Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Now when you hear the word evolution, most people automatically think of Charles Darwin.
But Darwin didn’t invent evolution. Was he a plagiarist? This week on Creation Magazine LIVE!
Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE! My name
is Richard Fangrad and I’m Calvin Smith and our topic this week is: Was Darwin a plagiarist?
Charles Darwin is associated with evolution, did he originate that idea? That's what we are looking at this week...
Well that’s a strong question. And I guess one of the first things we should tackle
is: who cares? I guess! Whether he did it or not. A lot of people would say a lot of people have plagiarized other peoples works.
People accomplish science by standing on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before
them. Is this just a personal attack as we talk about things here today? Even if he was a plagiarist it doesn’t mean
that the theory of evolution isn’t true so why are we going to talk about it?
Well the thing is, many people have this idea that the theory of evolution was ‘discovered’
by this brave naturalist who went on a voyage of discovery that revealed overwhelming
evidence for evolution... The truth of evolution...it provides an opportunity today to re-examine the history of evolutionary
ideas more closely instead of just adopting the popular notion that evolution was this bombshell
that hit the world fully-formed for the first time in 1859, and was solely Darwin's idea,
and natural selection was this brainchild of Charles Darwin, and that he discovered
it by observing the facts of nature, we'll look at that as well. So one of the main reasons we’re going to explore
this question is to examine whether evolution just ‘fell out of the facts’ so to speak.
Another reason is to to see if this guy really deserves the praise and attention he is often given.
He is often claimed to be a great scientist, his face is on the British 10 pound note,
many people celebrate ‘Darwin Day’ and there is pressure to have it instituted as
a national holiday in some countries. We need to examine the difference between the popular
‘standing on the shoulder of the giants before you’ idea, which is legitimate, and
the outright copying of others work without giving them credit which is a different story. Expanding and exploring
the ideas of others is much different than simply duplicating them and claiming it was your
own. Hence our reasons for modern copyright laws, things like that… That would be bad...The idea of evolution is not a modern concept.
The ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Greeks and Romans all had ideas of millions
of years and/or biological evolution in some primitive form in their beliefs all without access to the facts commonly
held up today as proof of evolution. For example the geologic column, DNA, natural selection, radioisotope
dating things like that, ‘hominid’ fossils and so on. But the modern theory of biological evolution
probably was first developed by Charles De Secondat who lived from 1689–1755, who concluded
that quote; “...in the beginning there were very few kinds of species, and the number has ‘multiplied
since’ by natural means.” Right. Modern creationists probably wouldn't disagree with that but he was talking in an evolutionary way. Another important evolutionist was Benoit
de Maillet, whose book on evolution was posthumously published in 1748. In this book de Maillet
suggested that fish were the precursors of birds, mammals, and men. And another pre-Darwininan
scientist was Pierre-Louis Maupertuis who lived from 1698–1759, who in 1751 concluded
in his book that new species may result from the fortuitous recombination of different parts
of living animals. Alright, we'll continue on with these French names trying to *** their last names the best we can.
At about this same time, this is again, way before Darwin, the French encyclopedist,
Denis Diderot taught that all animals evolved from one primeval organism. This prototype
organism was fashioned into all those types of animals alive today via what we today call
natural selection. Another example, George Louis Buffon, who lived from 1707–1788 even expanded the idea
at length that “...the ape and man had a common ancestry” and, further, that all animals
had a common ancestor. And that's pretty much what modern evolution teaches today. Author Michael Macrone concluded that, although
Darwin put evolution on a firmer scientific basis, “ … he was hardly the first to
propose it. A century before Darwin the French naturalist Georges Buffon wrote extensively
on the resemblance among various species of birds and quadrupeds. Noting such similarities
and also the prevalence in nature of seemingly useless anatomical features (such as toes
on a pig), Buffon voiced doubts that every single species had been uniquely formed by
God on the fifth and sixth days of creation.” So obviously several people had evolutionary
ideas before Darwin, including a relative of his. When we get back we’ll look at the
Darwin before Darwin…
How can a lack of erosion undermine evolutionary ideas of long ages of earth history? Well, when geologists study the boundary between
two rock layers, they sometimes conclude that there was a significant time gap between when
the lower and upper rock layers were laid down.
However, many boundaries don’t show any evidence of elapsed time. The Grand Canyon
provides startling examples. One is where the Coconino Sandstone overlies the Hermit
Shale. The surface between these rock layers is remarkably flat and smooth—a ‘flat
gap’. Yet according to conventional geology, there is a 6 million year gap between these
rock layers. The underlying shale is a soft rock, so it should have eroded a lot if exposed
for this time. But the Hermit Shale doesn’t show this erosion. This shows that the upper
sandstone was deposited on the lower shale so quickly that there was not time for erosion
of the shale. Something is obviously wrong with the conventional
geological timescale. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International visit our website, creation.com.
If you’ve just tuned in, this week we are talking about… 'Was Darwin a plagiarist?' And we'll answer that shortly...
Now we’ve seen that there were several people
before Charles Darwin that proposed evolutionary ideas. Another author, A. De Vries is quoted
as saying this; “Evolution, meaning the origin of new species by variation from ancestor
species, as an explanation for the state of the living world, had been proclaimed before
Darwin by several biologists/thinkers, including the poet Johann Wolfgang Goethe in 1795, Jean-Baptiste
de Lamarck in 1809, and surprisingly to some, by Darwin’s grandfather, the physician-naturalist-poet-philosopher
Erasmus Darwin.” That's quite a title there actually. Erasmus proposed these ideas as well. Erasmus Darwin was one of the most important
pre-Darwinists. He was the Darwin before Darwin. He lived from 1731–1802 and he discussed his ideas at length in a
two-volume book that he produced called Zoonomia, published in 1794. So this wasn’t some obscure volume by the way, it sold
well, and was even translated into German, French, and Italian.
Biologist C. D. Darlington argued in Science magazine that, quote; “Erasmus Darwin ‘originated
almost every important idea that has since appeared in evolutionary theory’, including
natural selection.” While still a young man, Charles travelled to Edinburgh where
his grandfather had many admirers. While there, Robert Grant explained to Charles Darwin at
length Erasmus’ ideas on ‘transmutation’, as evolution was called back then. But Darwin never
once openly admitted that his grandfather had a major influence on his central ideas.
Some scholars even assert that Erasmus’ view was more well developed than Charles’ view.
British physicist and author Desmond King-Hele made an excellent case for the view
that Charles Darwin’s theory, even quote; “...in its mature form in the later editions of the
Origin of Species, is, in some important aspects, less correct than that of Erasmus”.
Both writers stressed that evolution occurred by the accumulation of small, fortuitous changes
that were selected by natural selection. Erasmus wrote that; “…in the great length of
time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the beginning of the
history of mankind … all warmblooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which
the great first cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended
with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and
thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and
of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity”.
So large sections in many of Charles Darwin’s books closely parallel Erasmus’ teachings.
King-Hele even claimed that the similarity between their works was so close that Darwin’s
grandfather, quote; “...had it all charted in advance for him”. Yet quote; “Charles persistently fails
to note the similarity … even the terminology and wording is remarkably similar to his grandfather’s
wording. An omission which sometimes leaves him open to criticism”. Of course that criticism would
be: plagiarism! One example of where the conclusions of Erasmus
Darwin were more advanced than those of Charles is that Charles evidently accepted
Lamarckian evolution to a greater extent than did Erasmus, a conclusion that proved to be
a major blunder for him actually. In explaining the evolution of the giraffe’s long neck, Darwin
accepted the validity of evolution by use and disuse although in this case he used natural
selection as the major explanation of giraffe neck evolution.
As King Hele says clearly for both Darwins, "...the theory of Evolution was no mere scientific
hypothesis but the very basis of life". It's a worldview. Another important pre-Darwinian thinker was
Robert Chambers who lived from 1802–1871. His book Vestiges of the Natural History of
Creation was first published in 1844. In a summary of this work, Scientist and author
F G Crookshank concluded that Chambers believed that the varieties of humans were a product
of evolutionary advances and regressions. And we’ll look at more pre-Darwin evolutionists
when we get back…
Creation Ministries International focuses on the Bible’s first book, Genesis and the creation/evolution issue. Many of our speakers
are scientists with PhDs who, before joining CMI were employed in various scientific fields.
Creation Ministries' speakers go to churches equipping and encouraging people
with the message of the truth and authority of the Bible, and its relevance to the real
world. To locate upcoming CMI events or inquire about
booking a speaker into your church visit creation.com.
Welcome back, on this week’s episode we are talking about; 'Was Darwin a plagiarist?' We have been discussing pre-Darwinian evolutionists
and we were just referencing Robert Chambers book Vestiges of the Natural History in the
last segment. Vestiges not only advanced an evolutionary hypothesis, but argued that the
natural world quote; "...could best be understood by appeal to natural law rather than by flight
to an intervening deity". Without Chambers’ book, Darwin admitted
that he might never have written The Origin of Species. M. Millhauser, echoes that in
his book, Just Before Darwin: Robert Chambers and Vestiges. He claimed that Chambers’
work was critically important in the Darwinian revolution for other reasons. One of those
was that Chambers’ popularizing of his own evolutionary theory in Vestiges helped prepare the way
for Darwin. Millhauser writes, concerning the popularity of Chambers’ book, middle-class
consumers "...took up the book with the same enthusiasm they felt for the latest novels..."
Vestiges went through four editions in only six months, and 10 editions only a
decade later. It is still in print today. So fiction sells apparently...Many radical reformers were especially enthusiastic
about the book but, ironically, scientists, quote; "...quite generally dismissed it as shoddy zoology
and botany". Oh dear...Nonetheless, Vestiges was read or discussed by most all segments of British
society. Equally important was the fact that Robert Chambers’ works were the stimulus
for Thomas Henry Huxley, who became ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ and one of the most active and
important of all of Darwin’s disciples. A big promoter... Yet another naturalist who discussed major
aspects of evolution, specifically natural selection, long before Darwin was Patrick
Matthew, whose influence was later acknowledged both by Darwin and Edward Blyth. According
to an American Scholar article Matthew actually quote; , “… anticipated Darwin’s main conclusions
by twenty-eight years, yet he thought them so little important that he published them
as an appendix to his book … and did not feel the need to give substance to them by
continuous work. Darwin’s incessant application, on the other hand, makes one think that he
had found in evolution and its related concepts, not merely a scientific theory about the world,
but a vocation … ." Yes it was a worldview really. The late best known evolutionist
Stephen J Gould notes that quote; "Matthew, still alive and vigorously kicking when Darwin published
the Origin, wrote to express his frustration at Darwin’s non-citation". In response
to Matthew’s evidently valid concern Darwin only "...offered some diplomatic palliation
in the historical introduction added to later editions of the Origin". Darwin also responded
to Matthew’s ire in the Gardener’s Chronicle for April 21 1860 as follows: "I freely acknowledge
that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the
origin of species, under the name of natural selection …". There we go...
This statement indicates Darwin’s guilt. Gould tries to justify Darwin with the excuse
that Darwin wasn’t aware of Matthew’s views on natural selection because they only
appeared in the appendix to Matthew’s book on timber and arboriculture.
This could well be, but does not justify the slight Matthew was given ever since. His influence
should be acknowledged today but instead he is basically totally ignored.
Loren Eiseley was an American anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science
writer, who taught and published books from the 1950s through the 1970s and spent decades
trying to trace the origins of the ideas commonly credited to Darwin. He summarized his conclusions
in a 1979 book titled Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X. Eiseley reached the conclusion that
Darwin quote; "Borrowed’ heavily from the works of others, and never publicly acknowledged
many of these people". According to Eiseley, one of these was English naturalist Edward
Blyth who lived from 1810–1873. A Christian...A creationist. He originated many of the ideas for which Darwin was given
credit. Eiseley demonstrated that Darwin was a plagiarist.
Now that's a pretty blatant claim and how could he say that? Well we’ll look at some startling and revealing
quotes from several researchers when we come back…
Is the human genome full of parasites? This might seem like a ridicules question but some
biologists claim that it is. The human genome project revealed that a large proportion
of human DNA is composed
of transposable elements. These DNA segments copy themselves and move around the
genome. Some scientists claim they serve no function and have dismissed them as parasitic
DNA. Some evolutionary scientists claim that similarities with chimps in these supposedly
useless bits prove evolution. But new research shows they have functions.
One study revealed that transposable elements activate during embryo development in mice,
to control gene expression. Another study showed that these elements concentrate in gene dense regions
to control gene expression. They are not spread randomly throughout the genome as previously
thought. So the human genome isn’t full of parasites after all, but
it's full of sophisticated ways to control gene expression.
For more information from Creation Ministries International visit our website, creation.com.
All right, welcome back our subject this week is: Was Darwin a plagiarist? Loren Eiseley who we just mentioned, an American anthropologist,
educator, philosopher, and natural science writer outright accused Darwin of plagiarism.
Here’s another author who reveals why, “No less a scientific giant than Charles Darwin
has been accused of failing to acknowledge his intellectual debts to researchers who
preceded him. Loren Eiseley, professor of anthropology and history of science at the
University of Pennsylvania until his death in 1977, came across the work of Edward Blyth,
a British zoologist and contemporary of Darwin. Eiseley argues that Blyth wrote on natural
selection and species evolution in two separate papers published in 1835 and 1837, years before
Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859. Eiseley details similarities in phrasing,
the use of rare words, and the choice of examples between Blyth’s and Darwin’s work. While
Darwin quotes Blyth on a number of points, he doesn’t reference Blyth’s papers that
directly discussed natural selection.” That’s amazing!
Even Darwin’s book, The Descent of Man published in 1871, Eiseley argues, was largely a repeat
of the ideas of others such as Carl Vogt’s 1864 book Lectures on Man. Eiseley states
that Darwin’s ideas on human evolution in this book were "...scarcely new".
Yes. In 1858, Alfred Russell Wallace sent Darwin a copy of his paper describing his
independently developed theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace described it
this way; “I was suffering from a sharp attack of intermittent fever, and every day
during the cold and succeeding hot fits had to lie down for several hours … . Then it
suddenly flashed upon me that … the fittest would survive. … I became convinced that
I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species. … I waited anxiously for the termination of my fit so that I might
at once make notes for a paper on the subject. The same evening I did this pretty fully,
and on two succeeding evenings wrote it out carefully in order to send it to Darwin".
He sent it to Darwin because they had started corresponding with each other a couple of years before
that. Now when Darwin received this, he was devastated.
On June 25, Darwin wrote to his friend Charles Lyell; "I should be extremely glad now to
publish a sketch of my general views in about a dozen pages or so; but I cannot persuade
myself that I can do so honourably. Wallace says nothing about publication, and I enclose
his letter. But as I had not intended to publish any sketch, can I do so honourably, because
Wallace has sent me an outline of his doctrine?" Realizing Darwin would be scooped Charles
Lyell and Sir Joseph *** immediately arranged for a joint presentation of Wallace’s paper
and an abstract of an unpublished essay by Darwin written in 1844 to be read at a meeting
of the Linnaean Society on July 1 1858. This was pretty sneaky because it was done without
the knowledge or permission of Wallace, but it assured Darwin of a chronological priority. Darwin got there first.
It also spurred Darwin into putting together and publishing, in November 1859, his major
work, On the Origin of Species. Wallace’s paper was entitled ‘On the Tendency
for Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type’. If Wallace had instead
sent it to a publisher, the world might now be talking about ‘Wallace-ism’ rather
than Darwin-ism! After his extensive study of Wallace and Darwin,
Author JL Brooks concluded that “Wallace’s ideas emerged as the core of Chapter 6 of
the Origin of Species", a chapter which Darwin cited as central to his work, but he never
once acknowledged Wallace. You know what this really reveals is that this idea of evolution is actually more of a worldview rather than just based on science etc.
And we've got a book that we carry called Charles Darwin's religious views and if you go to Creation.com and go to the webstore there you are going to be able to find that book
and if you put that book in your check out if you put in CMLCDRV you can get 30% off that book and I really encourage you to
read it because it really exposes that worldview centric...you know Charles Darwin had a religious view.
It was a 'no God' worldview. And we'll be back.
The reason that the Creation Answers Book is so popular is because covers a huge range of topics and
answers more than 60 of the most asked questions about Genesis and the creation evolution issue.
Questions like: What is the evidence for God existence?
Could the days in Genesis 1 be long period of time?
How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?
Does radioisotope dating prove that that earth is very old?
Where did Cain get his wife? Where do dinosaurs fit into the Bible?
…and many more. To order your copy visit Creation.com.
Our subject today was: Was Darwin a plagiarist? And I think we've seen some things that point to that. That's what other people have said, its widely recognized that all of the
major ideas on biological evolution that Darwin discussed predated his writings. Although
Charles Darwin was highly successful in popularizing the idea of organic evolution by natural selection,
especially among the scientific community, he wasn’t the originator of major parts
of the theory, as is commonly supposed. Nor was he the originator of those aspects of
evolution for which he’s most often is given credit. That would include natural selection and ***
selection. Yet, he implied that these and other ideas were his own creation.
In a study of Darwin, famous evolutionist Stephen J Gould concluded that quote; “Darwin
clearly loved his distinctive theory of natural selection—the powerful idea that he often
identified in letters as his dear 'child'. But, like any good parent, he understood limits
and imposed discipline. He knew that the complex and comprehensive phenomena of evolution could
not be fully rendered by any single cause, even one so ubiquitous and powerful as his
own brainchild.” Good evidence now exists to show that Darwin
‘borrowed’—and in some cases plagiarized—all or most of his ‘dear child’ from other
researchers, especially his grandfather. They weren't his own.
He basically just took from where he needed to, promoted them as his own theory,
And didn't give people credit where credit was due.
So why do a show like this? People, critics especially are going to say you are just picking on him and this is just an ad hominem, personal attack...
Right, so because he plagiarized does that mean evolution is wrong? No. That's not what we are saying
We are just trying to look at a popular myth and say this is a myth here. That Darwin did not originate this idea... Was he a great scientist?
Well he made great observations... But people had made those observations before, published them, so for example this idea of 'Darwin Day'...
You know atheists celebrate Darwin Day all over the world and they are trying to implement Darwin Day as a national holiday
It seems to be growing in popularity too...That's right, but usually we have holidays for people that are generally considered honorable.
That did something that was noteworthy, and really what we are seeing here is even evolutionists are saying when you really look at it, no,
when you actually look at the history here, and most people don't get taught this, I wasn't taught this in school,
and so on. So where do you even find out about this stuff? Because this isn't being popularized in any area other than... typically creationist are pointing these things out...
So yes, we just want to be honest here, we're not trying to say this proves evolution isn't true, but it does show that this shows that basically evolution is essential to atheism.
if you are an atheist you have to explain how you got here without God...We've done shows on this before...
and there have been atheists throughout history and so again it just shows that you know, scientists weren't jumping all over Darwin's conclusions at first
it was the atheists and the skeptics that were really popularizing, people like Huxley...they loved this kind of thing...
Yes and the book we just mentioned a few minutes ago, Charles Darwin's religious views, there is a religious component to evolution, atheists need to believe in evolution.
They often say they don't believe in anything, but...or they don't believe in a deity, but they have to believe in evolution and millions of years and of course you have written articles
on this. Right. And just to take their hero down here a couple of notches on this show...really, I guess that's what we've been trying to do.
We really need to look critically at some of these things, anyway...You can get a copy of Creation Magazine at Creation.com slash free-mag and you can get a free copy on which this show is based...
Next week we've got 'Humans with tails', next week on Creation Magazine LIVE! See you then...