mountains are sorted out from broken ones may be physically different from the sorting out of vegetable and organic matter, both are part of selection by nature. Once this is grasped, it is hard to see any moral purpose in nature or indeed any purpose at all. We come under exactly the same fundamental rules as a piece of rock. Nature grinds on but without object or purpose or rationale, long- or short-term. There is no point whatsoever in existence. Nonexistence is just as significant. Or rather, nothing whatsoever signifies. The result is nihilism.

I like this objection, because it brings to the fore the question of what “purpose” is and where it comes from. Let’s ask ourselves these questions, before resenting Darwin because he took our purpose away. I submit that purpose was never found in nature; that’s not where purpose is generated. Both purpose and meaning happen in us, when we respond to nature.

Our experience arrives without purpose or meaning, and that’s a good thing. We receive a gift, an opportunity, to invest our lives with meaning and purpose. Purpose imposed from outside isn’t actually possible, and a moment’s consideration convinces us, we wouldn’t want it to be possible. Hitler gave Germany a purpose, “Expand the Fatherland.” Stalin gave Russia a purpose, “Dictatorship of the proletariat.” There’s your purpose, do you want it? Of course not. Even if the source were benign, you wouldn’t want anyone else to invest your experience with purpose, in the same way you don’t want to buy new luggage, only to find someone else’s used clothing inside.

[Brad · Rating 1 out of 5]

Let’s say this book should be rated thusly: 2 stars for the first half and 0 for the second. Here’s how it plays out:

First, I see the book on one of my favored websites. In the science section. It’s called Darwin: Portrait of a Genius. OK. Though I’ve read Darwin and know a lot about his life as both a biology student and now educator, I realize I’ve yet to actually read a proper biography of the man. So I buy it sight unseen. When the book shows up I see that not only is it a mere 150 pages long, but the margins are wide and the text is big. Within two sit downs, the book was read. A bit too superficial for the most influential 19th century thinker, save, perhaps, Lincoln? Yup.

The first half reasonably traces Darwin’s early life through the publication of the Origin of Species. This is fair and accurate though simple. Johnson does, however, seem obsessed with Darwin’s “luck” in all aspects of his life. But whatever. It is not until Darwin writes The Descent of Man that the book gets derailed in some bizarre insult fit more for right wing talk radio than a “history”. Johnson puts forward the ridiculous and long debunked notion, though still favored by the most ardent conservative, that Darwin himself was responsible for the most appalling tragedies of the 20th century! This is without basis and the author’s opinions and commentary are easily offered in the place of fact with no attempt to conceal the blatancy. (Important to note: not a single reference or footnote is found anywhere in the text. For a supposed historian, I guess we are to assume he absorbs historical facts by osmosis from the winds of history.)

That Darwin was flawed, as Johnson continually points out, is without question. That Darwin missed a huge opportunity by missing the work of his contemporary Gregor Mendel is worth talking about. But convicting Darwin with the misinformed who wrongly applied his theory to Social Darwinism is character assassination. Perhaps we should fault Watson and Crick every time someone violates bioethics? Johnson is being underhanded and disingenuous: praise the man and the theory and then blame both for everything bad that came afterwards. Not the same tactics as the creationists, but equally as slimy. . .

[Sharon Barrow Wilfong · Rating 3 out of 5]

I never thought I'd read a book about Darwin, but I'm glad I did. This was a good biography, although not exhaustive.

Johnson describes Darwin's family background, his devotion to his wife who was a committed Christian, as well as his reluctance in telling her he was not a believer. It turns out her love was unconditional and he needn't have worried.

Several interesting points. First Darwin's travels to the Galapagos island, his observations of plant life and small animal life, how there seemed to be a gradation in life form from simple to complex and his conclusion that the simpler forms must have developed into the more complex.

While he does not cite anything he actually observed, such as life forms in transition from one to the other, he jumps to this conclusion. He does not explain why, if this were so, why the simpler forms still existed. He must have concluded that only some of the simpler forms evolved while others remained. Or perhaps that there were even simpler life forms invisible to the eye. Ironically, his book "Origins" does not address the origin of all life form.

His theory of evolution involves the process of natural selection. Weaker life forms are destroyed by stronger life forms, thereby directing the development of genes into stronger, more adaptable life. Darwin saw natural selection as cruel and savage and also absolutely necessary for evolution.

Furthermore, Darwin did not stop with animal life. He concluded that this was the process by which man survives. He based this observation on the "savage" life style of the primitive tribes he encountered and also the brutal methods used by European colonialists on less developed people groups. He concluded that since they were less developed in technology, culture and morals they must also be simpler and less evolved and therefore, the process of natural selection, the stronger destroying the weak was inevitable.

Darwin was against birth control and the advancement of medicine because he believed it interfered with this natural process.

The author takes an interesting, if inconsistent stance. While he agrees with Darwin's theory of the evolution of animal life, he draws the line at man's inhumanity to man, but why? Isn't that the logical conclusion of such a theory?

Hitler, Nietzsche and Mao Zedong thought so. So did Pol Pot.

"Pol Pot, introduced by his professor Jean-Paul Sartre to the idea of evolution to higher forms, translated the theory in terms of Cambodia into an urban-rural struggle in which one fourth of the population died.

In the twentieth century, it is likely that over 100 million people were killed or starved to death as a result of totalitarian regimes infected with varieties of social Darwinism.

But then Darwin himself had always insisted on the high percentage of destruction involved in breeding, whether of seeds, embryos, births, of even mature birds, mammals and species in general.

Nature, he believed, is always profuse, in death as well as life, and if he had been asked to reflect on the human toll of 'struggle' in the twentieth century, he would certainly have pointed out that the world population nevertheless dramatically increased throughout the period." (pg. 158, Chapter 7)

I have to quote an enlightening passage on pg. 132:

"It is curious that, although sterilization has been practiced on a large scale all over the world, especially in Scandinavia, no investigation has been made to discover whether national dysgenic programs have had any statistically discernible effect on societies. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Estonia all passed laws, and Sweden actually sterilized 65,000 people....Except for Canada, the British Empire rejected sterilization, thanks largely to a vigorous campaign conducted by G.K. Chesterton...he was helped by Aldous Huxley in 1932 (who wrote) Brave New World, which picture a 'dark Utopia' in which science was used in innumerable ways to create a hygienically perfect but docile and submissive population."

Johnson continues on pg. 133 to describe George Eliot's concern that,

"Darwinian natural selection was a dangerous form of determinism, which would extinguish free will and the human instinct for freedom. It was also a sally against the bright utopia preached by H.G. Wells, in which science was king. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and many other socialist intellectuals favored both eugenics and dysgenics and would have condemned to sterilization or even death all the mentally unfit if they could have brought to power a government to their taste."

Good old Chesterton. I always knew I loved that guy.

As a Christian, I believe God designed us perfectly, with the fall of man entered corruption both physically and mentally and I think that anyone who could justify murdering even one person regardless of the health, mental abilities or in utero believes so because their minds are depraved and only reinforces my belief in the veracity of Scripture "The heart of man is desperately wicked. Who can discern it?" Jeremiah 17:9

Next on my list is Origins. I'm eager to read it now.

[Carl Rollyson · Rating 3 out of 5]

By CARL ROLLYSON

The 'genius' of Paul Johnson's biography of Charles Darwin is manifestly, impressively apparent in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," to give the full title of the first edition. "Favoured Races," was an unexceptionable term to his contemporaries, individuals Darwin treated with extraordinary sensitivity. As Mr. Johnson observes:

No scientific innovator has ever taken more trouble to smooth the way for lay readers without descending into vulgarity. What is almost miraculous about the book is Darwin's generosity in sharing his thought processes, his lack of condescension. There is no talking down, but no hauteur, either. It is a gentlemanly book.

In both style and substance, this passage is classic Paul Johnson. The author of "Modern Times" (1984) and many other books has in the past decade produced five other short, powerfully argued biographies: "Napoleon" (2002), "The Founding Father: George Washington" (2005), "Churchill" (2009), "Jesus: A Biography from a Believer" (2010), and "Socrates: A Man for Our Times" (2011).

In all his biographies, Mr. Johnson presents a consistent historical vision informed by a coherent set of moral principles that can be reduced to one axiom: It is never permissible to do evil—not even in a good cause. This is the teaching of Socrates, and the reason Johnson calls the philosopher "a man for our times." In Mr. Johnson's books, Churchill and Washington are greater men than Napoleon because they sought but also gave up power, and because they bowed to the will of the people. What makes Napoleon evil is not only his arrogation of all power to himself, but his refusal—right to the very end of his life—to repent his responsibility for the loss of millions of lives. As Mr. Johnson puts it in the final words of his Napoleonic narrative:

It is well to remember the truth about the man whose example gave rise to it all, to strip away the myth and reveal the reality. We have to learn again the central lesson of history: that all forms of greatness, military and administrative, nation and empire building, are as nothing—indeed are perilous in the extreme—without a humble and a contrite heart.

There is no finer passage in Mr. Johnson's biographies than the scene in which Socrates surrenders himself to the judgment of Athens, knowing full well that he will die as a result, and knowing that the judgment against him is not only wrong but even ridiculous. But Socrates believed in the rule of law, Mr. Johnson emphasizes, and he went to his death in great joy, sustained by his principles. So, too, Jesus surrendered unto Caesar those things that were Caesar's, but in the process gained a far greater triumph than any earthly ruler. How small a man Napoleon, sulking in exile on St. Helena, appears in Mr. Johnson's biography.

What makes Darwin good, in the biographer's estimation, is the scientist's democratic dissemination of knowledge. Darwin triumphed with "The Origin of Species," Mr. Johnson contends, not only because of his ability to portray the theory of evolution as the inescapable outcome of his decades of study and the work of fellow scientists, whom he was careful to praise, but because he was acutely aware that he had to present his notions of natural selection and survival of the fittest so as not to stir up public controversy. To an extraordinary degree, Darwin deflected attacks by couching his discoveries in terms of the plants he liked to examine and cultivate. He had relatively little to say about human evolution.

Brought up as a gentleman who never had to worry about income (although he sometimes worried about spending), Darwin was always concerned primarily for his wife, Emma. She was, in a sense, his first reader, the one he had in mind when considering the pieties of Victorian England. The faith she always expressed in him, Mr. Johnson implies, was transformed into the confidence of a scientist who paid deference to his culture's sensibilities.

This view of the Darwin marriage is also vintage Paul Johnson. Women always become key figures in Mr. Johnson's biographies, even when he has to suss out evidence other biographers have failed to properly evaluate. He notices, for example, that Jesus treats women with a respect not customary in his era, and how women disciples came to Jesus at times when even his male apostles were absent and in fear for their lives. Similarly, Martha Washington and Clementine Churchill have integral roles to play in their husbands' biographies. When women are ignored or abused—as in Napoleon's case—this behavior becomes prima facie evidence of a bad hat.

Both Mr. Johnson's prose and his moralism may seem a throwback to the era of the Victorian sage, to someone like Carlyle, and to the Great Man theory of history. And it is true that Mr. Johnson has no truck with historians who believe history is essentially the product of forces and confluences beyond the control of even the most powerful individuals. In the biographer's books, there are heroes of history, but Mr. Johnson, unlike Carlyle or Emerson, never gets carried away in the frenzy of greatness and genius.

He takes pains to convince the reader, for instance, that if "On the Origin of Species" is a great achievement, much of other Darwin's other writing is suspect. Darwin's woeful inadequacy in mathematics resulted in his acceptance of the bogus Malthusian theory of population explosion. The rambling "Descent of Man" includes "many racial generalizations that now would be denounced as racism or chauvinism"; unlike Mendel, Darwin misunderstood that nature of inheritance, believing erroneously that characteristics could be acquired and passed on to progeny. Darwin "shut his eyes to the ultimate consequences of his work, in terms of the human condition and the purpose of life, or the absence of one," Mr. Johnson argues. His exaggerated view of nature as a constant struggle inspired Hitler and Stalin in their extermination efforts.

Thus Darwin, in the most riveting part of Mr. Johnson's biography, is brought to book.

Mr. Johnson is a great one for believing that ideas and actions have consequences that reverberate far into the future. He has no doubt that Napoleon is the author of the modern totalitarian state, or that Darwin—no matter how his defenders protest—promulgated a view of nature that led to Herbert Spencer's racist extrapolations: "First, the struggle to survive applied not just to individuals but to entire societies and nations. Second, evolution provided an explanation for all phenomena—political, economic, military, psychological, and social."

Darwinians, like Napoleonites, are sure to take issue with Mr. Johnson's sweeping conclusions. But his response can easily be imagined: If the lasting positives of great men are to be credited, so too must their negatives. Mr. Johnson never absents his great men either from the history that shaped them, or from the history that will put them in their place.

Of course, the biographer is subject to the same process. As Mr. Johnson notes at the conclusion of "Darwin": "This book is written from the viewpoint of a historian, and while all theories of history are vainglorious absurdities, doomed to eventual oblivion, history does teach certain lessons, one of which is that science, like everything else, becomes out of date." It is a statement worthy of Mr. Johnson's hero Socrates, who was wise precisely because of his awareness of all he did not know.

As the biographer puts it in his concluding sentence: "It is a sobering but also an intoxicating thought that we are just at the beginning of the process of acquiring knowledge. How Darwin would have agreed!"

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I can finish a book it doesn’t necessarily mean it was well written, but it means it must be mildly engaging. This book was both.

The reviews are unnecessarily critical. Some people have complained you can’t treat a figure of such importance with so short a work. But I mean...each gospel in the New Testament is like 40 pages long. Moreover, Oxford University Press has an entire series of at least 100 “very short introductions” to subjects like Religion, Philosophy, Science. We’re Johnson or Oxford claiming to be exhaustive in their treatment, I doubt either would have included a “recommended further reading” section. The point of the book, like the point of The Origen of Species, was to provide a good enough overview of a complex subject.

The other complaint was that Johnson is too critical of Darwin. Specifically Johnson associate Darwin it’s Social Darwinism a little too much. I can’t tel if the reviewers are saying that social Darwinism wasn’t really that bad (come on people) or that Darwin held no sympathies to the early eugenicists (literally his cousin who he cites in his books). Johnson quotes long passages of Darwin saying pretty horrible things, but I don’t think he is blaming Nazism on him. He paints Darwin as too timid a man to even make mild public statements about politics or religion, much less being supportive of genocide. But Darwin was clearly a man of his time and doesn’t seem to have been too bothered by people taking his theory of natural selection and implying that poor people should be sterilized to aid natural selection. What a surprise, scientists don’t always hold well thought out philosophical and bioethical conclusions. Gasp!

I actually think Johnson, much like Watson has of Watson and Crick did in his book, does a good job of making science accessible and demythogized. Obviously there are very big implications to natural selection, but the way Science (trademarked) is viewed today the ideas and the people are usually discussed like it’s some kind of sacred religion. Instead it was a boring British guy that liked bugs and was lucky enough to go on a 5 year voyage early in his life. Modern science popularizers are more like the Huxley’s of Darwin’s time. They take research and give it metaphysical implications for bludgeoning their opponents. That’s all I think Johnson is saying.

Also Chesterton straight up gets credit for preventing England from sterilizing people. So that was cool.

[Brice Karickhoff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good read. Not we good as the last Paul Johnson biography I read on Lenin, mostly bc Darwin had a less exciting life.

Thoughts:
1. Did not know Darwin had rich parents and was basically the only scientist of his era who never had to earn a salary a day in his life.

2. Crazy how a true idea (most of all of what Darwin wrote) can be contorted into a horrible idea (social Darwinism) and lead to the deaths of millions. What countries were the most enthralled with Darwin’s ideas in 1890? Germany, Japan and Russia. What countries proceeded to kill millions of people in the next half century? Germany, Japan and Russia. Nonetheless, nothing about Darwin’s ideas are bad per se. They aren’t moral or immoral; they are amoral scientific claims. But is the Truth always good for society? Probably so…. That’s enough on that though!

3. Darwin missed Mendel’s work bc he was too engrossed in his own. Don’t be so focused that you fail to collaborate.

[Ede · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title of this book is rather misleading as this is by no means a portrait but rather a quick sketch and the driving force of the author seems to be the aim to prove that Darwin was by no means a genius but a fortunate product of the privileged high society of the Victorian era (which is quite obvious anyway) and immense amount of luck. It would better qualify as a bitter review of Darwin's works, although 150 years too late as his contemporaries seemed to lack the ability to be critical enough as they were all "conveniently networked" with Darwin, full of rather bold judgements, opportunistic "what ifs" and dubious proofs how the hapless late 19th century natural scientists missed the obviously opening window to gene technology (?!). The "historical account" ends with accusing Darwin to be accountable for the hundreds of millions of deaths over the span of the 20th century as different tyrants from Hitler and Stalin to Mao and Pol Pot were all obviously influenced and led by the ideas of social darwinism. I found one quote intriguing though: that Estonia was among one the few countries that ever passed a law on national dysgenic programs but among other "facts" in the book the author gives no direct reference to the source.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

A serviceable biography of Darwin the man and his ideas. However Johnson has an ideological agenda. Johnson is a conservative Catholic who surprisingly to me accepts the theory of evolution, part of the reason I picked up this book other than that I'm a fan of his historical writings. Johnson really does think Darwin the man is a genius, and tells us about his good character and intellectual prowess. But even though he accepts evolution, he is very uncomfortable about drawing any implications from natural selection about the universe or human nature. He sharply criticizes the new atheists for critiquing religion and aiming to explain its origin through natural selection itself. Given all of that, those looking for a short basic biography of Darwin will be pleased but should be aware of Johnson's ulterior motives.

[Mircea Poeana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lucrarea de fata nu constituie un studiu aprofundat al scrierilor lui Charles Darwin.
Eruditul Paul Johnson ne invita mai degraba la lectura operelor de capatai darwiniene: Originea speciilor, Descendenta omului si selectia naturala, Expresia emotiilor la om si animale.
Opere care au prefigurat stiinta geneticii, dar care aducand in discutie lupta pentru supravietuire, deosebirile dintre "cei slabi" si "cei puternici", au stat la baza unor "filosofii" aberante precum eugenia, segregarea, sterilizare, exterminarea.
De la Adolf Hitler pana la Mao Tse-tung gandirea lui Charles Darwin a fost talmacita si rastalmacita.
De aceea invitatia lansata de Paul Johnson ar trebui onorata.
Spre a ne lamuri, de fapt, locul in prefacerea si evolutia speciei umane.
Am ramas lemurieni sau avem sansa de a deveni serafimi?

[Lmichelleb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why have I not read a biography about Darwin yet? At least, I think this is my first full biography about the eminent scientist.

Mr. Johnson writes a balanced and brief account of Darwin's life and work, touching on his youth, journey on the Beagle, marriage to Emma, and life's work. It's interesting to get a sense for the person and not just the work of this famous man. I appreciate eyes that see the genius as well as the weaknesses and foibles that made the man.

I am getting ready to read another biography that focuses more on his relationship with Emma, so I'm curious what else I will learn about this influential person.

[Logan Stecher · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone with a Bachelor's in Biology, I not only have a great understanding of natural selection and evolution, but am very excited and fascinated by it. I've always loved the fact that we are related to all organisms of various shapes, sizes and even kingdoms!

With that said, I had some understanding of Darwin's history, demeaner and personality, but this book was able to inform a lot of things I didn't know, including those that aren't considered favorable (flaws). This book does a great job at giving a lot of interesting history in a short amount of time!

[Jeremiah Lorrig · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating biography! Didn’t know that CD had genius grandparents. Paul Johnson is crisp and focused in his writing and it doesn’t drag on. Short, sweet, to the point.

[Gwen Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating.

[Lexy Mcomber · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Darwin a portrait of a genius" by Paul Johnson, to me this book was just shy of being horrible yes it had good literary elements but it was confusing to an astonishing point. The author kept jumping back and forth every paragraph, one paragraph he was talking about something and the next he was talking about something completely different. The best literary element this book had was the theme this story had a great idea and was depicting a truly genius man, and the authors attitude towards Darwin says that he is looked up to. Of course the stories main point is Charles Darwin seeing it is a biography.

The second literary element is the characterization. Charles Darwin acts like anyone would expect him to although there are some times when he is surprising. For example Charles comes from a long line of people considered 'geniuses', so he is very professional and "boring" but sometimes he does things out of the ordinary for the right reasons of course. Charles was a genius if I hadn't said that enough already he
The reason behind me not liking this book to much could also be because I got bored, but also the way the author wrote it was just confusing to me.

Pages:164
R:3

[Mark Dantonio · Rating 4 out of 5]

978 0 670 02571 8 by Paul Johnson

I have always been fascinated with Darwin since I took a course on him in the late 1970s during my undergraduate years. This book interested me because it had more to do with his personality and his life than other works I have read. I really liked the way the author worked in the relationship with Darwin’s wife (Emma). The book starts by looking into Darwin’s (born 1809 same day as Lincoln) family tree. The author states that Darwin had 3 relatives on his mother and fathers side that could be considered geniuses. This is interesting since Darwin’s work focuses on the idea that traits are inherited and he certainly seemed to inherit his intelligence. Later the author makes the point that Darwin actually accepted the Lamarckian theory of the transfer of “acquired characteristics” which has been shown to be invalid by modern genetics. However, Darwin may have surmised that the “intelligence” of his forbearers contributed to his intelligence. Anyway, the whole idea that the author brings up is that Darwin popularized the idea that creation was not one bold act and that catastrophic events may have set the stage for what turned out to be a very slow creation process of millions of years of subtle change based on environmental conditions and to some extent luck. Darwin saw evidence that if one bird species (finch) found its way to a remote island it could “evolve” to fill niches that the original bird could not fill. This explained the variations of tortoises that Darwin noted on different islands. The book is loaded with references to many very famous people. Thomas Malthus, the famous economist, made the point that populations would outstrip resources quickly and the human race was doomed. The author later makes the point that Darwin understood that excess food caused higher birth rates not the other way around. Darwin took this idea and saw that the stress in the environment would lead to a “struggle” in which the more “fit” version of the species would survive. This “version” might not be the smartest or the strongest but the best to fit in the particular niche of that environment. Darwin characterized the process as cruel but he also mentioned that it was indifferent (sounds like existentialism) and that nature had a hands off policy. Darwin seemed to accept the human colonization of natives or “savages” as not particularly nice but necessary in the struggle for life. The author mentions Lyell the famous geologist and the idea of how the earth is very old and constantly changing sets the tone for the work of Darwin. I really enjoyed the part where Darwin lists the pros and cons of getting married. He listed, give up freedom, loss of time, etc. He ended up concluding that being married was better. Now he had to find a wife. He called his choice, first cousin Emma, “the most interesting specimen in the whole series of vertebrate animals.” Emma said he was sweet tempered and humane to animals. Throughout the book the author comments how well matched the two of them were and that the marriage was a very good one. Darwin was quite well off financially and he invested the money well and made a good living for himself and his extended family. This is a good thing because he did little work and he loved to spend a lot of time closely examining things. Many other important people are mentioned, Tennyson, Wallace, Spencer, Marx and Huxley. The author describes how these individuals and many others are incorporated into the story. He states that Hitler and Marx easily incorporated the idea of a struggle into their dogma. Huxley became the defender of evolution since Darwin did not have the stomach for controversy and he was older. The author mentioned that Darwin was better with “small things “such as worms and ants than he was with human evolution. The Origin of Species was an amazing compilation of evidence of support for evolution. His later book “The descent of Man” was not as well written and relied a lot less on evidence. The author basically says that Darwin was less interested in the topic. Darwin did mention that man had lower origins. Perhaps the most interesting part of the book for me was the ideas of Social Darwinism (introduced by his cousin Galton) and the idea of how Darwin’s work inadvertently affected the history during the colonial era. Social Darwinism was found in many places in Europe and in Colonial examples. However, the author even states that the concept was practiced in the state of Virginia (sterilization) extensively. The discussion of Social Darwinism really did not involve Darwin himself since Darwin avoided discussing religion (due to the Priestly event) and Darwin was somewhat agnostic to Natural Selection regarding humans feeling that it was cruel but necessary. Perhaps the most interesting thing for me was the idea that the “struggle” for life emboldened politicians to pursue nationalistic policies. The author says that the English had colonial ambitions, the Germans and the Japanese engaged in extermination to preserve their perceived superiority. The ideas of Social Darwinism and the idea of natural selection were contributors to these ideas. I think it is fascinating that some make the argument that the theory of natural selection could lead nations to enact certain policies leading to war, colonialism, death and genocide. All of this happened after Darwin’s death so it is hard to place any blame for it on him. He never made any arguments for these things anyway. He was more comfortable studying ants. Darwin went so far as to say that nothing he wrote exempts God from existing. It seems he, along with the study of geology, just extended creation from a week to millions of years.

After horrible totalitarian wars and societies in the 20th century the world has turned against Eugenics and today a “progressive” wave seems to be moving across Western Europe and the United States. Perhaps the events of the late 19th and early-mid 20th century have led to this. Perhaps the Darwin Legacy remains.

Mark D.

[Jim Razinha · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've outgrown Paul Johnson. I first found him in 1992, with his Modern Times. I was enthralled: details, notes, references, broad scope. He set the bar for me that others haven't met often (Example: David McCullough writes nice histories, but doesn't cite anything. Very annoying.) I would read his books with two bookmarks - one for the notes - and spend more time on the notes and references than the actual text. I never made it through Modern Times twice...dense.

This is not that Paul Johnson. No notes, no depth and worse, nothing new here. Except ... Johnson's humorous conclusions ("Darwin's writings led directly to the state of mind that promoted imperialism...")

Fortunately, it was short. I lost my copy of Modern Times in the fire. I've considered replacing it, but... I've outgrown Paul Johnson.

[Feisty Harriet · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a terribly written biography, TERRIBLE. I'm not a Darwin scholar, but I have almost all of what he wrote about himself or about science, and a double handful of other books about him. This one is the worst. Do not recommend. (The terrible-ness mostly is reflective of the author and the take he chose and not necessarily reflective of Darwin himself.)

[Andrei · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book, concise and objective, that relieves Darwin of all the prejudice and discord that have been created around his personality for decades. Definitely worth reading.

[Ashley · Rating 2 out of 5]

The best part of this book was when Darwin shoved a beetle in his mouth because he didn't have enough hands to hold all his beetles then it ended up being a spicy beetle.

[Javier Cebreiros · Rating 1 out of 5]

Biografía de Darwin escrita por alguien que odiaba a Darwin. Subjetiva y con una total falta de rigurosidad.

[Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' many years ago and remembered that it was heavy weather from a comprehension point of view. But his book was world famous and although there were others that said similar things, both before and after, Darwin got the recognition. This 'Portrait' shows him to be an affable, but complex man, who at times went out of his way to avoid issues, but it is undeniable that he got the public fame for his branch of science. When 'Origin' was published it set new sales records as every library throughout the world had to have a copy, as well as all the libraries of the 'learned' gentry. It all added to the coffers of the already wealthy Darwin, as his mother Susannah, was the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, founder of England's world-renowned Wedgwood pottery. Although Darwin studied worms and other small animals in his later years he appeared to avoid the study of man and had no expertise in anthropology and his remarks about the native people of Teirra Del Fuego, at the tip of South America, are at best naive and wrong. As a book its worth a read as it also reminds us how we have accepted Darwin's theory and how far we have come in our understanding of the evolution of man in the last one hundred and fifty years.

[Dana · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was amazed to know that Darwin:
-He not Intrested in the first discovery about Neanderthal,  neither the first gorilla they brought to the England zoo. He was fascinating only about small creatures.  Insects.
-The second reason of his unforgettable delay of publishing the theory of natural selection was his beloved wife.
He was not as good as expected in math and learning another languages. Probably it was his mistake for not knowing about Mandal 's new discovery.
- 1850's was the most important year in the nineteen century regarding the evolution theory
-when he has been asked if the future belongs to America.  He responded as yes.
-vaccination is against natural selection
-about female intelligence, women should read as much as posibble before having children
Darwin never mentioned that human are decedent directly from apes. He said that naturel selection is going slowly and taking a place in the environment
The fittest not only survived but prospered
Darwin on his beagle travels, his emotional belife that:" the gap between savages and civilized men was greater than that between wild and domesticated animals.

[Igor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boa introdução

Pontos positivos:
1) Objetivo e direto ao ponto. Aborda os aspectos principais da vida profissional (e até pessoal) de Darwin;

2) Analisa as contribuições de Darwin versus as de outros cientistas igualmente brilhantes que são desconhecidos do público em geral;

3) Demonstra como Darwin, além de ser "genial", deu, de certa forma, 'sorte' de estudar no instituto certo, possuir amizades influentes e viver num momento histórico perfeito para desenvolver e publicar suas pesquisas;

4) O autor destaca algumas imperfeições da obra e como estas exerceram influencia distorcida no darwinismo social.

Pontos negativos:
1) Ainda sobre o darwinismo social, o autor do livro faz certas afirmações que podem levar a conclusões equivocadas por leitores desavisados e ansiosos por respostas rápidas e fáceis para fatos históricos extremamente complexos, como o nazismo e teorias racistas.

Conclusão: livro curto e fácil de ler. Boa introdução. Porém, alerto que esse está longe de ser o suficiente para uma completa compreensão do impacto mundial de suas obras em diversos ramos da ciência, principalmente em relação às ciências sociais, como no darwinismo social.

[Kelsey Grissom · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars. In contrast to his Mozart biography, Johnson is *not* a fan of his subject in this biography. Even before he really gets to tearing into Darwin, Johnson almost sneeringly implies that Darwin lived an easy rich guy’s life and all his success was due to luck. At first I was not sure where this contempt was coming from, but it becomes clear later in the book that Johnson connects almost every modern social ill to Social Darwinism…and sees Darwin as single-handedly responsible for the development of Social Darwinism. I can see how you might draw that conclusion as a layman, but Johnson is a historian (!). It’s odd that he can’t understand Darwin’s limited view in his own time period and separate Darwin’s culturally-conditioned personal views from the ways his work was later manipulated. I mean who is next on the chopping block? Jesus for his repartee with the Syrophoenician woman?
Anyway, you can learn a little something (a little something- it is very short and very obviously skips a lot of details) about Darwin from this book, but by the end you will see that it is less of a biography, more of a hop, skip, and a jump to a rant.

[Aaron Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

The death of Darwin’s favorite daughter caused his complete disbelief in God (the doctrine of hell was another major factor). From this point onward, there was no reserve for pushing his theory of evolution by nature alone—i.e. evolution occurred because it was necessary for the survival of species.

“Nature red in tooth and claw”—Tennyson

“Survival of the fittest”—Herbert Spencer

Social Darwinism killed over 100 million people via totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century.

Darwin averted his thoughts from the unavoidable conclusion of his beliefs—nihilism—to small things like orchids and worms. His theory was taking him where he did not want to go. The difference between man and anything else was a matter of degree, and not of kind. The consequence of this is nothing less than nihilism.

Humans, created through the process of natural selection, are ending the process of natural selection.

[Lauren Schnoebelen · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.75 ⭐️

Evolution and natural selection are one of the foundations of science. With Darwin and his work considered a household name, the view people have of him can be blurred due to the respect for his work. This book takes a look into his life and goes into some of the details a fan might rather pretend don’t exist. During the current political climates (especially in America), we can have a tendency of forgetting that major historical figures were still impacted by the social norms of their time. This book did a really good job of showing that while still pointing out the issues that these views had; especially when it came to racial issues. It might not always be pretty or comfortable but I believe it helps to show that it’s ok that these things happened. We can’t place modern beliefs on historical individuals but we can strive to be better.