Skip to comments.The Darwingate Papers (Darwin plagiarist, scientific criminal???)
Posted on 08/11/2008 3:04:34 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
This publication marks the 150th anniversary of the joint presentation of Darwin and Wallace of their thinking about evolution by natural selection to the Linnean Society. The book is a blockbuster because it claims that "Darwin perpetuated one of the greatest crimes in the history of science". It concludes that Darwin plagiarised Alfred Russel Wallace, deceived the world about the maturity of his own ideas before 1858, and, to satisfy his personal need for glory, failed to give credit to scholars who influenced his thinking...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
Can’t wait to see this thread ‘evolve’......
looks like a great book!
Rest assured, guilty or not, the Temple of Darwin will defend their patron-saint to the last man.
==Who should care?...It’s the idea that matters, not the sainthood of the messenger.
Well, for starters, if the book is true, we will have to remove Darwin’s name from Darwin Day.
Interesting... The Father of Evolution is a liar. The number of phony/fraudulent evo evidense claims are something like 100 or 1000 to 1 versus phony ID/creationist evidense claims. Why does that not surprise anyone?
==Interesting... The Father of Evolution is a liar.
LOL...that pretty much sums it up.
First off, these charges are not new and I don't believe they are accurate. But what you don't seem to understand is that Darwin could have been a cannibalistic serial killer for all it matters. Evolution is still an observed fact. If Einstein had been a pedophile, would E not equal MC ^ 2? This is about facts, not personalities.
It can be ordered here...can’t wait to get a copy!
Wallace and Darwin came up with natural selection independently. Darwin read a paper by Wallace, a quick sketch of the theory, and decided to step up publication of On the Origin of the Species to avoid getting scooped. If Darwin had plagiarized Wallace, he would have had to have written the book in about 15 minutes.
In fact, Wallace and Darwin became good friends and close collaborators. If Darwin had plagiarized Wallace, Wallace certainly didn't seem to think he had.
Don't believe everything you read. Darwin didn't plagiarize Wallace.
Remember, the hardest hit dog yelps the loudest. On 1...2...3...
==Evolution is still an observed fact.
Only on the micro-level. Molecules to man evolution is not an observed fact, otherwise the evos wouldn’t be getting their butts kicked by Creation and ID scientists.
==Evolution is still an observed fact. If Einstein had been a pedophile, would E not equal MC ^ 2? This is about facts, not personalities.
We’re not talking about whether Darwin is a pedophile, we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists. If so, Darwin himself will have to be dethroned, and the Darwinian ToE will have to begin with a new name (or names).
Yes, yes... that what it was. Darwin said so himself I'm sure...
That was the first thought that popped into my head when I read your original comment.
Well Alfred Russel Wallace certainly never accused Darwin of plagiarizing -- and the two spent decades collaborating after On the Origin of the Species.
Don't you think he just might have said something? The fact of the matter is that Russel stumbled on the outlines of the theory. However, Darwin's Origin of the Species is far more sophisticated and fleshed out than what Wallace had been working with. At least Wallace himself seemed to have thought so... but what did he know!
He not only copied from Wallace, he also copied from his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who wrote of the same things (see his epic poem, “The lives of plants”, and other works.)
“Darwinism” was first applied to grandfather Erasmus’ ‘evolution-like’ theories, not to his grandson’s.
Cool. A link to an intelligent design weblog. Guess we know where this is going.
No, that's not correct. We have a huge number of observations of evolution in the fossil record, in the lab and in genetics. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is certainly not limited to "the micro-level."
I understand that to you disbelief in evolutionary science may be an article of faith and no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise. But hopefully there are others more susceptible to reason on this thread.
Were not talking about whether Darwin is a pedophile, we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists.
And? What does that have to do with whether or not his theory is correct?
It wasn’t just Wallace, it appears he plagiarized the work of a number of scientists, to include Edward Blyth and Thomas Malthus. And it would appear that poor old Wallace went to his grave never knowing that his so-called friend ripped him off.
“The Father of Evolution is a liar.”
The Father of Evolution is the “Father of lies”.
And rabid creationists will have to pick a new name to demonize.
Really, this is silly. You can't disprove the theory of evolution so you are left with trying to discredit its author -- 150 years after the fact.
This sure shows the bankruptcy of creationism and ID. And it says something about those individuals eager to believe any ill of Darwin.
No what it shows is you did not bother to read enough to find out that GGG did not introduce that statement into this thread, that or there is another answer to this routine failure of yours.
==We have a huge number of observations of evolution in the fossil record, in the lab and in genetics.
I won’t be waiting with baited breath for you to come up with a CLEARCUT example of observed macro-evolutionary change. I’m not talking about variation within species or even families, I’m talking about showing me an expiriment where a member of one family evolves into a new family entirely....like a dog becoming a cat or vice-versa. When you find an observed, reproducible example of this type of evolutionary change, be sure and ping me.
So this of historical and intellectual interest. Scientifically, it is meaningless. Cool.
wow. another crevo thread.
the same five or six people posting the same things over and over and over.
==And rabid creationists will have to pick a new name to demonize.
I’m sure it won’t be difficult. There’s always plenty of dirt on those who invent theories for the purpose of denying God.
All I know is if Darwin was on the HMS Beagle, he undoubtedly ate drowned babies and spotted dogs.
==So this of historical and intellectual interest. Scientifically, it is meaningless. Cool.
If the book turns out to be true, and Darwin is not dethroned, then this case will cut right to the heart of the integrity of science.
DO NOT CONFUSE this book with “The Darwin Conspiracy” by John Darnton. John’s is a novel. FYI.
==Doesnt sound like plagiarism to me.
Did you read about the new evidence the author and others have since unearthed? It’s looking very much like Darwin plagiarized the work of others.
I’m not, but thanks for the headsup anyway :o)
I figured you wouldn’t but wanted the post there so others can see it. FReepOn!
I think I can bear the pain of that action - whatever you decide to rename "Darwin's theory" it won't change his actual writings, or the basic premise.
But if it makes you feel good and you want to presume the book to be true...
Bottom line is that people are trying to make more of BOTH Darwin and ID than is there to be made - neither should invalidate the other whether true or simply reasonable.
==There was no argument or any discontent between these scientists except for in the vivid imaginations of the IDers some 150 years later
First of all, the author is neither an IDer or a Creationist. He is the former head of factual programs for the BBC. In the meantime, here’s another review of the book from that noted creationist website, RichardDawkins.net.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Mail-boat record ‘proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist’
by Steffan Rhys, Western Mail
CHARLES DARWIN’S theory that for 150 years has been viewed as explaining the origin of mankind was stolen from a Welsh scientist, the author of a new book has claimed.
In his book The Darwin Conspiracy: Origins of a Scientific Crime, published this week, Roy Davies claims to have unearthed new evidence that shows Charles Darwin stole the ideas of Alfred Russel Wallace for his work On the Origin of Species, and that it is Wallace who should be credited as having first proposed the theory of evolution.
Davies accuses Darwin of incorporating the revolutionary ideas of Wallace into his manuscript then claiming them as his own.
His crucial evidence, he claims, is in pinpointing the exact dates that letters from Wallace to Darwin explaining his theories arrived at Darwin’s home, proving that the Welsh scientist developed them first.
And experts on the Welshman yesterday agreed that Wallace had been unfairly treated by history but said it would be difficult to prove his ideas were in fact stolen.
“I researched the book for 12 years,” said Davies, a former head of factual programmes at BBC Wales.
“At the beginning, I believed Darwin was a genius. By the time the book was finished, I had long since realised that it was Wallace who was the genius and Darwin, 14 years his senior, who was the plodder.
“In the end, the crucial evidence came from an expert on Dutch maritime shipping in the 19th century, Professor Femme Gaastra of Leiden University.
“He was able to pinpoint exactly which boats picked up Wallace’s mail in the Malay Archipelago (now Malaysia and Indonesia), where he was working as a collector of new species, and delivered it to the P&O liners who shipped the mail home to Southampton.
“Before the research, Darwin’s supporters were able to argue that the letters he received from Wallace arrived at his home when he claimed they had.
“Professor Gaastra’s great contribution was that he was able to show that two crucial letters written by Wallace between October 1856 and March 1858 arrived in Britain long before Darwin admitted they had. Wallace’s ideas appeared in Darwin’s work soon afterwards.”
Wallace was born in Llanbadoc, near Usk, in 1823 and became an explorer, collector, naturalist, geographer, anthropologist and political commentator. He died in 1913. Experts at the Natural History Museum say he came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection at the same time as but entirely independent of Darwin, but has since been overshadowed.
While feverish with malaria on the Malay Archipelago in 1858, Wallace wrote to Darwin explaining his ideas because he knew Darwin was also working on the theory.
Both men presented their theories to the scientific Linnean Society of London, but Darwin’s manuscript was published the following year, and he has since been universally credited with the theory, while Wallace’s name has largely been forgotten.
“It is terribly unfair on Wallace,” said George Beccaloni, a curator at the Natural History Museum and founder of the Alfred Russel Wallace Memorial Fund.
“The fact of the matter is they both simultaneously published the theory of natural selection in 1858, 15 months before Origin of Species.
“But everyone credits Origin of Species as being the place the idea was first published, which isn’t true. Wallace definitely deserves half the credit for the idea.
“On the face of it, it certainly seems there are questions that should be answered by historians.
“But whether Darwin stole the idea remains to be seen.”
Davies said the implications for Darwin’s status as an honest scientist were serious but said his theory would face “serious opposition” from academics.
“Any attempt to restore Wallace’s name to anything like equality with that of Darwin’s is bound to fail,” he said.
“All I can hope for is that fair-minded people read the book and make up their own minds.”
He might even have been guilty of at least some of it. Edison, I mean.
What you share here, sounds like strong refutation of the thesis of the article, heading this thread. (not that it matters to me all that much, it's all water under the bridge, now, regardless of who was thinking what, first.)
Still, could I ask for a citation/source for that which you have copy/pasted?
Though even having a source for what you've quoted, most likely wouldn't resolve just exactly who the " number of scholars" is, who opine that the claims of these other, named persons (who show their work!) are "not credible"...
Actaully, the cut and paste does not include the new scholarship. Also see the RichardDawkins.net review in reply #43.
I'd like to see credit go where it is due - both men seem to have been out there at the front and (as I tried to state) credit does not always go where it is most due.
Which does not change the basic theory or it's applicability, the gaps between it and the complexity that ID postulates, or the "how did it all get started" question.
Most interest on FR is apt to be due to ID/Evo dynamic rather than historic interest.
That is the shame of it.
Sorry for any mis-direction this may have caused.
The scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.
It does not support anthropogenic global warming.
And it certainly does not support creationism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.