Darwin — the Father of Evolution, Racism, and Abortion

by Jefferson David Tant

The world has changed since Charles Darwin concocted the idea that we have all evolved from the slime in a primeval swamp. In many ways, the development of scientific achievements has been a great blessing to us in the way of the comfort of living and other advances. But there is a dark side to the changes that have come over the 150 years since Darwin. The Origin and Descent of Man has produced revolutionary changes that probably were not a part of Darwin’s thoughts.

An example of some evils that have come from Darwinism is the following quote from Roger Lewin’s book, Bones of Contention: “The brain of the Negro is that of the imperfect brain of a seven-month infant in the womb of a white…Racism, as we would characterize it today, was explicit in the writings of virtually all the major anthropologists of the first decades of this century [20th Century — jdt], simply because it was the generally accepted world view.” [pages 306-307].

This prejudicial view was the “generally accepted” theory in the scientific community, evidently overlooking the brilliant minds and worthy contributions that many of a darker skin had made to society. But this was “science,” and only ignoramuses and those who just fell off the turnip truck would dare question science. That there are much bias and a feeling of superiority within the scientific community is as plain as the nose on your face. The following quotes from Richard Dawkins, well-known atheist apologist, speak for themselves.

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” [Richard Dawkins, Oxford Prof. New York Times book review, 1989)].

“Evolution is a fact,” he asserts. “Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust.” [Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution] “It is a plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips … continue the list as long as desired.” [Ibid.] (I wonder if Dawkins fell off the turnip truck.)

Those who have sought power and superiority have often justified their abuse of those who by reason of race, mental disability, or physical features are different.

The founder of Social Darwinism, the idea that poverty and wealth are inevitable as they represent the biological rules which govern society, was the philosopher Herbert Spencer…who used The Origin of Species as a rationale for the excesses of nineteenth-century capitalism. The steel magnate Andrew Carnegie was impressed by the idea that evolution excuses injustice. He invited Herbert Spencer to Pittsburg. The philosopher’s response to seeing his theories worked out in steel and concrete was that “six months residence here would justify suicide” [Steve Jones, The Language of Genes, p. 17].

Spencer was appalled when he saw the inevitable consequences of his theory. But Darwin’s cousin took another tack. Francis Galton “was all in favor of interfering with human evolution. He supported the idea of breeding them from the best and sterilizing those whose inheritance did not meet with his approval.”

Now go to Germany before World War I. Ernst Haeckel took Galton’s ideas and Darwin’s The Origin of Species and established the Monist League in Germany, espousing the idea that certain white Europeans were a superior race. Enter Adolph Hitler, and we all know his philosophy culminated in the slaughter of millions of Jews, the disabled, Gypsies, and other non-Jewish populations during World War II.

When you are breeding cattle, etc., it is only natural to breed the best, the healthiest, the strongest, the best-looking. So, if we humans are just high-class apes, then why not apply the same breeding techniques? If there is no God, as Dawkins and others believe, who is to say that would be wrong? While our “civilized” culture would think such practices would be reprehensible, where did Haeckel, Hitler, Goring, Goebbels, and other of Hitler’s right-hand men get their ideas? And remember that evolutionary naturalism is taught as a scientific fact in our public schools. Students have been punished if they dare take exception to this propaganda.

The truth is that there is no superior race. Whatever advantages certain Caucasians may have over the natives of Papua New Guinea, or the African jungles, or Peruvian mountains, or the tribes of Borneo, are purely the result of where they were born. There is no one on a higher rung of the evolutionary ladder!

An old text well states: “and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined [their] appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26).

If, as some racists claim, Caucasians are at the top of the ladder, and have evolved from those of a different color, it would logically follow that different races could not mate and reproduce. If apes have evolved from horses (or whatever), we know that they cannot mate and reproduce. If humans have evolved from apes, we are also aware that they cannot mate and reproduce. Logically, the same would be true if different races are just rungs up the evolutionary ladder. Yet it is quite obvious that the color of your skin has no bearing on the ability to mix with other colors and reproduce. (In truth, we are all “colored.” It just depends on which color in the spectrum you happen to be.)

But there is another matter that transcends racism, and that is abortion. “Modern technology has made it possible to murder the unborn at an assembly-line pace. The only justification is that they are ‘not wanted.’ They are not ‘convenient.’ They interfere with ‘my rights.’ They do not have to have defective genes. They only have to meet someone’s definition of ‘undesirable.’ Like a piece of scrap, they are removed from the womb and tossed out with the garbage. Anyone who doubts that God considers abortion to be an act of taking someone’s life is in a state of denial: “Because he did not kill me before birth, So that my mother would have been my grave, And her womb ever pregnant” (Jeremiah 20:17)." [Calvin Fields, Things You Never Heard, pp. 146-147].

Consider Jeremiah’s statement that he was not killed before birth. If, as abortionists claim, abortion is just the removal of unwanted tissue, that would be the same as having a wart taken off my finger. How absurd! Note that Jeremiah referred to himself as “me” while he was still in the womb. My understanding is that a “me” has personality, and thus is a living being. Furthermore, you do not “kill” a wart. Jeremiah told how the Lord knew of him in utero: “Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations’” (Jeremiah 1:5). How do you “know” a blob of tissue, or sanctify the same?

While this is not a treatise on whether or not the fetus is a living being (I believe it is), the point is that Darwin’s theory makes abortion all the more acceptable. If Haeckel and Galton could inspire Hitler to eliminate less desirable humans, then certainly there would be no problem in eliminating less desirable or unwanted infants in the womb. Thus since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, in the United States, some 57,000,000 babies have been murdered in the womb.

These atrocities of racism and abortion must, in some way, be laid at the feet of the theory of evolution. (And in reality, evolution is not a theory, but a hypothesis.) Far from being a harmless idea, it has contributed to unimaginable tragedy on the earth. Those who propagate this false theory are described by our Lord in Matthew 7:15-16: "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” And what are the “fruits” of evolution — unprecedented genocide.

And all of this has come from an unproven and unprovable doctrine that is forced upon our children in our schools as an established fact. Consider just a couple of statements from scientists who believe in evolution, but are willing to speak the truth about it.

“Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans, and various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in evidence.” That’s an empty hope! “David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, ‘If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, “Forget it: there isn’t enough to go on.’” [Richard E. Leakey, Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43].

“If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon … In short, there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth.” [Sir Fred Hoyle, British physicist and astronomer, Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, 1983, pp. 20-21, 23].

There are many such quotes, and yet school texts ignore the evidence and proceed to mislead our children. The theory of evolution is taught as a fact in school textbooks. “Darwin’s theory of evolution presented a new way of life …This view … continues to be upheld by research today … All organisms on Earth are united into a single tree of life by common descent.” [Biology, Prentice-Hall, p. 386].

So there is the contrast. Scientists say evolution cannot be proven, even that it is unlikely to have happened, yet our schools' textbooks indoctrinate our children by claiming it is a proven fact. Let us be informed, and instruct our children in the truth of God’s word.

A final thought. I have never had a theistic evolutionist (one who claims God planted that organism in the primordial soup) explain to me how the soul came to be in the human species. Does the banana (as Dawkins mentioned) have the germ of a soul, which then progresses through the aardvarks and apes, and then is fully developed in the human? Just wondering.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email