I think Chuck is busy with his personal life, or he was. If you want to wait for his comment, perhaps send him an email.

Sorry. Been busy. I made a few notes on your original.

re: Charles Darwin himself had fallen into that trap. He wanted to build his reputation as a biologist before touching the dreaded question of evolution

I'm skeptical of this claim, but I imagine that you have a much better grasp of the issue. Again, feel free to disregard my comments.

"Mind the gap: did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years"
http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/61/2/177.full

"It is widely believed that Charles Darwin avoided publishing his theory of evolution for many years. Many explanations have been proposed to identify Darwin's reasons or motives for doing so. This essay demonstrates that Darwin's delay is a recent historiographical theme for which there is no clear evidence, and indeed is overwhelmingly contradicted by the historical evidence."

"Ten Myths about Charles Darwin"
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/9/800.full

"A third long-disestablished myth is that Darwin avoided publishing his theory for so long because he feared backlash from the religious establishment. In fact, he was much more concerned about criticism from the scientific community after having seen the reaction to the anonymously published Vestiges of Creation in the 1840s (Secord 2000). For a more plausible explanation of his delay (during which he was working all the time to gather information and refine his arguments), see van Wyhe (2007)."

Chuck,

I agree (sort of). Darwin was not afraid to discuss the theory of evolution among colleagues (or transmutation, as it was called), although he was afraid that any public debate about evolution would lead to debate over the issue of human origins. That was something he was afraid to discuss and we have ample evidence for his reticence on that subject.

Moreover, it is relevant that the Vestiges of Creation had to be published anonymously. Darwin noted that "In my opinion it has done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views." To me, that seems to be an acknowledgment that evolution was a controversial subject.

I'll rewrite the passage in my manuscript to bring it into line with your observations.

[attachment=202]Chuck,

Here is my new version in PDF. The new paragraph is as follows:

Charles Darwin himself had fallen into that trap. When a non-biologist anonymously wrote and marketed a book about evolution, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, the resulting controversy impressed on Darwin the need to become a reputable biologist before writing on the topic. So he bided his time and published, published, published … on other topics in biology. One day, however, fate forced his hand. Another biologist sent him a manuscript that set out the very theory that Darwin had kept under wraps for so long. The rest is history.

Here is my new version in PDF. The new paragraph is as follows:

I see nothing substantially problematic about the paper; thus, I approve publication.

[attachment=203]Here is the abstract (200 words). I've put it on the second page of the PDF.

This essay presents four academics—Richard Dawkins, Claude Lévi-Strauss, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides—and how they negotiated the gap between personal conviction and mainstream discourse. All four came to the conclusion that human populations differ not only anatomically but also in various mental and behavioral predispositions. These differences are statistical and often apparent only between large groups of people. But even a weak statistical difference can affect how a society will develop and organize itself. Human biodiversity is therefore a reality, and one we ignore at our peril.

How, then, should one negotiate this gap? Of the above academics, Claude Lévi-Strauss made the fewest compromises, whereas the others chose various mixed messages, perhaps hoping that someone else would pick up the ball and run with it. Today, the question remains unanswered. How can one get the message across without being penalized?

There are no easy answers, and that may be part of the problem. Too many people are looking for answers that are easy—that cost little in terms of reputation, career prospects, or acceptance at the next cocktail party. Why not instead assume that everything worthwhile has a cost and then look for ways to minimize the cost?

Emil,

Yes, you have my go-ahead. Do you have approval from three reviewers?
[hr]
[attachment=204]Emil,

I've added a list of keywords. Please use this new PDF version.

Peter