The Utter Failure of the 19th/20th Century Atheistic Icons

CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882)

(Printer-friendly version here)

The media is full of information on Charles Darwin which is often years - I repeat: years - out of date. This article is right up to date and faces up to the truth about the naturalist who is so mistakenly revered by modern society.

Did you know, for instance, that perhaps 80% of what Darwin originally wrote is now rejected by the most able modern scientists and that 'Natural Selection' was first outlined - not by Darwin at all - but by Edward Blyth?

Many of these facts are being kept from the general public who still believe that Darwinism is unchallenged! Now read on for the full article...

C harles Darwin has had a major impact on the modern world. There are many educators who will only utter this man's name in soft, reverential tones as if speaking of a deity. In this online essay I want to say a little about this amazing man. I will say a little about his roots, his theories, his influences, and where those influences stand right now. In that sense this essay will be right up-to-date as we stand in 2006. The internet is replete with information on Darwin which is years out of date, this will not be. Let me be clear: any article on Darwin which refuses to face up to the serious challenges to evolution which have arisen in the last few years (usually from within the science community) is seriously out of date.

His Background

Charles Darwin was born into a family of doctors in Shewsbury, England on 12th February 1809. Charles was the fifth of six children of wealthy society doctor Robert Darwin. He was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin on his father's side, and of Josiah Wedgwood on his mother's side, both from very prominent English families. The Wedgwoods were associated with the manufacture of quality English pottery.

The Darwins were badly affected by premature deaths and nobody can now deny that family inbreeding had caused serious weakness in the family stock. According to Fiona MacCrae's report in The Mail Online on May 4th 2010,

"Charles Darwin's family paid the price for inbreeding." She continued,
"A study of the scientist's family tree suggests inbreeding was to blame, with frequent cousin to cousin marriages lowering immunity to disease and raising the odds of infertility. Darwin's mother, Susannah, was the daughter of third cousins, one of which was Josiah Wedgwood, the founder of the pottery dynasty of the same name. Darwin's wife, Emma Wedgwood, was his first cousin, while the Wedgwood family tree contained several other marriages between cousins. The couple had ten children - four girls and six boys - between 1839 and 1858. But only seven survived to adulthood."(source:

Both families had supported the cause of Unitarianism (a very loosely Christian-type denomination which rejected the Trinity). Charles' mother died when he was only eight. Interestingly, Erasmus Darwin had already given some thought and study to a very primitive theory of evolution.

In 1825 Charles went to Edinburgh University to study medicine having already had some initial medical learning passed on to him by his father, but he was revolted by the prospect of involvement in surgery. This revulsion led to him starting to neglect his medical studies. The Darwins were a very wealthy family and perhaps this is part of the reason that he was able to 'chop and change' his career options quite so freely. After he had renounced his studies of medicine, Charles Darwin went to the University of Cambridge to study to be an Anglican priest. Following the earlier failure, his father wished him to become a Clergyman and he was enrolled for a general B.A. degree which included some study of theology and mathematics. He graduated from Cambridge with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1831. However, it would be beyond the scope of such a general degree to have furnished Darwin with any truly in-depth theological acumen and knowledge. So Charles' intention was to become a country parish priest, possibly believing that the life of a country priest, with a large house, a nice stipend, and generally little to do would be pretty secure. However, during his time at Cambridge, he began to develop an interest in natural history. Before very long, he largely jettisoned his study of theology and his desire to be a parish priest, only doing enough to achieve his B.A. (hardly the hardest degree of all time).

Influential Voyage on the 'Beagle'

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin.

In 1831, Charles Darwin enbarked upon a long journey of five years around the world, including South America and the Pacific Islands, as naturalist on the research ship 'Beagle'. So here was a man who had received a little training in medicine and a little training in theology, appointing himself as an expert in natural history (in which he had received no training). During this period, he unquestionably made an enormous quantity of biological and geological observations. It is not exactly true to say (as some do) that the natural phenomena he noted, including the wide distribution of fossils, persuaded him that divine creation could not explain life - this is a sort of 'valiant and brave scientist fighting against ignorant superstition' modernist folk story! No. The evidence is strong that by this time he had already largely swallowed his grandfather's concept of evolution and he had come to accept Deism (actually Darwin never became an atheist but continued to support a sort of belief in God, but he had long rejected divine creation as outlined in Genesis, seeing creation as a supernatural being simply putting certain physical laws in place in the universe then apparently having little further interest in his enterprise, and allowing those physical laws to manufacture life over several million of years).

An originally nominal Christian, Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church for a few years but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. Though reticent to express his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind," however, a loose Deism probably best sums up where he generally stood through most of his life, before becoming agnostic in his last years. Deists believed that God had created the world but then had no further interaction in it; this would obviously allow for so-called 'theistic evolution.'
The Darwins had ten children: two died in infancy, and Annie's death at the age of ten had a devastating effect on her parents. Anne Elizabeth Darwin lived: 2 March 1841-22 April 1851.

Annie's cruel death destroyed Charles' tatters of beliefs in a moral, just universe. Later he would say that this period chimed 'the final death-knell for his Christianity,' says a recent biography of Charles Darwin. "Charles now took his stand as an unbeliever." (Desmond, A., and Moore, J., Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, p. 387, 1991).

But to return to the early 1830s, Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology was having a major impact on Darwin while aboard the Beagle. This book, published in 1830, shook up the prevailing views of how the Earth had originally been formed. The book was an attack on the common belief among geologists - and Christianity in general - that unique catastrophes or supernatural events -- such as Noah's flood -- had shaped the Earth's surface. According to this view, a once-tumultuous period of change had slowed to today's calmer, more leisurely pace.
But Lyell argued that the formation of Earth's crust took place through countless small changes occurring over vast periods of time, all according to known natural laws. This was 'uniformitarianism' and this was the new vogue which quickly resulted from Lyell's book. His "uniformitarian" theory (and, like evolution, it could never be more than a theory) stated that the forces molding the planet today have operated continuously throughout an immensely long history. He also assumed that these causes must have acted only with the same intensities currently being observed, which would rule out asteroid impacts and such like. Darwin was much inspired by Lyell's theories which would prove to be the catalyst in organizing his own theory.
"The present is the key to the past," was the motto of uniformitarian thinking. Darwin, greatly influenced by Lyell, extended this principle to biology: he saw all species, like geologic features, evolving gradually or dying out gradually - like the forces which Lyell had already written of. Darwin held that the forces seen today in the biological world: reproduction, inheritance, and competition, gradually produced the whole diversity of life on Earth. This, of course, would have needed many million of years.

It is not that nobody had ever considered a millions of years old universe before Darwin and Lyell (a group of French scientists had already suggested a 75,000 year age of the earth, a few others had already suggested a millions of years scenario) but these were minority opinions which were not taken too seriously. Now it would become more established as a view. Lyell, it should be noted, was himself greatly influenced by Sir James Hutton (who had originally outlined this way of thinking). Lyell was loosely deist, accepting that a God being might well have created the earth but believing that that being had little further interest in it, but Charles Lyell joyfully attacked the creationist teaching in the first chapters of Genesis, a teaching which he loathed and wanted to overturn.

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.
Stephen Jay Gould.


Darwin knew full well that others had got into serious trouble for holding such heretical ideas, so he initially only confided in his closest friends and continued his research to meet anticipated objections. However, in 1858 the information that Alfred Russell Wallace had developed a similar theory forced him into an early publication of his own form of the theory of life. This action seems a little odd but possibly very significant. Why would Darwin have been so concerned if he was so fully confident of his own theory? Of course, the truth is that - contrary to common opinion - Darwin had already absorbed huge influences from other sources including Lyell, his own grandfather, and undoubtedly Wallace himself and now he wanted full credit for a theory which was never truly entirely his own. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was finally published in 1859. Darwin was 50 years old at the time and he would go on to write another 18 books. Yet it is believed that he had substantially completed his original theory by about 1838, expanding these ideas into a 30-page paper and then into a longer 230 page paper, in 1842 and then in 1844, respectively. However, he did not publish his ideas at this time. Not everybody is as charitable to Darwin as are those evolutionist propagandist writers/websites which hold him in a high religious awe and rumours persist to this day (and even appear to have strengthened in the last decade) that this delay was as much to do with a steady and stealthy plagiarization of the ideas of others as much as the desire to avoid persecution.

In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin appears to have adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. (See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley's Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X , New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979, Pages: 45–80). There have been several other persistent claims of plagiarism in Darwin, although mostly not easy to substantiate.
In his book, Darwin's Place in History, p66, distinguished evolutionary writer C.D. Darlington made a very telling comment about Darwin, claiming,
'He was able to put across his ideas not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue.'
So rumours just do not go away that Darwin was an avid collector of the ideas of others much more than being the scientific genius which he was later portrayed to be.

Sometimes the earliest reactions to a 'new scientific theory' are the most telling (before populist, hidden agenda bandwagon leapers and philosophical interests get involved), in 1872 an attempt to get Darwin elected to the prestigious French Institute was barred. A prominent member of that Institute gave the reason,

"...The 'Origin of Species,' and still more the 'Descent of Man,' is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage."
(Source: Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., London, 2:400, footnote, 1911).

Undeniably Darwin was a man of a shy and retiring temperament who did not seek out conflict or controversy, and usually backed-off when occasions arose to discuss or debate his views in public. This is where one Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) enters the story. Huxley has been called "Darwin's Bulldog" for the very good reason that he set himself up as the defender of the quiet man whenever the opportunity to debate came along. At the June 1860 public debate held at Oxford, England more than 700 persons crowded into a hot, stuffy lecture room, yet Darwin himself was amazingly absent. Some claim that Darwin was unwell at the time, but other sources claim that it was simply his shyness. But was this really shyness? Or is there just a suspicion of cowardice tinged with guilt here? I have always found that shy, retiring people are usually surprisingly valiant when needing to defend their corner. It was his longtime friends and supporters Joseph Hooker and "bulldog" Thomas Huxley who defended his views against the attacks of Admiral Robert FitzRoy, Richard Owen, and Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford. Actually, Huxley was a biologist himself and is, in fact, credited with the theory of 'abiogenesis' (a theoretic attempt to explain how non-living matter can produce life. Abiogenesis is not and never has been a science - it obviously can never be more than a theory). Huxley outlived Darwin by 13 years and it was probably he more than anybody else who caused Darwinism to eventually gain respectability. Huxley was a very very complex man; as an example, though he was an agnostic, he firmly advocated and encouraged the teaching of the Bible in schools! Huh? Yes, he could be contradictory, indeed.

Darwin's Basic Theory

Darwin's basic theory, of course, is that all life on this planet evolved and was not created in the form in which it may be observed in the modern world. Therefore, the biblical view of Divine Creation is invalid. The process required many millions of years (once these theories were accepted, school science text books would never be the same again with the concept that this earth is many millions of years old now typically being first chapter events). I once heard a man say, 'Evolution could be true since we know that this world is millions of years old' - But this man got things the wrong way around. The concept of the great age of this world only arrived with the influence of evolutionary thinking and was an attempt to facilitate that. But for the influence of Lyell's uniformitarianism and the Wallace/Darwin theory the concept of a many millions of years old earth would not have arrived.

"Natural selection" (variations within species etc) was claimed by Darwin to be the cause of evolution, and in his use of the term in "Origins", he appears to give it the power of a Creator. Darwin's "Origins" always avoids the use of the word random, preferring to use the term natural selection (which the book does on something over 300 occasions). Yet, as many have pointed out, natural selection actually completely lacks the ability to create or select anything at all. If we are going to suggest that a thing is random, we cannot then credit it with intelligence!

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28).

Darwin shamefully employed what is known as 'circular reasoning' (that is, an assumption made in an argument that contains the acceptance as fact, of a premise or proposal, which needs to be proven for the argument to be correct). Thus, Darwin has assumed that a species - or variety - possesses sufficient variability such that it either has within itself - or can develop - the characteristics of a new species. He spent much time in the discussion of problems with his theory yet glossed over this assumption as if it were fact; since it must be fact for his theory to be viable, and instead has been assumed, this is quite shameful circular reasoning and reveals a lack of argumentative logic.

Those who, in our day, uphold Neo-Darwinism still shamefully employ not only 'circular reasoning' (for example, stating that we date fossils by where they appear in the 'geologic column' yet also claiming that we understand the dating within the geologic column by the position of the fossils!) but also 'bait and switch' tactics, discussing natural selection and variations within kinds, such as different kinds of dogs or tomatoes, then claiming that this "proves" macro-evolution, including the belief that homo-sapiens evolved from lowly slime, through the stage of apes, before finally becoming human beings after countless millions of years! Yet the variations within kinds (which are clearly allowed for within the Genesis explanation), can in no way demonstrate that macro-evolution is true - this is called 'bait and switch' and it has long been a tool of magicians and.... ..dishonest 'con-men'.

Darwin's Racism Covered Up...

The Theory of Evolution is based on the concept of certain animals or life-forms acquiring unique traits which then enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those which don't possess them. Superior individuals, according to the theory, then deserve to survive, that is, they become meritorious because of their physical ability to thrive. So these differences gradually produce new groups which have a clear advantage in terms of survival; These new groups became the superior, or the more evolved races. So this approach of the stronger surviving and the weaker deserving to die lies right at the very heart of Darwinism. Charles Darwin did not hesitate to also apply his theories to the human racial family; Regarding human beings, Darwin believed that the black races were far less evolved than the white races.

This directly led to the rise of Eugenics. Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people and to save society's resources. Much of the earlier work focused on selective breeding, while newer eugenics looks at prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents strongly argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on pseudoscience. Eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, in some cases, genocide of races perceived as inferior.

As Ludmerer was to note,
'...modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton's ideas on eugenics, and it was he who created the term "eugenics," were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.'
(Source: Ludmerer, K., Eugenics, In: Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978).

It has to be admitted that the editors and defenders of Darwin have done a superb job in hiding Darwin's racism from almost everybody who now looks at the work of the English Naturalist. But Hitler was not blind to it and Hitler was an enthusiastic supporter of evolution since he saw it as giving Nazism the right to remove weaker elements from the human race. It is no secret whatsoever that Hitler and the Nazis used evolution as justification for many hideous acts. This is far too big a subject to cover within this particular article and much more information is available Here.

Neo-Darwinism Today.....Can Mutations Save Evolution?

During the last 50 years liberal educators have gone through Darwin's influences with a bright red editor's pen!


They knew that they wanted to maintain a reverence for the man and his work and were especially keen to hold on to the teaching that offers an explanation of human life without recourse to a supernatural God. Yet much within Darwinism was an embarrassment. We have already noted that this man was strongly racist and he also thought that women were intellectually inferior to men. So modern politically-correct study courses would not allow huge swathes of Darwin's writings to appear on 'recommended reading' lists! Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to hold on to what is vital in the older Darwinism and is really a retreat in order to hold a stronger position against anticipated enemy attack. But Neo-Darwinism involves more than rejecting Darwin's obvious excesses, it is also an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which state that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims that they do.

"I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
H. S. Lipson; Prof of Physics, University of Manchester, A paper published by The Institute of Physics, IOP Publishing Ltd., 1980

Darwin actually knew very little about genetics. The great pioneer of that field was Gregor Mendel, whose work was contemporary with Darwin. The new theory incorporates Mendel's genetics into Darwin's framework; so the combined theory now tends to be called 'Neo-Darwinism.' Although recently a few writers are reverting to the use of "Darwinism" (although including Mendel's genetics). To quote Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm,

"According to this paradigm, evolution is driven by chance. Chance mutations affect one or a few nucleotides of DNA per occurrence. Bigger changes come from recombination, a genetic process in which longer strands of DNA are swapped, transferred, or doubled. These two processes, mutation and recombination, create new meaning in DNA by lucky accidents. According to the prevailing paradigm, this is the mechanism behind evolution.

One problem with this story is that it is implausible. It is analogous to saying that a great work of literature such as Moby Dick could emerge from lesser preexisting books, if there were enough typos and swapping of paragraphs along the way. The trouble is, when this process is actually attempted with text, it never succeeds. Only with guidance can random processes lead to meaningful sentences or paragraphs. But plausibility in the current paradigm of evolution is apparently unnecessary. We are told by Richard Dawkins, "The general lesson we should learn is never to use human judgment in assessing such matters." (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, BasicBooks, 1995. p 70).
Ordinary people are under the impression that there are examples in nature which prove that chance mutation and recombination can create new meaning in genetic code — new genes. Yet the alleged examples of the phenomenon do not actually exemplify it. Consider the ability of bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. Salvador Luria and Max Delbrück proved in 1943 that the resistant bacteria descended from preexisting strains; the genes for the resistance were already available in the gene pool. Although some have disputed this interpretation of their experiments, it is now well established..." (From Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm by Brig Klyce. All Rights Reserved. The full essay can be found here: We do not necessarily support other things on that website).

For many commentators it already appears to be a huge defeat to put all of evolution's eggs into the single basket of mutations. See
Monkey-Man Hypothesis Refuted by Mutation Rates.

The Blind Watchmaker Thesis.

The problem is that science (good empirical science, that is) has already demonstrated that mutations are either neutral or positively damaging yet Neo-Darwinism has put itself into the surely highly precarious situation of coming to rely on mutations in order to save what is left of Darwin's teachings. Hmmm... a highly risky strategy indeed!

The public at large, meanwhile, are truly unaware of the extremely serious predicament which evolutionists now find themselves in. Numerous education courses, evolutionary websites and television programmes continue to merrily go along in support of Darwin in blithe ignorance of the fact that Neo-Darwinism is now standing before a precipice. It struggles to hold on knowing that a final push could be enough to see it plunging headlong into the abyss.

The Exciting New World of Irreducible Complexity

The above term has sent severe alarm right through modern science (since modern science has so foolishly chosen to firmly tie its colours to the mast of Darwin). The world of molecular biology has moved on since Darwin's day. To Darwin the human cell was little more than a tiny blob of gunk, today we know that the human cell is a miniature factory of the most amazing complexity. Undoubtedly, this would have astonished Darwin, indeed he might have revised his teachings if he knew what we now understand. Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we see in humanly-devised machinery; In other words, they are all-or-nothing systems - either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. I drive a BMW 3.18 (rather elderly, like it's driver), I guarantee that if I went under the bonnet (hood) with a spanner, I would not need to remove much from the engine to prevent it working at all: it is an 'all or nothing' system - so is just one (simple?) human cell; that is, everything needs to be present in the correct amounts/configurations otherwise it is not viable and it will not work. Such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner for obvious reasons - it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. This principle, it is now discovered, can also be applied widely across biology. Therefore this is a mountainous challenge to Darwinism. Others too have now joined Behe in this exciting new area of study and research and the future looks increasingly bleak for the devout evolutionist!

In his brief but outstanding article, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference, Michael Behe points out one of the problems which is now hampering modern science,

"Sequence comparisons overwhelmingly dominate the literature of molecular evolution. But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked. Thus in this area science is mute. This means that when we infer that complex biochemical systems were designed, we are contradicting no experimental result, we are in conflict with no theoretical study. No experiments needs to be questioned, but the interpretation of all experiments must now be reexamined, just as the results of experiments that were consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe had to be reinterpreted when the waveparticle duality of matter was discerned."

(The full Michael Behe article can be found HERE).

The problem appears to have become that evolutionary dogma is now simply assumed with most scientists now researching in peripheral areas, yet evidence is now amounting which will surely eventually lead to calls for a full reappraisal of Neo-Darwinism. The central problem is that evolution is a philosophical interpretation which is applied to all available data, but science should surely never be in the hands of a philosophical assumption.

The number of scientists who now challenge Darwin appears to grow by the week and a definite trend appears to be underway which must surely finally lead to the total collapse of a theory which, interestingly, has now become a 'faith belief' of its own.

Thomas Huxley

Thomas Huxley, Darwin's 'bulldog.'

Darwin's Legacy, Influence and....Final Utter Failure

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was one of the first philosophers to become aware of the importance of Darwin’s works. According to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Charles Darwin inflicted a deep narcissistic wound on man by showing that he is neither a creature of God, nor the elected species of nature, but only the fruit of a long evolution in the animal kingdom. The theory of evolution destroyed the argument of purpose, of the divine will, according to which the beauty of the natural world and the perfection of living organisms show abundant proof of the Creator’s existence. Though apparently true that Darwin himself never professed atheism he offered huge support and sustenance to those who did. He also greatly encouraged the atheistic reasoning of those major movements and leaders who could do real damage from a position of power: For instance, Marxism, Nazism and Fascism during the 20th century. People like Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler were influenced by Darwin's conclusions, and even people like Mao Tse Tung in China. Such was the effect of the rapid spread through late 19th century and early 20th century society of evolutionary teachings and assumptions. Why worry about destroying thousands of your opponents if there is no God and the only thing in life which has any meaning is 'the survival of the fittest'?

It can be no exaggeration to say that the mild-mannered English naturalist must bear at least some responsibility for the suffering and death of millions of people in the violent and bloody 20th century!

Yet Darwinism has influenced huge areas of society in other ways.

Michael Denton has written,

'The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is really no hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of any age...' (Denton, 'Evolution: a Theory in Crisis', p358).

Surely, it might be asked, in view of all the former, we can hardly call Darwinism a failure? How does one assess success and failure? As a powerful and persuasive theory Darwinism has been a success - but as a theory which might have brought greater understanding, happiness, security and contentment to the human race it has been an especially tragic path and a total and ignominious failure!

Darwinism offered a new theory of life to replace an older one: theism, and a belief in divine creation right across many religions and cultures. In the new theory of Darwinism, the survival of the fittest is all that really matters. Since Mankind simply evolved, human suffering is largely irrelevant and responsibility for one's actions is also removed. Can we seriously wonder at the hideous suffering and violence which the 20th century witnessed? Many philosophical influences are to blame for the loss of influence of Christianity in the West from the 19th century onwards which led to the imagination-defying suffering of the wars of the 20th century, but I maintain that - without a shadow of a doubt - Darwin, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud bear a lion's share of responsibility. Yet even of these four, it was Charles Darwin who was the primary encourager and whose theories most turned society upside down, tending to diminish and overturn strong concepts of human decency and responsibility which had been such strong forces in the pre-Darwin era; for where is the essential dignity, decency, compassion and responsibility in 'the survival of the fittest'??

How interesting, then, that Darwin is so revered by a society which he did so much to create and which has so fully imbibed his theory's essential despair, desperation, anarchy and hopelessness.

Robin A. Brace, 2006.

(Find article bibliography a little lower on this page)

Also check out:

Other articles in the series The Utter Failure of the 19th/20th Century Atheistic Icons:




Article Bibliography

Andrews, E. H. Is Evolution Scientific? Welwyn, Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1977.
Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Behe, Michael. Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference. Online article here:
Bird, W.R. The Origin of Species Revisited Volume I. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: Regency, 1991.
Blanchard, John. Does God Believe in Atheists? Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2000.
Brace, Robin. The Bible and Evolution. Online essay here:
Cohen, I. L. Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications, 1984.
Darlington, C.D. Darwin's Place in History. Oxford: Blackwell. 1959.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. London: John Murray, 6th ed. 1872, reprinted 1902.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press, 1990.
Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986.
Desmond, A., and Moore, J., Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, p. 387, 1991.
Fange Ph.D, Dr Erich von. Time Upside Down Online essay here:
Eiseley, Loren. Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X. New York: Dutton. 1979.
Flew, Antony. A Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Gramercy Books, 1999.
Gentry, Dr Robert. From his video presentation found here:
Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! Master Books, 1995.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History Norton Books, 1992.
Gould, Stephen Jay. The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977.
Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998.
Huse, Scott, M. The Collapse of Evolution. Chick Publications. (Print date uncertain).
Klyce,Brig. From Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm. Online essay here:
Moreland, J.P., ed., The Creation Hypothesis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Johnson, Phillip. Objections Sustained. Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture. Downers Grove Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998.
Johnson, Phillip. Testing Darwinism. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997.
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics, In: Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978.
McGrath, Alister. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Doubleday, 2004.
Sagan, Carl. The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence. Ballantine Books, 1986.
Sunderland, Luther. Darwin's Enigma. Santee, CA: Master Books, 1984.
Woodling, Richard Swancy. God the Universe and Darwin: The Jury Speaks. Online essay here: (2005).
Also: Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., London, 1911.

Valid HTML 4.0 Transitional