Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on July 16, 2008
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!"
-- Sir Walter Scott
Stove must have practiced a lot, because he was really good at it! So I've found reading - and debunking - Darwinian Fairytales to be both an entertaining and a challenging way to brush up my Darwin. Here are some examples.
Struggle -- In Essay 1, Stove sets up a straw man he calls "Darwinism's Dilemma": first, quoting Huxley, that: "... [human] life was a continual free-fight.", Stove, as if assuming this to be an accurate representation of Darwin's "Struggle for Existence," concludes: "If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species." It does sound something like a dilemma, doesn't it? He then describes three unsatisfactory approaches to this "dilemma".
But wait! Stove, hoping you're still mulling over "hard man", "cave man", etc., mentions in passing that: "Fighting between conspecifics, even fighting for food, is not at all a necessary element in competition as Darwin conceives it, whether it be humans, flies ...." Now that is absolutely correct! In Origins, Chapter 3, Darwin says "I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny." In Chapter 4, he says "In social animals, it [natural selection] will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the community." Further, in "Descent of Man", Darwin explains in detail how survival and selection are different for social organisms in general and unique for man. In short, there's not a free-fight to be found.
So now we have what Huxley thought Darwin meant, what Stove thought Huxley meant, and what Darwin actually said. If there had been any dilemma, it was Huxley's or Stove's, not Darwin's or Darwinism's.
Evolutionism -- In Chapter 2, Stove launches a guilt by association attack on Darwin, associating "evolutionism" with the French Revolution, saying it was "inextricably associated with revolutionary republicanism, regicide, and anti-religious terrorism and the deliberate destruction ... of thousands of innocent people and high culture in any form.", and "When Charles Darwin was born in 1809, therefore evolutionism still stank of the Terror of 1793." Evolutionism is defined as "a belief system based upon the assumption that there is a purely materialistic explanation for the origin of virtually everything that ever has existed, or ever will exist." (David N. Menton) [...]
And Stove deliberately used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinian" to imply a belief system. But Darwin didn't propose a belief system - he simply proposed a scientific theory. Creationists do try to make the case that Darwin's theory is an evolutionism belief system by erroneously claiming it incorporates abiogenesis. Putting the lie to that contention are the many theistic evolutionists who have no difficulty reconciling evolution theory with their religious beliefs. Two noted examples are Kenneth Miller - renowned biologist, evolutionist, and Roman Catholic, and Francis Collins - renowned physician-geneticist, former Head of the Human Genome Project, evolutionist, and Evangelical Christian.
Evolution theory is a valuable tool for biologists, but it is only a tool: a tool is not responsible for who uses -- or misuses -- it. Neither does its validity depend on who developed it or uses it.
Malthus Misquoted -- Stove goes on to misstate Malthus' population statement as "the proposition that, in every species of organisms, population ALWAYS presses upon the supply of food available, and tends to increase beyond it." (My emphasis added.) But what Malthus actually said was that "population, when unchecked, increased in a geometrical ratio and subsistence for man in an arithmetical ratio." (Chapter 2, "An Essay on the Principle of Population") When unchecked: what a difference those two words make!
As Darwin noted: "The amount of food for each species of course gives the extreme limit to which each can increase; but very frequently it is not the obtaining food, but the serving as prey to other animals, which determines the average numbers of a species," and "Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought, I believe to be the most effective of all checks." (Chapter 3, The Origin of Species) That's why we see relatively calm ecosystems, rather than the carnage and chaos that Stove would have us believe Darwin calls for. Predators, prey, scavengers, parasites, etc. interact with each other and the rest of their environment to produce a near static resolution of forces -- usually.
Despite Stove's incredulity, the world's human population IS growing as Malthus predicted. Consider these statistics from [...] :
Year Population (in billions)
1850 1.2
1950 2.55
2010 6.8 (projected)
2050 9.2 (projected)
The population has been and is pressing on the food supply because the supply is not uniformly available to all (particularly crucial and chronic in Africa). Over 5.9 million people have died of starvation this year, as of July 27. ([...]) Millions more have died, and more will die, too malnourished to fend off diseases and other ailments. Out of a world population of about 6.7 billion, 5.9 million isn't a large percentage: perhaps Stove figured such small numbers could safely be ignored.
Malthus Distorted -- Neither Darwin nor Malthus concluded that any species has to go to abnormal lengths to fulfill Malthus' projection, thus Stove's "early and often reproduction" scenario, while amusing, is a caricature that has no applicability to humans and limited applicability elsewhere. Among other objections, it would be counter to basic survival of the fittest. In brief, the fittest isn't simply the one who produces the most progeny: it's the one who produces the most progeny who survive and reproduce. Equally absurd is Stove's contention that incest has any consideration as a fitness strategy. Incest (close inbreeding) is the equivalent of genetic suicide. Darwin said: "...close interbreeding diminishes vigor and fertility..." (Chapter 4, The Origin of Species) If incest had ever been practiced in the human lineage, natural selection would have eliminated it long ago. Modern day incest is a cultural aberration.
Where it's at - Stove references only 7-8 pages of Descent of Man. I'm surprised he referenced it all. A close reading of "The Origin of Species" and especially of "Descent of Man" puts the lie to Stove's claimed shortcomings in Darwin's theory.
When first we practice to deceive!"
-- Sir Walter Scott
Stove must have practiced a lot, because he was really good at it! So I've found reading - and debunking - Darwinian Fairytales to be both an entertaining and a challenging way to brush up my Darwin. Here are some examples.
Struggle -- In Essay 1, Stove sets up a straw man he calls "Darwinism's Dilemma": first, quoting Huxley, that: "... [human] life was a continual free-fight.", Stove, as if assuming this to be an accurate representation of Darwin's "Struggle for Existence," concludes: "If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species." It does sound something like a dilemma, doesn't it? He then describes three unsatisfactory approaches to this "dilemma".
But wait! Stove, hoping you're still mulling over "hard man", "cave man", etc., mentions in passing that: "Fighting between conspecifics, even fighting for food, is not at all a necessary element in competition as Darwin conceives it, whether it be humans, flies ...." Now that is absolutely correct! In Origins, Chapter 3, Darwin says "I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny." In Chapter 4, he says "In social animals, it [natural selection] will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the community." Further, in "Descent of Man", Darwin explains in detail how survival and selection are different for social organisms in general and unique for man. In short, there's not a free-fight to be found.
So now we have what Huxley thought Darwin meant, what Stove thought Huxley meant, and what Darwin actually said. If there had been any dilemma, it was Huxley's or Stove's, not Darwin's or Darwinism's.
Evolutionism -- In Chapter 2, Stove launches a guilt by association attack on Darwin, associating "evolutionism" with the French Revolution, saying it was "inextricably associated with revolutionary republicanism, regicide, and anti-religious terrorism and the deliberate destruction ... of thousands of innocent people and high culture in any form.", and "When Charles Darwin was born in 1809, therefore evolutionism still stank of the Terror of 1793." Evolutionism is defined as "a belief system based upon the assumption that there is a purely materialistic explanation for the origin of virtually everything that ever has existed, or ever will exist." (David N. Menton) [...]
And Stove deliberately used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinian" to imply a belief system. But Darwin didn't propose a belief system - he simply proposed a scientific theory. Creationists do try to make the case that Darwin's theory is an evolutionism belief system by erroneously claiming it incorporates abiogenesis. Putting the lie to that contention are the many theistic evolutionists who have no difficulty reconciling evolution theory with their religious beliefs. Two noted examples are Kenneth Miller - renowned biologist, evolutionist, and Roman Catholic, and Francis Collins - renowned physician-geneticist, former Head of the Human Genome Project, evolutionist, and Evangelical Christian.
Evolution theory is a valuable tool for biologists, but it is only a tool: a tool is not responsible for who uses -- or misuses -- it. Neither does its validity depend on who developed it or uses it.
Malthus Misquoted -- Stove goes on to misstate Malthus' population statement as "the proposition that, in every species of organisms, population ALWAYS presses upon the supply of food available, and tends to increase beyond it." (My emphasis added.) But what Malthus actually said was that "population, when unchecked, increased in a geometrical ratio and subsistence for man in an arithmetical ratio." (Chapter 2, "An Essay on the Principle of Population") When unchecked: what a difference those two words make!
As Darwin noted: "The amount of food for each species of course gives the extreme limit to which each can increase; but very frequently it is not the obtaining food, but the serving as prey to other animals, which determines the average numbers of a species," and "Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought, I believe to be the most effective of all checks." (Chapter 3, The Origin of Species) That's why we see relatively calm ecosystems, rather than the carnage and chaos that Stove would have us believe Darwin calls for. Predators, prey, scavengers, parasites, etc. interact with each other and the rest of their environment to produce a near static resolution of forces -- usually.
Despite Stove's incredulity, the world's human population IS growing as Malthus predicted. Consider these statistics from [...] :
Year Population (in billions)
1850 1.2
1950 2.55
2010 6.8 (projected)
2050 9.2 (projected)
The population has been and is pressing on the food supply because the supply is not uniformly available to all (particularly crucial and chronic in Africa). Over 5.9 million people have died of starvation this year, as of July 27. ([...]) Millions more have died, and more will die, too malnourished to fend off diseases and other ailments. Out of a world population of about 6.7 billion, 5.9 million isn't a large percentage: perhaps Stove figured such small numbers could safely be ignored.
Malthus Distorted -- Neither Darwin nor Malthus concluded that any species has to go to abnormal lengths to fulfill Malthus' projection, thus Stove's "early and often reproduction" scenario, while amusing, is a caricature that has no applicability to humans and limited applicability elsewhere. Among other objections, it would be counter to basic survival of the fittest. In brief, the fittest isn't simply the one who produces the most progeny: it's the one who produces the most progeny who survive and reproduce. Equally absurd is Stove's contention that incest has any consideration as a fitness strategy. Incest (close inbreeding) is the equivalent of genetic suicide. Darwin said: "...close interbreeding diminishes vigor and fertility..." (Chapter 4, The Origin of Species) If incest had ever been practiced in the human lineage, natural selection would have eliminated it long ago. Modern day incest is a cultural aberration.
Where it's at - Stove references only 7-8 pages of Descent of Man. I'm surprised he referenced it all. A close reading of "The Origin of Species" and especially of "Descent of Man" puts the lie to Stove's claimed shortcomings in Darwin's theory.
