Making a Monkey out of Pat Buchanan

Did Darwin plagiarize Wallace? 

According to Buchanan, Windchy demonstrates that Darwin actually stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent Darwin a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection." If he had paid the least attention to Darwin's' words, "All my originality ... will be smashed," which he quotes, however, it would be apparent that this was not a case of plagiarism but of independent discovery. As SirGavin de Beer observes in Evolution by Natural Selection: Darwin and Wallace (1958), Darwin had written his argument in a brief Sketch in 1842 and elaborated upon it in his more finished Essay in 1844, while Wallace reached his conclusions some fourteen years later, but wrote to Darwin before Darwin had published his own results. 

This led to a joint appearance before The Linnean Society of London on July 1, 1858, and to the publication of their papers on August 20, a few weeks later. Unless these worthies are inclined to suggest that Wallace had instead plagiarized Darwin, who preceded him by nearly a decade and a half, there appears to be no case to be made. Indeed, this event is one of the most celebrated in the history of science. Darwin was so scrupulous that he listed many precursors to his theory, including Marchant, Montesquieu, Buffon, Maupertuis, Diderot, Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Goethe, Lamarch, Moritzi, and his grandfather, Erasmus, as Sir Gavin lists them. Students of philosophy might add a few names to this list going as far back as Anaximander in the6^th C B.C., who thought that man originated as a kind of fish. John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 4^th edition (1930),suggests that Anaximander even had a primitive grasp of fitness and adaptation. 

Darwin, however, had served as a naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle in its travels around the world and had made detailed observations of minute variations within species in arriving at the notion that the emergence of new species represented the successful adaptation of certain traits of its members in competition with those of others. A long beak, for example, could provide an advantage for birds in gaining access to insects inhabiting nests beneath the ground, which those without them do not enjoy. He gradually formed the hypothesis that, since vastly more members are born into species than survive to reproduce, a winnowing process appears to favor those who are better able to withstand the impact of the environment and compete with other members of its species, because of which certain traits of those who are better adapted are perpetuated in their offspring and passed to future generations. 

Is Darwin's theory "disastrous"? 

The subtitle of this new book, "And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory was Stolen and Sold", covertly suggests that Darwin's research was scientifically inadequate yet survived to be marketed for political purposes. His discovery of a causal mechanism for evolution of species to occur, which is known as "natural selection", however, has proven its potential by advancing explanations for the empirical phenomena (data) that theories within this domain are intended to explain, including fossil remains, geological strata, morphological similarities, and (now) DNA relationships. Buchanan seems to be unaware that the fossil record shows a distribution of the remnants of earlier species in a pattern, where older geological strata record the existence of simpler and more primitive forms of life, while later strata record those of more complicated and sophisticated forms of life. And more recent studies of basic forms of DNA, the building blocks of life, confirm those historical relationships. While Darwin was not aware of the existence of genes and of chromosomes, their discovery and more recent research has confirmed the hypotheses he formulated based upon his observations. 

Modern versions of evolutionary theory incorporate a broader range of mechanisms to account for variations in species, including genetic mutation and natural selection but extending to sexual reproduction, genetic drift, sexual selection, group selection, artificial selection, and--with advances in technology--genetic engineering. So there is not just one "theory of evolution" but as many as different combinations of these mechanisms can sustain, where the principle of economy known as "Occam's Razor" recommends adopting the alternative that invokes the least number of explanatory mechanisms. But that presumes that the alternatives possess equal explanatory power in relation to the fossil record, geological strata, morphological similarities, and (today) DNA relationships. The case of DNA is especially striking, because, as in the case of the advent of other new technologies, such as the telescope, the microscope, and the electron microscope, new data domains become available that enhance the empirical evidence for which theories must account to qualify as "adequate". That DNA relations have confirmed Darwin's observations is of the greatest significance, which Darwin could not have anticipated.  

Since one theory is preferable to another in relation to a specific data domain when it possesses both greater explanatory power and has been more highly confirmed, the kinds of claims Buchanan makes would be remotely reasonable only if there were plausible alternatives for explaining the phenomena. Those he and Windchy have in mind are not those of other students of evolution, such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who offered the inheritance of acquired characteristics as an additional mechanism ofevolution, or even Stephen Jay Gould, who suggested that evolution need not be gradual and continuous but might display "punctuated equilibrium"--lengthy intervals of stability punctuated with intermittent episodes of intense change--but rather approaches that are entirely different and motivated by religious beliefs, such as creationism, creation science, and intelligent design. These are very popular theories, but they do not qualify as alternatives to evolution. The problem they confront is that they are not scientific. 

What about the alternatives?

None of these theories has equal explanatory power in relation to the phenomena to be explained and all of them lack empirical confirmation.  Creationism, for example, appeals to God as the creator, but that does not explain why more primitive forms of life are found in earlier geological strata or why DNA relationships confirm Darwin's hypothesis, unless God chose to use the mechanisms of evolution to bring about the emergence of species, a position that even Pope John Paul II endorsed. That account is reconciles science with religion, without denying that belief in God is an article of faith, while belief in evolution is supported by logic and evidence.  Buchanan wants us to believe that the fossil record has failed to vindicate Darwin, maintaining, for example, that "Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles", as if gaps in the evolution of species would show that Darwin's theory is false or that religiously motivated alternatives were true.  If he only knew more about recent evolutionary findings, he might have chosen a different example.  Neither of these claims is true.

Walter Brown, In the Beginning (1995), draws a distinction between "horizontal" and "vertical" evolution, according to which minor variations within species are possible (which is known as microevolution), while the evolution of new species (known as macroevolution) is not.  A symbolic dagger through the heart of creation science, as he defines it, has been found in the form of a new species of dinosaur that was a feathered cousin of T. Rex (New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin had feathers, National Geographic News, 6 October 2004), whose existence of had been predicted by Thomas Holtz, a vertebrate paleontologist from the University of Maryland.  There are many other discoveries that confirm the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, some of which I cite in Render Unto Darwin (2007), where I provide extended discussion of the respective merits of evolution and its rivals.  It is especially hazardous to appeal to alleged gaps in the fossil record when new species are so often being discovered.

The problem with the God-as-the-Creator hypothesis is that it is compatible with the world, no matter what its properties.  If God had wanted there to be a fossil record, for example, He could have created one.  If God had wanted microevolution without macroevolution, He could have arranged that, too.  When fundamentalists interpret Genesis, however, in support of a young Earth (approximately 10,000 years in age), micro-evolution without macro-evolution, and a world-wide flood (about 5,000 years ago), the difficulties thereby encountered appear insuperable.  Walter Brown, who is a leading advocate of creation science, has calculated that the Ark could have held 20,000 animals, which would represent at most 10,000 sexually reproducing species.  According to recent estimates, however, such as by E.O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (1992), there are at least one million land-borne species today, which means that, if they are descendants of the animals aboard the Ark, then speciation must have been taking place at an average rate of about 200 new species per year for the last 5,000.

Is his theory disastrous politically?

There are even theoretical grounds for anticipating that certain gaps will always exist in the fossil record, because some times multiple traits are affected by a single gene and other times single traits are affected by multiple genes.  These are known as "pleiotropic" and as "polygenic" effects, respectively.  The alteration of a single gene, therefore, might have multiple effects and produce new organisms that, with respect to their adaptive capacities and relative fitness, might be much better adapted because of that single gene, where there would be no reason to expect the existence of intermediate organisms because there would not be any.  Buchanan is less interested in the scientific standing of evolution and its alternatives than he is in its potential for political abuse.  He quotes Windchy saying, "Marx loved Darwinism", attributing to him the notion that "survival of the fittest justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution".  And he cites Hitler as another exemplar of the political consequences of Darwins appeal to competition.

No doubt, major works, such as The Origin of Species (1859), have been used for partisan political purposes.  That is difficult to justify intellectually, because politics typically concerns how things should be done (which policies should be embraced, which taxes should be raised, which wars should be fought), while scientific studies are directed at discovering the laws of nature, including those of physics, chemistry, and biology. Unlike laws of society, laws of nature cannot be violated, cannot be changed, and require no enforcement.  Indeed, for that matter, it makes no sense to insist that human beings and other living things should act in conformity with laws of nature:  we have no choice.  Even if nature manifests a struggle for survival, where the fittest have the strongest prospects, this does not mean that humans are meant to emulate them.  We have the cognitive versatility and behavioral plasticity to adapt ourselves to various social arrangements, which becomes a matter of our own choosing.

In Das Kapital (1867/1885/1894), for example, Marx produced a three-part study of capitalism as it was practiced in the England of his time.  He observed that the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer, with an inevitable increase in concentration of political power in the hands of fewer and fewer owners of capital. It was his view that the value of products is determined by the value of the natural resources and the human labor required to produce them.  Marx believed these conditions placed increasing strains on society and generated increasing tensions, which would lead to the greater impoverishment of the masses at the hands of the capitalists.  While his views have been advanced to justify revolutions, Marx did not take into account the potential to reform society by means of strong labor unions, workers compensation, and programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicade and other measures that tend to compensate for the abuses of capitalistic systems.  He, like Darwin, has been vilified, even though important lessons may be learned from the study of their work.  As Buchanan observes, theories like theirs can be used to produce evil--especially at the hands of those who abuse them--and still be true. 

Politics and Religion

Perhaps no abuse has befallen any work in the history of mankind--apart from the Bible--as has occurred with Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776).  Pat Buchanan, among others, likes to cite Smith in support of free markets and on behalf of their so-called invisible hands.  As Wikipedia observes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations Smith was not advocating the social policy that people should act in their own self-interest, but, like Marx before him, was observing that people frequently do act to promote their own self-interest.  He was not maintaining that self-interest always has beneficial effects, moreover, but noting that, when individuals pursue their own self-interest, it can have effects that are beneficial to society as a whole.  When corporations adopt the principle that their only social obligation is to maximize the profits of their stockholders, however, then the promotion of self-interest can lead to the reduction of the expense of production by cutting the costs of natural resources (by exploiting public lands and by ignoring pollution) and minimizing the cost of labor (by outsourcing labor and by eliminating benefits), by evading taxes (by moving headquarters to sheltered locations), and by the creation of monopolies to artificially inflate prices, which have become standard practice yet obviously do not benefit society as a whole.  That "greed is good" is false.

Perhaps most strikingly, Buchanan claims that, "Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was."  Articles of faith, however, are beliefs that are held in the absence of supporting evidence or even in spite of contradictory evidence.  Belief in God as the Creator is an article of faith.  Belief in evolution is not.  There are multiple ways in which evolutionary theories can be subjected to empirical test, including the use of age-dating of fossils and of geological strata and comparisons of the anatomies of various species.  DNA studies have confirmed it.  If the wrong fossils were found in the wrong strata, that would tend to disconfirm itunless, of course, those fossils were false.  One of Windchys ironic examples of flawed science is that a variety of hoaxes have been perpetrated in the name of science.  But it is the self-correcting nature of its methods that discoveries, such as Piltdown Man, were ever exposed as frauds and, indeed, in that case it happened as a result of the discovery (in 1953) that the specimen combined the skull of a medieval human with the jaw of a 500-year old orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man. These findings were possible due to new age-dating technology and additional studies which exposed the deception.

Alas, there are no new technologies that would enable us to test the existence of the human soul or of the Holy Trinity, which consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--a doctrine that, at an early age, caused me to ponder whether Episcopalians believed in the existence of one god or of three.  Like the author of the book he likes so well, Buchanan does less to turn Darwin into a monkey than he does himself.  His commentary, I am afraid, does nothing to promote the prospects of creationism or of creation science or of intelligent design nor, when the historical record is understood, to diminish the reputation of Darwin himself.  It is a sad commentary on the state of scientific literacy in the United States today that a politician of the intelligence and standing of Pat Buchanan, who has many virtues, should suppose that trashing one of histories most important discoveries, which even holds the key to understanding the place of humanity within the scheme of things entire, by stooping to the level of a carnival barker in promoting scientific nonsense and intellectual rubbish were desirable.  Would it serve as a notice to politicians of every stripe that this nation will continue to fall further and further behind the other nations of the world if nothing more is done to combat our ignorance--not only of the history of science but also of its methods.