Against Darwin, against debate

Lynne McTaggart

Last week, I was making the point to a friend of mine that Darwin has been used as the unwitting intellectual rationale for many social movements that haven’t been particularly good for humanity (such as red-in-tooth-in-claw capitalism), and also that Darwin, for all his brilliance as a scientist, was a white supremacist.
My friend worried that by making this explicit, I might be laying myself open to being labeled a radical Creationist.
This remark (and the extraordinary response I got to last week’s blog – thank you all so much for your lovely comments) got me thinking about the nature of scientific debate these days and also how scientific ideas get appropriated to advance completely unrelated arguments.
Since the 2009 bicentenary celebrations of Darwin’s birth and television shows portraying Darwin as a cross between Santa Clause and God (the long-white beard, the kindly, aw-shucks manner, the love of animals and children), it has been virtually impossible to take issue with anything Darwin stood for without being assumed to be part of the camp that believes that dinosaurs and earliest man roamed the earth side by side just a couple of years before Jesus was born.
Ideas hijacked
No doubt, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was a bold and remarkable advance in our understanding of life.
Nevertheless, thanks to newly invented telegraphic cables and advances in printmaking, Darwin’s views quickly swept across the globe and were largely hijacked as intellectual justification for a raft of fledgling social movements.
Darwinian evolution made for a perfect fit with emergent western capitalism. 
English biologist Thomas Huxley, dubbed ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, largely acted as Darwin’s vociferous mouthpiece, using Darwin’s ideas to justify dog-eat-dog competition.
Huxley was convinced that it was in the natural order for human beings to put their own interests above all others. In fact Huxley had a simple recipe for those without sufficient means to support themselves:  “They die, and it is best they should die.”
Darwin’s theories were also cited as proof positive that the world’s races were inherently unequal, and that certain races — particularly the white Europeans — were far ‘fitter’ than others.
They were used to justify the Chinese revolution and the ‘whitening’ of Latin American indigenous culture with European stock.
Columbine natural selection
Darwin obviously is not to blame for the vast amount of misguided notions that have been carried out in his name. He was simply attempting to figure out how nature works.
He would have been appalled to note that Eric Harris was sporting a T-shirt emblazoned with the words ‘Natural Selection’ when he and Dylan Klebolt sauntered into Columbine High School and opened fire on their fellow students, and that entire websites, such as Natural Selection Army, are cyber schools for neo-Nazi killers-in-training.
Nevertheless, scientists do not formulate their ideas in a vacuum, but usually reflect the cultural mores of their time. When assembling his ideas for what eventually was published as On the Origin of Species, the young Darwin was profoundly influenced by the concerns put forward by the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus about population explosion and limited natural resource, and ultimately concluded that since there wasn’t enough to go around, life must evolve through struggle.
Some of the fledgling ideas of what came to be called Social Darwinism may have originally influenced his theories.  Darwin himself predicted (and appeared to favor) the notion that at some point in the future Europeans and Americans would exterminate those deemed to be ‘savages’, and the ‘higher civilized’ races would prevail. “Excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed,’ he once noted in a letter to a friend.
What I’m saying is that some of the ideas that led to Darwin’s discoveries and some of the ideas that have used evolution as a crutch are both, in their own ways, suspect.
Closed to interpretation
My biggest problem is reserved for the greatest Darwinian hijacking of them all. Modern-day interpreters of Darwin, the so-called ‘neo-Darwinists’, have insisted on a particular interpretation of biology based entirely on a supposition about evolution.
It has now become fashionable to regard genes as having the power to control every aspect of our lives, so that the rest of the body is considered simply the vehicle of transport. We supposedly emerge from the womb with a static batch of attributes specified by our genetic history.
A great deal of evidence in the fledgling science of epigenetics takes issue with this version of evolution.
The intricate array of environmental influences to which we are exposed throughout our lives actually determines the final expression of every gene in our body. Genes get turned on, turned off, or modified by our life circumstances and environment — what we eat, who we surround ourselves with, and how we lead our lives.
It is this connection, and not simply the genetic code, that gets passed down to subsequent generations.
Darwin's theory in On the Origin of Species specified that genetic mutation occurred only over a vast number of generations and millions of years of natural selection, when some studies showed that new traits could show up in a single generation.
I, for one, do not buy either the ‘selfish’ or the ‘struggle-for-dominance’ metaphor.  The more evidence I examine in virtually every scientific discipline, the more I grow convinced that life exists through a giant act of cooperation and that the leitmotif for all of nature is connection, rather than battle.
Despite there being no definitive evidence to support the metaphor of ‘selfish genes’, the orthodoxy does not entertain any alternative point of view of either Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.
Scientific fascism
Today’s scientific fascism reminds me of the situation after 9/11.  America was so gripped by fear that it was absolutely verboten to do anything but agree with Bush’s war against the terrorists.  As a popular bumper sticker in my youth put it: ‘America – love it or leave it.’ Embrace it uncritically or get out.
A few years ago the BBC aired an excellent documentary called Did Darwin Kill God?  The theologian who narrated the show made the very good case that neo-Darwinists and the Creationists are both extremists, misappropriating the views of Darwin. 
To my mind, Darwin did not kill God.  Darwin is God now, in whatever way we choose to interpret Darwin. 
So long as we believe there is nothing more to add to the story, we blind ourselves to the real truth of science, which is that no single scientist, however brilliant, can declare that this is it, the full and complete guide to the universe.
Our scientific story must always remain unfinished — continuously revised by every new Darwin.

Facebook Comments

We embed Facebook Comments plugin to allow you to leave comment at our website using your Facebook account. This plugin may collect your IP address, your web browser User Agent, store and retrieve cookies on your browser, embed additional tracking, and monitor your interaction with the commenting interface, including correlating your Facebook account with whatever action you take within the interface (such as “liking” someone’s comment, replying to other comments), if you are logged into Facebook. For more information about how this data may be used, please see Facebook’s data privacy policy:

Lynne McTaggart

Lynne McTaggart is an award-winning journalist and the author of seven books, including the worldwide international bestsellers The Power of Eight, The Field, The Intention Experiment and The Bond, all considered seminal books of the New Science and now translated into some 30 languages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

39 comments on “Against Darwin, against debate”

  1. Psychoanalytic theories describe that development is primarily subconscious and relies heavily on emotion. Cognitive theories rely on the importance of conscious thought, and the foundation of behaviorism suggests we can study only what can be directly observed and measured. I find all of these theories, when considered and evaluated on an individual basis, to be somewhat limiting.
    Thought, as the basis of consciousness, can be either within or outside the realm of awareness, and both may affect behavior. A behavior may create either a positive benefit or a negative consequence that may eventually either support or refute conscious and/or unconscious thought and/or belief. With the allowance for the integration and consideration of the vast variety of developmental theories, I have concluded that it is the theories themselves that explain the evolution of humanity as a whole and of the individual developing over a period of time within the history of man referred to as life-span.
    Constructive Developmental Theory and Choice
    It appears in youth that thought and behavior must come from genetic, instinctual, and subconscious constructs, a blueprint that has been established within the DNA and cell memory. By the end of adolescence, a few years of independent experiences and behavior modifications gives an individual the ability and level of awareness to make free-will choices that will determine experiences and outcomes in the future. Only 50% of individuals will ever develop past this stage and decide to challenge the assumptions made during their first adulthood transformation and seek guidance to shift through a second adulthood transformation. It is estimated that possibly only 5% of individuals choose to make the third adulthood transformation referred to as truth and reconciliation to demonstrate unconditional love and forgiveness, God in man, Christ consciousness.
    The process of my life has shown me that what I choose to believe, what I choose to think regarding what I believe, and then what actions I choose take that support what I believe and think are all within my power, then creates the experience of my daily life, evolves into my future, and expands eternally. However, it took substantial undoing of what my biology and the world taught me about truth and reality to uncover the meaning and purpose of my life and being and go forward independent of the beliefs and opinions of others. I quit making assumptions and started asking questions.
    With maturity comes an awareness of choice and freedom. Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying that “a man is about as happy as he makes up his mind to be.” I think that constructive developmental theory best explains this process from the cognitive perspective of psychology and I support that humanity and the individual ultimately creates, evolves, and transforms not by will to pleasure, or will to power, but rather by will to meaning. It has become my awareness that radical forgiveness is the solution. With that realization my being has shifted from the internalization of a mind that says “I think, therefore I am” to residing within a mind that knowingly states “I am, therefore I think.”
    Rose Garman, Director
    Springfield, IL

  2. When someone says something is "unscientific," many commonly assume this means it is not true.
    That betrays a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
    Science follows a very strict methodology. If it can be tested ("falsified," in scientific lingo) in a controlled experiment, science can say something. "Singularities" (unrepeatable events) and "anecdotal evidence" (also untestable) are "unscientific," but that does not mean they are false or have not happened.
    Here's a metaphor that most scientists I know would agree describes the problem:
    Think of a television broadcast. TV can show something in two dimensions, and (usually) with sound not good enough to fool a cat. TV can reproduce smells ("smell-o-vision" ) but doesn't, for practical reasons (there is no way to clear out the previously broadcasted smells). TV cannot broadcast textures. Because TV does not broadcast smells or textures, or show things fully in the round, does that mean smells or textures or fully-rounded objects do not exist?
    Nonsense. All that means is that TV is a limited method.
    So is science.

  3. This may not be the ideal way to start this thread Lynn but if we are going to try to umderstand people's motivations and intentions, perhaps we should start at the soul level.
    Biometric evidence of the soul expressing itself on the physical template of the person is quite strong.
    Dr Jim Tucker at the University of Kentucky,Paul Von Ward, Dr Walter Semkiw and others have been studying at the biometric aspects of reincarnation.
    I am not saying Randi and Darwin are animated ny the same soul, no one could prove this at this time as we do not have the know how to do this yet.
    What I am suggesting is that perhaps people hold onto patterned behavior over lifetimes. They have the free will to grow or not to grow. That is true evolution, evolution of the soul.
    Sorry I took this off topic approach to the discussion. Perhaps we should be the new Darwins.

  4. Such a great, important post Lynne!
    Thanks for your intelligence, rigor and compassion in examining issues.
    You might enjoy checking out William James' views/comments on Darwin in Jane Roberts'
    The Afterdeath Journal of An American Philosopher-----(very worth reading in its entirety as well)
    Blessings for all your endeavors,

  5. People forget, that Darwin's theory, is just a theory. The missing link has never been found, I doubt it ever will. As someone who believes that the frequency spectrum contains multiple plane of being, I am more inclined to go with the information given by the Theosophists, which fits with that version of reality. This was itself hijacked by the Nazis as part of their 'superace' theory. Of course the teachings of Jesus somehow ended up a millenium and a half later as the Spanish inquisition. There is no doubt that the distortions used by extremists can become so great given enough time that the original teaching is turned on its head. It is also certainly true that the polarisation in politics is matched in science. Prominent British scientists have appeared on television absolutely adament that God does not exist, when there is absolutely no way they can be that sure, given that the current accepted theories of creation are as full of holes as a cullender. Of course hanging labels on people is part of the polarisation strategy, and I experienced this in person, on the old IE site in the process of my confrontation with the cyber terrorist, My Tiger Turbon, as he called himself. He proceeded to label me as a 'Creationist' and actually posted a blog to that effect. In his mind, as is the case with all extremists, there are only two camps, with nothing in between. Having taken this extreme position, he had used a combination of abuse and profanity to doggedly hound anyone who disagreed with his point of view, whether it was his thread or not. According to the members, this unchecked behabiour caused many people to leave the old site. Thankfully, he was removed from the new site, and people are able to engage in debate respecting each other. This is where knowledge will grow, with the interchange of ideas.

  6. Darwin's theory has never been and won't be proven. I don't know why we learn it at school as doctrine.
    25 years after his return he wrote it cause one poor biologist gave to him his work, and Darwin saw a competition.

  7. There is a massive and powerful financial movement railroading Darwin's ideas into the mainstream consciousness. Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled" looks at the American scientific community and discovers that scientists in America know that if they even investigate the notion of "intelligent design", even without reference to what that intelligence might be, that they will lose their funding and at worst they will be outed as a 'creationalist' and discredited as a scientist. Author Richard Dawkins openly admits that he lost his connection with god as a result of his beliefs in Darwinism and the film finds that there is a trend amoungst those who come to believe in Darwinism losing their faith in god.
    Alex Jone's documentary "Endgame" shows the links between Darwin and the Eugenics movement which resulted in human sterilization laws in America shortly after 1900 and how this doctrine inspired Hitler. The documetary shows that since WWII the Eugenics movement has just gone underground with it's genocidal plan and is now putting all the pieces in place to form a one world government so they can get back to 'cleansing' the gene pool.
    I think you need to be careful of a doctrine that leads to thoughts of 'ethnic cleansing' and disbelief in god. While there seems to be little doubt that a species can have a genetic mutation and 'evolve' there is plenty of good science that suggests this capability could not be responsible for the genetic diversity and adaptability of species on Earth. The worst thing that can happen is that we lose the freedom to investigate a range of scientific theories, which seems to be the case at the moment. Beware of the 'Evolutionary Fascists' because they want to control everything and kill anyone who isn't like them.

  8. Anytime you create an idea that people see as valuable, you create within them an allegiance to that idea. (Reference pretty much every religion out there.) Darwin created an amazingly adept explanation for how humans got to that point in time. It didn't hurt that it went well with other existing social situations. Once it comes time to update, revise or otherwise replace that idea on the basis of further study and evidence, it is almost inevitably be a case of wrestling a toy away from a small child. The child is probably unaware and unconcerned with the fact that you have a bigger and better toy for it to play with. All it knows is that this existing toy is familiar and makes it feel comfortable. Hence it is always going to be a struggle to convert certain people to new ideas. And sometimes you just have to accept that fight on one hand, and take solace in the fact that there is a newer and younger generation not attached to those ways of thinking. To quote Arthur Schopenhauer, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." It seems that we maybe in the second stage, which means that victory is right around the corner.

  9. In our own experience of more than 18 years with complex adaptive social systems applied to crime prevention and government reform we have found out there are three laws for emerging complex order in society: Intention, information and basic rules of action.
    Action follows information, information follows intention.
    Whenever intention is unclear or is founded on the wrong paradigms (vengeance, fear, hate), crime prevention fails.
    In social sciences we can easily include intention without much debate because intention is very human.
    Biologically, the genetic code constitutes what we call the basic rules of action, but there is no doubt information plays a fundamental role in activating genes; they are turned off and on by information.
    Personally I find it intention plays the same role in biology as in social systems. Why should it be different?
    In a very basic description: There is the individual intent to live, the species intent to reproduce and the ecosystem's intent to create and maintain an environment proper for life.
    Those who propose intention is either divine, or emergent- inherent to the system’s evolution, ignite the philosophical debate.
    But, be it one or the other, or both, is irrelevant to the practical approach on influencing and being influenced by this higher intention.

  10. It always made me chuckle how people can only account for us and the world to appear out of nowhere 6000 years ago. If God is eternity,what makes you think he was in such a hurry? Sure, we've been more than foryunate to evolve to the point we are without being bombarded by space debris or natural disasters. Could it happen elsewhere in the universe. Many people couldn't or blatantly refuse accept the possibility however remote. A mass change in human conciuosness will transpire soon enough if we survive the coming earth changes and cosmic storms. Gee,if god is watches us lovingly then how could he let such things happen to our beloved species? Stay tuned and find out...

  11. Darwin's theories have been amazingly twisted over the years, and used as the basis for capitalism, socialism (Lenin), and Nazi-ism (Hitler's mentor) to name a few.
    When you mention Darwin most people automatically think 'Survival of the fittest' - the biggest and strongest survive. That's not what he suggested at all. What Darwin suggested was that traits within a species that made certain individuals better able to compete would win out in the end. That may be larger and stronger animals in some cases. It may be species that are smaller, more lithe, faster, slower, more colourful, less colourful, more able to cooperate with other members of the same or other species... all possibilities are valid.
    Many people, even (especially?) some scientists have misunderstood the true meaning of science as well. It doesn't have to be 'explainable', at least not right away. If something occurs or can be caused to occur, that's science. If it's repeatable, it's science. If we start saying what is or isn't acceptable, or what is or isn't acceptable to ask, that's not science.

  12. Darwinists and creationists could both be correct if Einstein theory is; as objects approach the speed of light, their time slows down relatively - big bang theory says objects moved away from each other faster than the speed of light; so no time existed? - Indeed what we count as the first second might well have taken millions of our (later) years - as the speed of expansion slowed down, time speeded up to what we have today so that the bible's 5000 years could well be absolutely accurate! - for the time it was written - certainly the sequence of events is accurate.

  13. I wish we could move discussion evolution on from Darwin. Like almost every other branch of science, the study of evolution has progressed amazingly in the last two centuries.

  14. Dear Lynne and all the readers,
    Thank you really much for widening the understanding of evolution! I'd like to recommend my greatest inspiration - Elisabet Sahtouris' book Earthdance - Sahtouris, herself a biologist, has told the new story of evolution in the most beautiful and inspiring way.
    This story is about cooperation revolution on the cellular level 1,7 billion years ago that we are made of. All our cells are witness to it. It is about cooperation on the body level - 100 trillion cells working in perfect harmony for most of the time. It is also a story of us becoming a body of humanity. And it is a story of consciousness behind it all. Remember, it's written by a biologist.
    It's fully available in the web also, just search and you will find.
    So, I wish all of us good growing experience into the Body of Humanity 🙂
    Toomas from Estonia

  15. Great discussion. I mildly object to the idea that people like myself who believe in intelligent design, are called creationist . We get painted as"whacked out" and there is never room for discussion. For instance, even though I believe that Darwin's work answered a great deal of questions, it didn't answer them all. Like where did it all start? Even Darwin didn't try to answer that -- so why can't that question be asked?
    Where did it start? I don't know, but I don't mind thinking that there is a huge trail of discovery that we can follow. And I also don't mind thinking that there is an intelligent designer that keeps on designing.

  16. Jerome,
    Exactly! A "day" in the account of creation revealed in the Bible could realistically be a short explanation of evolution.
    ...Creation begets evolution begets creation begets evolution....
    ...God is I am God is I am....
    Peace to all!

  17. Your comment: "I, for one, do not buy either the ‘selfish’ or the ‘struggle-for-dominance’ metaphor. The more evidence I examine in virtually every scientific discipline, the more I grow convinced that life exists through a giant act of cooperation and that the leitmotif for all of nature is connection, rather than battle."
    As I've studied and written about the world around me since I was a child - the world and life in it so support your outlook. Thanks for adding your awareness of science and history. Blessings, Kim

  18. It seems everything is theory. What may have been definitive yesterday is re- defined today.
    And the more we learn the less we seem to know.
    I just take it all with a pinch of salt and don,t sweat the small stuff. How many sugars ?

  19. In the BBC documentary, Did Darwin killed God?, the narrator pitted the American religious fundamentalist against the neo-Darwinists. Like the conflict between Islam and non-Islam elements, I cannot see a solution to the problem of differing world views. Will it take Armageddon to resolve the issue as the Bible/Qur’an suggests?
     John Wong

  20. G'day Lynne, there is one aspect of this debate that seems to be the stumbling block for mainstream 'scientists'. Until they can accept and incorporate into their thinking the idea that there is a 'non-physical/supernal' component or dimension that you identified and described in "The Field",we will not get the changes that are needed to begin the transformation from 'man' as we know him to 'femas' as I perceive them.
    Keep up the good work and have a look at my web site, after all you have a part responsibility for it's existence. Yours in Wholiving. Alex.

  21. Thank you, Lynne, for bringing us back to truth, whenever the scientific strays away from it.
    Much of the scientific arguments seem to me to take what 'we want' instead of what 'we need' to formulate their theories. To take it to a simple level, Peter Senge wrote a seminal book, The Fifth Discipline - The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, exploring systems thinking for organizational learning and development. In it he talks of two types of complexity, 'Detail Complexity' and 'Dynamic Complexity'. 'Detail Complexity' is what most or almost all perceive as what is not right - in a linear cause and effect chain of this causes that - and try to find solutions to improve systems and processes. Thus, he says today’s problems are the result of yesterday’s solutions. Cause and effect do not reside in close proximity as links of a chain, but can be far removed in distance and time, which is what he says is ‘Dynamic Complexity’. It requires us to consider the interrelationship, interaction and interdependence of factors and events, both internal and external, and that systems and processes have to be continuously transformed to keep up with changing and evolving conditions. Lack of appreciation of such complexity and a lack of transformation of systems and processes has led to the downfall of many an organization. He postulates that the language we use is even too limited for intelligent dialogue about systems complexity and that we need to develop and learn a new language we can use to do so.
    Organizations and political systems are only tiny components of this vast universe, which has been created by an intelligence may be hundreds or thousands or may be more times intelligent than the tiny self-seeking, fearful human intelligence. I have come to believe that even our conception of this powerful intelligence - or God as some of us might choose to call it - is based on our own perception of managers in organizations who create systems and processes and have to look over peoples’ shoulders to see if they are following our dictates and correct/punish them. What our tiny minds are unable to appreciate is that there is a vast intelligence which could create processes that could be self-sustaining and self-correcting without this creator having to act as earthly managers do. What we possibly fail to appreciate is that Darwin’s massive brain and mind which postulated the theory of natural selection was only tiny as compared to this creative intelligence and was only seeing ‘Detail Complexity’ and if at all it appreciated ‘Dynamic Complexity’, possibly only a small part of it. Is it possible that Darwin himself failed to appreciate how this vast intelligence would have created systems and processes that would continue to adapt and transform themselves? I think we would do well to remember that our advancing scientific knowledge itself is realising that most humans have attained the ability to use only about 10%, may be a bit more in some cases, of our mind power.
    I recently had this thought come to me. Is use of human intelligence limited because it is a problem similar to organisations I have audited where a new equipment or procedure is introduced and staff are not provided adequate documented instructions or training leading to problems? Could the problem be that we have been given this amazingly complex equipment called a mind without an instruction manual, but there are excellent training scenarios being provided, which we fail to attend because we fail to appreciate their value?
    The real problem might be because we are always in debate, which is about winning and not about truth, and not dialogue, which requires us to suspend preconception based on the past and fear-based thinking of the future and being in the present, open to truth that may emerge.

  22. I think it was Nietsche who said that God is dead. Darwin never came to that conclusion.
    I think that when most people think of "intelligent design" they have a mental image of their god with a giant paint brush. It never seems to occur to anyone that the designer is the one being designed - that is, we are all designing ourselves and what it means to be human, how our environment should be. Evolution is a product of the conscious intent of our planet and its inhabitants.
    The fact that scientists can't get funding to study things that the government, the religious community, or industry doesn't find convenient or useful is another reflection of the capitalist system. It isn't worth studying if it doesn't result in profit. The bigger the industry, the larger the lobby, the more likely that any alternative explanation might affect their bottom line. Therefore, the greater their outcry against funding for the study of alternative explanations or treatments, etc. Curiousity is only considered worthwhile if it leads to profit. Maybe we need to do a collective intention to make all scientists, religious, industry leaders and governments be so overwhelmed with curiosity about the universe, our place in it, what effect we have on ourselves, and the physics of existence and non-existence, that they start increasing funding to scientists working on the cutting edge of quantum physics. Send an intention to make more people question what reality is, what it includes, and where and how do we fit in.

  23. It's funny how writers get mis-read. Nietzche said "God is dead," but his literature was extremely faith-filled. Most people have only read snippets of Darwin, Plato or Nietzche. They were all exploring ideas full of contradictions, truths and lies. So we all need to quit trying to place things in one final nutshell. Our genes are only part of the picture. Our more subtle spiritual energies are always in a dance with our genes--WE are DYNAMIC creatures--always changing. Just like the water experiment. To judge which or who is more "fit," is asinine. There are always more subtle patterns and energies at work, waiting to manifest. Scientists with their material building blocks are only playing with a few marbles.

  24. Please read 'Spontaneous Evolution' by Bruce Lipton & Steve Bhaerman together they lay out how people are actually genetically programmer to be 'Cooperative' and not competitive. Bruce has the background as a cellular scientist that it's always the environment that causes the evolutionary change and Steve has the political science background. Besides Darwin stole the theory of evolution from Alfred Russel Wallace anyway, so why does everyone give the boy with a 'silver spoon in his mouth' so much attention.
    Go back to Jean Baptiste Lamarck it' s his theory of evolution that needs to to be brought into the light again. Darwin flunked out of medical school and was going to become a minister as rich kids are prone to do in his time. He did write an interesting book on 'Worms' but make no mistake, he stole Alfred Russel Wallace's theory of evolution and put his name on it as the senior author and proceeded to take all the credit. So, acknowledge him for what he is a clever scientific thief! But no more..........

  25. Lynne you said "Nevertheless, scientists do not formulate their ideas in a vacuum, but usually reflect the cultural mores of their time."
    As does religion, finance, politics, etc, etc. There is no 'pure' opinion or motivation of any human being. To psychoanalyse Darwin to understand or dismiss his theory is as pointless as psychoanalysing Albert Einstein to understand or dismiss his.
    Science has been used incorrectly to support racism (particularly slavery), sexism, classism and every other 'ism' there is. But religion and politics did it first (and often those using false scientific 'proofs' were from a religious orthodoxy that supported that view in the first place).
    It is religious orthodoxy that is the biggest threat to freedom, liberty and democracy. Fundamentalists of the abrahamic faiths fight to undermine science everyday because science keeps pointing out that discrimination on race, sex, sexual orientation and class are not scientifically supportable. Why are they concerned with Darwin's Theory of Evolution but not Albert Einstein's theories on time and wormholes? Perhaps because Einstein says nothing on woman's role in society, or any other social organisation issue.
    That's the problem I have with you comparing science with facism. Which part of science? All of it? In what way is mathematics facist?
    At least scientists debate, analyse, and correct facts and theories - a lot more than the heads of all the major religions have every done or will do.
    And I agree with Melissa Milford's comment too!

  26. Charles Darwin was not an Athiest nor did he even use the word evolution in his first edition of; On Origin of Species.
    He was tormented in his mind religiously,tortured in his body from recurrent sickness,confused in his heart by nature and all its glorious beauty and depressed by his unscientific conclusions.
    I have read his fantasy forensically and counted 1515 SUPPOSITIONS and in spite of its influence on the western in particular teaches us relatively nothing of origins.
    He and his modern disiples; Richard Dawkins et al are; "The high priests of the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable."

  27. The evidence described in The Field, and the corroborating wisdom of traditional seers and sages as explained by Deepak Chopra, persuades us today that we are all connected. We are not individual creatures walking around entirely separate from each other. We live in a condition of continuous reciprocal influence. Telepathy, precognition, and telekinesis are experimentally established. Consciousness is a pervading influential presence in the world. Our genes receive constant messages from outside, through the cell membrane, as I believe Liston asserts. Our component waves and particles dance in orchestrated unison even when far distant from each other. Whatever the details, Darwin would have to reconsider his premises if he were here today and in possession of these experimentally confirmed findings. Isaac Newton would be delighted to deal with such a radically different set of givens.

  28. Since the universe as we know it is always moving, evolving, creating, never static, it is impossible to prove anything absolutely. However, it is possible, through responsible, ethical, and competent research and practice to reduce margins of error for the sake and benefit of our clients and toward social change.
    I spent parts of my life marginalized because I fell into categories that could be considered in the range of error. As a result, I was mistreated and demoralized. I believe there is room for error, but no excuse when it is intentionally ignored.
    What I'm finding through my studies and research is that there's more evidence of life in the margins of scientific error than in what's ever been proven. Is it possible that it's the error that drives the process of evolution itself?

  29. I agree with PhD Laslo ...why can't we be designed to evolve ? Of course then the radical right and many college professor's would be strugling to articulate ideas that just don't fit ...but as you know all to well Lynn damn the truth it doesn't fit my theory!

  30. I teach biology to high school freshmen. It's interesting to note that our curriculum emphasizes that, while genes are an important part of who and what a person is and becomes, nature is equally if not more important in the equation. So, I disagree with the premise of your article that science is pushing the idea that your genes are the be all and end all of what makes an individual.

  31. All too often I read that an acceptance of Darwinism means red tooth and claw competition = naked capitalism = bad, etc, etc. In fact, the very attributes necessary for survival demand connection and cooperation, thereby moderating the drive for "success" (in all its forms) that is, absolutely, necessary for us to evolve, in all our ways: physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

  32. Simple Observation #192
    Natural selection seems to be another term for the will of God operating in creation
    and evolution is the overall process through which It maintains this vital relation.
    Simple Observation #239
    There probably has never been anything made that someone hasn’t tried to make better
    so it is with God in nature, evolution and man; all the Scriptures are proof of the letter.

  33. If educational and experiential filters functioned somewhat on the order of genes per the epigenetics perspective then perhaps the periodic expressions of scientific and other fascisms manifesting and subsiding in a larger arena of generally cooperative connectedness could be perceived as bits of code being switched on and off by various shifts in environmental influence. Various patterns in social hierarchy, collaboration and collusion, cooperation and competition could also be viewed as a kind of episociology or epipoliticology. Thanks Lynne for being provocative as usual. Anybody remember the movie "The Little Big Man" with Dustin Hoffman? I'd love to have sat behind Mr. Darwin in a time-spanning special showing of this ironic social romp munching my popcorn eager to see if he cracked up or stomped out.

  34. I don't think that it is religious orthodoxy that is the biggest threat to freedom, liberty and democracy but rather the evil people who have hijacked or created the religious organisations of the past. The problem is that these same people like to have a bet both ways so they have also hijacked the scientific community. It's not really even about making money any more but just getting control of everything. That is why free thinkers are thrown out of churches or research institutions. I fully appreciate that the current incarnation of Darwinism is probably only loosely based on the actual teachings of Darwin (stolen from Wallace) much like the behaviour of the Catholic church is only loosely based on the teachings of Jesus. So the bad guys have hijacked the spiritual God and the scientific God just to cover both sides of the debate. I personally don't really care how we got here but am deeply concerned about where we are going. True clergy would never condone despotic government and true scientists would never discredit valid research. Like many things the people in the organisation are not bad but the effect of their inability to remain true to their cause is devastating to our society. Our debate about where we came from is probably just distracting us from debating where we should be going. Are we going to let insane organisations like Monsanto ruin the gene pool of our crops with Terminator 'tm' technology? Once a corporation completely owns the human genome will you have to pay a royalty to have a baby? We know undeniably that these things are happening now. Whitney Houston was full of crap when she sang "... the children are our future..." What a cop out. We are our children's future and if we don't create that future it will be created for us and our children.

  35. Join and send a letter to the Canadian PM. Rally for biodiversity and also demand better science and medicine. Learn about permaculture and go plant something, or lots of things, in your back yard that you can eat. Demand local produce. Write to your supermarket and tell them that you don't want fruit from china.


Why wait any longer when you’ve already been waiting your entire life?

Sign up and receive FREE GIFTS including The Power of Eight® handbook and a special video from Lynne! 

Top usercarttagbubblemagnifiercrosschevron-down