Look, I have no problems with descent with modification, the keystone and apogee of Darwinian theory. I don't even go for that rather flaky distinction between macro- and micro- evolution that somehow accepts the latter but denies the former. I'm a bit puzzled by how Darwinian evolution would affect things like the concept of human nature.
That I have to make this sort of confession of scientific orthodoxy is evidence that this debate is not a disinterested pursuit for truth, but an attempt at browbeating. This only makes me more sympathetic towards Sternberg's eccentric theories, though I don't even know what they are.
What I do have a problem with in Darwinism is the blatant effort to paper over Darwin's muddled, and sometimes downright evil, philosophical claims that too often accompany his better-formed scientific speculations.
Instead, he was a respectable Victorian gentlemen who loved his wife and and gave to his church. There is no way to get from,
Darwin's cousin, "respectable Victorian gentleman" Francis Galton, was the founder of the eugenics movement. Darwin himself latched on to the execrable Herbert Spencer's term "survival of the fittest." Karl Marx actually asked Charles Darwin if he could dedicate Das Kapital to him, and Darwin only refused because he knew Marx's patent atheism would upset his wife. An honorable intention, I suppose, but it shows how screwed up he was philosophically, not to mention theologically.
Darwin himself was the first Social Darwinist, as well, but I won't take the time to plug in my sources. Check out Edward T. Oakes' book review of the sensationalistically-titled scholarly history "From Darwin to Hitler" in an upcoming issue of First Things magazine.
"What I do have a problem with in Darwinism is the blatant effort to paper over Darwin's muddled, and sometimes downright evil, philosophical claims that too often accompany his better-formed scientific speculations."
What evil claims?
" Darwin's cousin, "respectable Victorian gentleman" Francis Galton, was the founder of the eugenics movement."
Galton had the same prejudices as the vast majority of people at the time. His view of eugenics was that the better *fit* should be encouraged to have more children. It wasn't about forced sterilization or the forced segregation of the *less fit*. It was still wrong, but it's conclusions about the relative superiority of different races and social classes was just a reflection of the prevailing views throughut Victorian educated society. Non-evolutionists came to the same conclusions but just used different arguments (many times biblical). It's almost impossible to find a non-racist from that time.
"Karl Marx actually asked Charles Darwin if he could dedicate Das Kapital to him, and Darwin only refused because he knew Marx's patent atheism would upset his wife."
That and the fact that he was a free-market whig who didn't like socialism. It must also be remembered that at the time , Marx and Engels were second tier socialists who were not widely know outside of socialist circles. It wasn't until the 20th century that Marx's name became widely known.
" Darwin himself was the first Social Darwinist, as well, but I won't take the time to plug in my sources."
Now you have him responsible for ruthless laizie-faire capitalism, whereas before he was responsible for Marx. The term is more correctly called Social Spencerism, as Spencer was the originator and principal defender. Darwin hardly spoke a word about applying evolution to anything but biology.
"Darwin himself latched on to the execrable Herbert Spencer's term "survival of the fittest."
The mistake was in the statement's clumsiness, not in any evil consequences of it's implications. The survival of the fittest simply means that those who are best adapted to their present environment (including both living and non-living aspects) will on average leave more offspring than those less adapted. It is not a political statement as Darwin used it. Spencer did poorly word it though, and it is regrettable that Darwin chose to include it in later versions of The Origin of Species.
All of this of course has nothing to do with whether the ToE is correct. Even if some people abuse a theory doesn't make it wrong. Arguments from Consequences is a logical fallacy.