What You Probably Were Not Told About Charles Darwin

Article: What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin by Phil Moore (original source here)

Phil Moore leads Everyday Church in London. He also serves as a Bible teacher and evangelist within the Newfrontiers family of churches. He is the author of the Straight to the Heart series of devotional commentaries. Phil is married to Ruth, and they have four young children. Together, they love eating strange and exotic food, watching movies with lots of popcorn, and reading books by Roald Dahl.

Charles Darwin is a great British hero. That’s hardly surprising, since he was one of the most influential thinkers of the past 200 years. I happened to live opposite Darwin’s former lodgings when I was a student at Cambridge University, so I looked out each morning on a blue plaque hailing him as one of the greatest Britons who ever lived. I’m not saying he didn’t deserve that commemorative plaque, but I should point out that he wasn’t a British hero but a British villain. You don’t need to be a Bible-thumping evangelical to question whether Darwin’s thinking deserves to be given a bit more thought.

Whatever your views on origins and evolution, we can hopefully all agree that, at present, we give far too much honor to the British thinker who justified genocide.

Devaluation of Humans

Darwin didn’t hide his view that his evolutionary thinking applied to human races as well as to animal species. The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:

The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.

Thankfully, most British people today are embarrassed by the racist rhetoric that undergirded the late-Victorian British Empire. What’s astonishing is how little they understand that Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution provided the doctrine behind its white supremacism. Whereas the British Empire of the early 19th century had been dominated by Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce, who sold slave badges that proclaimed, “Am I not a man and a brother?”, Darwin’s writings converted an empire with a conscience into an empire with a scientific philosophy.

Four years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, James Hunt turned it into a justification for slavery. In his 1863 paper, “On the Negro’s Place in Nature,” he asserted: “Our Bristol and Liverpool merchants, perhaps, helped to benefit the race when they transported some of them to America.”

Christian reformers had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him.

Enabling Genocide

Victorian Britain was too willing to accept Darwinian evolution as its gospel of overseas expansion. Darwin is still celebrated on the back of the British £10 note for his discovery of many new species on his visit to Australia; what’s been forgotten, though, is his contemptible attitude—due to his beliefs about natural selection—toward the Aborigines he found there. When The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, he didn’t try and stop them. When the Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”

Meanwhile, several thousand miles away, Cecil Rhodes was gleefully embracing Darwin’s thinking as justification for white expansion across southern Africa. He was so inspired by Darwinian evolutionist Winwood Reade’s The Martyrdom of Man that he later confessed, “That book has made me what I am.”

What it made him was the architect of one of the most brutal and immoral acts of European expansion and genocide in history. Rhodes wrote in 1877:

I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. . . . It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race, more of the best, the most human, most honorable race the world possesses.

If what Rhodes believed sounds shocking to you—and I hope it does—then understand that he was simply stating what he drew from the works of both Darwin and Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, who extrapolated his cousin’s thinking to pioneer racial eugenics.

Select Your Choice

I’ve used British examples because I’m British, and it seems more polite to point out the errors in my own national worldview than in that of other nations. I could’ve pointed out how Darwin’s thinking was used by late 19th-century Americans to justify acts of genocide against Native Americans. I could’ve pointed out how Hitler and his Nazi philosophers used it to justify wars of expansion and horrific holocaust. I could’ve pointed out how Communist Russia used Darwinian evolution to justify its liquidation of non-Russian people groups within the Soviet empire. I could’ve pointed out how it was used by Serbs to justify their genocide against Croatians and Kosovans.

But I don’t have to. The British example is enough to make us question whether Charles Darwin was truly a British hero at all. At least we should strip him of his place on our £10 banknote and stop protecting his thinking from the scrutiny it deserves in school classrooms, in TV documentaries, and in the corridors of power.

Because whether or not you agree with his thoughts on evolution, you should at the very least want to discover he was wrong.

Whom would you rather discover was right all along? The Christian reformers of the early 19th century, like William Wilberforce and the Earl of Shaftesbury, who argued from belief in divine creation that slaves should be freed and that children shouldn’t be forced to work themselves to death in factories for having been born to the wrong parents? Or Charles Darwin, who argued from belief in a godless beginning to the universe that natural selection is a virtue and that, consequently, acts of genocide are part and parcel of the way the world was always supposed to be?

In the words of Jesus himself, “By their fruits you will be able to judge their teaching.”

Darwinism is a federally sponsored religious belief about our origins

“Since 1859 Darwinism has been undermining scientific education, research & the saving faith of billions of people. When real science refutes a theory, the idea’s thrown out; yet scientists today are forced to accept Darwinism despite: 1) the Law of Biogenesis says it never began; 2) mathematical odds show it never could’ve occurred; 3) it’s in conflict with the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics; 4) the fossil record shows no viable missing links; 5) living creatures reveal no transitional kinds & 6) Gene Depletion + Selection make it a genetic impossibility. The truth is that Darwinism is a federally sponsored religious belief about our origins; not a scientific theory. So beware of science falsely so-called and have a blessed day.” – Russ Miller

www.CreationMinistries.Org

Natural Selection

ken-ham“…natural selection is not “molecules-to-man evolution” (hereafter referred to as evolution)! It is true that evolutionists will use the term evolution for natural selection, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who believes in natural selection believes in Darwinian evolution!

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise. But this isn’t evolution! It’s really just an outworking of the phenomenal amount of genetic variability God built into each kind of organism.

Evolution requires an addition of brand-new information so that novel traits (never seen before) can arise. You can’t change an amoeba into an astronaut without adding new information and new features! But natural selection can’t do that. It can remove or reshuffle information, but it can never create brand-new information. Because natural selection is the exact opposite of evolution, it can’t be a mechanism for this unobserved process. And mutations don’t add new information either.

We always see organisms reproducing according to their kind, just as it says in Genesis (Genesis 1). There is a huge amount of variety within a kind (think of poodles, Great Danes, wolves, dingoes, and boxers), but one kind has never been observed to turn into another kind, nor is there a mechanism for this imagined evolution.”

– Ken Ham

Full article here.

Evolutionary Propaganda – Easily Refuted

A Vox Media video, recently posted to YouTube, “Proof of Evolution That You Can Find on Your Body,” has had over 15 million views. As supposed proof of evolution, this video cites five examples of human body structures and functions that have supposedly been lost from an earlier ancestor. Such examples are called vestigial organs, and are believed to be useless leftovers from our evolutionary past.

After watching this professionally produced Vox video, with its authoritative narration and high-quality photos, graphics, and music, most people might be convinced that the five examples from our body prove they are basically now useless leftovers from humankind’s evolutionary history. But the arguments are nothing but evolutionary propaganda and, when analyzed by an experienced anatomist, can be easily refuted.

AiG scientist Dr. David Menton, who holds a PhD in cell biology from Brown University, is a member of the American Association of Anatomists, and is a former professor at Washington University School of Medicine, refutes each of these five supposed evolutionary leftovers in a short AiG video. I urge you to watch his rebuttal (at this link).

Too Quickly or Too Slow?

While debating 2 Darwinian Biologists I asked why we don’t find lots of transitional fossils & they said it was due to Darwinian (Macro) evolution happening too fast to be caught in earth’s strata layers.

Later, I asked why we don’t see Macro change occurring today and they said it was due to such change taking place too slowly, over long ages, to be seen in the present.

I then asked, “Well, does Darwinian evolution occur too quickly to leave evidence in the fossil record or too slowly to be seen in the present?”

They looked at each other & said, “Wow, this is our religious belief!”

– Russ Miller

The Bible and Science

Science confirms the Bible (1:30:13):

The Top 10 Questions about Genesis (58:45):

Do you believe in the Bible? Then what about carbon dating? Do you believe in the Global Flood? Then how did Noah get all of the animals on the Ark? Are you a Christian–then what do you do about all of the ‘Ape Men?’ In this fast-paced video lecture, Ken Ham gives answers to these and other commonly asked questions that skeptics lodge concerning Genesis and Creation, such as ‘Where did Cain get his wife’ and ‘Where did all of the races originate?’

Plant Death Before the Fall

Here’s an interesting response to an article posted by Dr. R. C. Sproul, Jr regarding the age of the earth: http://creation.com/r-c-sproul-jr-plant-death

Macro Evolution Remains a Theory in Crisis

The Discovery Institute identifies five areas of science that pose serious problems for neo-Darwinianism:

1. Genetics – Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
2. Biochemistry – Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
3. Paleontology – The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
4. Taxonomy – Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
5. Chemistry – The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.

Questions to ask an Evolutionist

and two ties. How could this happen? The answer is they had no offense.

A Christian Game Plan
This is where many Christians are in their efforts to witness to unbelievers. The Bible instructs believers to have answers when challenged by any and all who oppose the Word of God (defense—1 Peter 3:15). The Bible also instructs believers to bring down all strongholds and anything that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (offense—2 Corinthians 10:4–5). Sadly, while many Christians lack the knowledge to challenge unbelievers (offense), they also lack a defense.

What is meant by defense and offense in Christian witnessing? Defense means that the Christian can answer questions such as: How do you fit dinosaurs into the Bible? Where did Cain get his wife? How could Adam name all the animals in one day? What about carbon-14 dating? Does God really exist? Couldn’t God have used evolution?

Offense means the Christian can ask the unbeliever questions that challenge his or her worldview. The strategy of asking good questions can be used to demonstrate to unbelievers that their belief in evolution is a sort of “blind” faith and is not something derived from empirical science. They can also illustrate to the compromised Christian (a person who professes to believe in both the Bible and ideas such as evolution or millions of years) that God’s Word is a completely accurate record and is not to be modified by secular opinions of what is possible.

There are several different types of questions that are useful in apologetics; we will cover four general categories of questions in this chapter. Questions can be used to help us assess and clarify the worldview of the critic. What does he really believe, and how is he using the terms? We will call these “clarification questions.” We can ask “foundation questions” about the most basic laws of science, and the beginning of first things. There are “textbook questions”—questions that can expose inconsistency in common textbook claims. These are particularly useful in public school settings. And finally, there are worldview questions—questions that can be used to show that the evolutionary worldview is utterly, intellectually defective.

Clarification Questions
These questions are used to help explain the meaning of words or terms. A definition in science needs to be clear and precise. It should include all the attributes that distinguish it from all other entities. If any of these attributes are missing, then the definition becomes ambiguous.

What do you mean by evolution?
What do you mean by theory?
What is meant by a fact in science?

Let’s examine some examples of the importance of establishing definitions. Continue reading