Those Other Books By Charles Darwin

Due to the “controversy” created by the publishing of The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, did you know that Charles Darwin also published other book titles? 

By: Ringo Bones 

Charles Robert Darwin, English naturalist and author who became famous due to the controversy created by the publishing of The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life back in 1859 and the renewed controversy created by the publishing of The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex back in 1871. Understandably, Darwin’s fame seems to have rested on the completion and publishing of these two books, but did you also know that Charles Darwin also published other works in natural science / biology that are also of significant importance? 

Because of the emphasis based upon The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, Darwin’s numerous other important contributions are very frequently overlooked. Charles Darwin’s A Monograph on the Cirripedia (1851-1853) is a valuable work on the subject of barnacles. Some of Darwin’s older writings include: The Fertilization of Orchids (1862), The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1868), The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) and The Effects of Cross -and Self – Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom (1876). 

It is mostly because of his lesser known works that allowed Charles Darwin to receive many honors from learned societies in Great Britain and on the European continent as well. Basing on his work that spawned academic interest, Darwin is nothing like the iconoclast that the conservatives in the Organized Christianity world saw him to be. Sometimes I wonder too if these “conservatives” ever read of Darwin’s works in its entirety. 

Is Beauty a Darwinian Trait?

It may not be the first thing that comes to mind when the public-at-large think abut Darwinian evolutionary traits that promote survival of the fittest, but is beauty a bona fide survival tactic of all biological organisms?

By Ringo Bones

Beauty and being beautiful might seem trivial and namby-pamby when one talks about Darwinian evolutionary traits that promote survival of the species, but believe it or not, looking good could be nature's ultimate survival tactic.

Have you noticed that beautiful biological organisms - the ones everyone tends to admire most - tends to be the healthiest and fittest representatives of their species? I mean does the peacock waste all that effort growing a gorgeous tail without it being a beacon signifying his health and ability to reproduce healthy offspring?

The not-so-scientifically enlightened may say the jury is still out, but even in the complexities of human culture, beauty does serve a very big role in one's ability to find a long-term partner to start a stable family unit. For all intents and purposes, beauty might as well be a Darwinian survival trait.

Should Charles Darwin Be An Icon Of Atheism?

Famously known for his various works that eventually cast doubt on the literal interpretation of Biblical Creationism, is Charles Darwin a worthy enough icon for Atheism?


By: Ringo Bones


Ask your typical Joe Public at random about Charles Darwin and 9 out of 10 of them would respond “Darwinian Evolution”. Probably an equal numerical ratio would answer “Icon of Atheism” without a second thought. Given that almost all of us – even fans of “Darwinian Evolution” – tend not to know the biography of Charles Darwin, is it safe to ask whether Charles Darwin is a worthy enough icon for Atheism?

Atheism is often defined as a disbelief in the existence of a deity. Atheism is often seen as a more humane alternative to Organized Christianity - which is often used to persecute non-Christians and darker-skinned ethnic minorities for much of the last millennia. And the Organized Christianity justified persecution even managed to gain a renaissance during the Bush Administration of the start of the 21st Century. Given the “counter-renaissance” of Atheism in the post-Bush Administration era world in order to promulgate a more just and humane global society, should Atheist keep on promoting Charles Darwin as an icon for their cause?

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gained the ire of Organized Christianity – or other religious groups with a vested interest in the literal interpretation of Biblical Creationism, including the concept of “The Mark of Cain” and “Children of Ham” – when he published The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, which is also known as The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Unbeknown to most of the readers of this particular work, Darwin revised The Origin of Species a number of times just to gain the approval of his wife, Emma Wedgwood, which was well known at the time as a devout and practicing Christian. Even though Charles Darwin’s wife, more or less, eventually found the concept of “evolution” plausible and congruent with Biblical scripture, The Origin of Species was considered by many Victorian era churchmen an affront to the Biblical portrayal of Creation. Given that Charles Darwin “massaged” The Origin of Species to make it more or less congruent with Biblical scripture and “spousal approval”, does this mean that Charles Darwin is not – I repeat not – a worthy icon for Atheism?

The concept of an “Atheist Darwin” was probably a product of seeing the past from the prism of our contemporary society. Charles Darwin fortunately (?) never witnessed the Scopes Monkey Trial, so he probably had never witnessed first hand the inevitable political clout his “Theory of Evolution” had eventually acquired. As time went on – and the more the extremist branches and sects Organized Christianity use Holy Scripture to justify their unjustly illogical prejudices and racism – the more Charles Darwin will be inexplicably linked with Atheism. From what I know about Charles Darwin, he could have been flattered to be labeled as an “Icon of Atheism”. But Atheist should have the burden of responsibility to explain why Charles Darwin deserves such a flattering title.

Pessimism: A Darwinian Survival Strategy?

Dismissed by the extreme conservative right as the root causes of cardiovascular and other psychosomatic disorders, but does pessimism pose a definite evolutionary survival advantage?


By: Ringo Bones


Maybe it was those lucky coincidences in my reading roster that inspired to me to note some “bright-sided” insight about pessimism. Maybe it is one of the – if not the only – trait that allowed us humans to manage to last a few million years. From the 16th Century predictive quatrains of Nostradamus to the contemporary musings of Barbara Ehrenreich, it does seem that the human race as a whole gains much-improved problem solving skills when harboring a generally pessimistic outlook. Genetic science may yet prove the existence of a “pessimism gene” encoded into our DNA through Darwinian evolution, but there’s proof to show that there’s something to pessimism as a survival strategy.

For better or for worse, it seems like the pessimistic-flavored predictions of Nostradamus “might” had been used as a foreign policy tool whenever every Republican Party candidate gets voted into the helm of Capitol Hill. Glaringly so during the Reagan Administration where the indefinite postponement of a global apocalypse had engendered a somewhat minor – yet intransigent – conundrum of casting the Islamic World in a bad light since the 1980s.

While Barbara Erenreich’s more recent work titled Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Pursuit of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America documents how the Wall Street culture of a cavalier attitude towards financial and economic risk assessment had almost engendered a repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The subprime mortgage crisis that came to light near the end of July 2007 which became the global credit crunch of 2008 could have been avoided if Wall Street fat-cats and their minions had a more pragmatic outlook on risk assessment. Especially on the inherent financial risks posed by overly complex credit derivatives. Instead of promoting an LSD-like state of inebriation called the “power of positive thinking” since the Reagan Administration. Even the US Securities and Exchange Commission could have learned a thing or two about pessimism when it comes to hedge fund due diligence. Hedge fund fraudster Bernie Madoff could have been caught early before he managed to swindle thousands of their life-savings.

From a biological perspective, humans are probably the only species of animal on Earth with predictive properties that can form highly intricate abstract mental maps when it comes to day to day survival. There are some challenges – natural or otherwise - that are just too great for the mere hard-wired instincts of lower animals to successfully tackle. Maybe it is high time for humanity to cherish our pessimism instead of burying our heads in the sand through the self-delusion handed down to us by the faulty logic of a number of organized religions.

Was Darwin a Socialist?

Given that Charles Darwin was a contemporary of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is there any credence to the speculation that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was driven by socialism?


By: Ringo Bones


After reading A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation by Peter Singer a few years ago, I can – with utmost confidence – safely conclude that any intrusion of ideology, religious or otherwise, into science is an invitation to wishful thinking. But given that in contemporary America – when the conservative White Anglo-Saxon rhetoric now leans toward xenophobia – can Charles Darwin be properly considered as a true socialist?

Unfortunately, White conservative xenophobic America refers to anything that they don’t like – i.e. corporate social responsibility, ethical business governance – as socialism. Even Conservapedia – the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant’s conservative version of Wikipedia – had been busy “redefining” the good works done by Jesus Christ 2,000 or so years ago that could be misconstrued as Marxist-Leninist Socialism in Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh era White America of today. Which could only give Dan Brown a bottomless creative wellspring for another The DaVinci Code-type sequel. And given the fact that Peter Singer wrote most of A Darwinian Left during the economically prosperous paradise of the Clinton Administration, can it still be used as research material to prove whether Charles Darwin embraced socialism when he was still alive?

The “official” historical accounts of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is that Darwin tried as hard as he can to make his newly discovered “plasticity of species” phenomena shoehorn into the prevailing Victorian zeitgeist of the Christian-based Creationist view of his wife. And the historically documented political upheaval in Europe during the very end of the 19th Century often points out that those extolling the virtues of Marx and Engels’ ideology often uses Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to show that socialism / communism is “natural” because it is how nature works. Which make Darwin’s Theory of Evolution the driving influence of socialism / communism from a mere ideology to grow into a “newfangled” way to run a state. But can this “convoluted” truth really be that self-evident?

During Victorian times – as well as today’s conservative White Anglo-Saxon American current fascination with the atheist writer Ayn Rand – cooperation is often viewed as an unabashed manifestation of socialism / communism. While competition to better one’s social and economic is everyone’s birthright in an ethical system established by organized Christianity in what is often referred to as the Protestant Work Ethic. Something that is often rationalized by mankind’s dominion over nature because of our divinely ordained status that looks kind of arcane from a scientific viewpoint and nothing more than an excuse to separate ourselves from nature. Given that mankind had now reached a point that competition had created a problem that threatens to kill us all – i.e. global warming and while our only salvation is cooperation through establishing binding treaties to curb greenhouse gas emissions – hints of socialism. Does this prove that Mother Nature wants mankind to embrace socialism in order for us to save from ourselves?

Maybe communism got such a bad rep when Lenin knowing he won’t be alive for much longer introduced the ideology in a traumatic way to most of the unsuspecting Russian populace. But is this historical event repeating itself when it is Mother Nature who is now forcing us to embrace communism or suffer from runaway greenhouse effect? Maybe the failure of the recent 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference is a sure sign of this. Unfortunately, given that the loudest voices who are currently defining what is, what isn’t or should be communism / socialism are the White Anglo-Saxon conservative xenophobes of America, communism / socialism could turn from a mere ideology into the law of nature. Something Charles Darwin for all intents and purposes overlooked when Marx and Engels first published their communist manifesto back in February 1848.

The 2009-Year of Charles Darwin: No New Ground Broken?

As the 2009-Year of Charles Darwin draws to a close, is religious orthodoxy’s superiority over science the only established certainty in this day and age?


By: Ringo Bones


As our celebration of the 200th Birth Anniversary of Charles Darwin in 2009 draws to a close, it seems as if religious orthodoxy has yet again gained an upper hand despite of being relegated to the sidelines since the Age of Reason. Compared to other great historical figures that were honored in 2009 – like the somewhat polemic reexamination of Abraham Lincoln’s life and politics by Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Charles Darwin and his “radical” Theory of Evolution has been proven yet again as time goes on. None more so than in 2009 when it is clearly self-evident – if you know where to look – that the religious orthodoxy’s opposition and debunking of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is really nothing more than part of a grand scheme / conspiracy of the American crude oil and coal lobby in order to debunk the science behind global warming. But is there more to this science versus religion Kultur Kampf over Darwin’s Theory of Evolution that the religious orthodoxy – especially the American Religious Right – had us believe?

When Charles Darwin’s most famous contemporary disciple – Professor Richard Dawkins – released another one of his literary magnum opus titled The Greatest Show on Earth this 2009 Darwin Year, the timing couldn’t have been more apt. As Dawkins’ latest book is released concerning why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the only game in town – i.e. planet Earth and beyond. It started to become more and more self-evident in 2009 that the American crude oil and coal lobbyists on Capitol Hill armed with their almost inexhaustible war chest is busy “influencing” and “convincing” everyone – through cold hard cash – that the science behind global warming / climate change is highly suspect. Even the “foolproof” and infallible “reasoning” of the religious orthodoxy eventually bowed down to the irresistible temptation of fossil fuel industry money, when supposedly the supposed purpose of celebrating 2009-Year of Charles Darwin was supposedly to use Darwin’s scientific voyage into the Galapagos Islands as a rallying cry to better take care of our planet’s life-support system.

So is there a new ground broken during everyone’s celebration of the 2009-Year of Charles Darwin? It depends, though Darwin’s other near contemporaries – the Sierra Club founder John Muir and famed outdoorsman, National Park system supporter, and former US President Theodore Roosevelt – are more famously known for supporting environmentalism than Charles Darwin himself. Darwin’s “radical” Theory of Evolution today only highlights how reason is still vulnerable to the powers-that-be intent to undermine it this day and age. Thus showing us why the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference had became an utter failure in terms of a science-based framework of limiting excess industrial greenhouse gas emissions, instead of political and industry-driven cuts.