No, Ken Ham, Darwin was not a racist

The pottery medallion created by Darwin's grandfather, Josiah Wedgwood, for his anti-slavery campaign. The pottery medallion created by Darwin's grandfather, Josiah Wedgwood, for his anti-slavery campaign.

Editor’s note: For the next few days, we will be looking more in depth at some of the arguments presented by Ken Ham during his recent “debate” with Bill Nye. Today’s is a guest post by our Faroese friend Arni Zachariassen on K-Ham’s claim about Charles Darwin’s supposedly racist sensibilities.

This is a common anti-evolutionist argument, usually based on nothing more than the presupposition that Darwin was a terrible person and the fact that the full title of “Origin of Species” refers to the “preservation of favored races” (which, in the contemporary usage, referred simply to populations within any species, not just humans. Indeed, “Origin” discusses species as different as pigeons and mollusks, but did not delve into human evolution at all). What’s more, the claim is completely fallacious, because even if Darwin had been a racist (which, as you’ll see, he wasn’t), it doesn’t mean his scientific ideas were wrong.

But I digress. Please read Arni’s excellent article on the matter below, and check back tomorrow for our thoughts on two of the biggest mind-bending contradictions in Ham’s presentation, and Sunday for his false view of Christianity.

The debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the other day surprised me in a number of different ways. I wasn’t expecting much at all and I was bracing for a train wreck. But the debate turned out to be quite civilized and the interactions between the two interlocutors were respectful and well-mannered. In regards to content, they both did quite well presenting their cases. Ken Ham was kind of all over the place, especially towards the end, and in contrast to Bill Nye’s factual and pragmatic case for the scientific superiority of evolution, attempted to build his argument as much on theology and ethics as on science. But while The Science Guy’s easy to understand presentation of science was strong, his comments on religion, especially the Bible, were woefully ignorant. Also, Ken Ham had better PowerPoint.

I doubt any minds were changed by the debate. If you thought any one of the debaters won, you were probably rooting for the guy to begin with.

One thing I’d like to acknowledge, though, was the generally positive nature of Ken Ham’s presentation. Those familiar with creationist arguments — perhaps especially those on the receiving end of said arguments — know well how negative, fear-mongering and demonizing they can be. Ken Ham could easily have resorted to such tactics and scored culture war points with his audience. But he didn’t.


As Ken Ham went through the scientific predictions he argued creationism could make, he claimed that creationism predicted that human beings are all one race (a point related to the “kinds”-argument and microevolution made just before). Since we all can trace our ancestry back to one set of gardening parents, we are all the same race. Which is fair. What was not so fair was his characterization of evolutionary theory as essentially racist.

Some 46 minutes into the debate, Ken Ham makes this claim: Evolution, as expressed by Darwin in his book “The Descent of Man” and later taught to unsuspecting American school children, supplies the logic required to segregate human races according to higher and lower worth. It was only after Craig Venter’s alternative human genome project, Ham claims, that secular science found out what biblical creationists had always known: There is only one race — the human race. Ken Ham presents this as going against evolution as expressed by Darwin.

This is wrong.

Darwin was certainly a man of his time: A Victorian gentleman with views about “savages” that would be less than politically correct these days. But despite his ignorance and privilege, Darwin was no racist. He did not teach that there were lower races and higher races, as Ham claims. In fact, the idea that humanity consisted of higher and lower races was precisely what he set out to refute in “The Descent of Man” — the very book Ken Ham mentions! For Darwin, the logic and evidence of the evolutionary process was that all human beings came from a common ancestor. Mankind could be intelligibly classified into different races, groups belonging to the same species having adapted to life in different environments. But all were part of the same species, deserving of the same basic dignity and worth. Darwin dryly observed:

“Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.” (Descent, 179)

This was more than a century before Venter.

Furthermore, in their 2009 book, “Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution,” Darwin biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore argue that for Darwin, the essential equality of the races was not just a scientific conclusion reached through observation. Rather, it was a moral imperative for him. For all of his life, Darwin was a fierce opponent of the institution of slavery and the cruelty that came with it. Both of his grandfathers — Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood — were prominent abolitionists and Charles imbibed their righteous fervor against slavery from an early age. A potter by trade, Wedgwood is remembered for mass producing his “slave medallion,” a cameo depicting a shackled and pleading black slave, with the famous inscription underneath: “Am I not a Man and a Brother?”

Darwin brought this moral indignation with him as a young explorer on his voyage on the Beagle. There he witness the horrible mistreatment and torture faced by slaves in South America. Desmond and Moore argue, somewhat controversially, that it was Darwin’s passion against slavery that lay behind his writing “On the Origin of Species,” and later “The Descent of Man.” Convincingly arguing for and publicizing the theory of evolution was, for him, not merely a scientific pursuit, but a moral and social one as well. In the face of evolution, no one could claim that certain races could lay claim to the title and associated benefits of “humanity” over against another, who they then could enslave.

No matter differences in appearance, common descent unites us all and is the foundation of basic human equality. For Darwin, evolution made slavery impossible.

Christians would want to say more and root human equality, dignity and rights not in common descent, but in the Imago Dei. But we should recognize and celebrate how Darwin viewed his theory and encourage such a helpful interpretation of it.

Obviously, a cursory familiarity with history demonstrates that things haven’t been as simple as Darwin hoped. Evolution was subsequently used by eugenicists and others to support their racist ideas — just as Ken Ham mentioned with his reference to a 1914 biology text book. But such sentiments weren’t based on, as Ham said, “Darwin’s ideas, which were wrong.” Rather, they represented the twisting of Darwin’s ideas. Which is wrong. To project them back unto Darwin himself would be to deeply disrespect the moral character of the gentleman abolitionist. It would be just as unfair as chucking out the Bible because it has been similarly misused by slavery apologists and other racists throughout the centuries.

Ken Ham is absolutely correct in pointing out that creationism is anti-racist. But his insinuation that evolution is racist is a grave misunderstanding of both the theory and its implications, in addition to being a defamation of Darwin himself — who fought actively against slavery all of his life and argued that, fundamentally, all men are equal.

Arni Zachariassen lives and breathes in the Faroe Islands. He studied theology in Aberdeen and Manchester. He is a youth worker and is married with two kids. He blogs intermittently at I Think I Believe and can be found on Twitter @arnizach.

  • ashleyhr

    Ken Ham is saying on his Facebook page that he found this piece of crude anti-evolutionary propaganda “very amusing”.

    • Wow, that is hilarious. I made it most of the way through before I realized that it was a serious anti-evolutionary video. I thought it was brilliant satire. You know you’re in bad shape when your actual position seems like a caricature of your position. Thanks for sharing the link, Ashley!

  • Stephen Hayes

    Why put the word ‘debate’ in inverted commas? Are you saying that what happened was NOT a debate? You obviously don’t agree with Ham, but what happened was evidently conducted according to the classical rules of debate.

    • Well, it may have superficially followed the rules of debate, but when one party presents evidence to support its position, and the other party admits that no amount of evidence would — under any circumstances — make it admit that its position is wrong, then it’s not much of a debate. It would be like setting up a basketball game according to all the traditional rules, but then one team simply refuses to step onto the court.

      • Stephen Hayes

        I quite agree that Ham made it clear that he would not shift on his understanding of 6 day young earth creation. He was and always has been clear about that. However I think it is unfair to say that he did not present any facts or evidence. A large part of Nye’s case was, and has been, that young earth creationists would make lousy scientists causing America to fall behind in technology. Ham produced clear evidence to that specific issue, e.g. from Dr Damidian and Professor Burgess, both of whom had devised excellent hi-tech hardware that this particular proposition of Nye’s was incorrect.
        Bill Nye evidently was taking the standard line that only materialistic solutions to life’s origins could be considered and that divine creation was axiomatically ruled out. This is, as Ham and AiG have consistently said, a faith based world view, or foundational philosophical assumption if you will. But this was not admitted as such.
        I do not side entirely with Ham. As a scientifically educated bible believing Christian I would find it very difficult to square a plain reading of Genesis with powerful evidence for molecules to man evolution, if any existed. I feel no such difficulty however as I am sure from extensive reading that the biology does not support Darwin. As to the age of the earth, speed of light and large universe etc I am not a geologist or physicist and acknowledge real difficulties. However, the impossible does not happen given more time, unless there is a miracle. The possibility of which Nye axiomatically denies.
        kind wishes

        • Bill Nye evidently was taking the standard line that only materialistic solutions to life’s origins could be considered and that divine creation was axiomatically ruled out.

          This is simply how science works, not a preference chosen by Bill Nye. Methodological naturalism is an operational constraint of science; it cannot posit supernatural causes because it is incapable of investigating, evaluating or analyzing the supernatural. It is not true that young-earth creationists, or anyone else who harbors a belief in the supernatural, would automatically make “lousy scientists.” You can do science and still have faith in things just as surely as you can be a shoe salesman and still have faith. But the job is separate from the faith.

          You simply cannot do science and posit an unverifiable and untestable supernatural cause. If you do, you exit the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy and religion. Those are both disciplines I hold great respect for. But they are categorically different than the field of science, and they operate according to different rules.

          What’s more, a natural mechanism does not rule out the possibility of the supernatural also being involved. To give a simple example, scripture repeatedly and consistently describes God as being the cause and source of rain, snow and hail. Today, we understand the natural processes that cause these atmospheric phenomena far better than people did during the time the Bible was written. Does our knowledge of the water cycle preclude God as the ultimate source of the rain? I say of course not.

          This same principle can apply to God’s work in creation and, indeed, much of his work in this world. Scripture tells us the who and why of creation, but it does not necessarily prove the how, which I think is evolution, according to the available evidence. Ken Ham’s existence that it can be only one or the other, God or a natural process, is quite wrong, in my opinion.

  • Pearl

    After reading some of Darwin’s work I’m afraid I cannot agree with your claim that “Darwin was no racist. He did not teach that there were lower races and higher races, as Ham claims.” Let me just quote a few lines from Darwin’s letters and books.

    He writes, “Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 1 (p. 316) Kindle Edition)

    Also, “Nevertheless, at this early period, the intellectual and social faculties of man could hardly have been inferior in any extreme degree to those possessed at present by the lowest savages.” (Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man (Kindle Locations 3383-3384) Kindle Edition)

    And again “The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in
    their intellectual faculties.” (Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man (Kindle Locations 3150-3151) Kindle Edition)

    And finally, “The Grecian poet, Theognis, who lived 550 B.C., clearly saw how important selection, if carefully applied, would be for the improvement of mankind.” (Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man (Kindle Locations 599-600) Kindle Edition)

    I also found an article by Peter Quinn ( very interesting. The old saying, “the apple does not fall far from the tree,” could be well supported by some information he has presented. Quinn states: “In 1912, in his presidential address to the First International Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial biologists from Germany, the United States,
    and other parts of the world, Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, trumpeted the spread of eugenics and evolution. As described by Nicholas Wright Gillham in his A Life of Francis Galton, Major Darwin foresaw the day when “eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a ‘paramount duty’ whose tenets would presumably become enforceable.” The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by “the spirit of civilization,” society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay”.”

    Quinn also points out that: “Darwin’s work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new “scientific” justification for labelling races, classes, and individuals as “inferior.”” You must surely
    be aware that Francis Galton was Charles Darwin’s cousin and that (as Quinn points out), “by the time Darwin published the second edition of The Descent of Man in 1874, he had added Francis Galton’s eugenic theories and Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” social philosophy to the mix, calling Hereditary Genius, Galton’s treatise on the biological nature of intelligence and moral character, “remarkable” and Spencer “our greatest

    • Hey Pearl. As is stated quite clearly in the article, no one is disputing that Darwin was a man of his day. Like virtually all other Europeans at that time, Darwin made the mistake of classifying his own culture as more “civilized” and less “savage” than those in less technologically advanced areas. He also perceived, surely based in no small part on the on the evidence of a European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime, that his countrymen might very likely overtake other races who could not compete with them technologically. This observation does not make him a racist. There is, in fact, nothing in these quotes or anywhere else in his writing that could be construed as him wanting other races and cultures to be wiped out, and of course, we have the evidence of his staunch opposition to slavery all throughout his life, which you conveniently ignore.

      Applying the same logic you use here, my statement that, “I predict that we will see the end of printed newspapers within the next 15 years,” could be construed as me advocating for the end of printed newspapers. Which, of course, I would not do, since that is my current profession.

      And this shouldn’t ever really need to be said, but I also think it’s pretty unfair that you would think it appropriate to judge the views and beliefs of a man by a cherry-picked presentation of what one of his children and a cousin chose to do and believe.

      • Pearl

        Hi Tyler. If you look at what I wrote you will discover that I actually made no judgement calls about Darwin, even though I did say his son and cousin, and a large number of his friends championed eugenics. I think though, that the fact that he appears to have endorsed the work of many people who advocated such practises, including an ancient Greek, entitles me to assume he in some fashion supported and believed in it himself.

        Apart from this he also did do exactly what you said he didn’t do, which was the point I was making (that is teach there are lower and higher races). You can try to cover this over with modern sensibilities, but I thought I’d just let his words speak for themselves. And it’s a bit steep accusing me of cherry picking when I quote from his works to support my claim. As we both know, this idea of lower and higher races was not the central aspect of his ideas, but Ham did not claim it to be. Most of the creation writers suggest it is a likely outcome of such a philosophy, and I think history has proven them right. Social Darwinism followed closely on the heals of Darwin’s teachings.

        I see Darwin as a tormented genius. A man who turned his amazing, God given intelligence towards searching for answers outside the Christian framework his mother represented and his culture lauded. His grandfather’s ideas won out in the end and he went with the influence of Zoonomia rather than the Bible.

        • If you look at what I wrote you will discover that I actually made no judgement calls about Darwin

          You said you disagreed that “Darwin was no racist,” which I took to mean that you were arguing that he was racist. I think that is a pretty reasonable and straightforward interpretation of your words.

          Apart from this he also did do exactly what you said he didn’t do, which was the point I was making (that is teach there are lower and higher races)

          Teaching that races are different is not the same thing as saying some are “higher” and some are “lower,” and should therefore be wiped off the planet with extreme prejudice. I believe that a person of Caucasian descent and a person of African descent are of different races. Does that make me a racist, too?

          And it’s a bit steep accusing me of cherry picking when I quote from his works to support my claim.

          Umm, picking quotes out of context to support a presupposed claim, while ignoring the bulk of his writings which do not support, or even contradict, the presupposed claim, is the very definition of “cherry picking.” As I mentioned, you ignore the fact that Darwin was a staunch opponent of slavery throughout his life. You harp on the work and influence of one of his grandfathers, Erasmus Darwin, without acknowledging the work and influence of his other grandfather, the abolitionist Josiah Wedgwood. You ignore portions of Darwin’s writing in which he explicitly confronts, and repudiates, the idea of imposing artificial selection on the human race, like this passage from “The Descent of Man.”: “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

          I see Darwin as a tormented genius. A man who turned his amazing, God given intelligence towards searching for answers outside the Christian framework his mother represented and his culture lauded. His grandfather’s ideas won out in the end and he went with the influence of Zoonomia rather than the Bible.

          Right, the ol’ conspiracy theory. The evidence and evidence-based conclusions which comprises the vast majority of “On the Origin of Species” had nothing to do with Darwin’s views. The only reason he came up with the theory he did was because he liked the philosophical implications better, and wanted to lead as many people away from God as possible. Rotten man.

          • Pearl

            Really Tyler. Talk about putting words into someone’s mouth. Did I actually mention anything about Darwin wanting to lead people away from God? No. I came to my conclusion on his ideas about God from reading his writings, but I also knew his mother and his wife were Christians and his grandfather had already written about a number of the ideas Charles built on in his own writing. Do you often jump to the conclusion that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot, or are you saying I am caught up in one? That is another unfounded assumption and I can honestly assure you I do
            not believe what you accuse me of, nor do I understand why you would even suggest it.

            You accuse me of intimating, “The only reason he came up with the theory he did was because he liked the philosophical implications better.” I actually believe exactly the opposite. I believe he was persuaded by the 19th century science he was immersed in (which today seems almost laughable in the light of the things we have learned about DNA and the genome) and was carried away by the excitement of the new ideas his privileged boys’ club shared with such fervour. From his writing I sense he was obsessed with his “science”. I also believe he had a small inkling of the philosophical implications of these ideas and this worried him. Hence the passage you cherry picked from his work.

            And I do understand what cherry picked means. But I would contend that the passages I selected are representative of his body of work. You remind me of a number of parents I have dealt with in my professional life. Reluctantly facing the fact that their darlings have no understanding of appropriate behaviour in social settings, they must be brought to the realisation that they need to bring some discipline into the lives of their children to help them reign in their violent outbursts. These parents can’t believe their own little treasures could possibly do any wrong, they just can’t see past the picture they have in their mind of their perfect children.

            I think the saying, “Why let a few facts get in the way of a good idea,” was almost created for this discussion. How much of his writing would you like me to quote? I could give you pages of his work. OK, most of it is about butterflies, dogs and pigeons etc. etc. etc., but almost every bit that relates to man is about the lower and higher races and how the higher races will outdo the lower races when the civilised, higher races outbreed the lower races and natural selection does its trick. Admittedly he does speculate that some people in the lower races might manage to evolve or be educated, but on the whole he sees “savages” as “savages”. If you want me to fill a few pages with more quotes, surrounded by context I will, but I think you should just reread his work and try to be at least a little objective.

            The other thing that puzzles me is the way you seem to equate slavery with racism. I do not believe that racism caused slavery, humans have enslaved their fellow countrymen from time immemorial. Rather, slavery exacerbated racism, particularly in the United States, as people looked for justification for their evil practices. In Australia we rarely think of racism as being in any way connected to slavery, as we have never really had slaves on our shores. We have had naturalists (and people seeking to make money from naturalists) seeking out “specimens” of our indigenous people though. These naturalists took thousands of skeletons and skulls from the graves of Aboriginal people to place in “collections” overseas, because they believed the first Australians were some sort of “missing link”.

            Darwin wrote asking for Tasmanian skulls when only four full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigines were left alive, provided his request would not ‘upset’ their feelings. Good
            prices were being offered for such “specimens”. But specimens with flesh were even more desirable. We have written evidence that many of these ‘fresh’ specimens were obtained by simply going out and killing the Aboriginal people. A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen.

            I personally do not believe in races of people, I believe there is one race, the human race. There are distinct people groups and cultures but we are all one race. So I might perhaps think of you as a racist, as to my way of thinking, dividing the children of Adam and Eve up into “races” is, by definition, racist. Or do you divide the human race up into sub-species as Darwin appears to have done?

          • If anyone is curious, large chunks of the “scientific” “information” presented by Pearl in her previous comment are plagiarized wholesale from young-earth creationist sources such as this.

  • Atheos Antichristus

    Creationism might not be racist – just stupid – but the bible on balance certainly is.

    • I disagree. Just as portions of Darwin’s writings can be pulled out of context and twisted to make his views seem racist when they aren’t, the Bible can be, too. The fact is that the Bible is not entirely clear about matters like slavery (hence, why both slaveholders and abolitionists in the era of the American Civil War both used biblical arguments), however, it is clear and consistent about people should be treated, in general, whether they are rich, poor, slaves or anything else.

      • Atheos Antichristus

        You must be kidding? You can’t begin to compare speaking to natural selection and evolution to speaking to ANYTHING the bible advances; EXACTLY for the reason chemistry, microbial biology, biology, and evolution speak solely to a NATURAL environment and a carbon-based or otherwise anything’s natural response to the same. Biology is the natural sruggle for existence; end of story. Even if you want to speak to sociobiology you’re still speaking neurochemistry – including logic, emotion, and otherwise – built upon the same. Religion is nature nothing; it’s an empty philosophical debate as just an initial matter as to chosen, divinely elected, sealed, or otherwise individuals and their magic voodoo built upon faith in the same. Darwin spoke to nature EVERYTHING; and objectively what is more. He wouldn’t have begun to take credit for the philosophy of American Eugenics or Hitler’s Final Solution. The bible, alternatively, speaks to solely supernatural; and it matters not whether you look at the mosaic law or jump all the way to the end and sealed Jews in Revelation. The theme of slavery and racism is abundant throughout the bible irrespective of submission to god and government. It doesn’t just begin there; it ends there as well. To use the abolition movement of some within religion to demonstrate a philosophy of “equality” in the bible – as to individuals within our species generally – is fallacious and irrelevant. Even Jebus came not to bring peace but a sword; and to fulfill the lunacy of the “law” no less. That’s something the Midianites and Amalekites surely knew something about as just an initial matter; but so do US soldiers and “tax”payers.

        • So, just to be clear, your evidence that “the theme of slavery and racism is abundant throughout the bible” is that Jesus said he would bring division and fulfill the law? Can’t say I really see the connection there…

          • Atheos Antichristus

            Then you’re not cognizant of how abundant the theme is expressly. Perhaps you should spend some more time reading the good book; and not just as to submission, theft, and the racism Revelation still holds fast to, but “what” specifically righteousness and keeping the commandments entails. Your subjectivity is incredible cognitive dissonance. And don’t reply with some vapid retort as to my familiarity with the book. I attended private religious school and was raised with biblical literalness and inerrancy principles as just an initial matter.

          • I know the Bible pretty well, Atheos, but thanks for the concern.

          • Atheos Antichristus

            I’m acutely aware of not only what’s contained in the bible but the Quran as well. I spent my life immersed in the bible as just an initial matter; including parochial school. You know the bible pretty well; and yet assert what you do? Then you obviously don’t know the bible or you’re displaying unbelievable subjectivity and cognitive dissonance with respect to what’s EXPRESSLY contained therein; EXPRESS positions with absolute stances with respect to express positions what is more irrespective even of concepts as grotesque as imputed sin wedded to divine election and divine right.

            Further, stating Darwin’s words might be twisted is as intellectually bankrupt a position to take as stating the framer’s words might be twisted with respect to limited, enumerated, constitutional government or liberty generally. i.e. make sh1t up as you go along doesn’t count. Feel free to quote some Darwin and I’ll happily dispel you of any myths you might have where his positions on struggle, conscience, or otherwise are concerned.

      • Victor Polk

        You’re saying that the bible is racist?

        • Um, no…

          • Victor Polk

            Oh, my apologies. I didn’t understand perfectly.

          • Nick Penland

            The Bible isn’t racist….it promotes slavery of all races! It even gives instructions on how to sell my daughter into slavery.

          • Victor Polk

            Don’t be asinine, this has already been answered by actual intellectual scholars to correct that absurdity what you think it was.

    • Victor Polk

      No Atheos, the bible is not even racist.

  • JET

    Ignorant site as God never used evolution. There are more helpful sites on the internet such as Apologetic’s Press. This site is ridiculous. More progressive creationism and theistic evolution garbage here.

  • Victor Polk

    As a I have neutral views (Biblical Creation and Theistic Evolution), I do would have to respectfully disagree some of his statements on Darwin a bit, and maybe theistic evolution. Like I said, I have neutral views.

  • barrydesborough

    “I don’t like it so it can’t be true”, is an infantile attitude, and it is utterly dishonest of creationists to try and smear evolutionary science in this way. Science rests on the evidence, not not on whether you think you like it or not. That is totally irrelevant. For proof, beyond reasonable doubt that common descent is true and creationism is false, see my FAQ here, @

    • Thanks for the comment, Barry. I appreciate the info and the link!

  • societyissick

    Atheists lead more people astray than anything Ken Ham has ever done.

    Darwin was a racist, but no racist or evolutionist dare admit it.

    See the links below: