Did Darwin plagiarize the Theory of Evolution?

[rogue06]

Some evolution deniers like to assert that Darwin plagiarized the Theory of Evolution. They often claim he stole the idea from Edward Blyth and revised it after reading the research conducted by Alfred Russel Wallace.

With respect to Blyth it should be noted that Darwin held him in high regard and cites him by name no less than five times in On the Origin of Species. In the second mention of him in the first chapter Darwin wrote: "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, ..."

Further, prior to Blyth there was William Wells, a physician who describe natural selection in a paper in 1818 and Patrick Matthew, a Scottish fruit grower who outlined it in 1831 -- both of whom Darwin openly acknowledged as an influence and even credited them with priority in later editions of the OOS

As to Wallace, he readily accepted Darwin's claim to priority and even entitled his major book on evolution Darwinism! IIRC, he even served as a pallbearer at Darwin's funeral. Kind of a funny reaction if he had been ripped off by Darwin don't you think?

Further, even AnswersinGenesis (AiG) admits there's no truth to the claim that Darwin plagarized either Blyth or Wallace concluding that "The conspiracy theorist also indulges in reasoning that is so farfetched that it ignores more rational and likely explanations" and "If Darwin had plagiarized, then that should surely be made known, but there is no evidence that he did so."

The claim that Darwin plagiarized Wallace rests primarily on a suggestion that Darwin sat on a letter sent from Wallace, including an essay in which he described his ideas, for about two weeks before passing it on to the geologist Charles Lyell as Wallace requested.

As Wallace's biographer Peter Raby exclaimed, "Never has an intriguing theory been built on slenderer evidence."

Now, new research looking into the shipping schedules of Wallace's letter to Darwin in 1858 has found "that Wallace’s letter and essay could not in fact have arrived sooner than 18 June, the very day that Darwin wrote to Lyell that he had received it."

This shows Darwin had no time to plagarize Wallace as his detractors have asserted.

[phank]

What all this makes clear is, this is an idea whose time had come, because the accumulating evidence had reached a sort of critical mass. And as I recall, the history of science is full of these cases. It's not easy to find a single significant scientific breakthrough, where two or more scientists working independently didn't come up with the same thing at about the same time.

[pancreasman]

This kind of thing, like the ridiculous Lady Hope invention, like 'Nazis thought Darwin was cool', show how fundamentally creationists misunderstand the process of science. They think it works by authority, like religion. 'We can destroy evolution by bringing Darwin down.' Ludicrous. If you belong to a cult, and we can demonstrate that your guru is a hypocrite or worse, then that certainly taints your cultic beliefs, predicated as they are on the character of your guru. Science, on the other hand, is about ideas rather than people. If Hitler himself came up with the germ theory of disease (note: he didn't) then the IDEA of the germ theory of disease stands and falls on the evidence and how well the theory performs.

[Tiggy]

This kind of thing, like the ridiculous Lady Hope invention, like 'Nazis thought Darwin was cool', show how fundamentally creationists misunderstand the process of science. They think it works by authority, like religion. 'We can destroy evolution by bringing Darwin down.' Ludicrous. If you belong to a cult, and we can demonstrate that your guru is a hypocrite or worse, then that certainly taints your cultic beliefs, predicated as they are on the character of your guru. Science, on the other hand, is about ideas rather than people. If Hitler himself came up with the germ theory of disease (note: he didn't) then the IDEA of the germ theory of disease stands and falls on the evidence and how well the theory performs.

Not that anything Creationists think is fathomable, but I never understood why they still have such a fascination with personal attacks on Darwin. Geez, the guy's been dead for over 125 years, and OOS is over 150 years old. Is he still a threat?

It's like trying to prove heavier-than-air flight today is impossible by showing Wilbur and Orville Wright mistreated their dog.

- T

[lao tzu]

Wilbur and Orville Wright mistreated their dog.

That tears it. I'm never getting on an airplane again.

[phank]

Not that anything Creationists think is fathomable, but I never understood why they still have such a fascination with personal attacks on Darwin. Geez, the guy's been dead for over 125 years, and OOS is over 150 years old. Is he still a threat?

It's like trying to prove heavier-than-air flight today is impossible by showing Wilbur and Orville Wright mistreated their dog.

- T

I think pancreasman has it right. In religion, there simply is no objective reality-based authority available as an arbiter. If one ecclesiastic thinks 42 angels can dance on a pinhead, and other claims there's no upper limit to the angel count, how can this dispute be resolved, except by following the authority you trust more? So from the religious perspective, what Darwin wrote was a religious text, and an important part of textual analysis is to evaluate the character of the text's author. Since the text in question was NOT written by God, and is known to dispute God's Holy Word, the author's character MUST be terrible.

So we have creationists arguing that
1) Darwin got it all wrong, but
2) Others got it right before Darwin did, and he stole it.

The argument doesn't need to be correct, consistent or logical. It only needs to undermine the threatening religious text.

[magellan004]

I think pancreasman has it right. In religion, there simply is no objective reality-based authority available as an arbiter.

A strange comment.
In an atheist (non-religious) world there are only two sources of information - one of which is another person. You seem to be saying 'For an atheist, another person represents an objective, reality based authority.'

If one ecclesiastic thinks 42 angels can dance on a pinhead, and other claims there's no upper limit to the angel count, how can this dispute be resolved, except by following the authority you trust more?

Weird comment.
So atheists don't follow the authorities they trust?

The sorry truth for the atheist is that they ignore the only authority that is real.

Magellan

[NeilUnreal]

What all this makes clear is, this is an idea whose time had come, because the accumulating evidence had reached a sort of critical mass. And as I recall, the history of science is full of these cases. It's not easy to find a single significant scientific breakthrough, where two or more scientists working independently didn't come up with the same thing at about the same time.

OT, but this is one of my main complaints about the current patent system. At some point, almost every invention becomes inevitable. Patents are about allowing inventors to capitalize on truly novel inventions that took significant research effort, not about granting monopolies on commons to those with the fastest legal teams.

-Neil

[phank]

A strange comment.
In an atheist (non-religious) world there are only two sources of information - one of which is another person. You seem to be saying 'For an atheist, another person represents an objective, reality based authority.'

No, to a sane person, another person is always a secondary source of what's real, and a primary source of their own opinion. And therefore when two people hold different opinions, and there are no clues in reality to decide between them, one has little choice but to accept either one, or neither, of these opinions. Contrast this with science, where two people can present conflicting interpretations of the same data - which happens all the time. But the differences suggest EMPIRICAL TESTS, which will determine which opinion is correct and which is wrong. In religion, there's no wrong, there are only different groundless assertions.

Weird comment.
So atheists don't follow the authorities they trust?

The sorry truth for the atheist is that they ignore the only authority that is real.

No, you have it backwards. Atheists appeal to REALITY (look it up), not to imaginary • Edited by a Moderator • And this is the whole point. One claim may seem more plausible than another, and nobody can be an expert on everything, but ultimately even the genuine experts must base their claims on empirical tests and replicable observations, which meet the requirements of intersubjective validation.

The problem with believing that a figment of your imagination is "the only authority that is real", as you have demonstrated, is that you are following the authority of a fool, and can't see it.

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

Blasphemy isn't allowed. Watch your language.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[magellan004]

No, to a sane person, another person is always a secondary source of what's real, and a primary source of their own opinion. And therefore when two people hold different opinions, and there are no clues in reality to decide between them, one has little choice but to accept either one, or neither, of these opinions. Contrast this with science, where two people can present conflicting interpretations of the same data - which happens all the time. But the differences suggest EMPIRICAL TESTS, which will determine which opinion is correct and which is wrong. In religion, there's no wrong, there are only different groundless assertions.

I had hoped for a reply that would move beyond meaningless labels.
'objective, reality based authority'. and now 'Empirical'.
All you are doing is asserting 'Your (the other party's) view is not-empirical based, nonobjective and based on an unreal authority. My (Phank's) view is based on label, label, label).

No, you have it backwards. Atheists appeal to REALITY (look it up), not to imaginary • Edited by a Moderator • And this is the whole point. One claim may seem more plausible than another, and nobody can be an expert on everything, but ultimately even the genuine experts must base their claims on empirical tests and replicable observations, which meet the requirements of intersubjective validation.

The problem with believing that a figment of your imagination is "the only authority that is real", as you have demonstrated, is that you are following the authority of a fool, and can't see it.

Again - All you are doing is asserting that which is in contention - that your view is based on something other than another person's account.

'Your (the other party's) view based on imagination. My (Phank's) view is based on label, label, reality, label).'

That's pretty shallow.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

Another thread ruined by someone who thinks their poor vocabulary skills reflect deep reality.

[phank]

Clearly, mags thinks "reality" is a buzzword that means whatever he wants it to mean. So concepts like "empirical" and "evidence" and "validation" become just noise. I seriously doubt this is a vocabulary issue.

[magellan004]

Clearly, mags thinks "reality" is a buzzword that means whatever he wants it to mean. So concepts like "empirical" and "evidence" and "validation" become just noise. I seriously doubt this is a vocabulary issue.

In religion, there simply is no objective reality-based authority available as an arbiter.

All I am asking you to do is to explain that quote.
1. Is your authority a person or a machine?
2. If your authority is another person who tells you something then how would you know whether that authority-person is objective? (The only possible answer is 'I believe they are objective')

And just to speed things along -
Let's say Person A claims 'My authority is objective because there is evidence.'
and Person B claims, 'No, my authority is objective because there is evidence' - who's authority would you (Phank) suggest decides the issue?

Magellan

[Tiggy]

All I am asking you to do is to explain that quote.
1. Is your authority a person or a machine?
2. If your authority is another person who tells you something then how would you know whether that authority-person is objective? (The only possible answer is 'I believe they are objective')

Phank: "there is no objective authority"

Clownshoes: "why do you say your authority is objective?"



Off to Planet Clownshoes we go again....

- T

[phank]

Let's say Person A claims 'My authority is objective because there is evidence.'
and Person B claims, 'No, my authority is objective because there is evidence' - who's authority would you (Phank) suggest decides the issue?

Wrong question. And I already answered the right question.

But once more for the road: This situation is in fact the normal condition at the leading edge of scientific research in all fields. At that edge, what's being investigated is pretty much unknown, certainly not well understood. Nobody is really sure if there's anything there at all, or what observations might be relevant, or exactly how to take them. So, looking at the spotty, ambiguous, hopelessly incomplete suggestions that are all that's available as "evidence", different researchers propose different hypotheses. NOTE that ALL these researchers understand that there actually IS an objective answer in reality, just as they all understand that nobody is close to finding it yet. Fortunately, each hypothesis is testable, and even failed tests produce more observations that may be relevant. And so, test by test, scientists gradually triangulate in on the underlying reality. As they do so, hypotheses get more accurate, observation and measurement techniques get more appropriate, and the explanation process accelerates. Eventually, everyone agrees, because all are looking at a solid, coherent, consistent body of appropriate observations.

And all of this is presented in stark contrast to matters of faith and opinion not subect to empirical testing. The reason there are well over 30,000 Christian sects is, there are over 30,000 ways of interpreting exactly the same text, sufficiently different so that schisms occurred. And whereas in science everyone ends up with the same understanding and are in agreement, in religion there is NO WAY to do this, because there simply IS no objective "right" interpretation of ambiguous scripture. There are only different opinions, leading to arguments, leading to splits into warring camps. Where a claim is objectively right or wrong based on reality, eventually one is found right and the other is found wrong. Where a claim has no basis in reality, there is no way to test it.

Maybe the simplest way to put it is, if your authority MUST be a person, then you have a pure opinion claim. If your authority can be reality itself, you have a testable claim. In science, conflicting claims can be resolved objectively. In religion, they can't.