Here, once again, is a run-down of all the evidence against your "case" that you continue to ignore:
As prominent as phrenology had become in England during Darwin's day, he did not devote significant, long-term time to, or fundamental respect for, its race-based features:
“ . . .[T]he theory is [of phrenology] is almost never mentioned by Darwin, who did not discuss it, nor mentioned in any of the two editions of the 'Descent of Man' the experiments which by then had demonstrated that some movements hitherto attributed to free will could be produced by localised electrical simulation of the brain (although a section on the brain was added to the second edition in 1874).”
(“Darwin and Phrenology,” published by “The Darwin Human Nature Project,” 24 November 2010, at:
http://darwinhumannature.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/darwin-and-phrenology/)
Indeed, science journalist and author David Quammen's impressively detailed examination of the first edition text of Darwin's "Origin of Species" offers virtually no reference to the race-poisoned doctrines of phrenology.
Rather, phrenology-backer Watson is mentioned by Darwin within the context of the latter's scientific views on “the “nature and relations of [plant] species” (p. 65); on "acclimatization" (pp. 155, 357); on "range of varieties of British plants" (pp. 56-57, 68, 70, 359), and on "rarity of intermediate varieties" (pp. 180, 349).
Notably, not a word of attribution to Darwin is offered up from the pages of "Origin of Species" on Watson's misguided views on phrenology.
(David Quamman, general editor, "Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species: The Illustrated Edition" [New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., 2008], in “Index,” under “Watson, Mr. H. C.,” p. 544)
And no wonder. Darwin was a fierce abolitionist whose deeply-held anti-slavery views arguably drove his investigations into human evolution.
As one PhD in anthropological genetics has noted of Darwin's views on race and phrenology:
“Physical anthropology has its roots, at least in part according to . . . authors [Adrian Desmond and James Moore in 'Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution'], in phrenology. That's the pseudo-science of determining temperament from the shape of the skull.
"Not surprisingly, given that phrenology developed in Europe, Europeans were said to have the most refined skulls and phrenological findings were used to justify slavery, something Darwin's entire family was against.
“Darwin would not have been impressed with the physical anthropologists of his day--especially in America--where differences in skull morphology were seen as 'proof' of a polygenic origin of humans.
"According to polygenists, each human 'race' had its own pair of progenitors and were separately created, an idea used to justify all sorts of atrocities, since non-Europeans were seen as less than human.
“Darwin held the monogenist view, and saw all peoples as descended from a common ancestor, meaning they were all worthy of being treated with dignity and respect, and slavery was unjustified. Actually, he took it farther than that, and saw a common ancestor for all living things. . . .
“My discipline has come a long way since Darwin's day. The American Anthropological Association's 'Statement on Race and Intelligence' states in part:
“'WHEREAS, all human beings are members of one species, 'Homo sapiens;' and
“'WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically- defined 'races' has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits);
“'THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially-determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people.'
“And the American Association of Physical Anthropologists has their own 'Statement on Biological Aspects of Race,' which says:
“' . . . The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.'
“That is one of the greatest strengths of the scientific methods. It is self-correcting Scientists learn from their mistakes and misunderstandings.”
(Adrian Desmond and James, Moore, “ Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution” [New York: Houghton Mifflin 2009], 448 pp, at:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Sacred-Cause-Slavery-Evolution/dp/0547055269 ; and “2010 Book Club: 'Darwin's Sacred Cause,'" at:
http://geknitics.com/2010/03/2010-book-club-darwins-sacred-cause))
_____
Quite simply, Darwin was not a serious or devoted student of populist racist phrenology. To the contrary, Darwin's more curious-than-committed late-teenage era interest in regard for phrenology had all but evaporated by his 20th year:
“Darwin’s early doubts about one of the most popular [n]ineteenth-century theories of nature can be found in the correspondence:
"In 1830, a young Charles wrote to his cousin and friend William Darwin Fox [with whom Darwin had spent three weeks in the summer of 1829 at the Fox family home at Osmaston Hall]:
"'I forgot to mention, I dined with Sir J. Mackintosh & had some talk with him about Phrenology, & he has entirely battered down the very little belief of it that I picked up at Osmaston. . . . He says, as long as Education is supposed to have any effect on decreasing the power in any organ of the brain, he cannot see how it can ever be proven true.'”
(“Darwin and Phrenology,” under “Darwin and Human Nature: The Blog,” at:
http://darwinhumannature.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/darwin-and-phrenology/ ; and Darwin, letter to Fox, postmarked 3 January 1830, in “The Correspondence of Charles Darwin,” p. 97, at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VsB-bnCMEbcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)
_____
Despite the compelling historical evidence, “anon's” subterfuge keeps on comin,' as he/she conveniently fails to mention that while phrenology-advocate Watson (who was also a noted expert of his day in plant speciation and with whom Darwin compared notes on matters of botanical evolution) , Watson was nonetheless “torn between botany and phrenology. ”
In fact, Watson eventually abandoned efforts to openly argue for phrenology as a legitimate field of science. In 1840 ( nearly two decades before Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species”) Watson “gave up phrenology because he could not raise it to the level of accepted science.” “
(Frank N. Egerton,”Hewett Cottrell Watson: Victorian Plant Ecologist and Evolutionist” [Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003], p. 1, at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zRfsQazylT8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=watson+could+not+raise+it+to+the+level+of+accepted+science&source=bl&ots=oCH3CO5fpn&sig=C_CFQcJhqXz44ycHhKiHABBIOa4&hl=en&ei=_PsWTbDHIJP4sAPk3_W3Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=watson%20could%20not%20raise%20it%20to%20the%20level%20of%20accepted%20science&f=false)
_____
Who can blame both Darwin and Watson for ultimately concluding there was no empirical merit in phrenology?
To be sure, phrenology today “is remembered as a pseudo-science [whose] leaders strove long and hard [and in the end unsuccessfully] to achieve scientific credibility.” Darwin is not regarded by serious historians as having been a prominent or meaningful supporter of race-based phrenology and, in fact, the record (one unfortunately cherry-picked by “anon”) shows that Darwin criticized its unscientific aspects.
Furthermore, “anon” fails to mention that Darwin had a scientific falling out with another famous phrenologist, Alfred Russel Wallace-- despite the fact that Darwin and Wallace had come to similar (albeit independent) conclusions on the reality of human evolution:
“Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently discovered natural selection, and a set of common experiences surely contributed to that event. But, there were also major differences in their life-experience as collectors and travelers, their socio-political commitments, and their personal styles. . . .
“[W]hat is, perhaps, the most fundamental area of disagreement between Darwin and Wallace . . [was on] the evolution of humanity.
"Darwin argued that human evolution could be explained by natural selection, with sexual selection as a significant supplementary principle.
“Wallace always had doubts about sexual selection, and ultimately concluded that natural selection alone was insufficient to account for a set of uniquely human characteristics. Among these characteristics, the size and complexity of the human brain, found in all extant human races, occupied a central position.
“Wallace proposed that some new agent had to be invoked, in order to explain the existence of a brain, that could support the common intellectual activities of European culture, but was not (in his view) required to support survival and reproduction in the people that he lived with in the tropics.
“Wallace’s interest in the human brain, and in a materialistic view of brain function, was a natural outcome of an early and
enduring belief in Phrenology. Once he had identified the 'paradoxical' cerebral hypertrophy of non-European racial groups, Wallace’s commitment to 'adaptationism,' meant that a supplementary principle had to be invoked in order to account for that hypertrophy.
“The invocation of a higher power, and/or supreme intelligence, that intervened to create modern humanity, was undoubtedly facilitated by his interest in, and conversion to, spiritualism.
“Wallace’s abandonment of natural selection and sexual selection, as the sole agents of human evolution, set him apart from Darwin - and that, inevitably raises questions about the reasons for Wallace’s defection. Among Wallace’s personal traits was a consistent attraction to unpopular causes, including phrenology and spiritualism. Just as he had been attracted to evolutionary ideas, against the prevailing views of hi stime, so he diverged, from his fellow 'Darwinists,' by invoking the action of a 'Higher Intelligence' to account for the nature of our species.”
(Stephen E. Glickman, Departments of Psychology and Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, “Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, and the Evolution/Creation of the Human Brain And Mind,” in “Gayana “ 73 (Supplement), 2009, at:
http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/gayana/v73s1/art04.pdf)
*****
Having historically gone where “anon” has irresponsibly failed to tread, it's clear that while “anon” pretends (in “anon's own words) to “always engage in healthy debate,” he/she might first want to try to become healthily informed.
(“Re: Darwinian Evolution ? How does this differ from evolution ?,” posted by “anon,” Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, 25 December 2010, 2:30 p.m., at:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,62549,63512#msg-63512)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 10:36PM by steve benson.