Defending the Paradigm

People friendly to the theory of evolution have spent the past 150 plus years creating and defending Darwinian myth. A major part of this project has been to promote Darwin as an original thinker. To do this people have had to lie and deceive people as to the truth. The most prominent victim of this process has been the creationist Edward Blyth.

Quotes and comments;

1. "May not then, a large proportion of what are considered species have descended from a common parentage?" - Edward Blyth [1837]
- Although Charles Darwin stole the idea of natural selection  and despite the fact this is well attested and well known by scholars, he is still given credit for it. In the 1830s a man by the name of Edward Blyth published articles on natural selection; these articles were read by CD and he annotated them in his own handwriting. It was one of these articles (published Jan/1837) that caused CD to begin his famous notebook/s on evolution. Despite all this CD never gave Blyth any credit for the idea, nor did he (at first) even mention him. From the very start he took credit for the idea, and called the theory of evolution he outlined in the Origins ''his'' theory.

From the very start scholars have known this, and people friendly to E. theory have gone along with the game and given credit to Darwin despite his obvious and flagrant plagiarism. In a recent book on Darwin's predecessors Rebecca Stott doesn't even mention Blyth; doesn't even give him a mention in the book... although she mentions most other figures in this story. (i.e. the idea of evolution thru the ages.)

- Despite the fact Loren Eiseley (an e.) wrote a book on Blyth and his influence on Darwin Stott deliberately refuses to mention him. This isn't a matter of ignorance but a deliberate attempt on her part to rewrite history, to present a mythical version of reality.
Q. "Why would she do this?
A. "People who are especially hostile to any idea of creation (and Stott is one such person) don't want creationists to get any credit for anything. They see the fact Blyth came up with the idea of natural selection as especially unfortunate and especially dangerous.
Q. "Why?
A. "According to textbook orthodoxy, natural selection [NS] is the very core of modern e. theory. To give credit for it to Blyth means that it's entirely wrong to say creationists don't come up with important ideas; it means it's wrong to say creation can't lead to good ''scientific'' ideas... and these people refuse to allow the public to consider such a ''heretical'' view. Stott (and others obviously) is very willing to rewrite history and to present a myth in its place to further this project.

- We see in the divinization of Darwin by supporters of E. theory that there is no reason to believe they're being honest about the subject of origins, and much reason to believe they're engaged in lying, deceit and obfuscation.

Notes; 02/04/2013

1. Darwin and the mysterious Mr. X - Loren Eisley [1979]
- a wonderful read, by a great writer.
2. Stott's book is a farce from beginning to end. e.g. despite promises she skates lightly (very lightly) over the ancients... apparently in an effort to present evolution as a scientific idea rather than what it is, a philosophical idea.
- I abandoned the book quite early, in disgust, but the index shows no reference to Blyth or to Eiseley. (She does have 6 references to "book burnings'' however... all the while she's engaged in a version of one herself.)
- Ch. 1. (Darwin's list) pretends to cover all the ''modern day'' precursors to e. theory... but does not mention Blyth. The list was added to later additions after CD had been rebuked for ignoring earlier writers on evolution. (If you want to know what kind of ''character'' CD had, consider the fact he had the audacity to disavow any influence from his grandfather.)
- I'm not aware of any collection of Blyth's work... and it's easy to imagine why. i.e. Darwin's supporters want his work ignored and utterly forgotten. (We see here an example of how science is done; one does everything one can do publicize views one is friendly toward, and buries opposing views. How anyone can pretend science is neutral is astounding. It's anything but.)
- to promote the myth of evolution as a scientific idea Stott begins with Aristotle... though this isn't even remotely the origin of the idea. (She curiously claims Darwin never read Aristotle or Epicurus. Even if we could believe this claim most other scholars of his day did.)
3. We're told continually be the champions of scientism that ''science is self-correcting'' but here's an instance where it is not. In fact the situation is worse now than it was when Eiseley published his book.
4. It's too bad our evangelical supporters of e. haven't read Eiseley's book.
Q. "How do you know they haven't?
A. "I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
- Anyone who knows the truth of this case can only be repelled by such grotesqueries as "Darwin Day'' in the churches.
5. Daniel Dennett, in one of the most absurd statements I've ever read, claims Darwin was the greatest scientist who ever lived.... but perhaps he meant the greatest plagiarist and was misquoted.