Abraham Lincoln v. Charles Darwin

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Jesus Tap Dancing christ, stop confusing "Social Darwinism" with "Biological Darwinism" they are two different things (and just to show there is still a debate going on about how actually biological evolution works - individualist or collectivist, see the Dawkins v Jay Gould debates). Darwin was the probably the most well-known thinker of the 19th Century (only Marx would match his influence and then only in the 20th Century) and so of course any philosophical doctrine would gain prestige and notability if associated with him. That's why it is "Social Darwinism" not "Social Spencerism" as it should really be called*.

* - Though it should be noted that Darwin did make some Social Darwinist comments late in his life, though such sentiments were common at the time, especially among people of his class/education. However he did not develop it into a wide ranging philosophy over everything, which some scientists turned hack philosophers - Dawkins and Evolutionary Psychology I'm looking at you - are still trying to do. It was Spencer after all who invented the phrase "survival of the fittest" and was considered by the end of the 19th Century to be one of that century's most important philosophers (along with Hegel, Comte and Mill - it is funny how philosophical fashions change.)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Further Note to make: Darwin did not discover "evolution", that species evolved was well known at the time, however it was believed to do so according to the Lamarckian Paradigm, what he did discover was evolution occured via what he termed "natural selection", which had to do with animals adaption to their enviorments and that it took place over a very long period of time. It should perhaps be noted that the idea of historical "evolution" was hardly one which was invented by Darwin, the idea was perhaps the fundamental intellectual paradigm of the 19th Century: Hegelian Philosophy, Marxism (Diaclectical Materialism - Marx believed he had discovered social evolution like Darwin had discovered biological), Comtean Positivism... all these philosophies and many others at the time were evolutionary in their approach (though usually towards human history) and were developed before Darwin.

Similiarly, Darwin was not the first person to uncover that Earth was millions possibly billions of years old, that had been speculated for at least a century in geology (for example) if not alot longer, see Georges Buffon and Sir Charles Lyell in the 1830s two and half decades before Darwin - though was a massive influence upon him - and his "Principles of Geology" argued that geological changes had taken place over ridiculously long time spans. In relation to Religion there was nothing in Darwin that wasn't in Lyell - except of course the nature of man, for who really cares about rocks?

Nor was Atheism uncommon in the 19th Century (anything but actually.. there were probably more hardcore or militant atheists at that time, then now), at least for someone of Darwin's class, education and profession.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Similiarly, Darwin was not the first person to uncover that Earth was millions possibly billions of years old

     That was something that I noticed recently in Advanced Philosophy. We were reading Moby Dick, & in one of the chapters that I had to explain (chapter 85 IIRC), Melville refers to whales having existed for six thousand years & who knows how many millions more (to paraphrase the actual text since I don't have it with me). I was surprised to read that since Moby Dick had been written before Darwin published his findings.

Of course what's important to point out in that is there was a huge difference between what the educated knew and believed (scientism, positivism, etc) and what was believed by that great uniform abstraction, the ordinary people, never in the 19th Century was this more true (especially in the first three quarters of the 19th Century).

Also it was really only in America where resistance to Darwinism from Religion has survived, bizarrely I think this might have something to do with the lack of an institutionalized church in American history*. After all in France at the time (or rather once Napeleon III decided that taking on Van Bismarck was a good idea) the great political divide was between devout catholics (who often support one monarchial branch or another) and anticlericals (who were usually republicans, though it is a bit complicated). In Europe the church was always a political institution (in the straightforward sense that it was connected with power), which meant that any attack on its legitimacy from say science, could always serve a sociopolitical edge which wasn't always the case in the States. Plus the legacy of the enlightenment was very different in America then it was anywhere else, America had a very conservative enlightenment in many ways - certainly compared France or even arguably Britain - despite the revolution.

* - yes, I enjoy historical speculation

And oh yes, Al, Alfred Russell Wallace deserves some credit as well. Evolution by Natural Selection was one of these things which was always going to be discovered some time in the 19th Century.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

And oh yes, Al, Alfred Russell Wallace deserves some credit as well. Evolution by Natural Selection was one of these things which was always going to be discovered some time in the 19th Century.

There's also something quite amusingly appropriate, being in mind his political views, that he looked like Nye Bevan with a beard.

*Wikis Al Russell Wallace*

Ah yes, but I don't see how having left-wing political views has anything to do with evolution, of course evolution is political in the vague sense because it makes pronouncements about the nature of man but how often is it thought of as effecting day to day situations or the present day world of politics? Unless you mean his interest in spirtualism (ho, ho, ho...).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh. I thought I was the only one who did that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct (and I have already mentioned Marx, not that I think he was too concerned by Biological evolution in itself...). However only the really badly informed and the hacks (and hackademics) think that...