1--Who is Dr.  Birx, and why was he chosen for this task? 
2--What does  Dr. Birx have to say about Darwin's Descent? 

1--Who is Dr.  Birx, and why was he chosen for this task?   As I indicated above, a publisher usually seeks to enlist the services of a top-name scholar (one who chairs a department at a major university) to write an introduction.  If the book in question was about Einstein, ideally the "Introduction Writer" should chair a physics department at a major research institute, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, or any of a dozen or so institutions known for their scientific research.  The scholar selected to write the introduction should enhance the stature of the book and attract readers on his own.   Viewed from the other direction, it is equally true that the better the book, the better the scholar who will put his name on it.  

This is how it works:  If I were offering to the public a new book on computer technology, or software innovation, I would try to get Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to do the introduction.  That would help me sell my book.  However, I have no doubts that neither of those gentlemen would want to help me out.  Why would they want to stick their necks out for me here?  They would both know that in the areas listed, my contribution at best would be substantially pedestrian.  After all,  they have their own reputations to protect.   It is safe to say that even if Bill Gates were my brother, he would still reject my request to do the introduction for my book.   In the end I would end up with someone such as my network administrator to write the introduction for me.  I would likely lean on him because, even though he is technically a private contractor, he still sort of works for me.   Furthermore, he at least is familiar with the subject matter, would be able to write a little about it, and he might (for the right price) be willing to attach his name to my publication (the operative term here is "willing").   What it comes down to is this:  I end up getting the guy who is willing to attach his name and reputation to my book.  The better the book, the more important the guy I could get.  

So, on that basis, let's take a look at who Prometheus got to do their Descent Introduction:  Dr. H. James Birx.  Who is he?  ...And what are his accomplishments?

At the end of his introduction, Dr. Birx lists two institutions of higher education to which he wishes to associate himself:  Canisius College, and Harvard University.   One I had heard of, the other I had not.   Let's start with Harvard.

I went to Harvard's website and did a name search for "Dr. Birx."   I assumed that if he was on the faculty of Harvard, I would certainly be able to find his name listed on their website.   However, I was surprised to find that I turned up nothing to suggest that Dr. Birx even taught there, much less chaired a department.  The only references I found was to a couple of notes in the University's "Sparks of Life" web publication, which cited two short reviews he had written in the Library Journal:

"With impressive scholarship, Strick examines the major books, articles, lectures, and letters on, as well as experiments and institutions involved with, the origin of life controversies in scientific philosophy. He rigorously analyzes the complex Victorian (1860-80) debates surrounding the idea of spontaneous generation...He also emphasizes the social aspects and personal interests that influenced those arguments offered by both naturalists and physicians. The result of prodigious research, Sparks of Life is highly recommended." --H. James Birx, Library Journal"

Berkowitz gives an erudite analysis of Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra and five other major works, using 'God is dead' as the essential viewpoint for comprehending the philosopher's new ethics of individual creativity and dynamic cosmology of eternal recurrence...Recommended for academic philosophy collection."--H. James Birx, Library Journal

It is my understanding that one need not be the head of a department, or even a tenured professor, to contribute to the Library Journal.  The other eight listings in my search for  "Birx" regarded a Deborah Birx.   There was no indication from my search of the site that Dr. Birx was a tenured professor at Harvard, much less the chairman of the department of biological sciences, or some similar department; that is, a school involved in original research.    Upon further inquiry, I found out that Dr. Birx did have a passing association with Harvard, but only as a visiting professor; he never served as a full-time professor at Harvard (at least according to his published Bio.).  As a visiting professor at Harvard, Dr. Birx taught at the Harvard's Divinity School, not at Harvard's school of biological sciences, where one would expect to find a "research scholar" spending his time.  Rather, Dr. Birx taught theology students.   In my opinion, it was highly misleading (if not dishonest) for Prometheus Books to list Dr. Birx's credentials as "Canisius College, Harvard University."  The logical assumption for one to make is that Dr. Birx taught biology at Harvard University; while, in reality, Dr. Birx's only connection with Harvard was with the Divinity School, at least according to his published Bio.

Dr, Birx does hold a Phd. in philosophy from the University of New York, Buffalo Campus.  The last time I looked, that school (while a fine institution) was mostly geared to producing teachers, not research scientists.  

According to how I read his published Bio., Dr. Birx's only legitimate credentials as a scientist are via an "honorary doctorate" (D.Sci.) from Braca Karic University in Europe.  An "honorary doctorate" means about as much as receiving the "Key to New York City."   ...That, and a couple bucks, will get you cup of stale coffee in Times Square.  Probably no one ever received more  honorary doctorates than did Ronald Ragan.   No one ever accused him of being a "scientist;" nor did he ever pretend to be one.   An honorary doctorate in science no more makes a person a bona fide scientist than sleeping in a garage makes him a car.

I then did a search for "Birx" on the Canisius College website.   I found out that Dr. Birx is definitely on the faculty at Canisius.  He serves there not as the Chairman of the Department of Biological Sciences, rather he teaches in the Sociology/Anthropology Department.  As of this date (9-1-01), Patricia Christian chairs this department.  This is the notation from the Canisius College Catalog spelling out Dr. Birx's role at the institution:

      name: Dr. H. James Birx
      department: Sociology and Anthropologist [sic.]
      title: PROFESSOR/SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

Sociologists and anthropologists examine social behavior and human groups, including families, gangs, business firms, political parties, schools, religions and labor unions.  As a sociology/anthropology major, you will acquire the knowledge and skills that are essential for entering such fields as social work, law, education, the health professions and business.  Through survey research, interviews and behavior observation, sociologists try to understand and explain patterns of human behavior related to love, war, poverty, discrimination, overpopulation, the environment and illness.  Sociologists require skills in survey research, interviews and behavior observation in natural settings.  Anthropologists study humankind through physical anthropology, which examines human evolution and biological variations and cultural anthropology, which looks as human societies throughout history and the way in which humans have adapted to the environment and to each other.  

What type of courses are taught in the Sociology/Anthropology department?  Here are a few of the department's course listings in the current Canisus Catalog:

ANT 320 (CSI 320) Interpreting Evolution 3

Humankind within nature. Historical/critical survey of theories of evolution in science, philosophy, and theology: Lamarck, Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Spencer, Bergson, Teilhard, Sagan, Gould.

SOC 254 (CRJ 254) Crime and Society2 3

Theoretical explanations for criminal behavior. Ideas developed for prevention, treatment, and punishment of criminal behavior. Both classical and contemporary approaches in criminological thought are presented.

SOC 290 Multiculturalism 3

Focus on ethnic and racial diversity with analysis of culture, history, interethnic contact, and social movements; global look at ethnic strife and genocide attempts.

SOC 291 (WST 291) Gender and Society 3

Exploration of origin of gender roles; socialization into masculine and feminine roles; intersection of gender and social institutions such as family, work and education. 2000-2001 only

SOC 312 Sport and Leisure 3

Theoretical and empirical exploration of sport and leisure. Topics include the history of sport, competition, youth sport, deviance, gambling, coaches, gender issues, race and ethnicity, social stratification, economics, and politics.

The actual teaching assignments are not here listed, so I do not suggest that Dr. Birx taught "Sport and Leisure 3."   I have included these listings not to suggest that, only to point out that Dr. Birx teaches in a department that teaches courses of that type, and that he serves not as chair, but in a subservient position to the head teacher of social workers at that small college.   (We do learn something more about Dr. Birx's current interests, as this year (2001) he serves as the First Vice-President of the New York State Sociological Association.  I suspect that means he has more than a passing interest in social work.)   

Now, just what type of school is Canisius?  Is it actively involved as a research institution? 

Well, it is a small school.  But Carnegie Mellon is also a relatively small school.  So that does not mean much -- small schools can be dynamic hubs of original thought.  

Canisius College is a small Jesuit College located in Buffalo, New York.  Certainly, an institution of higher learning can be small and Jesuit, and still be a research institution.  It can happen.  But does it happen at Canisius?  I do not think so.  The president of the College (or someone writing on his behalf) includes these very words  on the Canisius website:  

"Many of the faculty at Canisius are top scholars who could have gone on to large research universities, but they stay at Canisius because they enjoy working closely with students." 

This states unequivocally  that Canisius College does not even pretend to be a "research university."  

I must point out here, I am not in any way suggesting that Canisius is not an outstanding school.  From everything I see on its web site, it is an outstanding school, the type to which I would consider sending my son or daughter, as an undergraduate.  

However, If I were a publisher, seeking a top-flight scholar (not a well-traveled teacher) to add weight to my offering in science, I would not look to a professor from a small, non-research university, who only teaches in (but does not chair) a sociology department.  This represents either very bad judgment on the part of Prometheus Books, or it was the best they could do.  

Now, please understand that I am not suggesting that Dr. Birx is not a worthy person, nor that he is a "bad" teacher.  I am only stating that as a non-chair of a sociology department at a small non-research institute, he brings very little to a publication of such a potentially powerful book as Darwin's Descent.  

Now that I have laid the groundwork, let us take a look at what Dr. Birx has to write about in his introduction to Descent. 

2--What does  Dr. Birx have to say about Darwin's Descent?

Obviously, no "Introduction Writer" worth his salt sets out to destroy the work which he was hired to promote.  So one should expect Dr. Birx to write favorably about the publication and its author.  We should not, therefore, expect much more than agreement and platitudes.   ...And that's what we get.  

Also, a good "Introduction Writer" is not expected to add much of his own thought, and he certainly should not introduce any new revolutionary theories.  Here again, Dr. Birx does not disappoint.

As far as the scientific validity of comments and content (in the introduction) is concerned, I leave it to those with greater expertise in their respective fields to comment and critique, and they certainly do have much to say about Darwin.

That basically leaves mechanics.    It is, therefore, on this level that I would like to examine Dr. Birx's introduction to the Prometheus edition of Descent.  

Mechanics:

No one should dispute the fact that the main purpose of words is to convey concepts.  Therefore, writers should exercise great caution in their selection of words.  Certain words work well in specific contexts, others may not.   It is in this area that I have the greatest problem with the mechanics of  Dr. Birx.

In this introduction the words Dr. Birx uses to convey the process that goes into developing and defending a theory are just plain wrong.  Several times he writes of Darwin "discovering" his theory of evolution.  I have a problem with that.  I think it demonstrates clearly Dr. Birx's total lack of scientific understanding.  That is not terribly surprising, after all he is merely a teacher in the sociology department of a small non-research college -- not too much should be expected of him, I suppose.  But as the "Introduction Writer" of a work as important at Descent, I expect better.

Regarding the "discovery" of a theory I contend this:  

Theories come by process, not by discovery.  First, one develops a working hypothesis.   He tests it from several angles, and determines that it might very well be defensible.  From there he begins his serious efforts in scientific testing and fact finding.   At this point, discovery can and should take place.  It is from the pool of facts produced during this period of discovery that the scientist develops, or formulates, his theory.  From there he sets out upon a path of further testing, in order to prove (hopefully beyond doubt) the validity of his theory.  (While what is stated above represents a pretty good explanation of the process of developing and proving a theory, I think it fair to state that in almost all cases, reputable scientists and researchers are pretty much convinced that they can prove their theories before they ever publish them.)  

That being a correct (but admittedly over-simliplified description of) the scientific process, how, then, would someone "discover" a theory, as Dr. Birx is so fond of writing?   Here are some ways in which a person can "discover" a theory:

• One can discover a scientific theory by sneaking a peak at the notes of a research scientist before he publishes.  The scientist formulates (or develops) his theory, and the covert snoop discovers it.  

• A research scientist can be reading old manuscripts, perhaps ancient Assyrian cuneiform, and "discover" that a heretofore unknown scientist had developed and tested a theory regarding a particular type of brain surgery.  He (the contemporary scientist) can truthfully state that he "discovered" that ancient theory; however his discovery was real only because the earlier scientist had first formulated the theory, and that the existence of that theory was previously unknown to contemporary science until the contemporary scientist unearthed it. 

• A scientist, or anyone, for that matter, can "discover" a theory if a research scientist places a manuscript containing an outline of his theory in a mayonnaise jar on the porch.

The fact is this:  Continents are discovered, and little growths on the brain are discovered, but theories are formulated.  There is a substantial process involved.  The only time that it is correct to use the verb "discover" with "theory" is with a trailing "to."  For instance, one can write:  "Darwin discovered his theory of evolution to his contemporaries..."  In that case, the word "discover" is used as a verb connoting the meaning "to make known."   That is not how Dr. Birx uses the term.  

To further point out Dr. Birx's total inabiliity to use the English language, one has only to note this sentence (p. xv):  "How dumbfounded Darwin must have been to discover that his own theory of evolution by natural selection had been independently discovered by Wallace [Alfred Russel Wallace] on the other side of the world!"  

One can view this as a minor error.  In fact, I suspect most readers of this Prometheus publication of Descent will totally miss Dr. Birx's introduction to it.  Or, if they do read it, they will not catch the mistakes.  To me, however, this ignorance bespeaks the ignorance so very common to those supporting Darwinian "science."  

I can say this for certain.  As a graduate student, were I to have made such a glaring error in presenting a paper to my peers, in the presence of my professor, I would have been stopped at the first utterance, and told to sit down.  It is unforgivable for a person employed as a scholar to make such a careless mistake.  Are there no editors employed at Prometheus?

Another troubling aspect of Dr. Birx's introduction is his inconsistency.  For example, he refers to Thomas Huxley first as "anatomist Thomas Henry Huxley (p.xv)," then simply as "Huxley (xvi)," finally, one page later, as "paleontologist-morphologist Thomas Huxley (xvii)."   Dr. Birx refers to Darwin at various times with these epithets:  "unpaid naturalist (xii)," "naturalist (xii)," "dedicated naturalist (x),"  "young naturalist (xiii)," "emerging naturalist (xi)," "young geobiologist (x)," "dedicated naturalist" (xii), and "emerging biologist (xii)."   One must remember, this is a very short piece.  There is not sound reason to come up with all these different "names" for Darwin.  Why not simply "Darwin?"  Or, if he were so attached to these epithets, why not use them along with the name "Darwin," such as "Young Naturalist Darwin?"   Dr. Birx exhibits here very weak mechanics.

One element that I think results from confusion on the part of Dr. Birx, and certainly causes confusion for the careful reader, is his constant transition back and forth from the "theory of evolution" to the "fact of evolution."  While both are valid terms, they are valid only when used to depict different things.  If they are intended to describe the same concept (which is how it appears Dr. Birx uses them), then further explanation, or at least chronology, is required.  Dr. Birx does neither.  Without any real transition he moves from Darwin's "theory of evolution (p. xi)," to the "fact of evolution (p. xii)," to "Darwin's dangerous fact of human evolution (p. xix)."  Had Dr. Birx the vaguest notion of the meaning (or proper use) of the terms, he would know that it was totally impossible to grant title to a fact.  Facts are facts.  Theories can be proven by individuals, in which cases the arguments and the proofs can be rightly attributed to individuals.   Certainly, individual's can hold title to a theory; individuals can take credit for pointing the way to a fact.   But facts are by definition universal.   We have the Pythagorean Proposition (or Theory), but no one gets his name in front of an axiom.  Dr. Birx would have been correct to write:  "Darwin's dangerous arguments."    ...But not "Darwin's dangerous fact..."   

Finally, I have a particular problem with one of his word choices.   Dr. Birx writes (p.xiii):  "Back in England and despite ill health, Darwin still worked abductively, interrelating facts and concepts."  The term "abductively" does not fit here.  I think he had to have intended something else, unless "abductively" was simply his "Increase Your Vocabulary"  word for that day.   His choice of adverbs here should somehow relate to what precedes it, as well as to what follows.  No meaning of "abductively" relates to what precedes.  Further, if he intends "abductively" to describe his process of reasoning, the word is here misapplied,  for "interrelating of facts and concepts" does not constitute abductive reasoning, at least not without great strain or further explanation.  Even when taken with the rest of the paragraph, the context does not support the use of so esoteric a term.   It is almost as though the man learned a new word, liked it, and was determined to use it in a sentence to impress his readers.   Another word would have worked better, especially for so average a piece.

Finally (again), this is what I would say about Dr. Birx's qualifications:   1--I have no reason to think that he is not a nice person, and perhaps a well-meaning teacher.   2--He is certainly one of the more well-traveled teachers I have ever read about.  I would suspect that he is a very talented speaker, who gets a lot of invitations.   3--Dr. Birx is not, however, a research scientist, and is not, therefore, qualified to write an introduction to a work as scientifically significant as Descent.  

I think the fact that he was selected by Prometheuus says a lot about the quality of scholarship that makes up Darwinian "science" today.  That is to say,  the research scientists are right; they (the Darwinian "scientists") represent bad science, or a quasi science.   Perhaps, as Dr. Kauffman puts it (p.643), they are just suffering from "physics envy."   

In my opinion, it is a more serious problem than Dr. Kauffman's humorous words suggest.  I think they (the Darwinian "scientists") suffer from a far more insidious disease -- de facto racism.   In that regard I would credit Dr. Birx with almost getting one thing right.   He comes right out and states that Darwin was a racist (Descent p. xxii).  Unfortunately for Dr. Birx, he does not follow up that admission by chastising Darwin for this evil.  Instead, Dr. Birx writes that  that we must excuse his (Darwin's) racism by viewing it in the context of the nineteenth century.   

I would say that if we are willing to do that, then we need to be willing to accept Hitler's racism as merely a reflection of the Social Darwinism of the twentieth century.   Personally, I refuse to do that.  I hold Hitler responsible for his racism, I hold Darwin responsible for his racism, and I hold Dr. Birx responsible for excusing Darwin's racism, and thereby becoming a de facto racist himself .  

The  time has come to "out " the racist Darwin, and his de facto racist minions.  It is time to "Out the Darweenies."   

Part Two (not yet completed) of this review will begin my evolving analysis of the racist elements of Darwin's Descent.

(Alleged Associate of Dr. Birx Defends his Friend)

--Mike Carrier (MA, NYU--Graduate School of Arts and Science) Email:  good.schools@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information from the Canisius Web Page and his Yahoo Bio indicate that Dr. Birx has written (along with 400 articles and some books under his own name) the Introduction to two other books, both published by Prometheus Books.  They are:   (1) Birx, H. James.  Introduction. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.   Ed. Francis Darwin.  Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books,  2000.  (2) Birx, H. James.  Introduction. The Voyage of the Beagle.  By Charles Darwin.  Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000.   Dr. Birx holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from the State University of New York College at Geneseo, both a M.A. in anthropology and a Ph.D. with distinction in philosophy from the State University of New York at Buffalo, and an honorary D.Sci. degree from Braca Karic University in Europe.  During 2001, Dr. Birx is the First Vice-President of the New York State Sociological Association.

(Back to Text)

 

 

 

 

 

(Note:  You must remember, that while Origin did not specifically include a direct treatment of Darwin's notion of mankind's history, he fully intended us to make that connection.  In fact,  Darwin himself inextricably connected mankind's descent to his ground-laying work in Origin.  He writes that through his Origin "[Much] light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" (Origin p. 407).  Darwin himself further tied the knot with his words in his second edition of Descent: "...this [referring to the quote from Origin] implies that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on the earth" ("The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin," Amherst, New York:  Prometheus Books, 1998, p. 1).  There is no doubt that Darwin viewed his Origin as a two-part series, as Origin/Descent.   ...And that once he  completed his total task, he intended that Origin should never be read without Descent.   This effort was actually referred to as "one long argument" by Ernst Mayr in his so-titled book, "One Long Argument:  Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought" (Cambridge, Mass.:  Harvard University Press, 1991).  In Origin Darwin was merely laying the  groundwork for Descent.  He knew that politically, that was the only way he could accomplish his task.  Dr. H. James Birx writes in his Introduction of a recent publication of Descent that "...Darwin had not included a treatment of the birth and history of humankind in Origin, because he feared adding to the sharp ridicule that would surely surround his scientific theory..."  ("The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin," Amherst, New York:  Prometheus Books, 1998, p. xvii.).  I am convinced that it is safe to say that the only right way to regard Origin is as Origin/Descent.  Only then can Darwin be fully (read "rightly") understood.  To regard Descent merely as afterthought, or as a separate collection of subsequent thoughts, would be to miss the whole point Darwin was trying to make.).   (Back to Text)