

Origin of Species
150th Anniversary Edition
Charles Darwin
Alachua, Florida 32615
The
Special Introduction by Ray Comfort
Bridge-Logos
Alachua, FL 32615 USA
The Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition
by Charles Darwin
Copyright ©2009 by Bridge-Logos
All rights reserved. Under International Copyright Law, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted by any means—
electronic, mechanical, photographic (photocopy), recording, or otherwise—
without written permission from the Publisher.
Printed in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2009931773
International Standard Book Number 978-0-88270-919-2
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and
balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each
question.”
— Charles Darwin,
Introduction to Origin of Species (1859)
“Teachers and students should have the academic freedom
to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a
scientific theory.”
— 84% of college graduates agree
(2009 Zogby International survey of likely voters)
“Education, you know, means broadening, advancing,
and if you limit a teacher to only one side of anything the
whole country will eventually have only one thought, be one
individual. I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem
or theory.”
— John T. Scopes (1925, at a banquet in NY
prior to the “Scopes Monkey Trial”)
“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among
biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does
not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and
proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to
the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks
of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable.
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of
a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less
demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its
credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the
elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in
science.”
— Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S.,
Introduction to Origin of Species (1956)
CONTENTS
SPECIAL INTRODUCTION
IntroductIon
cHAPtEr I
VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION
cHAPtEr II
VARIATION UNDER NATURE
cHAPtEr III
STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE
cHAPtEr IV
NATURAL SELECTION
cHAPtEr V
LAWS OF VARIATION
cHAPtEr VI
DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY
cHAPtEr VII
INSTINCT
cHAPtEr VIII
HYBRIDISM
cHAPtEr IX
ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD
cHAPtEr X
ON THE GEOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF ORGANIC BEINGS
cHAPtEr XI
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
cHAPtEr XII
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION—continued
cHAPtEr XIII
MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS: MORPHOLOGY:
EMBRYOLOGY: RUDIMENTARY ORGANS
cHAPtEr XIV
RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION

Special Introduction
The History of Charles Darwin
ChArLES roBErT DArwIN was born on February
12, 1809, in Shrewsbury, England. he was the fifth of six
children born into a wealthy, professional family. his father
and grandfather were both doctors, and his mother was the
daughter of Josiah wedgwood, of pottery fame. when he was
eight years old, his mother died. his father sent him to an
Anglican boarding school until he was age sixteen, but young
Charles showed less interest in studying than in hunting, natural
history, and scientific experimentation.
In 1825, he enrolled at Edinburgh University. Darwin’s
father expected him to go into medicine, and although he entered
Edinburgh University to pursue a medical degree, he found he
couldn’t stand the sight of blood and left after two years. he
then transferred to Cambridge (Christ’s College) to study for
the ministry. As a clergyman, he would have the free time to
follow his real intellectual love: natural history. Darwin was a
passionate student of nature, and while in school he amassed a
considerable beetle collection as well as other specimens. After
befriending botany professor rev. John Stevens henslow, his
interest in zoology and geography grew.
At age twenty-two, Darwin was presented with an
opportunity that would change his life. henslow recommended
him for a position on a British Navy survey vessel, the HMS
Beagle, which was about to sail on a two-year coastal survey
expedition to South America. her captain was anxious to have
a naturalist and gentleman companion on board, and Charles
readily agreed.
Origin of Species

The voyage ended up lasting nearly five years, during
which time Darwin was able to explore extensively in South
America and numerous islands in the Pacific ocean, including
the Galapagos Islands.
on returning to England in 1836, Darwin set to work
examining and disseminating the extensive collection of
specimens he acquired during the voyage. he quickly
established a reputation as an accomplished naturalist on the
London scene.
In 1839 he married his cousin, Emma wedgwood. That
same year he published his journal of the voyage of the Beagle,
which brought him immediate celebrity among London’s
intellectuals.
In 1842 he and Emma moved to Down house in Kent. It
was there that she bore ten children and she and Charles spent
the rest of their lives.
A young Charles Darwin

Introduction
During his great adventure as the Beagle’s naturalist,
Darwin had studied certain aspects of the morphology and
biogeography of the many species of plants and animals that he
had observed. he eventually concluded that species exhibited
varying degrees of similarity because they were to varying
degrees related.
It appears that by 1838 his concept of descent with
modification by the mechanism of natural selection was largely
formed. Although Darwin is the most familiar name associated
with evolution, he was only persuaded to publish his work
when he learned that another young naturalist, Alfred russell
wallace, was developing ideas about the evolution of species
similar to his own. In 1858, at the urging of friends, he prepared
a brief paper which was read before the royal Society along
with the paper wallace had written. The following year he
published On the Origin of Species, which he considered an
abstract of a larger future work.
During the remainder of his life Charles Darwin continued
his research, publishing three additional books on explicitly
evolutionary topics, and other books on topics including
climbing plants, insect-orchid mutualisms, and earthworms. At
the age of seventy-three, Charles Darwin died at Down house
on April 19, 1882, with his wife, Emma, by his side.
Emma Darwin
Charles Darwin and
his son William
Origin of Species

Timeline of Darwin’s life
1809: February 12 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, Charles robert
Darwin is born.
1817: Charles Darwin’s mother Susannah (née wedgwood) dies
when he was eight years of age.
1825–1827: Darwin’s father takes him from Shrewsbury
Grammar School because of his poor progress and sends
him to Edinburgh University. he says to him, “You care for
nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching and you will be
a disgrace to yourself and all your family.”
1827–1831: Charles enrolls at Christ’s College, Cambridge
University and studies theology to prepare for life as a
country parson. he is introduced to beetle collecting, and
spends much time with the professor of botany.
1831–1836: he makes natural history collections as he travels
around South America as on board the ship hMS Beagle as
their Naturalist.
1835–1836: Darwin first considers the evolution of species while
studying the variations among Galapagos mockingbirds. he
notes: “If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks
the zoology of Archipelagoes will be well worth examining,
for such facts would undermine the stability of species.”
1837: Darwin draws an evolutionary “tree” in his notebook
below the words “I think.”
1838–1839: he develops his theory of “natural selection.”
1839: Charles marries Emma wedgwood. The couple move
to London and have two children. Eventually having ten,
although only seven survive to adulthood. he publishes
The Journal of a Naturalist.
1840: he then publishes Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle.
1842: Charles writes his first essay on his evolutionary theory.
he moves to Down house in Bromley, Kent, where he lives
until his death.
1844: Charles pens an essay on evolution by natural selection.
he tells his wife to have it published in the event of his death,
saying, “I have just finished my sketch of my species theory.
If, as I believe [...] my theory is true, and if it be accepted
even by one competent judge, it will be a considerable step
in science.” he writes to botanist Joseph hooker telling him

Introduction
about his evolutionary ideas, saying it is “like confessing a
murder.”
1851: Darwin’s first daughter, Annie Elizabeth, dies at the age
of ten, of suspected tuberculosis.
1854–1859: he continues to develop his theory through
reading, consulting other naturalists, observation and
experimentation in and around the countryside at Down
house.
1856: he begins his work on On the Origin of Species.
1858: Darwin receives a letter from Alfred russel wallace.
wallace is a young naturalist who has independently arrived
at an almost identical theory of natural selection.
1858: Both Darwin and wallace have their theories presented to
the Linnaean Society on July 1.
1859: Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species.
1871: Darwin’s The Descent of Man is published, applying his
theories of evolution to human beings.
1882: Charles Darwin dies and is buried in westminster Abbey.1
Darwin’s Religious Belief
Darwin’s work has helped fuel intense debates about religion
and science, then and now, so it���s worthwhile to consider what
his own religious beliefs were. Just as his theory has influenced
people’s views about God, his view of God has helped to shape
his theory.
Many will be surprised to learn that, as a young boy, Charles
Darwin attended church with his mother and received religious
training at a Church of England boarding school. Darwin even
attended Cambridge to study for the ministry, saying that he
“did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of
every word in the Bible.” he wrote in his autobiography that
he was at one point led by “the firm conviction of the existence
of God, and of the immortality of the soul,” believing that
“there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.”
Darwin recalled that at the time of writing On the Origin of
Species he was convinced of the existence of God as an intelligent
First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. however, his
views would begin to change while on board the Beagle and by
the time he returned to England in 1836 he had come to view
Origin of Species

HMS Beagle by Conrad Martens
God as a “revengeful tyrant.” what was it that changed his
views? During the voyage he had ample opportunity to see the
cruelties of slavery and wondered how God could allow such
inhumanity to exist. he also could not accept that a kind God
would allow men to live in such a wretched state as the natives
of Tierra del Fuego. The issue of why God would allow such
suffering in the world was an internal conflict that Darwin could
not resolve. he recorded the thoughts he struggled with:
A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as
a God who could create the universe, is to our finite
minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our
understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not
unbounded … This very old argument from the existence
of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First
Cause seems to me a strong one.2
The issue of suffering was one that Darwin faced personally,
with the death of his beloved ten-year-old daughter, Annie, in
1851. This tragedy would deal a crushing blow to his religious
beliefs, as Darwin deliberated about the Christian meaning of
mortality and lost all faith in a beneficent God. he continued
to give support to the local church and help with parish work,

Introduction
but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended
church. Darwin therefore reasoned that death and suffering
were integral to the operation of the world and had always
existed.
In a letter to American botanist Asa Gray in 1860, Darwin
still acknowledged that God was the ultimate Lawgiver, but he
could not see an omnipotent Deity in all the pain and suffering
in the world.
I had no intention to write atheistically, but I
own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I
should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence
on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery
in the world.… on the other hand, I cannot anyhow
be contented to view this wonderful universe, and
especially the nature of man, and to conclude that
everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to
look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with
the details, whether good or bad, left to the working
out of what we may call chance.3
As he developed his theory of origins by purely natural
means, he grew further from the biblical concept of a Creator
and said of his religious views, “I am sorry to have to inform
you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, and
therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”4 he came to
think that the religious instinct had evolved with society and
eventually concluded, “For myself, I do not believe that there
ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must
judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”5
while in his later years Darwin was not religious to any
extent, he never entirely discounted the existence of a God but
gradually became agnostic:
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been
an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a
God. I think that generally (and more and more as I
grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be
the more correct description of my state of mind.6
Origin of Species

Statue of Charles Darwin in the Natural History Museum, London.

Introduction
Despite Darwin’s rejection of Christianity, he was buried
in a famous Christian church—westminster Abbey—close to
Sir Isaac Newton.
The DNA Code
Darwin’s theory of evolution is not without its difficulties.
Even 150 years later, scientists have yet to supply adequate
answers to what critics claim—and Darwin himself admitted—
are weaknesses of the theory. Following are some of the areas
of continued controversy.
The DNA that defines every aspect of our bodies is
incredibly complex, but in simplest terms it can be described
as a book composed of only four letters. To liken DNA to a
book, however, is really a gross understatement. The amount
of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every
human cell is equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia
size. It would take a person typing 60 words per minute, eight
hours a day, around 50 years to type the human genome. And
if all the DNA in your body’s 100 trillion cells was put end to
end, it would reach to the sun (90 million miles away) and back
over 600 times.7
Aside from the immense volume of information that your
DNA contains, consider the likelihood of all the intricate,
interrelated parts of this “book” coming together by sheer
chance. Critics claim that would be comparable to believing that
this publication happened by accident. Imagine that there was
nothing. Then paper appeared, and ink fell from nowhere onto
the flat sheets and shaped itself into perfectly formed letters of
the English alphabet. Initially, the letters said something like
this: “fgsn&k cn1clxc dumbh cckvkduh vstupidm ncncx.” As
you can see, random letters rarely produce words that make
sense. But in time, mindless chance formed them into the
order of meaningful words with spaces between them. Periods,
commas, capitals, italics, quotes, paragraphs, margins, etc.,
also came into being in the correct placements. The sentences
then grouped themselves to relate to each other, giving them
coherence. Page numbers fell in sequence at the right places,
and headers, footers, and footnotes appeared from nowhere on
the pages, matching the portions of text to which they related.
Origin of Species
0
The paper trimmed itself and bound itself into a book. The ink
for the cover fell from different directions, being careful not to
incorrectly mingle with the other colors, forming itself into the
graphic of Charles Darwin and title. There are multiple copies
of this publication, so it then developed the ability to replicate
itself thousands of times over.
Physical chemist Charles Thaxton writes:
The DNA code is quite simple in its basic structure
(although enormously complex in its functioning). By
now most people are familiar with the double helix
structure of the DNA molecule. It is like a long ladder,
twisted into a spiral. Sugar and phosphate molecules
form the sides of the ladder. Four bases make up its
“rungs.” These are adenine, thymine, guanine, and
cytosine. These bases act as the “letters” of a genetic
alphabet. They combine in various sequences to form
words, sentences, and paragraphs. These base sequences
are all the instructions needed to guide the functioning
of the cell.
The DNA code is a genetic “language” that
communicates information to the cell … The DNA
molecule is exquisitely complex, and extremely precise:
the “letters” must be in a very exact sequence. If they
are out of order, it is like a typing error in a message.
The instructions that it gives the cell are garbled. This is
what a mutation is.
… Since life is at its core a chemical code, the origin
of life is the origin of a code. A code is a very special
kind of order. It represents “specified complexity.”8
To ponder how DNA’s amazing structure could have come
together by sheer accident is indeed amazing, and has even led
some to consider the possibility of design. Based on his study
of DNA, the director of the U.S. National human Genome
research Institute concluded there must be a God. Francis
Collins, the scientist who led the team that cracked the human
genome, believes it provides a rational basis for a Creator:

Introduction
when you have for the first time in front of you
this 3.1-billion-letter instruction book that conveys all
kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about
humankind, you can’t survey that going through page
after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look
at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving
me a glimpse of God’s mind.9
DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast
amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell—
design which could not have arisen by purely naturalistic means.
In every other area of our world, we recognize that information
requires intelligence and design requires a designer. with our
present-day knowledge of DNA, this presents a formidable
challenge to Darwinian evolution.
DNA Similarities
one typical proof cited for Darwinian evolution is that
chimpanzees and humans have very similar DNA. In previous
DNA studies, based on only portions of the chimp genome,
scientists announced that humans and chimps were 98–99
percent identical, depending on what was counted. After
completing the mapping of the chimp genome in 2005, scientists
are hailing the result as “the most dramatic confirmation yet”
that chimps and humans have common ancestry. Though the
complete genomes have yet to be compared, several studies
found similarities as low as 86 percent. To date, researchers
believe that the genetic difference is 4 percent (though this is
actually twice the amount that has been assumed for years).10
If once the genomes have been compared the difference is
shown to be just 4 percent, with 3 billion base pairs of DNA
in every cell, that represents 120,000,000 entries in the DNA
code that are different. In our DNA instruction book, that’s
equivalent to about 12 million words—a seemingly small
percentage that has a tremendous impact.11
Some critics also question the scientific basis for assuming
that similar DNA indicates a common ancestor. Just as a biplane
and a jet share common features of wings, body, tires, engine,
controls, etc., they argue, does not require that one must have
Origin of Species

evolved from the other naturally, without a maker. They argue
it’s more reasonable to conclude that similar design indicates
a common, intelligent designer. An architect typically uses
similar building materials for numerous buildings, and a car
manufacturer commonly uses the same parts in various models.
So if creation had a common designer, we could expect to find a
similar “blueprint” used in many different creatures.
Since DNA is the coding for the way our bodies look and
operate, some reason that creatures with similar features or body
functions (eyes for vision, enzymes for digestion, etc.) would
have similar coding for these things in their DNA. Because
human cells have the same biochemical functions as many
different animals and even plants, we share many of the same
genes. The more functions we have in common, the more we
find similar coding in the blueprints. So while evolution states
that similar DNA is proof of common ancestry, opponents
interpret the same evidence as proof of a common designer. The
challenge is to prove scientifically which is true.
To the question of whether sharing 96 percent of our genetic
make-up with chimps makes us 96 percent chimp, evolutionist
Charles Darwin’s study room.

Introduction
Steven Jones, a renowned British geneticist, humorously
commented, “we also share about 50% of our DNA with
bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas …”12
Transitional Forms
As evidence that Darwin’s theory is correct—that humans
and chimps evolved from a common ancestor—we would
expect to find something that is half monkey, half man. These
intermediate stages where one species evolves into another
species are called “transitional forms.”
Because evolution is said to have occurred in the past, we
have to look to paleontology, the science of the study of fossils,
to find evidence on the history of life. well-known French
paleontologist Pierre-Paul Grassé explains:
Naturalists must remember that the process of
evolution is revealed only through fossil forms … only
paleontology can provide them with the evidence of
evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.13
we would expect to find that proof of the theory of
evolution would be readily available in the fossil evidence.
The fossil record should reveal millions of transitional forms,
as life gradually evolved from one species to another. Darwin
understood that evolutionary theory was dependent on these
transitional forms. he wrote in On The Origin of Species:
why, if species have descended from other
species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see
innumerable transitional forms? why is not all nature
in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see
them, well defined?...As by this theory innumerable
transitional forms must have existed, why do we not
find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust
of the Earth?14
Darwin acknowledged that the absence of intermediates put
his theory in doubt, but he attributed their lack to the scarcity of
fossils at that time—and he had faith that they would eventually
Origin of Species

be found. however, nearly 150 years later, the situation has not
improved much. After scientists have searched diligently for a
century and a half for evidence, we now have over 100 million
fossils catalogued in the world’s museums, covering 250,000
different species, which should be sufficient to give an accurate
picture of our past. Since paleontology holds the key to our
history, does it reveal the gradual progression from simple life
forms to more complex? Did we find the millions of transitional
forms that would be expected with evolution?
Scientists believed they found one in 1999 with
Archaeoraptor. The scientific community (including National
Geographic) proclaimed that they had found the “missing link”
between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds,15 though it
was quickly exposed as a fraud. A Chinese farmer had glued
together the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and
hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur.
Storrs L. olson, curator of birds at the National Museum
of Natural history at the Smithsonian Institution, stated that
the feathered dinosaur that was pictured is “simply imaginary
and has no place outside of science fiction.” he criticized
the magazine for publicizing this forgery, saying, “National
Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in
sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism,” and he
added, “The idea of feathered dinosaurs … is now fast becoming
one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.”16
Aside from “feathered dinosaurs,” many other supposed
missing links have been debunked. For example, a Berkeley
website claims that “there are numerous examples of transitional
forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence
for change over time.” The only example cited as proof is
Pakicetus. The website, labeled “Understanding Evolution for
Teachers,” describes Pakicetus as an early ancestor to modern
whales. how can scientists tell this? According to the website,
“Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that
they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of
specializations of the ear, relating to hearing.”17
In an accompanying illustration, paleontologist Phil
Gingerich depicts a swimming creature with its forelimbs on
the way to becoming flippers, claiming that it is “perfectly
intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and

Introduction
later, full-fledged whales.”18 Although the body he drew does
look like a very convincing transitional form, his conclusion
was based on only a few fragments of a skull. Not a single bone
of the body had been found. once a more complete skeleton
was discovered, it proved that Pakicetus looked nothing like
the creature he imagined.19
The creatures that Gingerich was looking at were simply
different animals with similar hearing ability, and his conclusion
was merely unscientific speculation. Sadly, this happens all
too frequently among evolutionary scientists in a field where
spectacular finds are rewarded with great fame, funding, and
prestige among their peers. Many alleged “missing links” are
based on only a single fossil fragment and the wishful thinking
of their discoverers.
After acknowledging that “imaginations certainly took
flight over Archaeoraptor,” a U.S. News & World Report writer
added:
Archaeoraptor is hardly the first “missing link”
to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an
ancient hominid were found in England’s Piltdown
quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It
took decades to reveal the hoax.20
Piltdown was a deliberate fraud, as a paleontologist filed
down teeth from an orangutan jaw and included it with pieces
from a human skull, treated them with acid to make them
appear old, and buried them in a gravel pit. As far as man’s
supposed ancestry is concerned, the Piltdown Man fraud wasn’t
an isolated incident. The famed Nebraska Man was derived
from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct
pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing
more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three
molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations
of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully
human. heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin
section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone
because it’s similar to that of modern man. And Neanderthal
Man was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was
Origin of Species

his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he also
spoke and was artistic and religious.
The Missing Link
In May 2009, however, headlines boldly proclaimed that
scientists had finally found the missing link between animals
and man. one article stated: “Scientists have unveiled a 47-
million-year-old fossilized skeleton of a monkey hailed as
the missing link in human evolution. The search for a direct
connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom
has taken 200 years—but it was presented to the world today
at a special news conference in New York.”21 researchers say
this transitional species finally confirms Darwin’s theory of
evolution, with some even suggesting that the “lemur monkey”
dubbed Ida is the “eighth wonder of the world.” Sir David
Attenborough said Darwin “would have been thrilled” to have
seen the fossil, saying that it tells us who we are and where we
came from. “This is the one that connects us directly with them
[the rest of the mammals],” he added. “Now people can say
‘okay we are primates, show us the link.’ The link they would
have said up to now is missing—well it’s no longer missing.”22
It’s true that Ida was an important find because of its
95 percent completeness, in sharp contrast to earlier fossil
evidence. one of the world’s leading fossil experts, Professor
Jorn hurum of Norway’s National history Museum, stated:

It’s part of our evolution that’s been hidden so far,
it’s been hidden because all the other specimens are so
incomplete. They are so broken there’s almost nothing
to study and now this wonderful fossil appears and it
makes the story so much easier to tell, so it’s really a
dream come true.23
But was Ida the missing link? Not according to Chris Beard,
curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of
Natural history. Beard told LiveScience that he disagreed with
some of the outlandish claims researchers made, such as the
suggestion that Ida represents a “missing link” between early
primates and humans. “It’s not a missing link,” Beard said, “it’s

Introduction
not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans,
which is the point they’re trying to make.”24
“on the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,”
stated Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University.
“I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the
hypothesis they’re proposing.”25 Paleontologist richard Kay of
Duke University added, “This claim is buttressed with almost
no evidence,” while noting that there is actually evidence against
their hypothesis and that other important fossil primates could
contradict their claims.26
Not only are missing links still missing, but the fossil
record reveals that man arrived on the scene abruptly. In a
PBS documentary, richard Leakey, the world’s foremost
paleoanthropologist, admitted:
If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to
unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question
mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully
purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy
… If further pressed, I would have to state that there
is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man
rather than a gradual process of evolving.27 (emphasis
added)
The fossil record reveals a similar abrupt arrival for horses,
rendering the classic example of horse evolution inaccurate.
Evolutionist Boyce rensberger addressed a symposium
attended by 150 scientists at the Field Museum of Natural
history in Chicago, which considered problems facing the
theory of evolution. he describes what the fossil evidence
reveals for horses:
The popularly told example of horse evolution,
suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-
toed, fox-sized creatures, living nearly 50 million years
ago, to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long
been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change,
fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct,
persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional
forms are unknown.28 (emphasis added)
Origin of Species

This is the case not just for horses but throughout the entire
animal kingdom. rather than the millions of transitional forms
that we would expect to find, all we have at best are a handful
of disputable examples. harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay
Gould writes:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data
only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of
fossils...All paleontologists know that the fossil record
contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms;
transitions between major groups are characteristically
abrupt.29 (emphasis added)
The Cambrian Explosion
In fact, this fossil evidence presents another difficulty for
evolutionary theory. As Darwin himself admitted:
The abrupt manner in which whole groups of
species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been
urged by several paleontologists … as a fatal objection
to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous
species, belonging to the same genera or families, have
really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to
the theory of evolution through natural selection.30
During the period that paleontologists call the Cambrian
Explosion, virtually all the major animal forms appeared
suddenly without any trace of less complex ancestors. No new
body plans have come into existence since then. The Cambrian
Explosion is also known as “The Biological Big Bang,” because
the majority of complex life forms showed up virtually
overnight. If the entire period of life on Earth was a 24-hour
day, the Cambrian period would be less than two minutes. Like
the Big Bang that presumably began our universe, biologically
speaking, nothing suddenly became everything.

Introduction
T. S. Kemp, curator of the zoological collections at the
oxford University Museum of Natural history, is one of the
world’s foremost experts on Cambrian fossils. In discussing the
sudden appearance of new species, Kemp writes:

with few exceptions, radically new kinds of
organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record
already fully evolved, with most of their characteristic
features present … It is not at all what might have been
expected.31
Nature clearly does not reveal the gradually changing
picture that evolution requires. Instead, life forms are strictly
separated into very distinct categories. Paleontologist robert
Carroll, an evolutionist authority, admits this dilemma in his
book Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution:
Although an almost incomprehensible number
of species inhabit Earth today, they do not form
a continuous spectrum of barely distinguishable
intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be
recognized as belonging to a relatively limited number of
clearly distinct major groups, with very few illustrating
intermediate structures or ways of life.32
So according to the evidence produced by paleontology—
the only field that can provide proof of evolution—life did not
evolve gradually over a long period from simple to complex
forms. Instead, the fossils reveal that all the major animal groups
appeared fully formed, all at one time.
regarding the Cambrian fauna, prominent British
evolutionist richard Dawkins made a similar observation:
And we find many of them already in an advanced
state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is
as though they were just planted there, without any
evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance
of sudden planting has delighted creationists . . . 33
Origin of Species
0
Dawkins, surmising why there may be a lack of any
intermediates, attributes the “very important gaps” to what he
sees as “imperfections in the fossil record.”
The Evolutionary Process
Darwin theorized that all living things evolved from simpler
life forms through an undirected process of mutations and
natural selection. If a mutation (a “copying error”) occurred in
the genes, and it provided the creature some survival advantage,
this benefit would be passed on to its offspring through the
process of natural selection.
Species do of course change over time by adaptation
and natural selection, but some disagree that this indicates
Darwinian evolution. For example, in looking at the variety
available within dogs—from the tiny Chihuahua to the huge
Great Dane—some would label this simply microevolution.
Small-scale variations occur within a kind, though nothing new
actually comes into being (“evolves”) in microevolution. while
dogs can have incredible differences, all are still dogs. within the
horse family are the donkey, zebra, draft horse, and the dwarf
pony, yet all are horses. There are tremendous variations among
humans—from Asian to African to Aboriginal to Caucasian—
but all are within the same species, Homo sapiens.
Darwin’s theory of evolution is instead based on the
concept of macroevolution. This is the inference that the small
changes seen in adaptation (these variations within species)
accumulate and lead to large changes over long periods of time.
In macroevolution, one kind of creature (such as a reptile)
becomes another kind of creature (such as a bird), requiring
the creation of entirely new features and body types. Evolution
opponents argue that this would be a bit like observing a car
going from 0 to 60 mph in 60 seconds, and inferring that it can
therefore go 0 to 6,000 mph in 100 minutes—and become an
airplane in the process.
Admittedly, this puts a tremendous responsibility on
mutations to accidentally create complex new body parts, and
on natural selection to recognize the benefit these new parts
will eventually convey and make sure the creatures with those
new parts survive. As Stephen J. Gould explains:

Introduction
The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase:
natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary
change. No one denies that selection will play a negative
role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require
that it create the fit as well.34
Scientific advances since Darwin’s day have shed light on
how mutations and natural selection work, though the findings
were not always as expected.
Mutations
researchers have discovered that the variations we see in
adaptation within a kind are always within limits set by the
genetic code. Fifty years of genetic research on the fruit fly
have convinced scientists that change is limited and confined to
a defined population. Despite being bombarded with mutation
agents for half a century, the mutant fruit flies continue to exist
as fruit flies, leading geneticists to acknowledge that they will
not evolve into something else. This confirms Gregor Mendel’s
findings in the 1800s that there are natural limits to genetic
change.
Genetics professor Francisco Ayala is quoted as saying:
“I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that
small changes do not accumulate.”35 In addition, the amount
of change is not the only factor to consider. Experiments have
shown that mutations can only modify or eliminate existing
structures; they cannot create new ones. within a particular
type of creature, hair can vary from curly to straight, legs can
vary from heavy to thin, beaks from long to short, wings from
dark to light, etc. But the creatures still have hair, legs, beaks,
and wings—nothing new has been added.
If you recall, in our DNA book, a mutation is a mistake—a
“typing error.” In the genetic blueprint, the letters that define
these features may occasionally be rearranged or lost through
mutations, but none of this will account for the additions
needed by macroevolution. remember, Darwin proposed that
everything evolved from simple cells into complex life forms.
So if a fish were to grow legs and lungs, or a reptile were to
grow wings, that creature’s genetic information would have to
Origin of Species

increase to create the new body parts. This would be equivalent
to a telegram giving rise to encyclopedias of meaningful, useful
genetic sentences.
Think how much more information there is in the human
genome than in the bacterial genome. Now that science has
uncovered the enormous storehouse of information contained
within DNA, we have to consider where all that vastly complex,
new information could have come from. Scientists have yet to
find even a single mutation that increases genetic information.
As physicist Lee Spetner puts it, “Information cannot be built
up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by
losing it a little at a time.”36
Another surprising difficulty involves the common belief
that organisms develop favorable mutations based on their
environments. For example, it’s often thought that bacteria can
become resistant to antibiotics, thus demonstrating that they
evolve. But the website “Understanding Evolution” (produced
by the University of California Museum of Paleontology and
the National Center for Science Education) explains how
mutations function:
Mutations do not “try” to supply what the
organism “needs.”… For example, exposure to harmful
chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not
cause more mutations that make the organism resistant
to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are
random—whether a particular mutation happens or not
is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.37
To illustrate, they explain that where people have access
to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, there are a lot of
lice that are resistant to those chemicals. So either: 1) resistant
strains of lice were always there—and are just more frequent
now because all the non-resistant lice died; or 2) exposure to
lice shampoo actually caused mutations that provide resistance
to the shampoo. Based on their scientific experiments, they
conclude that “the first explanation is the right one and that
directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on
non-random mutation, is not correct.”38

Introduction
After numerous experiments, researchers have found that
none unambiguously support directed mutation. In the case
of bacteria, scientific experiments have demonstrated that “the
penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before
they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in
response to exposure to the antibiotic.”
Therefore, mutations are not logical adaptations that make a
creature better suited for its environment. They are completely
random—the result of mindless, undirected chance.
Even if a series of random mutations could happen to cause
a lump of a wing to begin to form, how would each incremental
change help the creature to survive? Natural selection enables
the survival of creatures that develop some sort of beneficial
trait. But until it becomes a fully formed wing, any stub would
be more of a detriment than a benefit. Consider the following
observations from noted evolutionary scientists:
The reasons for rejecting Darwin’s proposal were
many, but first of all that many innovations cannot
possibly come into existence through accumulation of
many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection
cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate
stages are not advantageous.39
— Embryologist Soren Lovtrup
But how do you get from nothing to such an
elaborate something if evolution must proceed through
a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by
natural selection? You can’t fly with 2% of a wing. . . 40
—Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould
Darwinism is claiming that all the adaptive
structures in nature, all the organisms which have
existed throughout history were generated by the
accumulation of entirely undirected mutations. That is
an entirely unsubstantiated belief for which there is not
the slightest evidence whatsoever.41
—Molecular biologist Michael Denton
Origin of Species

Top: Charles Darwin
as an ape published
in The hornet,
published in 1871.
Below left:
Charles Darwin as a
monkey on the cover
of La Petite Lune,
published in the
1880s.
Below right:
Charles Darwin
cartoon, published in
1871 in Vanity Fair.

Introduction
Contrary to what Darwin suspected, scientists today have
discovered that mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the
evolutionary process. They are random instead of purposeful,
and they only modify or remove information, but never add
it—an essential component of the theory. Any mutation that
could create a “transitional form” would be far more likely to
doom a creature than to help it up the evolutionary chain. This
was confirmed by about 150 of the world’s leading evolutionary
theorists who gathered at a Macroevolution Conference in
Chicago to consider the question, “Are mutation and natural
selection enough?” Evolutionist roger Lewin sums up the
conclusion of the conference:
The central question of the Chicago conference was
whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution
can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the
positions of some of the people at the meeting, the
answer can be given as a clear, No.42
Evolutionist Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis, puts the theory into perspective. Asked in an
interview if Darwinian theory adequately explained what we
see in nature, he very honestly admitted its weaknesses:
The basic pattern it fails to explain is the apparent
uniqueness and isolation of major types of organisms …
It strikes me as being a flagrant denial of common sense to
swallow that all these things were built up by accumulative
small random changes. This is simply a nonsensical
claim, especially for the great majority of cases, where
nobody can think of any credible explanation of how it
came about. And this is a very profound question which
everybody skirts, everybody brushes over, everybody
tries to sweep under the carpet.
The fact is that the majority of these complex
adaptations in nature cannot be adequately explained
by a series of intermediate forms. And this is a
fundamental problem. Common sense tells me there
must be something wrong.43
Origin of Species

The problem for scientists today is that mutations have not
yet been shown to create any new features, or new creatures,
which explains why transitional forms are still lacking. As an
alternative to Darwin’s theory of gradualism, some scientists
have proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This
theory, championed by Stephen Gould and others, proposes that
evolution happened in rapid spurts (guided by some unknown
genetic mechanism) followed by long periods of stability. They
suggest that species had to evolve quickly based on sudden
changes in their environment, such as a flood or drought.
There are difficulties with this theory as well. First,
according to the website “Understanding Evolution,” which
explains evolution to teachers, “Factors in the environment
… are not generally thought to influence the direction of
mutation.” It states that experiments showed mutations “did
not occur because the organism was placed in a situation
where the mutation would be useful.”44 Again, mutations
have been found to be completely random and not based on
the environment. So with no evidence to show that mutations
could cause creatures to evolve gradually over millions of years,
what is the scientific basis for proposing that they could make
very significant changes very rapidly?
Second, because the theory of punctuated equilibrium was
proposed as a way to explain the lack of fossil evidence, there
is nothing in the fossil record that would lead us to believe this
was the case. Proponents of this theory suggest that evolution
occurred so quickly that there wasn’t time to leave any fossils
as evidence.
Evolution’s Difficult Questions
Many people have not objectively examined evolutionary
theory to consider specifically how creatures may have
developed. For example, consider the following.
Zoologists have recorded an amazing 20,000 species of fish.
Each of these species has a two-chambered heart that pumps
cold blood throughout its cold body.
There are 6,000 species of reptiles. They also have cold blood,
but theirs is a three-chambered heart (except for the crocodile,

Introduction
which has four). The 1,000 or so different amphibians (frogs,
toads, and newts) have cold blood and a three-chambered heart.
There are over 9,000 species of birds. From the massive
Andean condor with its wingspan of 12 feet to the tiny
hummingbird (whose heart beats 1,400 times a minute), each of
those 9,000 species has a four-chambered heart (left and right
atrium, left and right ventricle)—just like humans.
of course, the 15,000 species of mammals also have a
pumping, four-chambered heart, which faithfully pumps blood
throughout a series of intricate blood vessels to the rest of the
body.
These are interesting thoughts to ponder: which do you
think came first—the blood or the heart—and why? Did the
heart in all these different species of fish, reptiles, birds, and
mammals evolve before there were blood vessels throughout
their bodies? when did the blood evolve? was it before or after
the vessels evolved?
If it was before, what was it that carried blood to the heart,
if there were no vessels? Did the heart beat before the blood
evolved? why was it beating if there was no blood to pump?
If it wasn’t beating, why did it start when it had no awareness
of blood?
If the blood vessels evolved before there was blood, why
did they evolve if there was no such thing as blood? And if the
blood evolved before the heart evolved, what was it that caused
it to circulate around the body?
The marvelous human body (and the bodies of all the other
creatures) consists of so many amazingly interdependent parts:
a heart, lungs (to oxygenate the blood), kidneys (to filter wastes
from the blood), blood vessels, arteries, blood, skin (to protect
it all), etc. The intricate codependence of just the respiratory
system and the circulatory system—not to mention all the
other bodily systems—is difficult to explain.
or, consider the human eye. Man has never developed a
camera lens anywhere near the inconceivable intricacy of the
human eye. The human eye is an amazing interrelated system of
about forty individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil,
iris, cornea, lens, and optic nerve. It has more to it than just
the 137 million light-sensitive special cells that send messages
to the unbelievably complex brain. About 130 million of these
Origin of Species

cells look like tiny rods, and they handle the black and white
vision. The other 7 million are cone shaped and allow us to see
in color. The retina cells receive light impressions, which are
then translated into electric pulses and sent directly to the brain
through the optic nerve.
A special section of the brain called the visual cortex
interprets the pulses as color, contrast, depth, etc., which then
allows us to see “pictures” of our world. Incredibly, the eye,
optic nerve, and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct
subsystems. Yet together they capture, deliver, and interpret up
to 1.5 million pulse messages per millisecond! Think about that
for a moment. It would take dozens of computers programmed
perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to
performing this task.
The eye is an example of what is referred to as “irreducible
complexity.” It would be statistically impossible for random
processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of genetic
mutations and natural selection, to be able to create forty
separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the
whole until the very last state of development. Ask yourself
how the lens, the retina, the optic nerve, and all the other parts
in vertebrates that play a role in seeing not only appeared from
nothing, but evolved into interrelated and working parts.
Evolutionist robert Jastrow acknowledges that highly
trained scientists could not have improved upon “blind
chance”:
The eye appears to have been designed; no designer
of telescopes could have done better. how could
this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance,
through a succession of random events? Many people
in Darwin’s day agreed with theologian william Pauley,
who commented, “There cannot be a design without a
designer.”45
Even Charles Darwin admitted the incredible complexity
of the eye in On The Origin of Species:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable
contrivances for adjusting the focus to different

Introduction
distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and
for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree.46
Darwin went on to say that he believed the eye could
nonetheless have been formed by natural selection. At the time,
though, scientists believed that the first simple creatures had
rudimentary eyes, and that as creatures slowly evolved their
eyes evolved along with them. however, that’s not what they
have found. Surprisingly, some of the most complex eyes have
been discovered in the “simplest” creatures.
Darwin’s theory in the Punch almanac for 1882,
published at the end of 1881.
Origin of Species
0
riccardo Levi-Setti, professor emeritus of Physics at the
University of Chicago, writes of the trilobite’s eye:
This optical doublet is a device so typically
associated with human invention that its discovery in
trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization
that trilobites developed and used such devices half a
billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a
final discovery—that the refracting interface between
the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed
in accordance with optical constructions worked out
by Descartes and huygens in the mid-seventeenth
century—borders on sheer science fiction … The design
of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent
disclosure.47
Admittedly, it’s difficult to imagine that the amazing,
seeing eye could have evolved gradually purely by blind
chance. Something as astonishingly complex as the eye gives
every appearance of having been uniquely designed for each
creature.
Vestigial Organs—Leftovers Again?
For many years, “vestigial organs” have been considered
proof that man has evolved from more primitive forms. with
no known purpose, these organs were assumed to have outlived
their usefulness and to be “leftovers” from our less advanced
ancestors.
however, if an organ were no longer needed, it could at best
be considered devolution. This is consistent with the Law of
Entropy—that all things deteriorate over time. what evolution
requires, however, is not the loss but the addition of information,
where an organism increases in complexity. “Vestigial organs”
therefore do not serve as evidence for evolution.
In addition, it isn’t scientifically possible to prove that
something has no use, because its use can always be discovered
as more information becomes available. And that’s exactly
what has happened. It was claimed at the Scopes trial that there
were “no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body,

Introduction
sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of
antiquities.”48 As science has advanced, the list has shrunk to
virtually zero today. Scientists have discovered that each of these
organs does indeed have a purpose; for example, the appendix is
part of the human immune system, and the “tailbone” supports
muscles that are necessary for daily bodily functions.
Another Thought
If you find it hard to believe that there was an Intelligent
Designer, give this some thought. Man, with all his genius, can’t
make a rock, a leaf, a flower, a living singing bird, a croaking
frog, or even a grain of dead sand from nothing. we can recreate,
but we can’t create anything material from nothing, living or
dead. Not a thing.
Did you realize that if we could simply make one blade
of grass without using existing materials, we could solve the
world’s hunger problem? If we could make a blade of grass,
we could then create a lot more grass, feed the green material
through a machine that does what the common cow does, and
have pure white full cream milk, then smooth cream, delicious
yogurt, tasty cheese, and smooth butter. But we can’t make
even one blade of grass from nothing, let alone giving it the
ability to reproduce after its own kind, as regular grass does.
we have no idea where to begin when it comes to creating. If
that’s true, how intellectually dishonest is it to say that this
entire incredible creation in which we live, came into existence
with no Intelligent Designer?
Darwin’s “Unsavory” Views
Aside from the scientific aspects of Darwin’s theory, there
are also its social applications. Google “Social Darwinism.”49
what happens when you apply Darwin’s ideas to a society?
what does that society begin to look like when Darwin’s ideas
are applied to meaningful areas of life? Consider passages such
as the following:
At some future period, not very distant as
measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will
almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout
Origin of Species

the world the savage races. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen
has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The
break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene
between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope,
than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as at present between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla.50
while the above quote seems as nebulous as one of the
prophesies of Nostradamus, close study reveals Darwin’s point.
he is predicting that civilized races would replace savage races.
The gap between savages and the civilized races would become
wider, like the gap he saw between the white races and the ape.
That means that there would no longer be a closeness, such as
the one he saw between the negro and the gorilla.
He was saying that blacks were closer to gorillas than the
whites were. who could deny that this is a blatantly racist
statement, particularly when contemporary society says that
just saying or even putting the “n” word in print, is racism?
Yet modern admirers of Darwin try and justify his racism by
saying that he loved the negro, and that he spoke kindly of
their intelligence. he wrote during his voyage on the Beagle, “I
never saw anything more intelligent than the Negros, especially
the Negro or Mulatto children.”51
After reading Life with a Black Regiment, Darwin wrote
the author to thank him “heartily for the very great pleasure”
which it gave him: “I always thought well of the negroes, from
the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to
have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and
mental powers so ably discussed.”52 he despised proponents of
slavery, referring to them as “the polished savages in England,”53
while saying of a black lieutenant that he’d never met anywhere
“a more civil and obliging man.”54
Charles Darwin believed that the black race was closer to
the gorilla than the white race, but he thought that they were
friendly, well-behaved, and intelligent. his attitude was similar
to that of a man who likes trained dogs. he thinks that they are
friendly, well-behaved, and some are extremely intelligent.

Introduction
It’s interesting that a number of Atheists have agreed with
me in my belief that Darwin was a racist. They said, “I feel
no compelling need to justify Charles Darwin’s racism,” and,
“And why do you assume that Darwin’s racism was shaped by
his belief in evolution? The man lived at a time when blacks
in many western nations were still owned as chattels, when
creationist anthropologists freely speculated that the different
races were separately created species (a view Darwin undertook
to refute). The idea of races arranged on a ladder from ‘lowest’
to ‘highest’ (generally with one’s own subgroup on top) was a
commonplace among creationists of his day.” And, “of course
Darwin was racist, he lived in a society in which racism was the
norm …”
however, after much research, I do concede that you won’t
find anything in Darwin’s writings that would indicate that he
in any way felt blacks were to be treated as inferior or that his
views of them were due to their skin color. he just thought
that they were closer to gorillas than whites. Imagine if you
said that on prime time TV. You would stir up a hornets’ nest.
Then imagine trying to justify your belief by saying that you
despise slavery and that you think black people are intelligent
and friendly. You could also add that your convictions that
they are closer to gorillas than whites has nothing to do with
skin color.
Evolutionary scientist, atheist, and author of Darwin: The
Indelible Stamp: The Evolution of an Idea, got himself into very
hot water back in 2007. According to the Associated Press: “The
Independent newspaper put watson on its front page, against the
words: ‘Africans are less intelligent than westerners, says DNA
pioneer.’”55 The Sunday Times reported, “one of the world’s
most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row
after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white
people. James watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in
discovering the structure of DNA, has provoked outrage with
his comments, made ahead of his arrival in Britain today.”56
Like Darwin, watson’s belief had nothing to do with skin
color. he said that we should not discriminate on the basis of
color, because “there are many people of color who are very
talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded
at the lower level.” he just thought that white people are more
Origin of Species

intelligent than blacks. For that, he was labeled a blatant racist
by many in contemporary society.
An atheist wrote and said, “what do Darwin’s personal
views on race have to do with our modern understanding of
evolution? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, ray. Even a fool
knows this.” Indeed, Darwin’s racism has nothing to do with
the credibility of the theory of evolution. It should stand or
fall on its own merits. however, the theory itself teaches that
all men are not created equal. Darwinian evolution doesn’t say
that human beings are made in the image of God and endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It rather states
that they are mere animals, some closer to apes than others, and
it therefore opens wide the door to racism.
An article entitled “Americans still linking blacks to apes”
on scienceblog.com, presented the findings of research done
by psychologists at Stanford, Pennsylvania State University
and the University of California-Berkeley. Co-author of the
study, Jennifer Eberhardt, said, “It’s a legacy of our past that
the endpoint of evolution is a white man … I don’t think it’s
intentional, but when people learn about human evolution,
they walk away with a notion that people of African descent
are closer to apes than people of European descent.”57 I wonder
where they get that notion from?
There is no question that Darwin’s racism was directly tied
to his theory of Evolution. This is clearly demonstrated in The
Descent of Man, where he makes the case that man’s intellectual
abilities were the byproduct of