This is the quote by Jacque Barzun that nails down the concept atheists hve of Darwin:-"In his book Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, Barzun was audacious enough to subject Darwin to a withering barrage of criticism, despite Darwin's heroic status among scientists and academics. Barzun believed in biological evolution. However, he perceptively explained that Darwin's distinctive contribution to European thought was not evolution, which many others had believed before him. No, more importantly Darwin formulated "a theory which explains evolution by natural selection from accidental variations. The entire phrase and not merely the words Natural Selection is important, for the denial of purpose in the universe is carried in the second half of the formula -- accidental variation. This denial of purpose is Darwin's distinctive contention." (2nd ed., pp. 10-11)-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/appreciating_hi065951.html

DAVID: This is the quote by Jacques Barzun that nails down the concept atheists have of Darwin:-"In his book Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, Barzun was audacious enough to subject Darwin to a withering barrage of criticism, despite Darwin's heroic status among scientists and academics. Barzun believed in biological evolution. However, he perceptively explained that Darwin's distinctive contribution to European thought was not evolution, which many others had believed before him. No, more importantly Darwin formulated "a theory which explains evolution by natural selection from accidental variations. The entire phrase and not merely the words Natural Selection is important, for the denial of purpose in the universe is carried in the second half of the formula -- accidental variation. This denial of purpose is Darwin's distinctive contention." (2nd ed., pp. 10-11)-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/appreciating_hi065951.html-Since Darwin denied ever having been an atheist, and stressed that his theory was compatible with religion, he clearly allowed for the possibility of design and purpose (though he certainly wouldn't have claimed to know what that purpose might be). So did some of his contemporary theistic believers in evolution, and so do many theistic evolutionists today. What he and they do not allow for is the separate creation of species.-"Barzun declared war on Darwin's theory (but not evolution as such), because he considered it a major influence on "mechanical materialism." He accused Darwinism of undermining belief in mind, consciousness, and purpose."-How do you declare war on Darwin's theory but not evolution as such? Barzun should have declared war on fundamentalist, atheistic interpretations of Darwin's theory. 
 
"He also objected to the tendency to idolize science, stating, "Science as a Delphic oracle exists only in the popular imagination and the silent assumptions of certain scientists. At any given time there are only searchers who agree or disagree."" (336)-I agree.-"Barzun also insisted that Darwinism had produced some rather unsavory offspring, such as racism and anti-egalitarianism." However, "He hastened to clarify that he was not holding Darwin (or Marx or Wagner) individually responsible for Nazism or other abominable movements, but he did insist "that the ideas, the methods, the triumph of mechanistic materialism over the flexible and humane pragmatism of the Romantics has been a source of real woe in our day."" (15-16)-Well, that puts the interpreters of Darwin on a par with the interpreters of the Bible and the Koran, whose ideas and methods have been a source of real woe throughout history, right up to the present day. As for the flexible and humane pragmatism of the Romantics, had Barzun never heard of the flexible and humane pragmatism of materialist humanists?

DAVID: This is the quote by Jacques Barzun that nails down the concept atheists have of Darwin:
> 
> "In his book Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, Barzun was audacious enough to subject Darwin to a withering barrage of criticism, despite Darwin's heroic status among scientists and academics. Barzun believed in biological evolution. However, he perceptively explained that Darwin's distinctive contribution to European thought was not evolution, which many others had believed before him. No, more importantly Darwin formulated "a theory which explains evolution by natural selection from accidental variations. The entire phrase and not merely the words Natural Selection is important, for the denial of purpose in the universe is carried in the second half of the formula -- accidental variation. This denial of purpose is Darwin's distinctive contention." (2nd ed., pp. 10-11)
> 
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/appreciating_hi065951.html
> 
> dhw:Since Darwin denied ever having been an atheist, and stressed that his theory was compatible with religion, he clearly allowed for the possibility of design and purpose-One gets the impression that Darwin made this statement to mitigate the effect he was having on societal reactions/religion in general and Mrs. Darwin in paticular.- 
> "Barzun declared war on Darwin's theory (but not evolution as such), because he considered it a major influence on "mechanical materialism." He accused Darwinism of undermining belief in mind, consciousness, and purpose."
> 
> dhw:How do you declare war on Darwin's theory but not evolution as such? Barzun should have declared war on fundamentalist, atheistic interpretations of Darwin's theory. -Because Darwin specifically chose a theory that specifically used chance as the entire driving force. Wallace didn't do that from the same information. 
> 
> "Barzun also insisted that Darwinism had produced some rather unsavory offspring, such as racism and anti-egalitarianism." However, "He hastened to clarify that he was not holding Darwin (or Marx or Wagner) individually responsible for Nazism or other abominable movements, but he did insist "that the ideas, the methods, the triumph of mechanistic materialism over the flexible and humane pragmatism of the Romantics has been a source of real woe in our day."" (15-16)
> 
> dhw: Well, that puts the interpreters of Darwin on a par with the interpreters of the Bible and the Koran, whose ideas and methods have been a source of real woe throughout history, right up to the present day. As for the flexible and humane pragmatism of the Romantics, had Barzun never heard of the flexible and humane pragmatism of materialist humanists?-Are you going to ignore Darwin's further works as in 'Descent of Man' where he is patently racist in the extreme?

DAVID: Are you going to ignore Darwin's further works as in 'Descent of Man' where he is patently racist in the extreme?-Of course, it's all a matter of interpretation, but this in my view is one of the most vicious and unfounded misinterpretations of Darwin, spread by those who really are desperate to discredit him. It's based mainly on quotations taken out of context, and on his use of words like "savages" and "barbarians", as compared to "civilized", which were then commonly used cultural not racial terms. I can do no better than refer you to an excellent article on the subject:-www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm-This may be too long for you to wade through, and so I will pick out a few quotes:-"In contrast to the existing views on race, Darwin showed that:
•	People cannot be classified as different species 
•	All races are related and have a common ancestry 
•	All people come from "savage" origins 
•	The different races have much more in common than was widely believed 
•	The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races 
•	Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects 
•	Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races 
•	Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together" -The author documents all these points.-"It is often pointed out that Darwin frequently used the term "savages" when discussing the tribal people whom he wrote about. In his use of the term savages, however, Darwin was simply using the standard lexicon of his time; it was a term that everyone, from Popes to Presidents, used. It must also be remembered, of course, that the differences between different groups of people were really very extraordinary until basically the past 75 to 50 years. Many of the groups that Europeans came into contact with practiced cannibalism, self-mutilation, human sacrifice, infanticide, had no writing, and/or were very hostile towards people outside of their own family or tribe. Most also had no technology beyond stone tools. These are real substantial differences that were being encountered by many Europeans for the first time. They were seeking explanations for why this was the case."-Darwin, like any good anthropologist, recorded and interpreted what he found. His disapproval of cannibalism and human sacrifice did not make him a racist!
 
"Darwin traveled around the world on the HMS Beagle to some of the most remote and uncivilized places on the planet. Unlike his other European contemporaries, however, he lived among the tribal people that he came into contact with as an equal and observed their customs, instead of seeking to be treated like a superior."-"He puts forward the evidence and claims of those who argued in favor of the position that humans are in fact separate species, and then he puts forward his own position, which is that humans are all one species. It is quite easy, however, to takes quotes from The Descent of Man out of context and make it appear that Darwin held positions which were in fact the exact opposite of his beliefs, and this is what many opponents of Darwin have done."-David, I would hate to think you are one of them! Let me finish with a passage from The Descent of Man which should once and for all nail the racist lie (bold lettering is mine):-"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. Sympathy beyond the confines of man, that is, humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of the latest moral acquisitions. It is apparently unfelt by savages, except towards their pets. How little the old Romans knew of it is shewn by their abhorrent gladiatorial exhibitions. The very idea of humanity, as far as I could observe, was new to most of the Gauchos of the Pampas. This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion."-This humanist plea for sympathies to extend to the men of all nations and races, and indeed to all sentient beings, could scarcely be clearer. But some anti-Darwinists would probably see it as evidence that Darwin was a male chauvinist pig, since he doesn't mention women. That, I'm afraid, is the level on which some critics operate.


> dhw:This humanist plea for sympathies to extend to the men of all nations and races, and indeed to all sentient beings, could scarcely be clearer. But some anti-Darwinists would probably see it as evidence that Darwin was a male chauvinist pig, since he doesn't mention women. That, I'm afraid, is the level on which some critics operate.-Thank you for this interpretation. I am educated.