What do you think?
Rate this book
The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin
Scientists often challenge conventional wisdom and spark debates that last for generations. But no scientist has fuelled more debate than Charles Darwin. To some he is the revolutionary "father" of evolution. To others he is the perverse "originator" of modern eugenics.
In The Darwin The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, author Benjamin Wiker brings these conflicting identities to light. Laying out the evidence and sound scientific arguments, Wiker offers a critical analysis of Darwin's theories as well as the social, scientific, and religious implications of his work, illuminating the inevitable truth about his powerful, yet ultimately poisonous, legacy.
Benjamin Wiker writes full time as a senior fellow in the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and is also a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute. He has written several other books, including Ten Books That Screwed Up the World. He lives in rural Ohio with his wife and seven children.
In The Darwin The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, author Benjamin Wiker brings these conflicting identities to light. Laying out the evidence and sound scientific arguments, Wiker offers a critical analysis of Darwin's theories as well as the social, scientific, and religious implications of his work, illuminating the inevitable truth about his powerful, yet ultimately poisonous, legacy.
Benjamin Wiker writes full time as a senior fellow in the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and is also a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute. He has written several other books, including Ten Books That Screwed Up the World. He lives in rural Ohio with his wife and seven children.
Audible Audio
First published January 1, 2009
5 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
About the author
Benjamin Wiker
28 books56 followersBenjamin Wiker is a writer, teacher, lecturer, husband of one wife, and father of seven children. He has a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, an M.A. in Religion from Vanderbilt University, and a B.A. in Political Philosophy from Furman University. He has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College, and is now a Professor of Political Science and Director of Human Life Studies at Franciscan University, and a Senior Fellow of Franciscan's Veritas Center.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
November 17, 2022
The most important thing to understand about this book is that it is written by a man who embraces theistic evolution. Does so badly, by the way, but hold that thought for the moment. His entire premise is that Darwin produced an awful philosophy called Darwinism, and that by implication, if you hold a theistic evolution position you are clear of the line of fire. He fails there, but in the process he seriously indicts Darwin.
He does not indict Darwin unfairly. I mean that in two senses. First, in the first part of the book, which is largely a biography of Darwin, he treats him fairly. He does not present Darwin as a demon in human form, but as a man who was a curious blend of passionately dedicated anti-God scientific pursuits and yet a warm, loving family man and friend. Second, he indicts Darwin fairly by quoting Darwin's own works and Darwin's contemporaries (admirers and detractors). More importantly, Wiker walks us down an unimpeachable chain of reasoning that forces us to admit Darwin's scientific philosophy must produce horrorific societal consequences. Indeed, one of the more interesting aspects of this latter effort on Wiker's part is to show us Darwin must have been conscious that this is where his reasoning must lead, for all of his protests to the contrary.
If this book is so well written why then only three stars? Because I cannot abide intellectual snobbery masquerading as faith in a generic God, and a truth whose only absolute at all costs is that the Bible cannot be literally true. Wiker presents two ditches, one of which is the fundamentalist and the other of which is the Darwinian. Then he (attempts to) position himself reasonably and brilliantly in the middle and thus above the morons on either side of him. Not only does he fail in this, he fails spectacularly in this. Essentially, his support is that everything about creation is so complicated and grand it cannot be due to evolution, but it is so complicated and grand that we cannot simplistically take a literal view of Genesis either. Then he supports this last sentence with - wait for it - nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. He simply blithely asserts it and then closes his book and moves on the credits. The sheer intellectual arrogance and vapidity of it left me gasping.
This is the second (theologically) liberal book I have read this year. I am more convinced than ever that for all their so-called intellectual superiority they have built castles in the air. There is no intellectually honest foundation to theological liberalism. There is, however, some somewhat entertaining and enlightening destruction of the more pagan positions to their left. And with that, we will have to be content. It is, after all, all they have.
He does not indict Darwin unfairly. I mean that in two senses. First, in the first part of the book, which is largely a biography of Darwin, he treats him fairly. He does not present Darwin as a demon in human form, but as a man who was a curious blend of passionately dedicated anti-God scientific pursuits and yet a warm, loving family man and friend. Second, he indicts Darwin fairly by quoting Darwin's own works and Darwin's contemporaries (admirers and detractors). More importantly, Wiker walks us down an unimpeachable chain of reasoning that forces us to admit Darwin's scientific philosophy must produce horrorific societal consequences. Indeed, one of the more interesting aspects of this latter effort on Wiker's part is to show us Darwin must have been conscious that this is where his reasoning must lead, for all of his protests to the contrary.
If this book is so well written why then only three stars? Because I cannot abide intellectual snobbery masquerading as faith in a generic God, and a truth whose only absolute at all costs is that the Bible cannot be literally true. Wiker presents two ditches, one of which is the fundamentalist and the other of which is the Darwinian. Then he (attempts to) position himself reasonably and brilliantly in the middle and thus above the morons on either side of him. Not only does he fail in this, he fails spectacularly in this. Essentially, his support is that everything about creation is so complicated and grand it cannot be due to evolution, but it is so complicated and grand that we cannot simplistically take a literal view of Genesis either. Then he supports this last sentence with - wait for it - nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. He simply blithely asserts it and then closes his book and moves on the credits. The sheer intellectual arrogance and vapidity of it left me gasping.
This is the second (theologically) liberal book I have read this year. I am more convinced than ever that for all their so-called intellectual superiority they have built castles in the air. There is no intellectually honest foundation to theological liberalism. There is, however, some somewhat entertaining and enlightening destruction of the more pagan positions to their left. And with that, we will have to be content. It is, after all, all they have.
January 16, 2010
Darwin was a third generation evolutionist. His grandfather had written a popular book on evolution before Charles was born. The book had actually been translated into several languages. There had been many other people who proposed variations on the theory from the time before the Romans. To say that Charles Darwin was the first, or major, proponent of evolution is disingenuous at best. His desired claim to prominence was to exclude God from any type of biological or geological development theory.
This was a balanced book about Darwin. It especially described the conflict he lived between what he proposed and what he lived personally. He knew that there were flaws in his theory and resented any discussion concerning them from friends or critics. (The author uses Darwin's own quotes to illuminate those imperfections.) Some of Darwin's critics were his own closest friends who were well known scientists in their own right. Some of them were particularly vocal about the parts with which they disagreed.
The book does not vilify or deify Darwin, but reveals Darwin as a very complex man who loved his family - with a passion to eliminate God from social thought. Ironically, his theory proposed that the weak would always be eliminated, yet he was a very unhealthy person most of his life. His theory would maintain that he, himself, should be eliminated, as well as his children who inherited his physical weaknesses.
One consequence of his theory: Certain Germans embraced the theory, which influenced the proponents of Nazism. The Nazis embraced his theory because they felt it was right to destroy whatever they felt was weak - the ultimate consequence of natural selection.
This was a balanced book about Darwin. It especially described the conflict he lived between what he proposed and what he lived personally. He knew that there were flaws in his theory and resented any discussion concerning them from friends or critics. (The author uses Darwin's own quotes to illuminate those imperfections.) Some of Darwin's critics were his own closest friends who were well known scientists in their own right. Some of them were particularly vocal about the parts with which they disagreed.
The book does not vilify or deify Darwin, but reveals Darwin as a very complex man who loved his family - with a passion to eliminate God from social thought. Ironically, his theory proposed that the weak would always be eliminated, yet he was a very unhealthy person most of his life. His theory would maintain that he, himself, should be eliminated, as well as his children who inherited his physical weaknesses.
One consequence of his theory: Certain Germans embraced the theory, which influenced the proponents of Nazism. The Nazis embraced his theory because they felt it was right to destroy whatever they felt was weak - the ultimate consequence of natural selection.
February 5, 2011
Nothing new, standard anti-science rant.
April 3, 2014
The myth is something like this: that a religious and Christian Darwin, a scientist and a scholar, made a voyage of discovery in the south and especially to the complex ecological systems of the Galapagos islands, was forced by scientific discovery to rethink his theological positions and discover that all life is in the end chance and gradually evolves from basic life forms as a result of the endless challenges presented by a constantly turning world. Hence the constant theme of liberal politics: science solves the problem of theology (which is all superstition), theology/religion is at war with science (a fallacy, by the way), and let's get rid of the influence of the churchmen and religion.
Right. Dr. Wiker helps us discover the human Darwin, a dedicated father, a true gentleman and a choleric scientist, very ambitious and determined to make his way in the world. Adopting naturalism as his subject at an early stage, he took up the evolutionary theories of his old grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, and proceeded to appropriate them to himself, using his extraordinarily developed sense of observation and recording to find every possible means to confirm those theories of transmutation. They would henceforth be *his* theories, in particular 'natural selection,' and, though conscious that science was increasingly arriving at accepting evolution anyway, he pushed forward to publish his own version of it and was able to find the necessary support in the scientific community of his time to ram his views into the popular consciousness as scientific orthodoxy, even in the face of glaring problems with his theory. Indeed the effort was more political than scientific, as is given by the vilification of his most influential detractors, like the bishop Wilberforce, the political placement of Darwin's defenders in the most influential niches in the English-speaking intelligentsia (p.104-5) and the ammunition the theory was to provide to revolutionaries and enemies of the Christian Church and to traditional philosophical positions. The result today is that these interesting theories are taught with the certainty of fact in every textbook we know of and any dissent or intelligent questioning of Darwinian ideas is either treated with disbelief or with the religious zeal of darwinists. Yes, sometimes science can be just like religion.
The useful features of this book:
* it does not denounce evolution itself, which is a clever theory that provides answers to many questions, but Darwin's own clouded view of it, a view that purposely and remorselessly excludes any theistic conception. This is explained by by Darwin's own history within the Enlightenment movement of free-thinking, based on the legacy of the grandfather and his father. Part of that Enlightenment inheritance is the myth of human progress, which is self-defeating since it does not account for the darker side of human nature. Contrary to the popular idea, Darwin was not religious in any sense of the world and his theological course of study seems to have been farcically aimed at finding a respectable profession as an Anglican cleric, which he later declined anyway.
* it treats Darwin not as the prophet ending religious superstition with scientific rationalism, but as the rather human attention-seeking, ambitious scientist, willing to give up his health for the sake of *his* theory and idea, do anything to have it accepted. Although his philosophy was materialist and he could not allow metaphysical considerations to interfere with his reasoning, when it would help the case for his theory, he added theistic phrases he did not mean to later editions of his works to get them accepted further. This is not shooting Darwin down here; he was only human and we could not expect anything more from him than from anyone else.
* in rather a small volume, it presents the respectable opposition to Darwinism that has largely been forgotten in the glorification of his theories unless it can be ridiculed. Some names, besides the bishop Wilberforce, include co-theorist Alfred Russell Wallace, geologist Charles Lyell (a friend but a sceptic of the theory) and S. George Jackson Mivart. If we claim to understand Darwin's reasoning, it's worthwhile looking for their counter-arguments.
* it traces both the inevitable consequences of the theory in the relativisation of morality and even down to the eugenics movement, the natural end of the theory of 'natural selection.' It's interesting to note how many of Darwin's own relatives became members of that movement, such as his daughter Henrietta, Leonard Darwin, who was associated with Francis Galton and George Darwin, who put forward divorce and contraception as eugenic means. Most disconcerting is how these ideas could be used in racist denunciation of the worth of certain human ethnic races, ending in large scale genocides, particularly in the twentieth century. I find it singularly disturbing to think that Darwin would today be unable to find a reason why people with minor disabilities or weaker constitutions should not be aborted or euthanised.
Right. Dr. Wiker helps us discover the human Darwin, a dedicated father, a true gentleman and a choleric scientist, very ambitious and determined to make his way in the world. Adopting naturalism as his subject at an early stage, he took up the evolutionary theories of his old grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, and proceeded to appropriate them to himself, using his extraordinarily developed sense of observation and recording to find every possible means to confirm those theories of transmutation. They would henceforth be *his* theories, in particular 'natural selection,' and, though conscious that science was increasingly arriving at accepting evolution anyway, he pushed forward to publish his own version of it and was able to find the necessary support in the scientific community of his time to ram his views into the popular consciousness as scientific orthodoxy, even in the face of glaring problems with his theory. Indeed the effort was more political than scientific, as is given by the vilification of his most influential detractors, like the bishop Wilberforce, the political placement of Darwin's defenders in the most influential niches in the English-speaking intelligentsia (p.104-5) and the ammunition the theory was to provide to revolutionaries and enemies of the Christian Church and to traditional philosophical positions. The result today is that these interesting theories are taught with the certainty of fact in every textbook we know of and any dissent or intelligent questioning of Darwinian ideas is either treated with disbelief or with the religious zeal of darwinists. Yes, sometimes science can be just like religion.
The useful features of this book:
* it does not denounce evolution itself, which is a clever theory that provides answers to many questions, but Darwin's own clouded view of it, a view that purposely and remorselessly excludes any theistic conception. This is explained by by Darwin's own history within the Enlightenment movement of free-thinking, based on the legacy of the grandfather and his father. Part of that Enlightenment inheritance is the myth of human progress, which is self-defeating since it does not account for the darker side of human nature. Contrary to the popular idea, Darwin was not religious in any sense of the world and his theological course of study seems to have been farcically aimed at finding a respectable profession as an Anglican cleric, which he later declined anyway.
* it treats Darwin not as the prophet ending religious superstition with scientific rationalism, but as the rather human attention-seeking, ambitious scientist, willing to give up his health for the sake of *his* theory and idea, do anything to have it accepted. Although his philosophy was materialist and he could not allow metaphysical considerations to interfere with his reasoning, when it would help the case for his theory, he added theistic phrases he did not mean to later editions of his works to get them accepted further. This is not shooting Darwin down here; he was only human and we could not expect anything more from him than from anyone else.
* in rather a small volume, it presents the respectable opposition to Darwinism that has largely been forgotten in the glorification of his theories unless it can be ridiculed. Some names, besides the bishop Wilberforce, include co-theorist Alfred Russell Wallace, geologist Charles Lyell (a friend but a sceptic of the theory) and S. George Jackson Mivart. If we claim to understand Darwin's reasoning, it's worthwhile looking for their counter-arguments.
* it traces both the inevitable consequences of the theory in the relativisation of morality and even down to the eugenics movement, the natural end of the theory of 'natural selection.' It's interesting to note how many of Darwin's own relatives became members of that movement, such as his daughter Henrietta, Leonard Darwin, who was associated with Francis Galton and George Darwin, who put forward divorce and contraception as eugenic means. Most disconcerting is how these ideas could be used in racist denunciation of the worth of certain human ethnic races, ending in large scale genocides, particularly in the twentieth century. I find it singularly disturbing to think that Darwin would today be unable to find a reason why people with minor disabilities or weaker constitutions should not be aborted or euthanised.
February 20, 2023
Charles Darwin in romanticized by many as the father of evolution and a grand enlightener of the masses. The author attempts to give a fair accounting of what Darwin did and did not accomplish. According to the author, Darwin's biggest lie was pushing forward a Godless account of evolution that made morality a transient effect of natural selection.
While Darwin was very meticulous in his research (particularly in mollusks), he mostly reframed and expanded on other peoples theories of evolution. Darwin tried to sell evolution as his own, and many people believed him. Darwin basically inherited his views form his Dad which called it Transmutationism.
Darwin was a very good family man, kind fair and soft-spoken. He was devoted to his children and adamantly opposed to slavery. Darwin was adamant that evolution must be Godless to be scientific. Then and today, opposition to Darwin's evolution is simply dismissed as ignorance.
Social Darwinism has been the basis for Eugenics and racism.
Interesting points/ highlights that I want to remember from this book:
*Darwin was invited on the HMS beagle as a “gentlemanly companion “ not as the ships official naturalist.
*Darwin tried to rank men as belonging to different gradations in the varying stages of evolution.
*There was no grand Evolutionary a-ha at Galápagos. It took years to refine, and categorize his research ad specimens.
*GK Chesterton in the novel man alive “the best way to see again. The true splendor of our home is to travel around the world and come back to it.“
*Darwin’s dedication to his work demanded that he tightly control his time. Really anyone who achieves greatness must work hard at it.
*Darwin's principle theory relies heavily on Thomas Malthus‘s essay "on the principle of population."- The ugly fact of life is that the more you feed people the more they will breed, and so that will always be far more mouths to feed than food to put in them; better to let the excess population die. Life was profligate, imprudently, overproducing, casting forth far more than it could ever feed with no thought about how to care for them all- but death was a good accountant. It cut down the surplus population, the week sickly, malformed, unfit to be methodically removed with it’s cold keen scythe.
For years Darwin publish papers on geology that would support his theory of evolution, but he did not reveal his true intent for years to come.
*In November 1844 a book called vestiges of the natural history of creation, basically revealed all of Darwins theory undermining of his work. This demonstrates that it was a societal thought process, not just Darwins. Bits and pieces of his theory were also previously published by James Prichard, William Wells, William Lawrence, Patrick, Matthew, and Edward, life, and even, as far back as first century BC, when Lucretius given account on evolution.
*Darwin was an extraordinarily careful researcher closely observing the planned and seemingly inconsequential Lilliputian biological terrain under the microscope until he got hints of a puzzle to be solved. He did nothing by halves, but halves of halves of halves until he thought he detected some monumental shift in the most minute detail, as with LYLE in geology: the smallest changes under our noses added up to moved mountains overtime
8Darwins health was ailing him so he was forced to go into exile from work for a period of time. It really helped. He installed the regimen that included a strict limit on the number of hours he was permitted to close himself in his study.
Page 94 has an interesting points
Darwin wrote that as men advanced and intellectual power he acquired sufficient knowledge to reject being for customs, and thus regarded more and more not only the welfare, but happiness of his fellow men, his sympathies became more tender and widely diffused, and it would be extended to men of all races, the imbecile, and other useless members of society, and finally to lower animals, so would the standard of his morality, rise, higher, and higher. He said this was all on the basis of evolution. ---But the problem lies in that there is no "higher" in evolution according to Darwin. Evolution does not aim at anything. If it did aim, there would be a divine hand. As Darwin defines it, whatever contributes to the tribes ability to survive over the expense of another, that would be the moral thing. It could be sympathy, but it may also be greater savagery.
*Darwin argued that the application of compassion by checking the process of elimination (aka saving inferior lives) through, for example, vaccination against smallpox, the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. He then compares that to the breeding of domestic animals, which if left unchecked leads to the degeneration of a domestic race, except for men himself hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
*Darwin was a definite proponent of eugenics movement.
Page 105
Many people ,Darwin, Hooker, Lyell, Huxley and Gray worked feverishly to make Darwins theory orthodoxy. Scientific societies publishers universities and journals were commandeered. For example, the journal nature founded in 1869 as an organ for disseminating Darwins thoughts. Opponents were locked out, ignored and mocked. So there was a real movement to establish Darwin as truth, at the expense of any other viewpoint.
I like the quote on page 120 “the chosen scientific hypothesis or paradigm, the lens, through which the investigator attempts to scrutinize nature, both magnifies and distorts, bringing objects nearer, and crowding them with in a particular field of vision, but at the expense of white light outside and be on the frame.“
Page 138 sums up the book very well. Darwin asks us to choose his way or the highway. Either everything was recently created by God, or everything was entirely created by random variation. His is an all or nothing view.
Natural selection by itself has too many contradictions. There are huge gaps in transitional species that are missing from the fossil record.
How could natural selection produce an eyeball on so many different, revolutionary branches? How can radical transformations such as a caterpillar, turning into a butterfly, be naturally selected step by step?
This book argues that Darwin set his theory up because it excluded God.
Darwin and his lackeys systematically excluded many scientists, as listed on page 140 because they included a theology explanation with evolution.
“The methodical exclusion of divine causation was an assumption, deriving from the particular secular enlightenment goal of systematically excluding the divine as a matter of human progress.”
Once society crushes another, that is not wrong. It is not anything but natural selection at work. As Darwin stated human evolution can have no control: there’s no way to predict where the branches of evolution will take them. One society can flourish by oppressing a weaker society. Another can flourish by practicing compassion. Darwin wants to have his cake and eat it too: evolution is amoral, and morality evolved from evolution! Examples are societies that flourish by having government supported contraceptive education and dispersion in poor neighborhoods, which cuts down on racial minorities; by cannibalizing cosmetic tissue from human beings, artificially, conceived, and grown for such purposes. In Darwinian evolution any means of survival is good. The good comes from survival. If you survive by cannibalizing your neighbor , then cannibalism is good.
It presupposes that evolution must be Godless or it cannot be scientific. Many of the Darwins peers felt that natural selection explained a good deal, but was insufficient to produce the actual complexity of nature that we see before us specifically the moral and intellectual complexity of human beings. AKA Darwins evolution was good but incomplete theory of evolution, leaving room for God "to steer the ship."
The author frequently references. “enlightenment wig version of history“ that colors how we view the world.
Opposition to Darwin's evolution is simply dismissed as ignorance.
*Thoughts on Darwin and Hitler’s. Well no direct cause and effect for the Nazi extermination of the Jews can be directly placed at Darwins feet, his principles certainly outlined much of the German philosophy in academia, and German intellectual culture. Page 161 lists more than a dozen prominent German scientists, that wholeheartedly ascribed Darwinian world views to their perspective on life. This was in place and common even during World War I. It only progressed from there into World War II when Rudolf Hess, a deputy party leader of the Nazi party stated that national Socialism is nothing but applied biology.
*The Nazi party set about this in a two prong approach with positive program of breeding a More fit Aryan race (Lebensborn) and the simultaneous extermination of other races that were deemed inferior, including the Jewish, Slaves, and the Gypsies. Hitler drew together long-standing elements of German Darwinian thought that had been brewing throughout Germany for well over half a century.
*Multitudes must perish in the struggle, so why not improve humanity by speeding up the destruction of the disabled and inferior races. The extermination of individuals in racist deemed inferior was morally justified and praiseworthy. In the name of making the world a better place millions were than slaughtered.
*According to the author, Christians are divided into three camps. One those who reject evolution because they believe that it leads directly to atheism. To those who accept evolution and deny that it leads to atheism. Three those who are indifferent to the question and go on about their business.
*Some Religious people feel that they need to attack of the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, there’s a great evidence that the Earth is way older than 6000 years.
*Many people ignore the obvious historical fact that Darwinism has been the most significant contributing cause in the de-christianization of the west.
Most evolutionary biologist today are atheist because they regard evolution as having proven that the whole God thing is intellectually obsolete. These people feel that they must defend Darwinism at all costs. As if all the evidence actually proves, that is no God.
*The author, then introduces the concept of a reasonable Christian. A reasonable Christian holds that science cannot contradict faith. The reasonable Christian notes that science, all science is merely a human activity, and despite all it’s pretensions, scientists are often wandering in confusion led by bad theories, misled by the very victories into assuming that they are omniscient. The reasonable Christian knows that nature is a creation of the profound wisdom of God is much more magnificent and mysterious than a human attempt to grasp it. It’s strictly literal reading of the Bible is too small.
While Darwin was very meticulous in his research (particularly in mollusks), he mostly reframed and expanded on other peoples theories of evolution. Darwin tried to sell evolution as his own, and many people believed him. Darwin basically inherited his views form his Dad which called it Transmutationism.
Darwin was a very good family man, kind fair and soft-spoken. He was devoted to his children and adamantly opposed to slavery. Darwin was adamant that evolution must be Godless to be scientific. Then and today, opposition to Darwin's evolution is simply dismissed as ignorance.
Social Darwinism has been the basis for Eugenics and racism.
Interesting points/ highlights that I want to remember from this book:
*Darwin was invited on the HMS beagle as a “gentlemanly companion “ not as the ships official naturalist.
*Darwin tried to rank men as belonging to different gradations in the varying stages of evolution.
*There was no grand Evolutionary a-ha at Galápagos. It took years to refine, and categorize his research ad specimens.
*GK Chesterton in the novel man alive “the best way to see again. The true splendor of our home is to travel around the world and come back to it.“
*Darwin’s dedication to his work demanded that he tightly control his time. Really anyone who achieves greatness must work hard at it.
*Darwin's principle theory relies heavily on Thomas Malthus‘s essay "on the principle of population."- The ugly fact of life is that the more you feed people the more they will breed, and so that will always be far more mouths to feed than food to put in them; better to let the excess population die. Life was profligate, imprudently, overproducing, casting forth far more than it could ever feed with no thought about how to care for them all- but death was a good accountant. It cut down the surplus population, the week sickly, malformed, unfit to be methodically removed with it’s cold keen scythe.
For years Darwin publish papers on geology that would support his theory of evolution, but he did not reveal his true intent for years to come.
*In November 1844 a book called vestiges of the natural history of creation, basically revealed all of Darwins theory undermining of his work. This demonstrates that it was a societal thought process, not just Darwins. Bits and pieces of his theory were also previously published by James Prichard, William Wells, William Lawrence, Patrick, Matthew, and Edward, life, and even, as far back as first century BC, when Lucretius given account on evolution.
*Darwin was an extraordinarily careful researcher closely observing the planned and seemingly inconsequential Lilliputian biological terrain under the microscope until he got hints of a puzzle to be solved. He did nothing by halves, but halves of halves of halves until he thought he detected some monumental shift in the most minute detail, as with LYLE in geology: the smallest changes under our noses added up to moved mountains overtime
8Darwins health was ailing him so he was forced to go into exile from work for a period of time. It really helped. He installed the regimen that included a strict limit on the number of hours he was permitted to close himself in his study.
Page 94 has an interesting points
Darwin wrote that as men advanced and intellectual power he acquired sufficient knowledge to reject being for customs, and thus regarded more and more not only the welfare, but happiness of his fellow men, his sympathies became more tender and widely diffused, and it would be extended to men of all races, the imbecile, and other useless members of society, and finally to lower animals, so would the standard of his morality, rise, higher, and higher. He said this was all on the basis of evolution. ---But the problem lies in that there is no "higher" in evolution according to Darwin. Evolution does not aim at anything. If it did aim, there would be a divine hand. As Darwin defines it, whatever contributes to the tribes ability to survive over the expense of another, that would be the moral thing. It could be sympathy, but it may also be greater savagery.
*Darwin argued that the application of compassion by checking the process of elimination (aka saving inferior lives) through, for example, vaccination against smallpox, the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. He then compares that to the breeding of domestic animals, which if left unchecked leads to the degeneration of a domestic race, except for men himself hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
*Darwin was a definite proponent of eugenics movement.
Page 105
Many people ,Darwin, Hooker, Lyell, Huxley and Gray worked feverishly to make Darwins theory orthodoxy. Scientific societies publishers universities and journals were commandeered. For example, the journal nature founded in 1869 as an organ for disseminating Darwins thoughts. Opponents were locked out, ignored and mocked. So there was a real movement to establish Darwin as truth, at the expense of any other viewpoint.
I like the quote on page 120 “the chosen scientific hypothesis or paradigm, the lens, through which the investigator attempts to scrutinize nature, both magnifies and distorts, bringing objects nearer, and crowding them with in a particular field of vision, but at the expense of white light outside and be on the frame.“
Page 138 sums up the book very well. Darwin asks us to choose his way or the highway. Either everything was recently created by God, or everything was entirely created by random variation. His is an all or nothing view.
Natural selection by itself has too many contradictions. There are huge gaps in transitional species that are missing from the fossil record.
How could natural selection produce an eyeball on so many different, revolutionary branches? How can radical transformations such as a caterpillar, turning into a butterfly, be naturally selected step by step?
This book argues that Darwin set his theory up because it excluded God.
Darwin and his lackeys systematically excluded many scientists, as listed on page 140 because they included a theology explanation with evolution.
“The methodical exclusion of divine causation was an assumption, deriving from the particular secular enlightenment goal of systematically excluding the divine as a matter of human progress.”
Once society crushes another, that is not wrong. It is not anything but natural selection at work. As Darwin stated human evolution can have no control: there’s no way to predict where the branches of evolution will take them. One society can flourish by oppressing a weaker society. Another can flourish by practicing compassion. Darwin wants to have his cake and eat it too: evolution is amoral, and morality evolved from evolution! Examples are societies that flourish by having government supported contraceptive education and dispersion in poor neighborhoods, which cuts down on racial minorities; by cannibalizing cosmetic tissue from human beings, artificially, conceived, and grown for such purposes. In Darwinian evolution any means of survival is good. The good comes from survival. If you survive by cannibalizing your neighbor , then cannibalism is good.
It presupposes that evolution must be Godless or it cannot be scientific. Many of the Darwins peers felt that natural selection explained a good deal, but was insufficient to produce the actual complexity of nature that we see before us specifically the moral and intellectual complexity of human beings. AKA Darwins evolution was good but incomplete theory of evolution, leaving room for God "to steer the ship."
The author frequently references. “enlightenment wig version of history“ that colors how we view the world.
Opposition to Darwin's evolution is simply dismissed as ignorance.
*Thoughts on Darwin and Hitler’s. Well no direct cause and effect for the Nazi extermination of the Jews can be directly placed at Darwins feet, his principles certainly outlined much of the German philosophy in academia, and German intellectual culture. Page 161 lists more than a dozen prominent German scientists, that wholeheartedly ascribed Darwinian world views to their perspective on life. This was in place and common even during World War I. It only progressed from there into World War II when Rudolf Hess, a deputy party leader of the Nazi party stated that national Socialism is nothing but applied biology.
*The Nazi party set about this in a two prong approach with positive program of breeding a More fit Aryan race (Lebensborn) and the simultaneous extermination of other races that were deemed inferior, including the Jewish, Slaves, and the Gypsies. Hitler drew together long-standing elements of German Darwinian thought that had been brewing throughout Germany for well over half a century.
*Multitudes must perish in the struggle, so why not improve humanity by speeding up the destruction of the disabled and inferior races. The extermination of individuals in racist deemed inferior was morally justified and praiseworthy. In the name of making the world a better place millions were than slaughtered.
*According to the author, Christians are divided into three camps. One those who reject evolution because they believe that it leads directly to atheism. To those who accept evolution and deny that it leads to atheism. Three those who are indifferent to the question and go on about their business.
*Some Religious people feel that they need to attack of the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, there’s a great evidence that the Earth is way older than 6000 years.
*Many people ignore the obvious historical fact that Darwinism has been the most significant contributing cause in the de-christianization of the west.
Most evolutionary biologist today are atheist because they regard evolution as having proven that the whole God thing is intellectually obsolete. These people feel that they must defend Darwinism at all costs. As if all the evidence actually proves, that is no God.
*The author, then introduces the concept of a reasonable Christian. A reasonable Christian holds that science cannot contradict faith. The reasonable Christian notes that science, all science is merely a human activity, and despite all it’s pretensions, scientists are often wandering in confusion led by bad theories, misled by the very victories into assuming that they are omniscient. The reasonable Christian knows that nature is a creation of the profound wisdom of God is much more magnificent and mysterious than a human attempt to grasp it. It’s strictly literal reading of the Bible is too small.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 12, 2011
Despite the title, I thought the book really balanced. It is written by an evolutionist whose goal is to not discredit Darwin's theory, but just to give an accurate biography of the man. Because Darwin is the secular saint, Wiker did not really feel there was much out there that was objective. So he attempts to show Darwin's strengths and weaknesses and complexities. What was most interesting to me was how Charles Darwin's grandfather enthusiastically believed in evolution and Charles came from a family line of secularist, so Darwin went out looking for evidence to prove what He assumed before hand was true, it was not like he stumped upon the facts which were so overwhelming that he gave in, lost his faith and surrendered to the truth of science. All of this fits with my notion of the power of presuppositions, Darwin wanted the theory to be true, it had to be true, and this colors his perception of things. Those after him have come from the standpoint that it has to be true, for there is no alternatives, they are committed to it with a religious zeal and devotion, which makes them as acceptable to BS as religious people are. Like Bill Bryson wrote that (I am paraphrasing) "we typically don't think you can get something from nothing, but since there was nothing, and now we have a universe, we have proof that it can happen" and Quinton Smith wrote "the most reasonable thing to believe is that everything came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing" and this kind of nonsense (I say nonsense, in that it is non-sense, something beyond our senses) is embraced by scientist, who don't seem to even pause to reflect how unscientific such a conclusion is. But since it HAD to happen that way, well, it happened. Sorry but I don't have enough faith to believe the laws of nature just accidentally popped in existence, and that nothingness just randomly produced an explosion that produced a finely tuned universe upon which life somehow accidentally got this near magical power to adapt and evolve and now waala I am writing this review. To believe this kind of thing is not science. So yeah, one point that Wiker makes towards the end of the book, is that embracing darwin's theory of evolution is different from embracing Darwinism, which in essence is to believe everything HAD to come from nothing, by nothing and for nothing, which is an unprovable, non-scientific philosophical assumption which sadly is proudly paraded around as fact, by those who think themselves men of reason and not of faith. Oh how gullible to wild speculation and myths the atheist are, how blind they are to absurdities, oh how they have a religious zeal, a a childlike faith and a dogmatic confidence. Oh how they create an us vs. them mentality, All that they condemn the religious for, they practice. They try to remove the speck from our eye, while all the while they have a plank in their own eye.
January 22, 2010
This is a relatively short book but it offers an excellent analysis of teh debate over evolution. So often the argument is narrow...you must either believe in literal creationism (God made the earth in six, 24-hour days) or in Darwinism (a reductionist theory that started from the premise that there is no God and then tried to make the facts fit that theory...this failed miserably). These two arguments left those of us that believe in macroevolution but not microevolution out in the cold. Wiker points out in vivid detail the fact that the Darwinian theory of evolution did not even begin with him, and that even Darwin's most ardent supporters openly criticized the flaws in his God-less theory (such as the fact that complex biological structures such as the eye can not be explained by evolution, which requires a gradual development with improvements at each stage which give it an advantage over the previous version...the rods and cones in the eye have highly specific functions and won't work unless they are operating exactly as they are now constructed). This is an excellent book for those that believe that God created all things, but also created them in such a way as to naturally evolve and adapt over time to their surrounding environment.
August 9, 2018
I wish there was a way to give a book half a star. Then I might have given this book a star and a half. There was some very useful information about Darwin and the development of his personal theory of evolution, but at the same time, it allowed for evolution to be the only reasonable theory for a thinking Christian. The idea that the Bible describes creation accurately is quickly rejected. He hardly mentions the Bible and if he does it is in a critical way. He rightly criticises Darwin's theory of evolution but insists that Darwin is only wrong in insisting that evolution must be godless. If evolution allows for God then it is not only better but the right conclusion. If you are looking for a book with some accurate information about Charles Darwin, then read it; but if you are looking for a refutation of evolution, this is not the book for you.
February 22, 2011
okay, once again my mind has been turned upside down by a book that I thought I knew what it was about, but ended up really making me think about how I think about things. Supersense was the other.
The Darwin Myth takes a step beyond Darwin's attempt to explain evolution by natural selection, but discusses the moral implications of Darwinian evolution. It explains the man Charles Darwin, this Culture and scientific climate.
Definitely worth a read, you will be surprised by what is said as opposed to what you think the Darwin Myth will say.
The Darwin Myth takes a step beyond Darwin's attempt to explain evolution by natural selection, but discusses the moral implications of Darwinian evolution. It explains the man Charles Darwin, this Culture and scientific climate.
Definitely worth a read, you will be surprised by what is said as opposed to what you think the Darwin Myth will say.
Read
February 13, 2010A standard creationist look at the life of Charles Darwin and the perceived pernicious effects his ideas. A slim volume with scant biographical information and a hard to miss point of view. While the world has certainly become more secular since The Origin of Species was published, it's a stretch to put most of the blame on Darwin's shoulders while at the same time faulting him for stealing his ideas from others.
January 20, 2016
Meh...
November 26, 2017
An interesting take on Darwin by a clearly Christian author who takes Darwin to task for omitting any mention of God in his theory of evolution. How Darwin was meant to interject God into his theory is not explained. However, the limitations and implications of Darwinism (evolution as explained by Darwin) are well reviewed. Social Darwinism was certainly the driving force behind the enthusiasm for eugenics in the first half of the twentieth century and it continues to be a force now that eugenics has been euphemistically rebranded. Darwinism arose in an era when the mechanism of heredity and epigenetics was unknown, so Darwin was bumbling about in the dark to a large degree. Thus it is not surprising that genetic ignorance, combined with his personal idiosyncrasies and the assumptions of his cultural milieu, spawned a theory of evolution that had scientific shortcomings. That didn't stop it from taking the world by storm. To quote:
"Darwin’s defenders came to occupy influential niches in British and American intellectual life. Together, these men would also control the scientific media of the day, especially the important journals, and channel their other writings through a series of carefully chosen publishers—Murray, Macmillan, Youmans, and Appleton. Towards the end they were everywhere, in the Houses of Parliament, the Anglican Church, the universities, government offices, colonial service, the aristocracy, the navy, the law, and medical practice; in Britain and overseas. As a group that worked as a group, they were impressive. Their ascendancy proved decisive, both for themselves and for Darwin."
A recommended read.
"Darwin’s defenders came to occupy influential niches in British and American intellectual life. Together, these men would also control the scientific media of the day, especially the important journals, and channel their other writings through a series of carefully chosen publishers—Murray, Macmillan, Youmans, and Appleton. Towards the end they were everywhere, in the Houses of Parliament, the Anglican Church, the universities, government offices, colonial service, the aristocracy, the navy, the law, and medical practice; in Britain and overseas. As a group that worked as a group, they were impressive. Their ascendancy proved decisive, both for themselves and for Darwin."
A recommended read.
May 16, 2024
I found this a thought-provoking book. The story of Darwin's life is not a topic I had previously explored. Wiker explains what an exemplary person Darwin was in terms of his character. He rightly explains that ideas about evolution had been around for at least a century before Charles Darwin claimed them as his own, going back to Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather. Lamarck and Wallace also published versions of evolutionary theory. What is most interesting about the book is that Wiker tries to make a case that Darwin purposively created a version of evolution that excluded the need for a deity. In thinking about this, it comes down to the position one takes on the intersection of science and religion. If they are viewed as totally independent of one another, this argument does not hold. If they are compatible, then many other problems arise. If they can be reconciled, then possibly Wiker has a case to make. Science as I understand it from being a biochemist, is that it does not involve what cannot be tested. The existence of God cannot be tested. Scientific hypotheses, therefore, cannot entertain a supernatural element. I think Wiker's case for evolution leaving room for divine intervention and applying the scientific method is flawed. I think the case for Darwinism leading to eugenics is not a good argument because it is a human exploitation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method used to develop and test evolution as a process that explains life.
January 4, 2019
3,5 звезди
Изслушах я на един дъх за 4 часа.
Еволюцията на живота е факт също като гравитацията!
Но оттам вече как се обясняват тези природни процеси е вече друг въпрос. Книгата е биографична и разказва личната история на Чарлс Дарвин с опит за неутралитет. Авторът е вярващ и разглежда критично не фактът, природният феномен ЕВОЛЮЦИЯ (както самият той казва), а теорията на Чарлс Дарвин (за естественият отбор) опитваща се да обясни еволюцията. Нито съм станал религиозен след като я прочетох, нито съм станал повече материалист. В науката всяка теория може и трябва да бъде подлагана на въпрос. Нацистите не са подлагали на въпрос теорията за естественият отбор, че са я и развили - резултатът ни е ясен. Едва ли някога ще я прочета пак, но определено беше интересна. Не знаех почти нищо за живота на Дарвин.
Нещо което извън темата ми направи впечатление е, че човек, ако прочете малко биографии на хора живяли преди 200 години започва да открива плюсовете на ваксините, антибиотиците и съвременната медицина, колкото и "да ни трови" според някой Биг Фарма. По едно време спрях да броя, колко много от децата около Чарлс Дарвин са умряли от болести, които или съм преболедувал като дете или съм ваксиниран срещу. Ти да видиш..
Изслушах я на един дъх за 4 часа.
Еволюцията на живота е факт също като гравитацията!
Но оттам вече как се обясняват тези природни процеси е вече друг въпрос. Книгата е биографична и разказва личната история на Чарлс Дарвин с опит за неутралитет. Авторът е вярващ и разглежда критично не фактът, природният феномен ЕВОЛЮЦИЯ (както самият той казва), а теорията на Чарлс Дарвин (за естественият отбор) опитваща се да обясни еволюцията. Нито съм станал религиозен след като я прочетох, нито съм станал повече материалист. В науката всяка теория може и трябва да бъде подлагана на въпрос. Нацистите не са подлагали на въпрос теорията за естественият отбор, че са я и развили - резултатът ни е ясен. Едва ли някога ще я прочета пак, но определено беше интересна. Не знаех почти нищо за живота на Дарвин.
Нещо което извън темата ми направи впечатление е, че човек, ако прочете малко биографии на хора живяли преди 200 години започва да открива плюсовете на ваксините, антибиотиците и съвременната медицина, колкото и "да ни трови" според някой Биг Фарма. По едно време спрях да броя, колко много от децата около Чарлс Дарвин са умряли от болести, които или съм преболедувал като дете или съм ваксиниран срещу. Ти да видиш..
February 10, 2021
I'd recommend this book to anyone who is a fan of Dr. Wiker's other works or who is interested in Darwinism and Social Darwinism generally. Not really a full biography of Darwin, instead the Darwin Myth tackles the myth that Darwin did not intend his theory of natural selection to be extended to the social realm. That is, that the progression of the species based on the strongest surviving also includes intentional methods to further evolve or refine the human species via selective breeding (eugenics) or war and the subjugation of the strong by the weak through slavery and war; when it is clear that Darwin did anticipate this application of his theory and waffled back on forth on his adherence to these principals. Also of note, it trying to balance Darwin the loving family man with Social Darwinism is difficult.
November 6, 2019
A fair autobiography and examination of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. More importantly the author points out the weaknesses of the theory that both Darwin and Wallace admitted. The theory was NOT Darwin's idea as he was from a third generation of evolutionists, however Darwin was forever self promoting and took ownership. He was a wonderful family man and ill with stomach problems most of his life.
Largest fault is that he only included data which fit his theory of natural selection and stood on his belief that evolution had no need for God. Author keeps the theories simplistical enough not to become dry info dumps. Darwin the man is the focus.
Largest fault is that he only included data which fit his theory of natural selection and stood on his belief that evolution had no need for God. Author keeps the theories simplistical enough not to become dry info dumps. Darwin the man is the focus.
July 29, 2019
Wiker argues that Darwin had atheism at the root of his theory, in fact the whole purpose of the theory, was to render the idea of God obsolete and unnecessary. Neither was Darwin unique or original, for the "idea" of development", or some kind evolution, was emerging, and would have been a topic of discussion as Charles grew up. Wiker gives weight to Darwin as an upright Victorian scientist, a family man and a dedicated husband, nevertheless, he unwittingly sowed the seeds of what would bring that world down.
May 24, 2017
This is a mostly even-handed biography of Darwin that somewhat devolves into a long-winded argument againt the godless part of his theory. Overall, though, it's good. I came out of it with a much better understanding of Darwin, which increased both my respect for and revulsion to him.
November 27, 2018
I really enjoy the chance to read about Darwin's life and I feel like he gives a fair reading of him. Presenting his positive and negative aspects. The author does believe in evolution but rejects Darwinism for several reasons presented in the book.
March 27, 2022
Interesting in its biographical presentation, but the author's unsubstantiated claims about both the nature of faith and science leave much to be desired.
February 2, 2015
THE DARWIN MYTH: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, is a book on factual and relevant information about the famous naturalist’s life and times (his real and ‘honest’ biography). Although his theory on Natural Selection was considered a threat to the civilized world, Darwin is still known to be one of the key personalities to have strongly made much esteemed contributions to our modern science. Benjamin Wiker states that the famous scientist's real life highlights have all truly manifested in him as per his having been the man who undertook long voyages on board of the sailing ship, H.M.S Beagle, in order to lead his in-depth research on plants, insects, animals, and other species found across the globe, namely in the following soils: Tierra Del Fuego, Brazil, Uruguay, The Falkland Islands, Galapagos Islands, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, etc. Benjamin Wiker gives a whole new perspective on why? when? how? Charles Darwin became known as the father of his masterpiece, Origin of Species.
Benjamin Wiker gives true facts and information about the people and important personalities who helped Darwin in the process of his journey to marking his name in history as the naturalist whose successful display of the evolution of species was the result of his own profound studies on: anatomy of different species, transmutationism, Geology, origin of species, evolution of species, natural selection of specific breeds, the doctrine behind natural selection, and, anti-theistic views and its impact on evolution of species. Wiker insists that Darwin’s strong moral convictions on his views about God and about God’s ties to all life-forms on our planet, led him to create a structural concept between science and the world of the theists.
Once more, Benjamin Wiker is truly magnificent when he stresses with many factual details that the famous naturalist was a man who had lots of moral values with his humility, his fatherly affection for his children, his fulfilling of duties as a perfect husband, his physical traits, his views on the Anglican church and Christianity, and, his influential role in instating an ideal known to us as Social Darwinism. Christianity and Darwinism, atheism and theism, and, Darwinism on scientific, philosophical, moral, and theological grounds—are presented in this book of Benjamin Wiker’s with so much intensity and thoroughness that it concludes without any doubts that Charles Darwin took all, if not, almost all the attributes for his Origin of Species to himself, and himself only.
The biographer also emphasizes on Darwinism and its comparison and contrast to Nazism, The Bible and its ties to the contradictory notions with the creation of human races; and finally, the most admired of Charles Darwin’s literature is presented with a vivid acknowledgment of his likes for William Shakespeare’s written masterpieces. Wiker has hereabout provided a concise and a complete biography of the very famous naturalist and scientist, Charles Darwin. The Darwin Myth: The life and lies of Charles Darwin is a biography which sheds new lights on most minute details left out by previous biographers of the scientist whose one and only pride degree was that of a bachelor of arts in liberal studies on pre-divinity.
Benjamin Wiker gives true facts and information about the people and important personalities who helped Darwin in the process of his journey to marking his name in history as the naturalist whose successful display of the evolution of species was the result of his own profound studies on: anatomy of different species, transmutationism, Geology, origin of species, evolution of species, natural selection of specific breeds, the doctrine behind natural selection, and, anti-theistic views and its impact on evolution of species. Wiker insists that Darwin’s strong moral convictions on his views about God and about God’s ties to all life-forms on our planet, led him to create a structural concept between science and the world of the theists.
Once more, Benjamin Wiker is truly magnificent when he stresses with many factual details that the famous naturalist was a man who had lots of moral values with his humility, his fatherly affection for his children, his fulfilling of duties as a perfect husband, his physical traits, his views on the Anglican church and Christianity, and, his influential role in instating an ideal known to us as Social Darwinism. Christianity and Darwinism, atheism and theism, and, Darwinism on scientific, philosophical, moral, and theological grounds—are presented in this book of Benjamin Wiker’s with so much intensity and thoroughness that it concludes without any doubts that Charles Darwin took all, if not, almost all the attributes for his Origin of Species to himself, and himself only.
The biographer also emphasizes on Darwinism and its comparison and contrast to Nazism, The Bible and its ties to the contradictory notions with the creation of human races; and finally, the most admired of Charles Darwin’s literature is presented with a vivid acknowledgment of his likes for William Shakespeare’s written masterpieces. Wiker has hereabout provided a concise and a complete biography of the very famous naturalist and scientist, Charles Darwin. The Darwin Myth: The life and lies of Charles Darwin is a biography which sheds new lights on most minute details left out by previous biographers of the scientist whose one and only pride degree was that of a bachelor of arts in liberal studies on pre-divinity.
May 25, 2012
This is a balanced review of the life and work of Charles Darwin. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and found it provided much more insight than other attempts. Often Darwin is either idolized or demonized, depending on where you stand on your own personal beliefs about evolution. This book strives to be neither, but to evaluate the truth of his life regardless of which position you hold. It respects the man while the core problems of the theory are presented.
For example, similar works include co-credit to Alfred Wallace for early work on evolution, such as Simon Winchester's Krakatoa. However, Winchester's book omits the later fact of Wallace's objection to Darwin's evolutionary view after The Origin of Species was published. (Indeed, Winchester's chronicle of Wallace is rather romanticized.) Wallace noted the major problems with evolution that Darwin was glossing over and failing to adequately answer. However, this book does an excellent job of not only recounting this, but also the fact that several of Darwin's earlier supporters publicly countered his work by acknowledging it could not provide answers to some very basic observations of life. There are many other lesser-known examples of this type of information included.
It's definitely a book I will read again. I recommend it for anyone interested in the history of the theory of evolution or its well-known champion.
For example, similar works include co-credit to Alfred Wallace for early work on evolution, such as Simon Winchester's Krakatoa. However, Winchester's book omits the later fact of Wallace's objection to Darwin's evolutionary view after The Origin of Species was published. (Indeed, Winchester's chronicle of Wallace is rather romanticized.) Wallace noted the major problems with evolution that Darwin was glossing over and failing to adequately answer. However, this book does an excellent job of not only recounting this, but also the fact that several of Darwin's earlier supporters publicly countered his work by acknowledging it could not provide answers to some very basic observations of life. There are many other lesser-known examples of this type of information included.
It's definitely a book I will read again. I recommend it for anyone interested in the history of the theory of evolution or its well-known champion.
November 6, 2015
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Although clearly written with a bias towards religion it does so with respect and dignity of both the subject of what has come to be known as Darwinism and its namesake. I only wish the time and energy of such works would be courageous and independent enough to realize the interconnected reality of religion with science and philosophy and not a forced choice of commitment in opposition to the other(s). It was however not intended for this type of argument and did a spectacular job in revealing the evolution of...well, evolution and how it has been impacted like religion and philosophy by altering motives both well intended and not so. It is an enlightening work.
October 31, 2009
"One can heartily accept evolution on scientific grounds and roundly reject Darwinism on scientific, philosophical, moral, and theological grounds." This was John Paul II's view I think. In this book you find out more than Darwinism's flaws, its ideological predecessors, and later ramifications. Wiker exposes the self-delusions of its author to serve his ambition, the made-to-fit theory to exclude a Creator, and today's lie that "Darwinism is the only respectable scientific position."
August 18, 2016
Excellent research backing facts that have been long hidden in the telling of who Darwin really was. This book has well documented information, much to the embarrassment of many scientists. Not the least of which is the fact of Darwin's "proof" that there are races of people who are inferior, the darker "races" he says are inferior, closer to the apes....and his theory of evolutions rests upon this "fact." Sad truths uncovered in this book.
October 16, 2012
it reinforced my point that the darwing's theory looks and feels like a religion's doctrine instead of a cientific proven fact!! as most people take it. shame! he tried to advanced cience and it was stoped by his own views of the world! and science at stand still because nobody even wants to listen to anything that varies from this point of view.
January 15, 2013
A very balanced biography. Not the evil genius that can be promoted by the one side and not the put-upon saint of the other; but a nice guy with VERY bad ideas and agenda who didn't think 'his theory' all the way through. I enjoyed it.
February 8, 2013
Not impressed. The author argues both anti-science ad anti-religion in an attempt to discredit Darwin, then makes ridiculously broad and unsubstantiated claims of modern culture's abuses of Darwinism. All without any new evidence. A painful read.
September 30, 2010
Good short bio, not afraid to knock Darwin off his pedestal and recognize and show that his intent was to destroy Christianity.
November 14, 2014
finished
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews