A Question I Was Asked:

Am I Too Harsh on Darwinism?

The Question:

I have admired your writings, they are always interesting, always clear and you are a good researcher. But I was shocked at your hateful and misinformed comments towards Darwin and evolution. I rejoice in the wonders of evolution - it was a great discovery but I am also a Christian, always have been, always will be.

UK Apologetics Reply:

If you say that you are a Christian, I must suppose that you only support micro-evolution (as I do), that is, natural selection, variations in kinds etc., but that you do not support macro-evolution, that is, mankind are descended from a line of apes from a beginning in a primeval slime or 'soup,' countless millions of years ago, that the whole process occurred according to natural principles, completely randomly, that people and animals alike are all some sort of accident - no design, no purpose. If you accept this unproven and unprovable macro-evolution, which cannot be demonstrated in any laboratory experiment, which is not evidenced in the fossil record (which supports the Genesis schema), which requires the breaking of several well-established laws of science (such as, 'life can only come from life'), then that, my friend, is your choice, but be aware this is naturalistic/physicalist philosophy - now often referred to as 'scientism' - which is quite happy to ignore evidence which points in the wrong direction (for itself).

We have so many articles on this website that could help you but you need to seek them out and read them. Isn't this thing important enough?

If you say that you do support macro-evolution then - I have to say - you have been misled as to what a Christian, and Christianity, is. How can you follow a God whom you privately believe to be a liar? You prefer the claims of Charles Darwin, now increasingly being seen (by those who are prepared to face up to the evidence), as a confused would-be scientist with a penchant for plagiarism. Nevertheless, I believe that if Darwin were alive now, he would probably admit many of his errors. Natural Selection, by the way, is not Darwinian (despite what is popularly believed), but was already outlined by Edward Blyth - a Christian - just before Darwin. The failures of Darwin are now played down because scientism wants to hold onto him as a hero, this is especially true in the UK, but, of course, he was a racist and he believed that women were greatly inferior to men. He also never really understood genetics, Gregor Mendel (a Christian, by the way), was the first to really grasp genetics.

Mendel's work was rejected at first, and was not widely accepted until after he died. During his own lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged together. Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Charles Darwin tried unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis. It was not until the early 20th century that the importance of Mendel's ideas was realized.

Anyway, the point is: if you want to worship at the altar of Darwin, please don't also claim to worship a God who says that He created the world according to His design and purpose. So presumably you support liberal 'Christianity.' You say, "I rejoice in the wonders of evolution - it was a great discovery ..." But, as a Christian believer, shouldn't you be saying, "I rejoice in the wonders of Creation..."? I just don't 'get' comments like yours coming from one claiming to profess Christ.

Isn't there any good in Darwinism? Well, he was right about certain things, the problem is the whole thing became a naturalist religion; at root and base it is flawed, although there are some good insights in more peripheral areas, namely in micro-evolution.

Robin A. Brace. December 12th, 2012.

If you want to research further, you will find considerable information on evolution here: