Darwin Was No "Darwinist"

"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty." — Stephen Jay Gould




Richard Dawkins has been called the new Darwin. It’s an attribution that his legions of mostly fawning followers would vigorously defend (See RichardDawkins.net, ludicrously subtitled “A Clear-Thinking Oasis”, for some textbook sycophancy). If you thought this idea had any currency then “The Selfish Genius” by Fern Elsdon-Baker should put you straight.

Dawkins has written extensively on Darwinism but it’s possible to identify some themes that preoccupy him

-Darwin was a lone and cool voice of reason crying in the wilderness
-Darwin believed selection was the only evolutionary driver
-Atheism is a necessary consequence of a proper understanding of evolution

This presentation is remarkably supportive of Dawkins own views
Unfortunately for Dawkins, however, "The Selfish Genius" examines the basis for them and finds little empirical evidence.

The first section provides an historical overview that locates Darwin within a scientific and theological community largely receptive to the idea of evolution. It also touches upon Darwin’s thought on the mechanisms “driving” evolution and shows they include the idea of use and disuse drivers (for Dawkins a Lamarckian heresy). Ironically, Dawkins view of evolution with its exclusive emphasis on selection is shown to owe more to Wallace & Weismann than it does to Darwin. This is not exactly breaking fresh ground - Stephen Jay Gould said this years ago when he labelled him a neo-Darwinian. In fact this characterisation of Dawkins is remarkably apt. This is the same label that Darwin’s close friend George Romanes used to describe Wallace and Weismann’s articulation of the theory. Despite the lack of fit Dawkins presents his ideas as a seamless continuation of Darwin’s work. Clearly, attempts to cloak your own views with the respectability of another’s authority is an age old trick. However, it’s ironic that Dawkins should make consistency with the scriptures the litmus test of respectability. In this he’s a little like an evangelical Christian! In his wilful(?) misrepresentation of the writ he’s a lot like a Stalinist!

The second section is devoted to Dawkins’ public role promoting the public understanding of science, particularly his more recent interventions into religious affairs. His thinking on religion although at odds with Wallace could not be called “Darwinian” for the simple reason that Darwin was a professed agnostic. This is something that Dawkins appears to have belatedly, and reluctantly, recognised. How he’s managed to suggest otherwise for so long is a source of wonder. However, the nature of Darwin’s faith is largely of historical interest. The real thrust of this section is an attempt to reframe the debate on religion and science. Elsdon-Baker believes that Dawkins’s approach is not just wrong-headed but also dangerous (Dawkins Dangerous Idea?)
Unfortunately, whilst Dawkins has shown considerable flexibility with regard to his day job (adapting it to incorporate the challenge of horizontal gene transfer for example) it’s here where he’s at his most dogmatic. You only have to bear in mind Daniel C Dennett’s phrase “Brights” used for atheists to get the flavour of the debate. Although Elsdon-Baker doesn’t go as far as Gould & Ruse in suggesting Science should steer clear of moral and ethical questions she recommends a more measured (rational?) debate.

As well as a plea for a less fundamentalist atheism the book is also a timely corrective to Dawkins’ self-serving misappropriation of Darwin. This misuse and distortion is not uncommon. Marx when faced with the use of his name to justify some of the more outlandish activities of the 1st International is alleged to have quipped “All I know is that I’m not a Marxist”. I’ve a sneaking suspicion that if Darwin was alive today, facing Dawkins’ version of evolutionary theory, he might want to deny his own name too.