But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this story has been propagated so widely because it appeals to some human need for an emotional narrative, and so in that sense the term "myth" is appropriate. Plus, those who want to persuade Christians and other religious believers that Darwin was a thoroughly good chap for his work on evolution will wish to avoid the idea that his ideas on evolution had anything to do with his own loss of faith (even though they didn't have much to do with it)--far safer to blame it on a personal tragedy!
Anyhow, on further investigation, I have found a few more examples of the uncritical acceptance of the Annie myth:
- Larry Moran and Niles Eldredge netted as uncritical devotees of the Annie myth in a single posting! Eldredge may be good on science, but he swallows both the "removed what little was left of his religious faith" myth and states as fact rather than wild guess that Annie died from tuberculosis.
- This article and podcast on Annie Darwin from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: "Darwin's experience of his daughter's life and his bereavement had a double significance for his thinking. Recent scholarship (Moore) has shown that it was probably the final factor in his gradual rejection of Christian faith"
- Plus this article from the same source on Darwin himself: "Moore reassessed Darwin's religious faith, showing that while he remained a pillar of his rural parish, the deaths of his father in 1848 and daughter Annie in 1851 finally led him to give up Christianity."
- Evolution 101 by Randy Moore
- More proof that even Carl Zimmer isn't infallible.
- The Mini Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine, which ascribes Annie's death to typhoid fever rather than the usual tuberculosis.
- Dinesh D'Souza's blog entry linking Annie's death and Darwin's loss of faith with the problem of evil
- Telegraph columnist George Pitcher in his article "Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism"
- David Livingstone in a chapter in Where Science and Christianity meet lends credence to Moore's account of the Annie myth, but with more balance than most commentators, and he also goes for "typhoid fever" as cause of death.
- Even creationists are suckered in! http://www.evolutionthelie.com/history-of-science/evolutions-fatal-fruit-nurturing-charles-darwin/
It seems I really do need to get this paper finished and published to prevent this nonsense spreading further!
2 comments:
Mark--I've never claimed to be infallible, so I don't know why you use that word in association with me. When I've written about Darwin and religion, I have not relied on some sort of divine inspiration. Instead, I've relied on the best historical scholarship I can find. James Moore, for example, made the argument that Darwin gradually fell away from religion over many years, and that the death of his daughter played a part in that decline. You can read his argument here. Moore offered detailed evidence to make his case. He was not simply peddling a "myth." And it doesn't seem sporting of you to accuse him and other historians of promoting myths, when you aren't willing yet to offer up evidence of your own to the contrary.
I am always willing to revise my own understanding as new evidence comes in. And that's not a myth: here's some evidence. I look forward to reading your own paper and hope to get hold of Wyhe's. But until then, I have a hard time seeing why I should be one of your examples of someone who doesn't appreciate your hidden revelations.
Hi Carl
I use the term "infallible" because that is how I view your work--I am jealous that you can write so much so quickly and so expertly on so many subjects without ever slipping up. The fact that someone as careful and authoritative as you can accept the "Annie hypothesis" uncritically is evidence of how far this problem has gone.
I am afraid that I disagree with your assessment of what you call "best historical scholarship". I wonder how many people who continue to cite the Annie myth have read the whole of Moore's piece of "scholarship" and evaluated the evidence presented therein? Have you? I think you will be surprised at how thin that evidence actually is!
I will be happy in the very near future to present a detailed point-by-point analysis of the piece by Moore that set in motion this whole sorry mythology. I agree it is not sporting not to tell all at the outset, but I am concerned that if I reveal all on the blog before the paper has been published, then it may lessen its chances of being published. As it is the journal that commissioned the piece is not being very sporting, in that they seem to be back-pedaling on whether they wish to accept it.
But the truth will out one way or another!
And I look forward to convincing you and the rest of the world that the emperor really does have no clothes on!
PS. van Wyhe is a collaborator on my paper--we are just working out whether his contribution is enough to merit co-authorship.
Post a Comment