On 29 January 2008 Stephen Black wrote of the book by Adrian Desmond and James Moore >In their latest work, recently reviewed in _New Scientist_, >(http://tinyurl.com/btqrfo) they advance the thesis that Darwin > was driven to his magnificent theory by his abhorrence of slavery.
>If Desmond and Moore are right about Darwin's motivation...[...] This "If" raises some interesting general issues, and also ones specific to Desmond and Moore. Their biography of Darwin is in many ways remarkably comprehensive, but I have serious reservations about it. A characteristic of the book that struck me forcefully is the authors' propensity to place snippets of quotations within their own sentences (often then augmented by their own words carrying an implicit slant) in such a way that it was not clear if the notion or sentiment being expressed was that of the person quoted, or was their own interpretation of a person's position, or of events. This enables them to make an ostensibly strong case for the viewpoint they are taking on the material in question, but leaves me with a feeling of unease that what I'm getting is for the most part the authors' spin on events and motivations. (In their introductory chapter they indicate their guiding biographical principle is to "trace the political roots of [Darwin's] key ideas" and their view that "we have to see him as part of an active Whig circle".) Joseph Carroll, author of books on evolutionary theory and literature, evidently had a similar view of the book to mine (though, I suspect, considerably more informed). In a 1998 review of three biographies of Darwin in the Times Literary Supplement he wrote that "Desmond and Moore very frequently wrench quotations wholly out of context, and not seldom wander off into historical fiction and fantasy, presented as fact." A somewhat similar view is taken by John van Whye in a wide-ranging article on the dangers of confirmation bias in Darwin biography for the Notes and Records of the Royal Society (see, e.g., pp. 181 and 183): http://darwin-online.org.uk/pdf/2007_MindtheGap_A544.pdf If I may strike a personal note here, in my book *Seductive Mirage* I took care to provide full quotations from Freud before discussing or assessing them. I know only too well how easy it is, by tendentious selecting and/or truncating quotations, or omitting the context, to make an apparently plausible case if one is seeking to 'confirm' a notion one is proposing. This is exemplified by Jeffrey Masson's highly tendentious, but widely believed, contentions about the seduction theory episode in Freud's early career: http://www.esterson.org/Myth_of_Freuds_ostracism.htm http://human-nature.com/esterson/addendum.html So, going back to that "If" of Stephen's in relation to Desmond and Moore's new book, I don't doubt that they make a plausible case, but also am aware that the confirmation bias that I believe is a strong feature of their biography of Darwin means that I would be wary of taking their contentions at face-value. (Here's an interesting thesis about what ultimately spurred Darwin's researches. Oh, no, it was not a burning interest in geology and natural history, nothing so straightforward. There *must* be a socio-political explanation at root - like there used to be a propensity to find psychoanalytic explanations for such things - so let's go through the available material and confirm our notion.) Reference: Review of three books: John Bowlby's Charles Darwin: A New Life, Adrian Desmond's and James Moore's Darwin, and Janet Browne's Charles Darwin: Voyaging, TLS (Times Literary Supplement), no. 4951 (February 20, 1998): pp. 8-9. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ******************************************* Subject: Re: Darwin, Science, and Religion From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:48:01 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 29 Jan 2009 at 21:36, Gerald Peterson wrote: > As Darwin's birthday approaches perhaps some--even in psychology > classes, may have class discussions relevant to the role of science, > evolution, and religion? <snip> Sometimes the question about the > relation between science and religion surfaces<snip>Here is a review > that suggests the culture wars in this area will likely continue: www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472 The review is partly of a book titled "Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution" The title reminds me that one of the chief arguments advanced in favour of organized religion is that it is claimed to provide moral direction as opposed to the Godless (and therefore amoral) worldview of evolutionists. Consequently, it's interesting that a new major work on Darwin has just been published, by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, authors of an earlier significant biography of the great man. In their latest work, recently reviewed in _New Scientist_, (http://tinyurl.com/btqrfo) they advance the thesis that Darwin was driven to his magnificent theory by his abhorrence of slavery. Today we consider opposition to slavery a moral position of the highest degree. If Desmond and Moore are right about Darwin's motivation, it's remarkable to think that Darwin held such views at a time when most, including many religious authorities, defended the practice of slavery. It would be a challenge for those who argue there is no morality without religion to explain how a man they consider Godless and who created the ultimate Godless theory, could nevertheless be so enlightened and moral in his views. As the review notes, "Darwin was not a dispassionate scientist, he was a passionate humanitarian". Desmond, A., and Moore, J. (2009). Darwin's sacred cause: How a hatred of slavery shaped Darwin's views on human evolution. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
