stand up for REAL science

As I discussed in a recent post, there's a quote by Charles Darwin that is currently being abused by anti-evolutionists. The quote goes a little something like this:

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

Please note that I said it goes a little something like the part quoted above. In fact, the quote has been completely divorced from it's original context. Once again, here is the entire paragraph from the Introduction of On the Origin of Species:

This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.

It turns out that the punctuation has been modified in a way that obscures the original meaning of the quote. This modified version of the quote is now being used by anti-evolutionists to argue that Darwin would have favored opening up public school science classrooms to debating the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory. While that may have been true 150 years ago, it certainly wouldn't be the case if Darwin were still alive today. We've come a long way since Darwin.

Still others have interpreted the quote to mean that Darwin's phrase "both sides of each question" actually referred to evolution and special creation. One particularly adamant anti-evolutionist named Floyd Lee put the argument this way:

The fact is that even though Darwin's statement appears in the larger context of an apology Darwin was making for his book for the apparent paucity of facts therein, it doesn't change the actual meaning of Mr. Darwin's quoted sentence itself. Imagine that.

Darwin still meant exactly what he said in that one sentence. All the more so, in fact, since Darwin directly refers to the distinct possibility that "conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived" could be arrived at by the reader via the "facts", which immediately sets up Darwin's "fair result-both sides" comment.

Unlike Floyd Lee, I did not base my interpretation of the Darwin quote on a cursory reading. You see, I happen to be reading The Origin right now. In fact, it's currently sitting on my night stand (next to my Bible!). My interpretation is therefore based on reading the full context of the quote.

For your edification, some of that context is provided below the fold.

In my earlier post on this topic, I asserted that Charles Darwin was referring to his own ideas when he used the phrase "both sides of each question." My assertion was that the actual questions under consideration by Darwin concerned his conclusions that species shared common ancestry by descent with modification and that these modifications occur primarily through the means of natural selection.

Like most naturalists of his day, Darwin did not consider special creation to be a viable alternative to evolution. For instance, a little later in the Introduction, Darwin wrote the following:

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration. Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, &c., as the only possible cause of variation. In one limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees. In the case of the mistletoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relation to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself.

It is, therefore, of the highest importance to gain a clear insight into the means of modification and coadaptation. At the commencement of my observations it seemed to me probable that a careful study of domesticated animals and of cultivated plants would offer the best chance of making out this obscure problem. Nor have I been disappointed; in this and in all other perplexing cases I have invariably found that our knowledge, imperfect though it be, of variation under domestication, afforded the best and safest clue. I may venture to express my conviction of the high value of such studies, although they have been very commonly neglected by naturalists.

Note the parts that I emphasized. Notice also how Darwin contrasts his views with the idea that "external conditions" were "the only possible cause of variation." Clearly, the question under consideration by Darwin was not whether species had been independently created. Based on the evidence already available at the time, that particular question had been answered in the negative. For Darwin, the real question was: "By what means does the modification of species occur?" Indeed, Darwin's entire book was essentially one long argument in favor of his own explanation - descent with modification by means of natural selection.

This interpretation of the "both sides of each question" phrase is also supported by the concluding paragraph of the Introduction. After giving an outline of the chapters of his book, Darwin wrote:

No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of the many beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained - namely, that each species has been independently created - is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification.

Note that Darwin stated that "most naturalists until recently entertained" the view that species were independently created. In other words, this particular view was no longer considered viable among most of the naturalists known to Darwin.

Therefore, I think it is correct to interpret the phrase "both sides of each question" to be in reference to Darwin's proposed explanations for evolution, not the issue of evolution vs. special creation. One might argue that he was referencing other possible explanations (i.e, "external conditions"), but he certainly did not consider special creation to be a viable alternative.

In conclusion, those who portray this quote from Darwin as supportive of a public debate between evolution and intelligent design are guilty of perpetuating a quote mine. I personally wouldn't go so far as to accuse anyone of intentionally lying. It's also quite possible that the perpetrators are merely ignorant of the original context of the quote.

Even so, I don't think we can expect them to stop using it. After all, as an important historical figure once said: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..."

I just wish I could remember who said that.