The new Washington Post “Outlook” section has on the cover my review of A. N. Wilson’s new biography, Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker. I panned the book, for it was dreadful on both the historical (biographical) and scientific fronts. You can read my take by clicking on the screenshots below:
I’ll give just the last two paragraphs; do go read the whole thing. And then read the comments, where you’ll find several people denying evolution. That shows that even some readers of this fine newspaper don’t know squat about science.
Wilson’s use of the familiar and discredited tropes of creationism — humans are too special to be products of evolution, complex organs such as eyes can’t evolve, we see microevolution but not macroevolution, evolution can’t create new information in DNA, evolution is itself a religion, Hitler’s genocide traces back to Darwinism and so on — forces us to conclude that, even if he isn’t a creationist, he surely walks and quacks like one.
In the end, Wilson’s book is harmful, because its ignorance and denial of scientific evidence, coming from an established author, will promote the mistaken view that evolutionary biology is seriously flawed. And by flouting the research on Darwin carried out by serious historians of science, it betrays those historians and history itself.
I forgot to add in my review that the UK publisher of Wilson’s book—the original publisher—was John Murray, the very same house that published Darwin’s “Origin” in 1859. How COULD they?
Doesn’t surprise me. The Trumpian troglodytes have infested the comments section of many a fine, ostensibly liberal, site, including The Washington Post.
There are plenty of Democratic Creationists
I’m pretty sure there’s no equivalency. Denial of evolution is practically part of the Republican platform. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s actually spelled out in the platform.
According to the Pew Research Center Report released a couple years back, evolution denialism was 24% higher among Republicans than Democrats — with over two-thirds of Democrats, but less than half of Republicans, expressing acceptance.
Were I betting man — and, in case you’re interested, I am — I’d be willing to wager that evolution denialism is even higher still among hardcore Trump supporters. After all, as he himself said on the campaign trail, he “love[s] the poorly educated.”
Yes, but this doesn’t change XCellKen’s point; stupidity is only loosely associated with political viewpoint.
Yes, but stupidity on some topics is politically linked. Stupid arguments against Einsteinian relativity are widely distributed, stupid arguments against climate science seem to be concentrated on the right of the spectrum.
Yep and anti-GMO idiocy is almost exclusively on the left. Creationism and anti-vax stupidity is more evenly split, though I’m quite sure that most creationists are on the right while most anti-vaxxers are on the left.
Point is – stupidity knows no bounds.
+1
Creationism isn’t the only way to deny the facts and implications of evolution. There are lots of left wing denials for various reasons.
@Craw:
Sure, but do you think the magnitude is comparable?
There’s a type of conservative intellectual I have much respect for — and most of them trace their lineage back to Edmund Burke. But they’re getting harder and harder to find on the right wing. And them that’s left (or at least those who’ve remained true to their principles) have been never-Trumpers from the get-go.
Turns out I was wrong. I fell into the same trap a lot of people do – assuming to know the minds of others based on their political affiliations.
Fact is, Republicans and Democrats are about equal in the rejection of vaccine and GMOs. Republicans DO have more creationists in their midst, but not nearly as many as some here wish them to have.
See my post elsewhere on this thread for details and sources.
mikeyc claimed: “… anti-GMO idiocy is almost exclusively on the left”
You forgot to include any supporting references. Here are some references that show your claim to be totally false.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/do-liberals-oppose-genetically-modified-organisms-more-than-conservatives/#.WkxHHk13G5M
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/10/vaccine-denial-conspiracy-theories-gmos-climate/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2016/12/02/Politics-demographics-don-t-explain-GMO-attitudes-say-Pew
The data simply do not support your statement. The correlation with party is quite high. The stats on evolution are only the tip of the iceberg.
They do? In my opinion, opinions about other people’s opinions are usually wrong.
What does the data actually show?
%of Republicans who reject the theory of evolution; 39
%of Democrats who reject the theory of evolution; 30
If you think a difference 9% points is a high correlation, then ok.
Going on to other sciences…
%of Republicans who reject AGW; 78
%of Democrats who reject AGW; 36
%of Republicans who are antivax; 11
%of Democrats who are antivax; 12
%of Republicans who are anti Nuclear energy; 48
%of Democrats who are anti Nuclear energy; 55
%of Republicans who think GMO are bad; 39
%of Democrats who think GMO are bad; 40
Sources
http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/07/15/are-republicans-or-democrats-more-anti-s
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/
That is interesting! It nicely undermines some of my presuppositions. But still, I wonder if some correlations emerge if one dissects it down some more.
For example, on evolution it could be that most people who reject any evolution or at least macroevolution are religious conservatives and so are likely republican.
So 1/3rd of Democrats are Creationists? Gotcha. And its absolutely NOT possible that any Creationists commenting on WaPo or NYT are Democrats. They MUST be Trump supporters ???
Do you think any Trump supporters read the Washington Post?
I do know they show up in force in WaPo comment sections!
Indeed. That was my original point.
And when I read your opening post here I had to go have a look at said comments. Lame as ever.
I read the comments on the article and, yes there were some creationists, but there was no evidence that they were Trump supporters (unless you count the fact that they were creationists, which would be a circular argument). Nor was there any evidence that the commenters refuting them were not Trump supporters.
Only if you ignore two facts: First, the emergence of Donald Trump as a political figure gave rise to a brigade of his supporters who now regularly troll liberal sites like The Washington Post and The Atlantic. Second, creationism is strongly correlated with right-wing political views (and the Trump troll brigade is hard-right, indeed).
No one’s saying the creationists commenting on Jerry’s WaPo article are definitively Trump supporters. Jerry seemed to find it odd that there were creationists among WaPo readers. I said I wasn’t surprised, given the extent to which Trump trolls have infested the paper’s comments sections.
I’m sorry Ken but I have been reading articles like JAC’s on the Internet for maybe twenty years and there have always been creationists commenting, even in the days when we thought GW Bush was the worst president ever.
Actually, it looks like it is only one, theot581, commenting several times. And rebutted adequately, I might add.
There’s three now (though the other two are by the same guy; an initial post and then a response).
I think overall the comments are fine. Getting 2/12 wacky responses is actually pretty good for the internet. I found the one noting that the UK reviews are similar to be interesting; it’s not something I would’ve thought to check but I’m glad to know that.
People who don’t believe in Evolution but hang out in the WaPo/NYT comments are often trolls of one subspecies or another.
Or Democratic/Liberals who happen to be Liberal, and also happen to be Religious, and,wait for it, Creationists
Of course you are right, there is scum on the surface of every barrel. It just depends how thick it is.
Just read it. Thorough yet pithy takedown! Well played, Sir.
Well done, Jerry! You must be a Hobbit, giving us such a present upon your birthday!
Excellent review of an unfortunate book. Darwin still has his bulld*gs!
“Jerry Coyne is Darwin’s cat“ somehow doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it? 🙂
Wonderful that you have a popular platform to debunk this despicable attempt at demonizing Darwin and evolutionary biology.
Wasn’t going to read it anyway based on your earlier review. BTW – there is a creationist in the comment section. Or a Poe.
It is likely a creationist, complete with misspellings, quote mines, and general ignorance.
Only one?
Pretty much. It calls itself ‘theot581’.
cr
Thanks for a good review of a bad book. I have A.N. Wilson’s biography of C.S. Lewis – there was some character assassination in that book, but I accepted it as accurate. But now I wonder if I must take all Wilson’s writings with a pinch of salt. What a pity.
And Happy Birthday!
This is exactly the problem of his own making. A successful author must think about the next book deal, and one who publishes histories or biographies absolutely must have care for accuracy. But here he has tarnished his own reputation in that field.
I think you have made it quite clear what a pathetic book this is. The problem with the post is they want you to subscribe to read anything they put out. Not in the mood right now.
Same here. I cannot access the article without subscribing. So I’ll go with your previous take-down.
Happy Birthday to you Professor.
I did not have a problem accessing the article and I am in South Africa. Go figure!
You get a few free articles every month. I’ll have to wait until the new year to read it. I waste all of my free articles following the latest Trump lunacy. My new year’s resolution is to shake my Trump habit.
Just delete your cookies and the article counter starts from scratch
You are correct. Thanks for that.
Yep, it stop it from loading before the blocked sign appears.
If your browser has a “private browsing” or “incognito browsing” option, enable it, then go to the WaPo link. These browser options temporarily remove all existing cookies, including the ones that news sites like WaPo and NYTimes use to track how many articles you’ve read for free this month.
Remember to turn off the private/incognito browsing option after you’ve read the news story!
I realized that recently. Right after I run CCleaner, I once again had ten free article waiting for me at the NYT
Or just pay a few bucks for a subscription and consider it, in part, a donation to good journalism. Something that is extremely valuable when the political winds are blowing against democracy and the constitution. I did.
+ 1
Not sure why that is. I just clicked on the picture and it went right to it.
I could read it without paying.
You must have used up your free articles for the month. I think it’s worth subscribing to support responsible journalism.
No problem from this bit of Canada.
I got through to the article just fine even with my ad blocker.
In respect to AN Wilson, what it does – as Americans sometimes say – is rip him a new one.
I got it free in India; I’ll post the full text later.
FWIW, if I liked to the review in Safri it was behind a paywall, so I tried opening WEIT in Firefox and linking from there, and bingo, it worked.
The review beautifully demolishes Wilson. But my concern is that the book still may become a best seller because of the reputation of Wilson’s previous books and what a person interested in reading a biography of Darwin will find at the Amazon site.
Amazon describes the book in its effusive blurb as “Brilliant, daring, and ambitious, Charles Darwin [book title] explores this legendary man as never before, and challenges us to reconsider our understanding of both Darwin and modern science itself.” If potential purchasers should read the comments they will find a different story, but how many do that? For me, Wilson’s book falls into a category I call right-wing politics, religion, pseudo-science and culture. Right wingers fight a never ending war, using whatever means necessary, to convince the public of their views. Truth and intellectual integrity are not required; indeed, it is often a hindrance.
Wilson’s book is but a single shot in the war. But, Professor Coyne’s review helps parry the blows. But, there will be more blows in the war of ideas. They will never end. The perversion of science by right wing religion is relentless and will never end. And if should win, the ideals of the Enlightenment will be finished. There will be no going back. Resistance to the right wing must never falter. I hope that will be the case, because if it will not be, a new Dark Ages will descend.
sub
We have to think the tide is turning. The blue wave is coming and the numbers are on our side. The damage has been done and all but the idiots can see it if they take a look. A Times reporter gets a first hand look at the demented mind of Trump, simply by hanging around the golf course yesterday. That is my optimism for the month.
COYNE SMASH!
A job well done, Jerry. Clear, succinct, and accessible.
It’s clear that Wilson’s misrepresentations are intentional. It’s not as if this is a man who doesn’t know how to properly research a subject. He wanted to write a particular narrative, not a biography.
John van Wyhe, who runs the Darwin Online website, lambasts Wilson at UK Amazon;
…
…
John van Wyhe also reviewed for New Scientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2144643-radical-new-biography-of-darwin-is-unreliable-and-inaccurate/
I’m really glad to see your review getting prominent placement where it will be widely read. Wilson needs to be shot down.
It seems that Wilson might have done a lot of research on lies and twisted views of evolution and Darwin. Academic research is intense, hard, and not monetarily rewarding. Facts are boring. Money is more important than facts. And alternative facts sell nowadays.
Terrific takedown, Jerry; many congratulations. I wonder if Wilson will have the balls (or the chutzpah) to respond in any way to the mountain of criticism this dreadful book has attracted.
Oh, and many happy returns of the day for tomorrow!
More critiques to be read here …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._N._Wilson#Critiques_of_Wilson's_work
Not the first review I’ve seen of a Wilson book getting drubbed.
Ex-Christian-turned-humanist John Beverslius wrote a savage takedown of A.N. Wilson’s excessively Freudian biography of C.S. Lewis (available behind a subscription-wall at JStor). [Neither JB nor ANW were believers in Lewis’ apologetics, but JB thought ANW attacked him for all the wrong reasons!!]
Wilson wrote the Lewis bio just after losing his Christian beliefs, and he seems to have written the Darwin book in the wake of returning to Christianity. The common denominator of both bios is excessive personal attacks on the representative of a position without substantive evidence to back them up.
Great. The best Coyne. Congratulations.
A cogent and effective review, Jerry. It is particularly alarming to witness the extent to which emotion can trump reason in otherwise intelligent and educated people such as Wilson. This is what we’re up against.
Charles Darwin.
Origins of the Species
158 years and still holding it’s own.
A. N. Wilson.
Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker.
5 minutes and about to suck a kumera.
Keep up the pasting Prof(E) Wilson for all the reasons stated has made his own grave for this so called biography.
I find the notion that Hitler was a fan of Darwin ludicrous in the extreme. Quite the contrary, he rejected common descent in Mein Kampf.This claim by Wilson is sufficient cause to dismiss Wilson’s book as poppycock.
Wilson and his publisher surely were aware that he’d get crucified by dozens of qualified reviewers. I think they just didn’t give a shit. The vast majority of potential readers will likely not see the reviews(though some will have been saved from mental contamination). Money is money, after all.
Note that the UK publisher was John Murray, the very same house that published Darwin’s “Origin”!
That so much worse!
From Jerry’s article:
“Wilson claims that the first 50 pages of an important Darwin notebook have been lost forever, asserting that Darwin destroyed them to hide his intellectual cribbing from his contemporary Edward Blyth. In reality, Darwin simply placed those pages in a folder for later use, and they can easily be found online.”
If being caught plagiarizing is enough to sink someone’s career, so too should being caught in an “error” like that, from a historian.
Incidentally, a commenter on an earlier post by Jerry about this book noted that Wilson’s bio of Hitler also atrocious, and linked to this review–
https://www.newstatesman.com/books/2012/03/hitler-wilson-german-british
That’s quite a string of errors about a historical figure who is also not exactly unknown to historical record.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly.
I read that link to the Hitler book review.
Oooh I do love a good hatchet job. 🙂 It makes Jerry’s takedown of Wilson seem restrained by comparison.
cr
Excellent review. On the subject of dismal books about Darwin, I just finished, on the recommendation of a religious friend, Darwin’s Pious Idea by Cunningham. This was an agonizing read, hands down the worst book I’ve ever read. A dreadful and intensional IMO misconstrual of evolutionary biology to fulfill his agenda. Would love to see a Coyne Smash of this but the book is so horrible to such a degree that it doesn’t deserve the effort.
I hope you can help your friend understand why tat book is so bad.
May spektral visions of Angry Catman haunt the sleep of A. N. Wilson!
Even if it were true that Hitler based the holocaust on evolution, so what?
The fact that nuclear weapons can and have killed many people doesn’t mean that nuclear fission is false.
I’ve never understood why people make the Hitler / evolution link.
“I’ve never understood why people make the Hitler / evolution link.”
For political reasons. Exactly the same way they try to link any other thing they don’t like with Hitler. Or Stalin. Or Mussolini, any of them will do.
It’s just smearing-by-association.
cr
Devastating takedown. What a maroon.
Hopefully that will be printed on the back cover of the paperback edition.
I thought I’d look into A.N. Wilson’s CV — library catalogue. He’s a kind of biographical whirligig, with bios of Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth (I & II), Jesus, St. Paul (the apostle, not the city), C.S. Lewis, Hitler, and his cat (Wilson’s, cat, not Hitler’s. Hitler liked dogs.). There are also several novels and a book on how to read the bible, called ‘The Book of the People.’ None of this seems like a qualification for understanding Darwin.
Superb review.
And, Happy Birthday!
Well, it will take some time for the apes to critically understand evolution.
Such a cleverly cogent, delightfully damning review! I hope (and suspect) that it was as fun to write as it is to read. 🙂
Dr. Adam Rutherford has a lovely takedown of this book at Amazon UK, entitled: “Deranged: literally the worst book I have ever read about Darwin and evolution”
His final line is great: “The pagination is excellent. I like the picture of the bat on the back cover.”
The reviews make better reading, I’m sure, than Wilson’s book.
I liked ‘Cabbages” –
“The ‘facts’ he states are checkable on google and found to be wrong. This isn’t just one or two, it’s almost all of them. I have read child’s homework on imaginary situations that were more believable.”
cr
Some of the one-line reviews are good too –
“I think people may be missing the point, and that this may actually be fiction. In which case it’s still not very good.”
“Makes an adequate doorstop. Dog chewed a bit of it but then threw it up. Pretty much sums up the quality of the writing.”
and..
“I’m guessing quite a lot of people are going to have good fun with this review section now.”
cr
‘Given that many of Wilson’s earlier biographies have been admired for their style and insight, and not criticized for pervasive errors, this new project is baffling.’ I’m afraid I don’t think it is baffling at all. There have been quite a few savage reviews of A.N. Wilson’s various biographies, but since he makes his appeal to the middlebrow reader who supposes that ANW is both intelligent and knowledgeable, a lot of the reviews which appear in newspapers and rags like The Spectator are written by mediocrities who, if not pals of ANW, do not know enough about those he writes about to take him to task. And the same applies to those who interview him on radio & TV. The man is well connected and uses his connexions.
I was reading comments about the rise and fall of The Right Honourable The Lord Adonis PC in the UK (a political person who won a local Council election, once, and then apparently ascended the ladder of public regard through patronage. A commenter claimed that Adonis was a *courtier*, i.e. clinging to the powerful for his own advantage.
I wonder how much of A. N. Wilson’s public regard is due to patronage and how much to his own ability? Is he one of the elite or is he a courtier?
It’s a very well-written and compelling review, and I hope a lot of people read it!
I’ve encountered creationists online who make derogatory claims about Darwin in an attempt to disprove evolution, and I generally respond that it doesn’t matter what sort of person Darwin was. It’s equivalent to claiming Isaac Newton was a bad person, therefore gravity doesn’t exist.
I’m thrilled with Coyne’s review but why is it they don’t always pick experts in the field to review non-fiction books when the book is first published?
Wilson believes, or wishes to believe, that evolution can be despatched in a few brisk human capacities: love, music and language.(New Statesman A N Wilson: Why I believe again 2April 2009)
Where evolution fails, Genesis succeeds. God breathed life (not materialist oxygen-type life but dualistic-type life i.e. soul-type life) into dust.
The explanation for love, music and language is dualism. The evidence is the bible, as any decent and honest reader must perforce admit.
Necessarily thou art a dishonest villain, Darwin! And so be damned all who profess the blasphemy of evolution!
The prejudice is entirely Wilson’s. Science will never be able to explain human existence. The bible does so. These are unchallengeable articles of faith for Wilson.
Twelve months before publication of his book traducing Darwin Wilson lauded as “a truly great book”: Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton of the Discovery Institute. (The Spectator 12 November 2016)
Wilson has sold out biography to defamation and science to anti-science.