No Comment Yet

Author: Tom Shipley

In 1859 a now very famous book was published by Charles Darwin. Its title: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Not many people are aware of the full title and evolutionists are embarrassed to highlight it.

Original Title page to “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” by Charles Darwin

Original Title page to “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” by Charles Darwin

The book was (and is) especially popular in England and America because it provided both a pseudo-scientific motivation and justification for British imperialism and American racism dealing with the slavery issue. It was also instantly absorbed into the political ideologies of Communism and Socialism which were expressions of the philosophy of dialectical materialism.

The Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony rightly observes:

Two of the most interested readers of Darwin were Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. They wrote very happy letters one to another welcoming the publication of Darwin’s book. Their reason was very simple; with Darwin they felt socialism and communism had become inevitable. [00:05:57]
“While previously they were espousing a somewhat esoteric faith…they now felt and rightly so that with the adoption of Darwin’s theory as science, as the faith of modern man, socialism and communism were inevitable. They were right. Let us analyze why, because I think it is imperative for us to realize that there is no fighting socialism in all its forms, pagan or Marxist, unless we undercut the impact and the affect and the roots thereof, the theory of evolution. Now the theory of evolution teaches us that the world is a universe of chance, not of law. That natural selection or the survival of the fittest brings about the change of the species and the development of living things. In other words, it tells us that this is a dog eat dog universe, that its war between man and man, between species and species.”—from Pocket College

In his book, “From Darwin to Hitler,” Richard Weikart notes:

“After reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, ‘Although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view’.”–pg.4, emph. supp.

When Lenin and the Communists of the USSR and China boasted of themselves as “scientific socialists,” and murdered scores of millions of people, it was Darwin’s “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” which they had in mind. When Hitler and his murderous National Socialist Party compatriots set their sights on creating the master race and exterminating or enslaving all other races, it was “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” that lay ominously in the background providing both the motivation and justification for their schemes. This claim incenses evolution’s modern devotees, but it is a simple historical fact.

Darwin himself maintained,

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” This quote is from Darwin’s subsequent book, “The Descent of Man.”

It is my contention that the part Darwin’s book has played in sociology and politics has been far, far more influential than the part it has played in science. What tangible difference has Darwin’s theory of evolution actually made in the way that scientific research is done? As far as I can see, it has been utterly irrelevant or possibly obstructive. When academicians cite Darwin’s book, they virtually always abbreviate the title as simply “Origin,” or “The Origin,” or “The Origin of Species.” This present article is not about sociology, but about the natural sciences. However, the part Darwin’s book has played in sociology and politics should be always kept in mind by the reader. To that end, from now on, when I cite “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection OR The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life,” I shall abbreviate the title simply as “Favored Races” to give the book its most appropriate emphasis.

Lest the secular reader object that I would, after all, maintain such a viewpoint being a biblical creationist, let me point out that Fred Hoyle, one of the most eminent scientists of the 20th century and hardly a biblical creationist, observed pretty much the same thing. Hoyle wrote:

“The modern point of view that survival is all has its roots in Darwin’s theory of biological evolution through natural selection. Harsh as it may seem, this is an open charter for any form of opportunistic behavior. Whenever it can be shown with reasonable plausibility that even cheating and murder would aid the survival either of ourselves personally or the community in which we happen to live, then orthodox logic enjoins us to adopt these practices, just because there is no morality except survival…

“…the nihilistic philosophy which so-called educated opinion chose to adopt following the publication of The Origin of Species committed mankind to a course of automatic self-destruction. A Doomsday machine was then set ticking.”–The Intelligent Universe, pg. 8-9

The evolutionary Doomsday machine is very much at the root of the attempted genocide and murder of six million Jews in Nazi Germany and the many tens of millions of others killed in World war II, tens of millions more under Soviet Communism and roughly 50 million Chinese butchered under Chinese Communism–all in the name of “scientific (read evolutionary) Socialism.”

Three Things Darwin Knew: (or why his book was and is specious)

First: When Charles Darwin published Favored RacesDarwin knew, and paleontologists reminded him, that not one single clear, intermediate form had ever been found in the fossils linking one kind of organism with another. There were simply no empirical connecting links, for example, between fish and amphibians, or anything else, although there was no shortage of proposed (not proven) linkages; the famous coelacanthsupposed to be extinct for 70 million years, was proposed as such until living ones, 100% fish and 0% amphibian, started showing up live in the Indian Ocean). This problem of lack of clear chain of descent became more and more intensely acute over time culminating in the punctuated equilibria revolution of Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge and Steven Stanley who confessed publicly that the complete and total LACK of intermediate forms in the fossil record was “the trade secret of paleontology.” The primary function of the doctrine of “punctuated equilibria” is to try to explain the “enigmatic” lack of intermediate fossil forms. The cat is out of the bag and the jig is up!

Second: When Darwin wrote Favored RacesDarwin knew of the empirical demonstration of the non-transmutability of species (kinds). Darwin was himself an avid breeder of pigeons and consulted other breeders of all sorts, maintaining copious notes, and was well aware that there were inherent limits (a “species barrier”) to what even intelligently guided selection by man could accomplish. Darwin knew that empirical science demonstrated that variation is an intra-species phenomenon; cats are always cats no matter how much variation exists among them, dogs are always dogs no matter how much variation exists among them, cattle are always cattle, horses are always horses, etc. (See Darwin Retried by Norman MacBeth, pg. 29-38).

MacBeth observes:

“Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue or black tulip. Darwin himself knew in 1844 that most authors assumed there were limits to variation, and he also knew that among pigeons the crossing of highly bred varieties was apt to provoke a reversion to ‘the ancient rock pigeon’.”—pg. 33, emph. supp.

In view of Darwin’s knowledge of the history of breeding experiments (which was considerable) Darwin’s famous citation of variations in the beaks of finches (which are all one species and whose varieties have been observed interbreeding) on the Galapagos Islands was simply baseless subterfuge—the utilization of an utterly trivial and irrelevant characteristic in relation to the hypothesis of “macroevolution.” Intra-species variation should not even be called “evolution” except in the generic sense that “evolution” simply means change. Intra-species variation certainly is not “evolution” in the common usage and understanding of the term which is essentially the idea of the common ancestry of all living beings.

Third: When Darwin wrote Favored RacesDarwin knew of the irreducibly complex nature of the myriads of features of living organisms. This aspect of living organisms was, even in Darwin’s time, the chief objection that biologists had against Darwin’s proposed mechanism of evolution (see Koestler, Janus, pg. 165, etc.). Michael Behe may have popularized the phrase “irreducible complexity” in our time (see “Darwin’s Black Box“) but the concept and empirical observation of it has troubled biologists, especially evolutionists, from the first day that Darwin’s book rolled off the printing press. The idea is nothing new.

Living organisms consist of functionally interdependent components even at the level of gross anatomy and a random mutation of one character would require a corresponding random mutation of multiple other characters at the same time to produce a living, functioning organism, and this is something that random chance simply cannot do—not in a thousand years, not in multiplied trillions of trillions of years. Time is, in fact, a dis-integrating and dis-organizing factor and makes evolution more and more unlikely with each passing moment due to the absolute necessity for simultaneous coordination of changes in interrelated systems.  Yet Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations accumulating to produce new species requires millions of years just to produce the number of mutations necessary. This is the proverbial “800 pound gorilla” that has been sitting in the Darwinist’s living room staring them in the face all along and with which they have steadfastly refused to come to terms. This metaphor of the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the evolutionists’ living room is more aptly switched to something much more immense—let’s say Mount Everest sitting on top of their house. This consideration, all by itself, formally and conclusively falsifies Darwin’s speculations.

These things that Darwin knew when he wrote Favored Races, and was very well acquainted with, are good justification for re-titling his book as “The Speciousness of The Origin.” It is my judgment that in the face of these things which Darwin knew he had no compelling justification whatsoever to promote his hypothesis as anything more than a very tentative musing. The wonder is that Darwin’s musings ever got off the ground to begin with. There were very compelling and formidable logical and scientific considerations weighing very heavily against it, even in his own day. The acuteness of these problems has multiplied exponentially since then—indeed, it is no exaggeration to say the acuteness of these problems has multiplied astronomically. Anyone who doubts this should read Michael Denton’s book, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” and Richard Milton’s “Shattering the Myths of Darwinism,” and Stephen Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt.” (Neither Denton nor Milton are biblical creationists, by the way. Both are agnostics. Meyer, though a professing Christian, is neither a young earth creationist nor much of a Biblicist, as far as I can tell.)

Darwin certainly had no rational or scientific justification for regarding the hypothesis of evolution as anything other than a very tentative speculation or, in the words of Scrooge explaining the source of the apparition of the ghost of Christmas past, the result of “an undone potato, an undigested bit of beef” during a state of insomnia. It was the social forces of the times, especially the lure of a justification for the claim of racial superiority of the white man and of British imperialism, not scientific validity, that catapulted Darwin’s hypothesis to the status of a golden calf to be bowed down to and worshipped. This is why Favored Races was so eagerly gobbled up in England and America. Oh…and one other reason: in the words of Aldous Huxley:

“For myself…the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation…We objected to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” (Quoted by Don Boys, Ph.D., in Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith?— pg. 53, from Huxley’s Ends and Means–pg. 312-315, 316.

Boys continues, “(O)n a television show when (Huxley) was asked why evolution was so readily accepted…replied that evolutionists accepted Darwinism even without proof because they didn’t want God to interfere with their sexual mores.”

I once saw D. James Kennedy from the pulpit report that he had seen the Huxley interview himself and reported exactly the same statement as Don Boys reports in his book.

Evolution is simply an idol, an object of devotion and worship, the graven image of the religion of Naturalism, which is little more than the modern version of the cult of Bacchus.

SCIENTIFICALLY, naturalistic evolution is as dead as the dodo bird, as extinct as the tyrannosaurus. Knowledgeable scientists know that the hypothesis of natural evolution has reached an impenetrable impasse. We are privileged to live at such a time to witness evolution’s demise. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. Evolution, as a “scientific” postulate, has not been able to withstand the relentless onslaught of scientific progress and knowledge (not that it ever had much to commend it to begin with). First, the debunking of spontaneous generation by Louis Pasteur laid to rest the idea of the natural ORIGIN of life; second, the empirical demonstration of the non-transmutability of species through natural means by the fruit fly experiments of T. H. Morgan and others beginning in 1909 proved false the idea of naturally-occurring mutations creating viable new species; third, the growing realization, culminating in the punctuated equilibria hypothesis of Gould and Eldredge, that no transitional forms would EVER be found in the fossil record or ever did exist; fourth, the unanswerable fact of irreducible complexity of living organisms showing intelligent design and creation of life; fifth, the explosion of knowledge in genetics in recent years revealing specified coded information has supercharged the manifestation of the reality of intelligent design of living organisms to the point of juggernaut status…and on and on and on it goes. Evolution has a rather impressive resume of grand failures guaranteed to grant anyone entrance into the U of L (University of Losers).

INSTITUTIONALLY, on the other hand, evolution hangs on like a brain-dead patient in the Intensive Care Unit of a hospital, sustained on life support by the vast taxpayer-funded revenues fueling the GDPM (Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine) of our government education system, and its ignorant dupes in the media who have been brainwashed by that same machine. The main purpose of the GDPM at this point in time is to CONCEAL from the general public the true status of evolution, TO SUPPRESS AND REPRESS INFORMATION (If you don’t believe me, just ask Mark Armitage or Hugh Miller.), or to create its own Public Relations spin on the information in those unfortunate circumstances where the information manages to attract popular interest and overflow out onto the streets. There is, after all, a lot of loot to be had, a lot of pillaged public money flowing in their direction to be protected, and that is perceived as justification enough for a few “white lies.” Evolution as a science is effectively dead and has become little more than a great con job and swindle.


Tom Shipley

Tom Shipley

Tom Shipley – Bio

I am a former atheist and evolutionist during my college days; came to faith in Christ at the age of 20; regard my pro-creation activities as part of the work of the kingdom of God; believe that a very tough, strident and unapologetic stance against evolution is called for though I may soften my tone if and when Mark Armitage and David Coppedge, fired for their creationist beliefs, are given their jobs back. I am also a contributor for The Creation Club. Articles copyright Tom Shipley. All Rights Reserved.



Tom Shipley


Tom Shipley

I am a former atheist and evolutionist during my college days; came to faith in Christ at the age of 20; regard my pro-creation activities as part of the work of the kingdom of God; believe that a very tough, strident and unapologetic stance against evolution is called for though I may soften my tone if and when Mark Armitage and David Coppedge, fired for their creationist beliefs, are given their jobs back. I am also a contributor for The Creation Club. Articles copyright Tom Shipley. All Rights Reserved.

Up Next

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.