Page 16 THE VILLADOM TIMES III • October 28, 2009 long canoe rides with suspected Amazonian cannibals and known Indonesian headhunters. Wallace was still in Malaysia when Darwin’s letter was being read to the Linnean Society. The movie does not show that, but at least it does not show Darwin and Wallace shaking hands at the Linnean Society meeting neither of them actually attended. Incidentally, the text of Darwin’s letter to the Linnean Society no longer exists, and the letter itself had long since disappeared. Arnold Brackman, however got ahold of the original Wallace letter. Brackman was an avid stamp collector, and, based on the stamps and postmarks, he found that Darwin had never used the term natural selection or described the concept in detail before he got the letter from Malaysia. Darwin stole the idea that made him famous. Wallace had been in Malaysia when the Linnean reading took place, and did not return to England until Darwin had rushed through the publication of “The Origin of Species” in 1859. When Wallace finally arrived back in England in 1860, he found that a man he had trusted with his own idea had claimed virtually all the credit for it. Wallace was not happy about this. Read his comments if you can find them. Wallace’s books are all but impossible to obtain. Darwin did his exploring under the protection of the British Navy. His life was never at risk except in case of shipwreck, which never happened. Wallace was a tough Scot who knew when to smile and when to duck. Darwin found “primitive” people horrible and frightening. “Can our progenitors have been men like these?” he gagged as he gazed at the Fuegan Indians, people who lived in harmony with the oceans near Tierra del Fuego, and were not doing anything more menacing than dying of contagious diseases. Wallace liked people. The Indians who paddled his canoe around the Amazon Basin became his friends. He sometimes hypnotized them and he discovered that they responded to hypnosis just as readily as the gentlefolk at Victorian parlor parties. He left one poor Indian hypnotized for several days and the man’s family had to catch up with Wallace and get him to take the “spell” off. Wallace began to see the flaws in natural selection as a comprehensive theory first when realizing that South American Indians are intelligent humans, and later while living with the Dayaks, the indigenous “wild men” of Borneo. Wallace found that in their conversation these men showed they were little deficient to a European. How, Wallace wondered, could natural selection explain the evolution of human intelligence to a level where all humans were human when some did not need to be smart to reproduce? (U.S. Army officers of the same era could readily see that the American Indians they had to fight were considerably more intelligent than their own enlisted men.) Wallace, who outlived Darwin by almost two decades, served as one of the pallbearers at Darwin’s funeral – probably out of sympathy to Emma Darwin. But Wallace despised Darwin. His letters prove this, though you have to go to academic libraries to locate them. The Darwin Cult has turned Darwin into a lovable and generous soul instead of a good husband and good father who spent the second half of his life destroying people who challenged his greatness from a safe distance. When Wallace’s interest in hypnosis led him to investigate spiritualism, Darwin tried to convince people that Wallace had gone crazy. When Samuel Butler, who had been an atheist since his teens, and a Darwin admirer from his 20s, discovered independently of Wallace that natural selection could not explain universal human intelligence or the major shifts between phyla, Darwin turned against him as well. Darwin asked a German reviewer to disparage Butler’s book on evolution, which had credited Darwin far more generously that Darwin had ever credited Wallace. As the film stresses endlessly, Darwin was a good husband and a good father and nice to the servants. As far as anybody who threatened his own purloined greatness was concerned, he was a vicious sneak. Look up the actual writings of Wallace and Samuel Butler and see what they thought of him. Then look up the opinions of Louis Pasteur and Rudolf Virchow, the great experimental scientists of Darwin’s era and the founders of modern medicine and public sanitation. They did not know him as Wallace and Butler did, but they did not agree with him, either. Their discoveries led to antiseptic surgery and vastly improved public health. Darwin’s led to the Holocaust. In essence, the movie the producer and director said could not be shown in the United States was shown in the United States – and that’s good, though the movie was a travesty of the truth about Darwin, and something of a whitewash. If more people knew about the role of Wallace in discovering natural selection – and then admitting that it worked within existing phyla but did not explain everything, and that religious experience was also evidential – we would all be better off. Why is this so important to me, and to America? Times are getting tough as we see America’s great economic power eroding – just as times were getting tough in Weimar Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. The Nazi racial theory was called neo-Darwinismus: Neo-Darwinism. The orders for the Holocaust – Wannsee, January 20, 1942 – cite “natural selection” as the reason. You think it can’t happen again. Ask the American Indians or the African-Americans. It did happen here. Let’s make sure it doesn’t happen again. Don’t ban Darwin: Learn to see through him. He was a bad man and a bad scientist. They said it couldn’t be done, but they were wrong. After the Internet informed us that a new movie about Charles Darwin could not find a distributor in the United States, Nova and National Geographic stepped in and showed it on PBS. Well, it was shown, but it wasn’t the real Darwin story. It was part of the real Darwin story. This leaves us with a question: Is a half-truth better than an outright lie? The two-hour movie, “Darwin’s Darkest Hour,” got off to a promising start. The very first scene showed Alfred Russel Wallace, feverish and virtually broke in what is now Malaysia, crawling out of his cot to desperately write a letter to Darwin, a man he trusted, using the term natural selection to explain the mechanism of the origin of species. So far, so good. When Darwin receives the letter, he is devastated. Wallace has just explained how – as Darwin thought – evolution might work. Then the film’s falsehood sets in almost immediately. Darwin and his loyal wife and first cousin Emma, who is religious and finds his theory threatening, franticly go through Darwin’s correspondence over the last 20 years and discover that Darwin had used the term natural selection in 1844, a dozen years before Wallace independently coined the term while writing with fever in Malaysia. This is bogus! Arnold Brackman went over Darwin’s papers in the 1970s and found that Darwin had never used the term natural selection before Wallace’s letter fell on him like an anvil. Shifting into high gear after some years of depression, Darwin cobbled together a paper using the ideas he got from Wallace, bolstered by his own undistilled observations. Darwin claimed he and Wallace had somehow discovered natural selection at the same time, but that he could and would have done so even if Wallace had never written him the letter. People who love Darwin and know the outline of this story claim that he and Wallace got up together and read this paper together at the Linnean Society in London, nobly sharing the credit for a discovery they made together. Darwin, who was older and better connected socially, was the senior partner. This is bogus! The film correctly shows that Darwin was not present when the Darwin statement was read at the Linnean Society. The film shows him at home worrying about the health of two of his children, both of whom ultimately died. The timing is a little off. Darwin did lose three of his 10 children, and he was by all accounts a faithful husband and a kindly father. But he was not at the Linnean Society for a different reason: He was hiding. Darwin hid a lot. He hid, in this case, because if anybody had been interested, he would have realized that Wallace’s ideas were substantially original and Darwin had cribbed them to build his own upper-crust reputation at the expense of a shabby-genteel rival whose family had no money or influence. Wallace worked as a collector of specimens for people who could afford to pay for them and did not want to take Is a half-truth better than an outright lie? Letters to the Editor Dear Editor: This year’s election for council is about the people, not the party, so I urge Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike to make the right choice and vote for John Patrick Hunter and Frank Jaegge for council. Patrick is a life-long resident of Waldwick who has gone through our public school system and is a very successful, accomplished business person who gives back to the community. Frank has spent over 49 years of his life as a Waldwick resident and is an active member of the Waldwick Fire Department, and serves on the zoning board of adjustment with Patrick. I can assure you, they both are creative, out-of-the-box thinkers who are passionate about making Waldwick a better place and will stop at nothing to do so. This is evident in their unique approach to campaigning. They are using a Ford van that is wrapped with their photos as a campaign vehicle. Waldwick needs their fresh perspective and new ideas to prosper in the future, and they are clearly the right choice to keep Waldwick moving forward. Please show your support for them, as I will, on Tuesday, Nov. 3, and you will not be disappointed with their results once elected to office. Also, remember that every vote counts, so please take the time to vote for John Patrick Hunter and Frank Jaegge, who are the change Waldwick needs. Russell “Buddy” Litchult Mayor of Waldwick Dear Editor: I’d like to thank Anita Bozzo and Chuck Farricker for Vote for people, not party their commitment to Waldwick and their willingness to continue serving its residents. They are both well respected and well liked in our community, and the work they’ve done in keeping our local taxes in check over the past several years is appreciated. Their experience and tight spending policies are a reason Waldwick is among those communities with the smallest tax increases and highest economic ratings. They deserve our support, and we deserve the continued good government they help bring about. I encourage the voters of Waldwick to join me in voting for Anita and Chuck on Nov. 3. Jim Toolen, Mayor Emeritus Waldwick Citizens deserve good government Dear Editor: Many years ago, some forward-thinking Allendale citizens worked to protect the natural beauty and wildlife by preserving the Celery Farm. Others worked to protect the joyful gathering place known as Crestwood Lake. Much of this acreage could have become homes and condominiums, and put additional pressures on our roads, schools, and community services, while diminishing the charm of our town. Last week, while watching the Ken Burns documentary “Our National Parks” on PBS, I was struck by the energy and foresight it took to preserve and develop these beautiful parks. Back then, we had a Roosevelt with a dream and a Rockefeller with a charitable heart. Many of us have taken our children to camp and hike in these beautiful national (continued on page 17) Preservation or pavement?