Darwin's Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished by Robert F. Shedinger

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Has anyone here read the book Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished by Robert F. Shedinger published by the Discovery Institute in February, 2024? I am writing a book review of it for print publication and, although I am only a little more than a third of my way through the book I am frankly aghast at attacks the author makes against Darwin, without any evidence. He claims to have gleaned the evidence from reading Darwin’s letters and letters from others to Darwin, and he quotes many excerpts from letters he claims support his arguments, but all I see are conjectures with large gaps in logic.

The basic premise of the book is that Darwin published The Origin of Species, which was JUST an abstract, with the promise of a much larger book later that would provide a more complete recounting of the evidence that supported Darwin’s theory of natural selection, but then Darwin kept dallying and never actually published the larger book. The author claims that this is because Darwin knew he did not have the evidence he promised he had and therefore was afraid to publish the book, making the “abstract” (i.e., The Origin of Species) as a bluff;. In other words, Darwin was really making an elaborate con to make himself famous.

To build his argument he spends several chapters basically showing how Darwin was first more interested in geology, but because he could not seem to make a name for himself there, he moved on to natural history, where he then had his great idea for natural selection. He makes a big deal about Darwin being so sick all the time, and implies that Darwin was actually more a hypochondriac and just used his general poor health as a way to make excuses for his failures and inability to get around to writing his big magnum opus on evolution, when, in fact, he wasn’t getting around to writing it because he knew he lacked the evidence to support his grand theory.

The author also spends a lot of time making a case that Darwin was no real scientist (he only had the equivalent of a BS degree) and generally was very amateurish in his approach to research, even faulting Darwin for having some of his nephews and nieces collect plants for him when they were even more rank amateurs than him. Throughout the book all of the judgements he makes about Darwin lack compelling evidence, although he claims it is all clear from the letter excerpts he shares.

So, just wondering if anyone else has read the book and what your impressions are. I am so far not at all impressed. He seems to be trashing Darwin and The Origin of Species so that he can say, “see, evolutionary theory is just a bunch of unsubstantiated bunk first perpetrated by Darwin,” the consummate Victorian con man.

2 Likes
2

And Shedinger’s contribution to science is … what? Pretty rich criticism coming from a writer who holds an undergraduate in engineering and PhD in religious studies.

What is it with the creationist fixation on Darwin, given that his basic ideas have been further developed by generations of biologists since? There seems to be this founder concept that Darwin is to evolution what St. Paul is to the doctrines of Christianity, and if he can be discredited, then modern science would collapse. The creationist mindset seems conditioned to view science through the lens of authority and rhetoric, as is sanctioned in the magisteria of systematic theology. Whatever Darwin’s historical importance, current biology is based on the present state of evidence, including a far more extensive fossil catalog, a wider understanding of mechanisms beyond natural selection, and molecular biology unavailable at the time of The Origin of Species. One would not disparage the findings of the JWST based on some contention with Galileo, and slandering Darwin does nothing to cast doubt on the history of life.

6 Likes
3

That’s standard practice today. Has this author looked at results from citizen science projects like eBird, eButterfly, iNaturalist, amateur fossil collecting, etc., etc.?

5 Likes
4

Exactly my feelings. I even highlighted that section and wrote myself a note wondering whether he had ever heard of citizen science. He is showing his scientific naivete. Citizen science has been a boon to research, so Darwin was smart to use the same approach, not amateurish. How condescending, and this author is not even a scientist himself. Maybe I should ask him why he thinks he qualifies to write a book like this about science? :wink:

4 Likes
5

It seems to be common in creationist circles for theologians to write “science” books defending creationism and showing where evolutionary biologists have gone wrong. They seem to feel obligated to do this, since no scientists who are Christians are willing to step up to the plate (obviously a few do, but not many). Maybe there is a reason why Christian scientists aren’t writing such books, you think?

That certainly seems to be his attitude. I am just waiting for what he does later in the book. I am going to bet that he will claim that modern evolutionary biologists are just perpetuating the con, and everyone is still waiting for the evidence that proves natural selection works well enough to have produced the tree of life.

4 Likes
6

Maybe it’s because it seems a more viable cause to be at war with the ostensible founder of something rather than admitting to being at war with the known facts themselves.

4 Likes
7

Of course, the tone of the book is anticipated, as it is published by the Discovery Institute, well known for its anti-evolutionary stance, but should be reviewed on its own merits.
To criticize Darwin for not fleshing out his proposals is disingenuous at best, as at his time, their was no knowledge of DNA, and so no knowledge of mutations or even the basics of inheritance, Mendal’s groundbreaking work with peas was not released u til 1965, and took a while to be fully appreciated. The fossil record was far less complete than it is today. Even in the field of geology, while it was appreciated that the world was ancient, it was unknown how truly old it was as modern dating techniques were not available. In short, that makes the insight of Darwin all the more remarkable, putting together the basic framework of evolution from the rudimentary information he had at hand. While his ideas have been refined and modified, it is amazing how our new discoveries in biology, paleontology, and geology have confirmed his general proposals. To criticize Darwin for not having a more complete theory, is like criticizing Newton for his lack of knowledge and not incorporating quantum mechanics in his discussions about gravity.

6 Likes
8

WHAT???

An abstract is usually 1-3 paragraphs (at least in modern times). The first edition Origin of Species published in 1859 was 257 pages. You can read the first edition multiple places online:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm

It’s also filled with evidence, such as the evidence from classification and biogeography. Here is a breakdown of the book:

I’m at a loss for words if Shedinger is actually trying to claim that Origin of Species is just an abstract, and that Darwin had no evidence. Flat Earthers are more believable.

That’s like nitpicking Principia as a way of trying to discredit modern physics. Theories rise or fall based on data, not what Darwin said over 150 years ago.

Added in edit:

An example of what is still one of the most profound pieces of evidence for the theory of evolution:

6 Likes
9

We often have undergraduate summer interns who run experiments that end up in peer reviewed papers. Data is data. There’s no step in the scientific method that says, “First, get a degree”. If the science is good it doesn’t matter what the letters after your name are.

4 Likes
10

Keep in mind that right in the first pages of The Origin of Species Darwin calls it an abstract. As an extra credit activity I hold what a call a Darwin Readings book club, where we all read a few chapters a week of the book and then get together to discuss it. The students all laugh when they see Darwin calling it an abstract, and then I explain to them the change in the usage of the word since the Victorian era. Back then “abstract” is basically a synonym for extract, essentially meaning that The Origin of Species was a shorter, abridged version of the in progress larger work. Darwin was working on a much larger, potentially 3 volume version, of the book, which was never published as a unit. The first half of that material was later published as Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (1868). The remaining portion was eventually published in 1975 and you can see that here: https://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1583&pageseq=1

And as for evidence, no, he did not have any clear evidence from nature, but it is hardly appropriate to fault him for that. Without any understanding of genetics it is pretty tough to explain why natural selection works, as there is no model for what mutations are or how they are passed down. The Modern Synthesis has now supplied the missing evidence, and although Darwin’s theory, as expressed at the time, had its flaws, it was an excellent starting point, regardless what this author claims, and Darwin was no con man.

3 Likes
11

He had the nested hierarchy which remains one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for evolution. In addition, Darwin had the evidence of geographic distribution of species and distribution of vestigial features.

It isn’t tough at all, and Darwin did a pretty good job of explaining it, citing artificial selection of domestic breeds as evidence.

2 Likes
12

Exactly. And a very fine book could be written about why Darwin’s book has many flaws and he lacked the basic evidence from nature and had no underlying mechanism he could identify that drove the process. I had some hope the book might approach the topic that way, and go on to show why Darwin’s work was left largely neglected through the first half of the 20th century because no one had yet applied genetic principles to the theory. Once population genetics came along in the latter half of the 20th century there was a resurgence of interest in natural selection which gave evolutionary biology stronger footing. That kind of revisionism is needed, but, of course, knowing more about the development of the theory over time means you can’t just beat up Darwin and figure you have conquered evolutionists, so such an approach would not be in this author’s best interest.

Even with the neglect of Darwin’s theory earlier in the 20th century, sadly his ideas about artificial selection were applied to the human population in the form of eugenics. I know the Discovery crowd loves to blame Darwin for that too, but it is more Galton’s bailiwick.

2 Likes
13

Just wait for it. He promises to battle contemporary evidence later in the book. I can’t wait.

1 Like
14

Which also was not understood without genetics. No one knew the mechanism behind the production of mutant forms (called sports, at that time) or how such mutant forms were able to pass along the changes in their body. There is a reason that, even among scientists, Darwin’s theory did not immediately catch on, and it was not just because of religious belief. They just had no way of understanding how inheritance works. You can even see Darwin struggle with this throughout Origins where he frequently invokes Lamarckian principles in an attempt to explain things like blind cave fish and flightless birds. This is why some readers find it hard to understand, from Darwin’s explanations, what natural selection actually is. Again, no criticism of Darwin, it was just the state of knowledge (or lack thereof) at the time. This is fully understandable when you consider how in the dark he and others at the time were about genetics.

15

None of which is needed in order to understand the mechanism of natural selection.

There is variation in a population. That population will increase in size to the point where there is competition for resources. Those variations that promote survival will be passed on at a higher rate. Natural selection.

4 Likes
16

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.