 |
|
Title: The Descent of Man (Penguin Classics)
ISBN: 0140436316
Author:
Charles Darwin
Publicate Date: 2004-06-29
Publish: 2004-06-29
List Price: $17.00
Average Customer Rating: 3.5
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $9.68
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $9.70
Amazon Merchant Price: $11.56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: The descent of Social Darwinism
"The Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin is a shocking book. All this time, I assumed that Social Darwinism was a aberration from original Darwinism, invented by the likes of Herbert Spencer and Ernest Haeckel. Right? Wrong. This book proves that Social Darwinism began with Darwin himself. In a foreword to another edition of this book, Richard Dawkins tries to sweep the matter under the rug, by simply stating that Darwin was influenced by the spirit of his time, which unfortunately was racist. Then Dawkins swiftly moves on to other issues, including sexual selection.
But Darwin's racism cannot be that easily dispensed with. It wasn't simply an unfortunate icing on the cake. Quite the contrary, Darwin very closely connects his racism to the theory of natural selection. Since humans, including human behaviour, is a product of natural selection, and since natural selection is still going on, it therefore follows that some races of man are doomed to destruction in the struggle for existence. Tasmanians, for instance. Or colored people in general, perhaps? Or even the Irish! Thus, Darwin makes a methodological, "scientific" connection between his theory of evolution, and what is in effect nascent Social Darwinism. It's not simply a matter of some crude, racist joke comparing Africans to monkeys. To Darwin, the survival of the fittest human races is very much part of what makes evolution tick in the first place. In the fashion typical of later eugenicists, he bemoans the fact that the underclass breeds to fast (the Irish, in his example), but holds out hope that there might be some tendencies to check their high birth rate, for instance an even higher mortality rate.
And there is more. Darwin is usually painted as the first Neo-Darwinist, in the sense that he didn't believe evolution was "progressive". Indeed, his perspective in "The Origins of Species" doesn't sound "progressive". But his perspective in "The Descent of Man" sure does! It's quite clear that Darwin views the Europeans as higher in the progressive, absolute sense of that term, whereas Patagonians or Tasmanians are lower. This raises a lot of awkward questions about Darwin's attitude in general. Haeckel is often accused of having "misunderstood" Darwin, but if "The Descent of Man" is something to go after, it's difficult to see what on earth he is supposed to have misunderstood?! At most, it seems as if Darwin wasn't entirely clear on the question of "progress" himself.
Despite caveats to the contrary, Darwin is also a moral relativist. To him, morality is simply a social feeling moulded by the same natural selection that moulds everything else. Thus, he muses that if another social species had become intelligent, say bees, it's morality would be very different from that of humans. Presumably, bees would consider it moral to kill their brothers and sisters! Of course, such a perspective rules out absolute morality, since what is "moral" depends on the evolutionary history of the species in question. "Morality" is simply a fancier term for herd instinct.
Racism, Social Darwinism, moral relativism...and yes, he says that men are smarter than women. Imagine if poor Haeckel had written this book! It would have been touted by "Scientific American" as proof positive that this blond, blue-eyed, physically well-trained Prussian was indeed a proto-Nazi. But Darwin...naah. He was simply influenced by the Zeitgeist, pardon, the spirit of the times.
So does this mean that Darwin was wrong, scientifically speaking? Both yes and no, I imagine. No scientifically literate person denies that humans are descended from other primates (or apes and monkeys, if you wish). But is that the end of story? I think the problem is that Darwin is reducing humans to being products of natural selection, pure and simple. True, Darwin *does* say that cultural factors have become more important, but somehow that doesn't square with the rest of his book.
Of course, if humans are reduced to nothing beyond the purely materialist, the purely natural-selectionist, it's difficult to avoid the Social Darwinist consequences, especially if you have a "progressive" perspective on evolution.
[This was originally intended as a review of the 2003 Gibson Square Books edition, with a foreword by Richard Dawkins. For some reason, one cannot review this edition at present, so I had to place it here instead.]
|
2: The beginning of human evolution understanding...
If you want to understand the human evolution, you might read the original though. Of course, there are some misunderstandings, then you might read considering the historical influence and personal conflicts of Charles Darwin. Essential for researchers on sexual selection.
|
3: defies common sense
This book is totally boring and idiotic.
Only a fool would believe that our ancestors were gorillas. If you believe that we descended from gorillas and/or lizards, you probably also believe that The Earth revolves around the sun.
The Earth is stationary, just like it seems. The sun revolves around The Earth, just like the moon (except hotter). Use your noodle. It's common sense.
The Lord created The Earth (and the heavens) out of sawdust, clay, dinosaur bones, and mud. He did so in six days, and slept on the seventh day. This occurred 6000 or 7000 years ago. Evolution could not have occurred in such a short period of time.
Wake up, you've been duped.
|
4: Freed our minds for relativity
Just as "Origin of Species is misunderstood, I believe "Descent" to be also, although the latter is a more entertaining read. "Descent" fails to concentrate on man without deviating. It is a book of observations and study. It concentrates on how animal life, has, by sexual selection, brought forth the variety in the species we see today, through millions of years. Darwin covered his beloved pigeons in depth in "Origins" and continues at length on many other bird species in "Descent". I agree with him that all the different types of birds we see today probably came from one ancestor of the pigeon. This is called variation of kind. We see this in just about every living creature and flora. The problem arises when the next step is taken, the rise of one species turning into another (reptile to bird). Throughout the book Darwin does admit to this fact, but he still maintains that it must be, with much difficulty. He does hint to nature having some "power of thought", where does this come from? How does nature make these choices? Why did Darwin focus so on the black tribes: their practices, looks, sexuality, if he did not believe them a lower race? Of course he only hints at this, and his belief of evolving from apes is scant, but obvious. Does not the use of race to distinguish only separate? His theory on idiots as somehow lower is also disturbing. And what of the rudimentary parts and vestigial organs. As we progress in our scientific study we understand more on their uses, and there may be much we will never understand. In the end he gives a poor argument, and a convoluted book.
There is no doubt there is a tremendous amount of work that went into his book. It is a difficult and painful read, although there are many interesting and detailed observations. One does need to know his enemy. Darwin is not the originator of "evolution." There are many who came before him, since the dawn of time. He was influenced by numerous men of his time, some being more radical. Darwin was nothing new, he just maid it "hip." What he started has turned into the secular humanism the world has adopted. I don't think he meant for this disease to spread like it has. From his writings I understand him as an agnostic, but doubtful. I believed he struggled with the possibly of a deist. It is safe to say it was his only ambition till his dying day to prove "evolution" as proof of our existence. What of the missing fossil record?, he new they would be found. He was a confusing man.
150 years later and there still has been no intermediate fossils found to prove the case. In fact we are discovering more that validates creation.
Why don't we see a scale or a feather erupt occasionally on man? Is it because it is not in our DNA, and never was?
The theory of evolution caused Darwin to loose his faith and his experience has been repeated in countless lives. Evolution is an acid that eats away at the mind, a cancer.
One only needs to open the pages to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", to understand the futility of the evolutionary theory. The engines of life at the molecular level are so complex that there leaves no other possibility than a creator of the universe. There should be no excuse.
Wish you well
Scott
|
5: Freed our minds for relativity
Just as "Origin of Species is misunderstood, I believe "Descent" to be also, although the latter is a more entertaining read. "Descent" fails to concentrate on man without deviating. It is a book of observations and study. It concentrates on how animal life, has, by sexual selection, brought forth the variety in the species we see today, through millions of years. Darwin covered his beloved pigeons in depth in "Origins" and continues at length on many other bird species in "Descent". I agree with him that all the different types of birds we see today probably came from one ancestor of the pigeon. This is called variation of kind. We see this in just about every living creature and flora. The problem arises when the next step is taken, the rise of one species turning into another (reptile to bird). Throughout the book Darwin does admit to this fact, but he still maintains that it must be, with much difficulty. He does hint to nature having some "power of thought", where does this come from? How does nature make these choices? Why did Darwin focus so on the black tribes: their practices, looks, sexuality, if he did not believe them a lower race? Of course he only hints at this, and his belief of evolving from apes is scant, but obvious. Does not the use of race to distinguish only separate? His theory on idiots as somehow lower is also disturbing. And what of the rudimentary parts and vestigial organs. As we progress in our scientific study we understand more on their uses, and there may be much we will never understand. In the end he gives a poor argument, and a convoluted book.
There is no doubt there is a tremendous amount of work that went into his book. It is a difficult and painful read, although there are many interesting and detailed observations. One does need to know his enemy. Darwin is not the originator of "evolution." There are many who came before him, since the dawn of time. He was influenced by numerous men of his time, some being more radical. Darwin was nothing new, he just maid it "hip." What he started has turned into the secular humanism the world has adopted. I don't think he meant for this disease to spread like it has. From his writings I understand him as an agnostic, but doubtful. I believed he struggled with the possibly of a deist. It is safe to say it was his only ambition till his dying day to prove "evolution" as proof of our existence. What of the missing fossil record?, he new they would be found. He was a confusing man.
150 years later and there still has been no intermediate fossils found to prove the case. In fact we are discovering more that validates creation.
Why don't we see a scale or a feather erupt occasionally on man? Is it because it is not in our DNA, and never was?
The theory of evolution caused Darwin to loose his faith and his experience has been repeated in countless lives. Evolution is an acid that eats away at the mind, a cancer.
One only needs to open the pages to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", to understand the futility of the evolutionary theory. The engines of life at the molecular level are so complex that there leaves no other possibility than a creator of the universe. There should be no excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
