Democritus,

"Hiram Caton is a liar.

Darwin opposed slavery, expressed that eugenics should be left to the choice of the individuals, and generally expressed a far more liberal view than most in his time."

and from Caton's article:
"Darwin passionately opposed slavery from his early years and closely followed Lincoln’s leadership of the Civil War."

How can Caton be a liar if he says this right up front?

The way I read the article, all Caton is saying - and pretty tamely at that - is that there are some double standards operating within that group of people who are getting the plaudits for their contribution to mankind. The final para I think is telling:

"The scientific establishment hails Darwin for his culture-transforming insight into true human origins. Yet this exalted knowledge didn’t free him from the then prevailing belief in the superiority of the Caucasian race. Refusal to acknowledge this fact says something about the vulnerability of High Science to human frailty."

In other words, Darwin's and Lincoln's hold on power and position was contingent on them (mostly) tacitly following the political path of least resistance and not rocking the boat. At the same time, they cleverly/judiciously/wisely [put the correct word in here] positioned themselves so that the majority of the public could not see the double standards operating behind the scenes.

Caton's argument has got absolutely nothing to do with creationists vs evolutionists. His argument is a lot better than that.

RobP

Hiram Caton stated:

"Darwin surmised, by eugenic measures proposed by his cousin, Francis Galton. These he endorsed, but expressed his misgiving that they probably wouldn’t succeed"

He did no such thing

His own daughter died from a congenital defect inherited from him, and he surmised that if he had known he might have chosen not to have passed on this defect. He also suggested that this should be a matter of conscience for others too, but differed from his half cousin in that he believed it should be left to the choice of the individuals concerned.

As eugenics is the forced imposition of this "breeding program" Darwin did not endorse it in the slightest, and saying so is a lie, that if Darwin was alive today would see Caton sued for slander and libel.

To claim that because Darwin did not stand up against all the thinking of the day that has become politically incorrect only in the last few decades, is so trite, that combined with the lie on eugenics, has only the purpose of trying to blacken his character and thus the relevance of his theories.

As Caton's previous articles have been on Darwin along this line, mixing some truths with misdirection and outright lies. It can only be concluded that his purpose is to undermine Darwin.

Whoa there, Democritus –
That someone is deliberately lying and misrepresenting information is a very serious charge. To accuse a scholar who specializes in a certain field of so-doing is to rob that person of their credibility and could have very serious repercussions both for the accused and the one making the accusations if they, in turn, are shown to be wrong.

Is it possible that, in your haste to read an article which obviously concerns someone you admire, you might have skipped something or misunderstood?

The full sentence of which you quoted a part actually reads: “The process can be arrested, Darwin surmised, by eugenic measures proposed by his cousin, Francis Galton.” Thus “The process” is actually the subject of the sentence and the process referred to is the degradation of the human race which Caton is referring to in this paragraph.

By making this degradation the subject both of the entire paragraph as well as the sentence quoted I gained a completely different understanding of this para. than did you.

The endorsement of Galton’s research I took to mean that he could objectively see that the research was sound. The fact that he could see it would be impossible and impractical to introduce such measure to ensure the survival of the fittest rather than the most degraded of humanity seems entirely in line with Darwin as both scientist and man. Certainly I don’t see it blackening his name?

Actually, if any blackening has been done it occurred – for me – in the beginning of the article when Caton professed his colleagues “shocked” when learning that a couple of men from a different time period held the common views of that period.

Makes the colleagues seem like rather thick mob, doesn’t it?

I therefore rather shared the first posters reaction to the piece, which is why I didn’t comment before this.

Surely no one believes that they were born that clichéd paragon of virtue, do they? Does anyone not think that they might be aligned with the idea preserving racial purity etc, were they born a few centuries ago? Perhaps instead of judging figures like Lincoln and Darwin by today's standards, we might appreciate that these figures played a role in formulating the ideas underlying our present civilisation by which so many seem to think themselves superior.

As an example, would any think himself a superior being to a Nu Guinea native who thinks it okay to slit your throat and boil you up in a pot, or simply privileged to be part of a modern civilisation?

A few of the early contributors wrongly accuse Caton of favouring creationism after his slight criticism of Darwin. Perhaps this displays their oversensitivity towards any criticism of Darwin, or how attached is their evolutionary world view to the aura surrounding this 19th Century gent.

I can easily agree with Kenny when he says that race is a social construct and has no biological basis. Yet I don’t see how that squares with Darwin’s writings, ‘Origin of Species: The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Existence’ and others, unless Kenny also sees Darwin’s ideas as residing on no biological basis.

Dear Michael,

When Darwin spoke of "races", he was referring to varieties. The Origin of Species barely even refers to humans.

But thank you for the gross disply of deceitfulness; showing once again that creationists cannot be trusted.