You are here:   Civilisation >  Books > The Evolution of Darwin
 

Central to their argument is a re-reading of Darwin's over-looked and misunderstood The Descent of Man, published in 1871. Buoyed by the success of the Northern States in the recent Civil War, it was only now that Darwin finally felt able to publish compelling evidence that the "separate races" theory, which had under-written African slavery on American soil, was bunkum. Far from being a distinct, and potentially inferior, species, the black man (and, indeed, the brown, yellow and red one too) was the literal brother of the top-hatted Anglo-Saxon.

Ironically, the Anglican clergy who had been so appalled by the way that Origin of Species had dismantled Genesis over a decade earlier had been closer to the evolutionary truth than they might have liked to believe. We were all, it turned out, descended from a metaphorical Adam and Eve.

Desmond and Moore have written a stunning book, deftly incorporating new sources without becoming clunky. Just as importantly, they demonstrate biography's usefulness as a way of understanding the history of ideas as an embodied phenomenon. For all that "Darwinism" had become an over-arching system by the 1930s, it was still the product of one man's mind, a man with a bad stomach, a cultural aversion to slavery, and a lapsed Anglican's belief in the spiritual equality of all men. It was out of this particular nexus that Darwin pursued his investigations into the origins of life, and it is only by paying proper attention to it, suggest the authors, that we can avoid the kind of ahistorical fallacy in which a man born 200 years ago somehow becomes a cheerleader for Hitler's Final Solution.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
C D Rossini Jr
November 30th, 2010
5:11 AM
Despite the furies, the argument has not moved from where it was in Darwin's time; a general acceptance that there was some evolution via heredity married to a widespread distrust that random natural selection is a meme powerful enough to account for the complexity and range of the manifest and paleontological flora and fauna. Will it be the same in 2160?

Dr Paul Miller
February 7th, 2009
11:02 AM
"Charles Darwin, like everything else on this planet, has evolved" But evolved into what? A psuedo-religion? A mythical master narrative? Evolution is certainly not anything empirical science can recognise. This is a pity as as she is aware of Darwin's success (identifying adaptation to account for variation of species) and his failure to provide a convincing master story for the sophistication and variety of life. The final sentences suggest that it's Kathryn Hughes who is denial. Science can and must find better explanations - or the ground will be vacated to pseudo-science and mysticism. Wishful thinking is little help to us here.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.