Relying on an unsourced claim posted in a "Wikipedia,” article, RfM poster “anon” makes the sweeping and misleading assertion that Charles Darwin “was a believer in [the] false science [of phrenology].”

(“Darwin was a believer in a false science and claimed it contributed to TOOS ['The Origin of Species']," posted by “anon," on “Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, 25 December 2010, 04:32 p.m., at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,62549,63564#msg-63564; and “Edinburgh Phrenological Society,” under “The Society,” at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Phrenological_Society)
_____


Lifting from the above "Wiki" piece, “anon” goes on to misleadingly claim that in the 1850s leading phrenologist Hewett Cottrell Watson “conducted an extensive correspondence with Charles Darwin concerning the geographical distribution of British plant species and Darwin made a generous acknowledgment Watson's scientific contributions in 'The Origin of Species.'”

They key words here are “scientific contributions.” Phrenology was not scientific.

"anon" has here been caught in a readily-identifiable half-truth--which we shall see is "anon's" apparent 'modus operandi,' since he/she does not appear to be particularly interested in providing historically accurate reviews on accessible matters of record.

What “anon” conveniently fails to quote is that even the "Wiki" article portrays Darwin's teenage-era curiosity in phrenology as having taken the form of “several rather casual and complimentary references to the views of the phrenologists” that Darwin recorded “[i]n his early notebooks”--observations that had to do with outrage sparked by “advanced phrenological theories concerning the human mind in terms of Lamarkian evolution of the brain in a style destined to attract the opposition of almost all the members of the Plinian Society."

(“Edinburgh Phrenological Society,” under “The Society,” at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Phrenological_Society)
_____


“anon” grievously takes what occurred regarding Darwin's views on phrenology out of broader historical context and substitutes a factually bogus “argument” loaded with deceptive insinuations.

Most notably, perhaps, “anon' inexcusably fails to report that the young Darwin quickly concluded phrenology was not deserving of serious scientific consideration--and said so in correspondence.
_____


Before going further, just what is this discredited notion of “phrenology?” A basic definition follows:

“According to the phrenological doctrine, as elaborated by Franz Joseph Gall, the shape of the skull reflects the `organs’ or faculties of the brain. Phrenology attained considerable popularity in England; by 1832 there were 29 phrenological societies and an influential journal edited by George Combe.”

(“The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 13, 1865, Supplement 1822-1864,” by Charles Darwin, Frederick Burkhardt and Sydney Smith, under “January 1830,” footnote 5 [Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1985], p. 97, at: http://books.google.com/books?id=VsB-bnCMEbcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)
_____


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 21 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 06:05PM by steve benson.

I don't get his point.

First of all Evolution does not care who stumbled upon it or what person's name humans like to associate with evolution. It doesn't care what other things a person "believes" in.

Just because someone notices natural selection doesn't mean he knows everything about everything else. I don't care if Darwin believed in flying doorknobs. It doesn't impact whether or not his observations about evolution can be explained and verified.

Evolution isn't some moral process that is supposed to generate nice humans. It's based on opportunity, niche, contingency, and success of the organism.

Who cares about what Hitler thinks or does or what Darwin knew. I can't figure out why "anon" thinks this impacts evolution itself.

It seems to me that Darwin's knowledge of evolution was about as rudimentary as his knowledge of phrenology. Some of the HYPOTHESES get disproved, some get refined and become theories. That's the beauty of science.

I woke up with some of the ideas from Steve's thread about evolution swimming around my head in synchronized tandem with the notions of "Social Darwinism" that "raptorjesus" identified.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,63681

My first reaction was to comment, as I did, on the utter absurdity of linking Darwin's views with the practices of Hitler and the Nazis; "anon" took offense when I suggested--as did Steve--he appeared to be drinking, but I'll stand on that one as being a bit kinder than Dawkins' summary view that "anybody who didn't believe in evolution must be stupid, insane or ignorant."

Dawkins was quick to modify his barb, noting that being ignorant is not a criminal act...

I'll add to mine the understanding that being drunk isn't either, and it's certainly a temporary situation easily remedied, but giving others that impression when one isn't has much deeper ramifications.

Anon's use of the term "Social Darwinism" reduces to something equally as silly as the suggestion that phrenology is a science; in both there is an attempt to offer an element of scientific precision that is lacking. We accept today that phrenology is generally ludicrous; we should be doing the same with "Social Darwinsim" as well... It is simply "non-useful."

Per Wiki, which I am using strictly for summarizing purposes rather than as an authoritative voice...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

>Social Darwinism is a term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies which, while often contradictory, exploited ideas of survival of the fittest.

The atomic bomb exploited Einstein's ideas of relativity in physics, and while we note his letter to President Roosevelt on the viability of the belief an atomic bomb could be constructed, repsonsibility to use that bomb rests squarely on Roosevelt's successor, President Truman...

History does not condemn Einstein, but rather recognizes his genius...

Anyone doubt now why I suggested "anon" might've been imbibing?

Moreover, the fact that there are "contradictory ideas" within the phrase "Social Darwinism" makes the connection even more tenuous.

It amounts to yet another disingenuous attempt to "smear the reporter," period, and in this case it amounted to smearing Darwin-the-reporter for a story that wasn't even under his by-line...

>The term "social darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents.

It is a "legitimate political tactic" to engage in such smears, but they must be reconized as politics and not science. Science would then deal with whether the smear was accurate or not... BTW, as one who has reviewed dozens of physical anthropology works in trying to learn more about the origins and migration patterns of Native Americans (per Simon Southerton, to bring this back to topic), I howled over that "Physical anthropology has its roots, at least in part... in phrenology."

In looking at the claims of the "diffusionist" crowd (promoted by both Rodney Meldrum and John L. Sorenson), they have relied heavily on the claims of physical anthropologists to insist on an non-extistent Africa/South American connection...

Okay Cabbie, back to bed... Nobody is going to think you're drunk, but it's pretty obvious they will realize you're rambling...

They seem to be attacking one of their own.

Benson wrote.

"Most notably, perhaps, “anon' inexcusably fails to report that the young Darwin quickly concluded phrenology was not deserving of serious scientific consideration--and said so in correspondence."

I ask-Is there evidence you would like to cite that Darwin did in fact end his lifelong affair with the false science of Phrenology that I could examine?



Mr. Benson you cannot "spin" this one with your radicalizations.

The truth is not always comfortable as you found out in your exit from Mormonism.

Tell us you're working on a routine patterned after Steven Colbert...

Do you have any evidence to show that Darwin, at the time he wrote On the Origin of Species still believed in phrenology?

Benson has provided a quote from Darwin rejecting phrenology prior to that time. Do you have any evidence to suggest that he still had a "life long affair" with phrenology? Or are you just trying to engage in obfuscation and character assassination?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 03:43PM by D. P. Gumby.

Moreover, "anon" falsely implied that in praising the botanical research of Watson in ""Origin," Darwin was praising Watson's "phrenological" beliefs. That is demonstrably untrue.

I also noted that Darwin parted company with Wallace over Wallace's spiritualistic leanings toward phrenology.

"anon" made the overtly false claim that Darwin was a believer in the pseudo-science of phrenology. Citing evidence directly to the contrary, I disproved "anon's" uninformed assertion, chapter and verse.

"anon" really needs to read more and rely less on unsourced claims from Wiki.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 06:24PM by steve benson.

Newton was a devout believer in a kind of 'Bible code'.... he was also into (magical) Alchemy.

even so.... I still believe in gravity



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 02:04PM by onceanelder.

Attributing to Darwin beliefs that he either did not hold, or that he clearly discarded, is usually accompanied by a thinly-veiled ulterior motive.

The motives are, most commonly:
1. Degrade Darwin in order to upgrade God(s).
2. Revive fears of secularism in order to send the sheeple scurrying to God(s).
3. Sneak right-wing theocracy in by the back door (i.e., without God we're all Hitler or Stalin or coldly robotic or committed to killing the unfit, therefore we should set up a government as close to a theocracy as possible, forgodsake)
4. Discredit science in general by focusing on an incomplete or long-since-amended component of Darwin's theories.
5. Prove that heartfelt, emotion-based "knowledge" (preferably god-based) makes the writer smarter than Darwin and able to see through the wicked, reductionist nature of science.

That these kinds of arguments are represented by hundreds of thousands of websites is cause for dismay.

The amount of incest going on among the websites troubles me. They rape each other's content and images without so much as a by-your-leave, and have no qualms about repeating lies and half-truths while engaging in exactly zero investigation of original sources.

It's part of the dumbing down of far too great a proportion of the human population. They have elevated ignorance to the level of virtue.

The motives are, most commonly:
1. Degrade god in order to upgrade Darwin.
2. Revive fears of god in order to send the sheeple scurrying to secularism(because its safe there as China has proven to the Tibetans).
3. Sneak anti-scientific thought processes in by the back door (i.e., with God we're all Hitler or Stalin or coldly robotic or committed to killing the unfit, therefore we should set up a government as close to a theocracy as possible, for racesake)
4. Discredit a creator in general by focusing on an incomplete or long-since-amended component of Darwin's theories.
5. Prove that scientific process,not- emotion-based "knowledge" (preferably science-based) makes the writer(once more) smarter than God and able to see through the wicked, reductionist nature of "God."

I am not sure if any of you know that reading is fundamental and I did tell you geniuses I believe in evolution but that does not change Darwins lifelong involvement in a false science.

Steve didn't you do some posts on MLK's doctoral thesis being (sp) plagerized?

P-S- your right phrenology is so very racist and pathetically unscientific!

Can you send me a link to your MLK rants they so remind me of another of your relatives racist rants!

I've shown that Darwin did precisely the opposite in explicitly rejecting it and, in doing so, put himself at odds with leading phrenology adovocates of his day--years before he authored "Origin of the Species."

Please try making a legitimate case by citing actual evidence from the historical record to back up your obviously uninformed and demonstrably false assertion on the matter.

Either that or just admit you were wrong and take your creationist doll and go home.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 06:01PM by steve benson.

in his twentieth year why did he tell another man(Phrenology's leading man) in correspondence in the 1840's-he had contributed to TOOS.

I am not "hurling' this fact at you because you act like a reptile Mr. Benson. I am just wishing to investigate this controversy with you:)

Shoot, my TBM biology teacher (MS, BYU) contributed to my interest in evolution and writing (a smallish letter of mine was published in a national magazine on the subject in the 1970's when I was still a teen).

This was because he was, quite frankly, a deluded idiot who should never have been permitted to teach science, particularly as part of the gifted students program (unless you consider Bigfoot a legitimate item to include in the science curriculum).

Just as a hypothesis, observations about similarities and differences in skull shapes could've contributed to Darwin's ideas, BTW, and an objective view of say, a skull from Africa, and one from Europe may have influenced his conclusions some fifteen years later.

You're quick with stupid questions there, guy, but you're slow on answers and references and engaging in the very spin you accuse Steve B. of...

And this particular shell game is pretty juvenile (oops, there I go again); what does the issue of Darwin's possible familiarity with phrenology have to do with the reality of evolution as an ongoing occurence anyway? Or those tendencies to parrot talking points that I keep pointing out you engage in? You're in utter denial of your own actions...

You aren't Glenn Beck, are you?

Steve has misrepresented the fact that Darwin gave up on Phrenology.

When you say you were in the "gifted" class I truly believe you sir.

Secondly-Steve thought if he spun it all hard enough no one would put the timeline together because Darwin is Steves guy.

Again when an overweight-unloved, loner and cab driver tell's me my questions are stupid -I know exactly the very "keen" intellect I am dealing with in you sir. Cabbie and Benson seem to be taking anti-mormonism- to a new and unprecedented and very anti -scientific status.

I'm bored with the ignorance of you two.

Yawn.

Narcissists appear to feign boredom when somebody attempts to hold them accountable for their actions...

The boredom, by all accounts, however, is real (I wouldn't want to think I was invalidating your feelings there, nonner), and it's part of the reason the psychopathology is so intransigent.

Further, I demonstrated the falsity of your implication that Darwin supposedly endorsed in the pages of "Origin" the spiritualism-driven views of Watson on phrenology, when in fact, what he positively mentioned in "Origin" was Watson's scientific examination of and contributions to field studies in the area of plant evolution.

I noted that Darwin split company with Wallace's belief in phrenology over natural selection when it came to the evolution of the human brain.

I also noted Darwin's opposition to slavery based upon his regard for the equal common ancestoral origins of all human beings from a single point of physical origin, thereby putting him at odds with the racist, unscientific phrenological claim that Europeans' skull shapes supposedly indicated their organic superiority over non-Europeans, allegedly "proven" by the unscientific, mythological belief that European and non-European populations had separate original progenitors.

I also noted that Darwin completely ignored phrenology in his subsequent editions of "Descent of Man."

It was you who initially claimed that Darwin was supposedly a committed believer in phrenology. Prove it with actual historical data (which, by the way, doesn't include unsourced claims from a Wiki article).

Good luck. You'll definitely need it.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 06:28PM by steve benson.

Produce actual historical evidence to back that up, please, specifically sourced and quoted.

I've cited evidence that directly contradicts your uninformed and disproveable assertions, which you have yet to counter with believable, traceable historical data.

Waiting.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 06:26PM by steve benson.

I can put Darwin in the same boat as the early TSCC in beliefs in racism and phrenology.You have seen Quinn's book and the American Phrenological charts for the entire hierarchy of the TSCC AKA The Mormons or TCOJCOLDS-Do you think I can't find a chart done exclusively for Mr. Darwin?

Paaaaaleeeeeze.




Cabbie there is no need for me to become agreeable or intransigent.

I don't bend on what I see as FACT- DARWIN WROTE CORRESPONDING IN THE 1850's that Phrenology was a contributing factor to his TOOS...thats all I am saying.

Can we find this correspondence or letters archived and help clear it all up as to the controversy?

I do not claim he (Darwin)was a racist but I am investigating that. I feel Phrenology is racist and contributed to an anti-scientific mindset in the current climate:)

I think it was an honest inquiry and I am not surprised to the knee -jerk and immature reactions I have seen here for years.

Cough up the evidence that he didn't reject phrenology's racist silliness when, almost 20 years before writing "Origin," he overtly dismissed phrenology as being unscientific.

Don't play games by playing hypotheticals on whether or not Darwin supported phrenology to the extent that you claim that he did.

Quit your silly over-posting speculation and produce the evidence that he did as you say.

Why is that so hard for you?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 06:23PM by steve benson.

>Can we find this correspondence or letters archived and help clear it all up as to the controversy?

What is this "we"? You are the one making the assertion. It is your responsibility to provide the evidence to support your claim. Benson has already provided proof of Darwin's rejection of phrenology. If you want to assert that he had "a life-long affair" with it, then provide evidence to back that up.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 06:32PM by steve benson.

The burden of proof is valuable to us all....I feel the actual truth will benefit our understanding of the world view back then.

I am not concerned with whom finds the truth...as long as they share:)

. . . sourced, cited and quoted, please, that Darwin accepted the non-scientific nonsense of phrenology.

Why don't we start a new thread on a more positive note not attacking me and my honest inquiry into the link?


If he wrote this guy Gall about how much a "contribution" he was through Phrenology TOOS must have already come out-now this to me says it was past 1859...Darwin was what age?

I guess I'm not a critical thinker and don't understand the scientific method. Why would Darwin need to flatter another failed scientist in his view.

"Oh shucks'Cabbie git'me n' Mawh a brain fer Festivus."

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 06:43PM by steve benson.