Let us set the record straight once and for all. Darwin’s famous tome is not properly entitled, The Origin of Species
The original and correct title of Darwin’s book is, On the Origin of Species. In fact the complete title is, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Only in the sixth edition published in 1872 was the title shortened to exclude the “on” as a capitulation to reality since so many people by that point had already been misquoting the title. So as we approach the 150th anniversary of the book’s publication, let us vow to reinsert the long missing “on” and recapture Darwin’s original intent.
If you believe this to be making much about nothing, consider the results if we randomly excised a word from the title of other great works:
Cat on a Hot Tin (Tennessee Williams, Roof)
The Hikers Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams, Hitch)
A Tale of Two (Charles Dickens, Cities)
Moby (Herman Melville, Dick
A to Arms (Ernest Hemingway, Farewell)
The Da Vinci (Dan Brown, Code)
The Bell (Sylvia Plath, Ringer)
In the Rye (J.D. Salinger, Catcher)
Tortilla (John Steinbeck, Flat)
And Punishment (Fyodor Dostoevsky, Crime)
Hocus (Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Pocus)
Expectations (Charles Dickens, Great)
We the readers do not have the luxury of simply renaming an author’s work. Darwin called his book On the Origin of Speciesand that is exactly how were should reference his publication.
What Darwin wrote under that original title remains relevant today; a testament to the power of his ideas. Darwin himself defined evolution as “descent with modification, caused by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good to the possessor.” What is truly amazing about this statement is that Chuck D not only discovered evolution, but anticipated the mechanism by which evolution would work. And he did so long before universities thought about teaching genetics.
Yet because of religion’s iron grip on society, no theory in all of science remains more poorly understood by more people in spite of evolution’s incredible success. Perhaps because Einstein had a better publicist, if not a better barber, we always refer to his Theory of Relativity with a hint of reverence. But Creationists disparage Darwin’s discovery as “only” a theory in an attempt to deny evolution the same status that Relativity enjoys in the pantheon of science. That false disparity implies the mistaken idea in the general population that theory means uncertainty. It does not. Theory means a body of facts or accepted data set offered to explain diverse phenomena organized under a unifying and usually simplifying concept or principle. That is exactly what the theory of evolution does: natural selection is a simple and comprehensive explanation for how life can express its incredible diversity and complexity as a matter of chemistry and physics.
We would properly honor this anniversary by leaving behind forever the “debate” about evolution’s validity. Nothing in all of science is more certain than evolution. We can witness evolution in a Petri dish; we have witnessed speciation. Bacterial resistance is evolution in action. Darwin’s theory is as certain as the orbit of the earth around the sun. If evolution were in doubt so too would be the idea that DNA represents our genetic code or that atoms are a basic building block of nature. Evolution has been proven across multiple disciplines of paleontology, embryology, molecular biology, genetics, and cell physiology.
Just as the majority of people no longer accept the idea of a flat earth, the time has come to credit Darwin’s discovery by finally rejecting the notion of faith as equivalent to data. An appeal to god is not a scientific method that can substitute for objective truth and direct observation. Creationists make a critical mistake in confusing scientific inquiry with censorship. It is because of science and overwhelming data that we do not teach the “Stork Theory of Reproduction” in school, not because we are censoring the Bring Back the Stork Society.
Debating the validity of evolution is more embarrassing than if we were still arguing about the cause of malaria, with some insisting that “night fever” is caused by bad air, completely ignoring our knowledge of mosquitoes. Would we be “censoring” people because we do not give “equal time” in our universities to those who still believe that bad air causes the disease?
So I offer a counter proposal to the rather absurd effort recently undertaken by actor Kirk Cameron to distribute to the “top 50 universities” 50,000 copies of Darwin’s book annotated with a 50 page introduction of fantasy and falsehoods that seek to dispute the indisputable. The self-proclaimed “anti-atheist” campaign is being promoted on a video widely viewed on YouTube.
That the YouTube video and the annotation itself are rife with inaccuracies and false statements is indisputable. The promotion claims that Einstein believed in god. He did not, and certainly not in one that created the universe. Here is Einstein’s opinion of god in his own words written in a letter dated January 3, 1954: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” The video falsely claims that kids can “no longer” pray in school and that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public. Both are factually incorrect; of course a student can open his personal bible in school, and displays of the Commandments are prohibited only on government property. This does not represent “no longer” but the conditions on which the country was founded.
The effort to discredit evolution must inevitably rely upon verifiably false statements. But pointing out the inaccuracies is decried as censorship. Hence Cameron’s latest play is based on the belief, which Cameron explicitly states, that Creationists are being prevented from telling their story. Really? Cameron oddly claims he is being silenced, without defining by whom, but then cites Berkeley’s policy of allowing anybody to distribute non-commercial material in open spaces on campus. Like that statement of self-contradiction, the entire of idea of censorship turns reality on its head. Universities are one of only a few places in society where rational thought is being taught; whereas everywhere else, every Sunday, in every church, on just about every street corner in the United States, those who oppose evolution are free to promote their ideas. The notion of censorship is so absurd in a country dominated by Christianity in virtually every aspect of life as to be offensive. In a society with churches popping up like mushrooms, in which 75% of Americans claim to be Christian, any accusation about brainwashing would have to be laid at the feet of ministers, rabbis, priests and mullahs, not a few university professors.
So let’s let a thousand flowers bloom! I say let Cameron and his ilk distribute hundreds of thousands of their silly annotations. But if they are free to distribute to universities, then rationalists deserve the same freedom. That means we should distribute copies of Darwin’s book, uncensored, to every church in the country. We should stand next to the minister or priest as parishioners are filing out of the church and hand out Darwin’s tome to each as they pass by. In fact, we should get equal time at the pulpit! For every ten minutes of sermon, I want ten minutes to promote rationalism. If Creationists believe they deserve equal time in the classroom, then certainly rationalists deserve equal time under the nave!
Let’s fight brimstone with brimstone. There would be no better way to celebrate this 150th anniversary. Knowledge is the only effective means of fighting ignorance.
Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer
By the way you have one of the book titles in your list wrong. It is the Bell Jar by Plath not the Bell Ringer.
Many fundamental religionists have already built a 'Waco compound' in their minds and containment of their ignorance might serve clearer-minded folk better than storming in to 'liberate' these dullards. True, some hapless innocents are caught up in the folly of such others: it presents us with something of quandry.
Not quite.
'In fact the complete title is, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'
Bingo! See why people might want to abbreviate?
'Darwin himself defined evolution as "descent with modification, caused by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good to the possessor." What is truly amazing about this statement is that Chuck D not only discovered evolution, but anticipated the mechanism ..'
No, what's amazing is that farmers made huge improvements to livestock apparently without having the slightest notion about how crossing the best strains might help. Dog breeders and pigeon fanciers also produced animals which met their specifications exactly, apparently by chance.
'Theory means a body of facts or accepted data set offered to explain diverse phenomena organized under a unifying and usually simplifying concept or principle.'
The 'body of facts' is merely supporting evidence. The explanation, the concept, THAT is the theory. It is ALWAYS tentative.
'Nothing in all of science is more certain than evolution'
True, if you're referring to the FACT of evolution. We know offspring differ from their parents. The THEORY of evolution is something else. It's about how (the fact of) evolution supposedly explains origination of species. Unless resistant bacteria are a new species, resistance is irrelevant. Stuff about DNA, atoms etcetera: also irrelevant. What's relevant?
'we have witnessed speciation'.
Citation?
A Chihuahua is incapable of breeding with a St. Bernard.
[tiny font]On
[huge font] the Origin of Species
[tiny font] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
If I was trying to infer a short title from this, I might ascribe some significance to the font sizes.
Be that as it may, the 6th edition was published in 1872. Darwin died in 1882. It seems reasonable to assume he had some say in the title of the 6th edition.
I doubt you'll find any authority who says St. Bernards and Chihuahuas are distinct species. Domestic dogs form a continuum, with DNA able to pass freely between the smallest varieties and the largest. It just takes a couple of generations instead of one. Even if by some unprecedented disaster all medium-size dogs were obliterated, it wouldn't take long to re-establish the continuum by breeding St. Bernards for smallness and Chihuahuas for largeness.
The true mark of speciation isn't variation in size, habit or location, all of which can be reversed. It's a significant alteration in the arrangement of DNA, destroying the possibility of inter-fertility and commonly accompanied by a change in chromosome number. Cats have 38 chromosomes, Dogs have 78, chimps have 48, etc. It follows that these are all distinct species.
However chromosome number changes, it surely isn't by "the accumulation of innumerable slight variations". If we're trying to explain speciation, I'd say we need some OTHER explanation.
As the string below shows, you argue by assertion rather than logic, which makes any effort to continue the dialogue uninteresting. Every point you've made is wrong, and when it is pointed out as so, you just ignore and move on to the next incorrect assertion.
And your biological assertions are simply factually incorrect. Species are not defined by chromosome number; it is a ridiculous idea that would be self-evidently so if you had even a moderate understanding of genetics.
Your distinction between the facts of evolution and the theory makes as much sense as stating a difference between the facts of atoms and the theory.
Since I have no intention of responding further to your inaccuracies, please enjoy the last word in this particular string.
"Every point you've made is wrong, and when it is pointed out as so, you just ignore and move on".
I've addressed your so-called rebuttals, in some cases repeatedly. Except for the insults, which are generally too broad to merit serious attempts at rebuttal ("every point you've made is wrong") your points fall into just two categories.
1) "On the Origin of Species" IS TOO the title. I've already spent far too much time on that one; and
2) little dogs and big dogs (or even same-sized but physically separated dogs) are distinct species. You support this with a JOKE citation.
Then you make unfounded claims about the validity of my biological knowledge, and you pretend my points are unsupported assertions. even though I support them with quotes from your own article, or from non-joke publications. It's just as well the discussion is set to end here. Unfortunate, though, because you weren't always this bad.
Evolution, as a theory, takes into account the process of a species 'de-evolving', only to 're-evolve' to a seemingly more advanced state again, or stay stuck in its de-evolved state.
I mention it because many Christian literalists embrace evolution as a means of explaining our currently de-evolved state of humanity, from the once perfect creations - Adam and Eve.
I'd volunteer to distribute On the Origin at churches!
That's the thing that really gets me about IDers. They say that evolution cannot explain the start, without realizing that science doesn't even ask the question of WHY!