Explore
Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Darwin’s statue, racism, and the Natural History Museum, London

by

Published: 29 April 2021 (GMT+10)
https://commons.wikimedia.orgCharles-Darwin-statue
Charles Darwin statue in 2010, by Joseph Boehm.

Statues have become highly politicised in recent months following the tragic death of African American George Floyd1 and the reactive Black Lives Matter movement. The offence of certain statues, that led to campaigns to have them removed, lies in the fact that some of the people immortalised were slave owners, or in some way connected to racism. There is a desire from certain quarters to cancel or redefine the past. But how does this impact upon Darwinism?

It is relevant to note that Creation Ministries International has always opposed racism because of the belief that all people are created equal in the image of God (as One Human Family), and evangelical Christians were central to the campaign to abolish slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. This piece isn’t a defence of statues as such, nor does it seek to engage strongly in political arguments, but religious and ethical ones.

Many Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries were iconoclasts: that is, they sought to remove statues because they were considered to represent a breach of the second commandment, relating to a prohibition of making graven images (Deut. 5:8–9). Those opposed to statues included European Calvinists and English Puritans, although as a general rule Lutherans and Anglicans tended to defend religious art on the basis that it represented a teaching aid, particularly for the uneducated.

Apart from religious art, many nations have used statues to reinforce political power and the ruling paradigm in order to present their national heroes in a positive light. Examples are found in ancient Babylon, known from the book of Daniel (chapters 3 and 6), and more recently in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the same location as the biblical account. If the ideology of a nation changes, then there is action to change those honoured, and the way history is interpreted. This is called revisionism, where the victor gets to re-write history. On occasions, ideologies change overnight in violent revolutions, or more slowly through gradual political change.

Darwin-the-graphic
Image from The Graphic, 20 June 1885, “Unveiling the statue of the late Charles Darwin in the Natural History Museum, South Kensington”

Of course, an accurate reflection of history needs to place people and societies in context—to aid understanding by considering peoples’ lives in total. Historical societies sometimes interpreted social ethics differently, which in some cases justified slavery in a way we find regressive. But we may also ask whether an individual is repentant and sorrowful for the suffering caused and has then sought to do good. Modern cancel culture is of concern because it doesn’t consider Christian aspects of mercy, repentance and reconciliation, but wishes to silence critics at all costs. Musician, and religious-seeker, Nick Cave wrote last year that:

“Without mercy a society loses its soul, and devours itself. … [it] grows inflexible, fearful, vindictive and humourless. As far as I can see, cancel culture is mercy’s antithesis. Political correctness has grown to become the unhappiest religion in the world. … It has become quite literally, bad religion run amok.”.2

Those Christians who believe in the power of God in creation have also faced a cancel culture from secular humanists over the last century. Christian beliefs have been disrespected and side-lined, or excluded. Creationist beliefs have been cancelled from discussions in schools in many western countries and the UK for example in the last two decades; see CMI in British schools, Humanist CrISIS campaign

Statues at the Natural History Museum

But what about statues and exhibits at the Natural History Museum in London? It is notable that, over many years, a struggle has taken place in this institution in relation to statues. It may be surprising to learn that the Natural History Museum, located in South Kensington, was built along the lines of a Romanesque cathedral to glorify the power and wisdom of God. The architect was Alfred Waterhouse, and it was opened in 1881. The founder, Richard Owen, was strongly opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution, especially as it related to the distinction between apes and humans. Owen was a practicing Christian, and his strong rejection of Darwin’s central claims led to antagonism with Darwin, and his supporters, such as Thomas H. Huxley;3 see Holy War?

A statue of the biblical Adam was originally located above the main entrance on the parapet, but bomb damage during the Second World War led to its loss, and it was not replaced (the plans of Waterhouse had in fact proposed both Adam and Eve to overlook the entrance, but redesign to a gable-style prevented this through lack of room).4

Several years after Darwin’s death (9 June 1885), a statue of Darwin was unveiled in pride of place on the central landing of the main hall. This sculpture in marble was in the form of a seated prince overlooking his specimens. The speculation is that this offended Owen. By this time Owen had stepped down from being head of the museum, and his successor, a supporter of Darwin, allowed Darwin’s statue to be located in that prime spot.5

By 1927, supporters of Owen had managed to replace the marble sculpture of Darwin with a bronze statue of Owen. Darwin’s statue was moved to a side hall. However, for the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origins of Species in 2009, Darwin’s statue was once more placed in its original location. So, today Darwin has again taken the place of honour as an idol for naturalists.6

But now, with growing concern to tackle racism, some pertinent questions are being directed at historical collections in museums and other cultural establishments. The Natural History Museum and London’s Kew Gardens (aka Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew) are beginning to look at their animal specimens and plant exhibits, and asking whether there are elements that may be considered racist or colonial.7,8 There is evidence that scientific institutions across the world are seeking to address questions of racism in science.9 But so far, Darwin’s statue and Darwinism in general have avoided more widespread scrutiny at the Natural History Museum, with criticism seemingly deflected to peripheral matters. And yet there are some very uncomfortable questions about Darwin’s writings in relation to race, and how this might infuse racism in institutions and the wider society.

Darwinism as justification of racism

The nature of institutional racism is hard to define, or to determine its extent. This is because God looks at the hearts and minds of individuals, not institutions. We are all accountable before God for our thoughts, intentions, and actions. And yet collectively, people can share beliefs, whether religious, political or ideological, and ideologies can shape the values and purposes of institutions. The question here, is whether Darwin’s work is ideologically racist? We can acknowledge that most contemporary Darwinists would say they are not racist, and have sympathy for anti-racist campaigns, and yet we need to consider whether Darwinism is foundationally racist as an ideology.

The notable biographer of Darwin, A.N. Wilson, thinks it is. He recently made scathing comments about the inherent racism in Darwin’s work, and says he regrets nothing from his recent biography of Darwin,10 Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker.11 Wilson alleges that Darwin’s work effectively laid out a scientific justification of racism. He comments in a blog post that:

“It will be interesting to see how long it is before someone reads Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man and decides that his statue should be removed from the Natural History Museum. He was not merely, like so many Victorians, profoundly racist. He it was, especially in that disgusting book, who tried to give racism a ‘scientific’ justification.”12

There are several statements in the Descent of Man that can only be described as racist. Darwin argued that evolution arose in Africa from an ape-like ancestor, and that Africans were somehow less evolved than Europeans (although the out-of-Africa-Model is becoming confused). As can be seen below, his expectation was that the “savage races” of Africa and Australia would become extinct at the hands of “the civilised races of man.” How someone can consider the extermination of other human beings as representing ‘civilised’ behaviour is remarkable, but this is what Darwin wrote:

“It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere.”
“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. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the [African] or Australian and the gorilla.” 13

Of course, Darwin wasn’t the first or only one to speculate about half-human half-ape creatures. In the 17th and 18th centuries naturalists still believed in Homo sylvestris (‘man of the forest’), a creature known from Greek mythology, and sometimes referred to as Orang Outang from the Malay language (Orang-outang or Homo sylvestris: ape-men before Darwin). These mythical creatures were considered to bridge between human beings and apes in the Aristotelian Great Chain of Being. Such prejudicial mythology still informed Darwin’s science in the 19th century, which envisioned an evolutionary connection in the chain, thus moving away from traditional belief in a created order.

There was patently an unholy pride increasingly pervading western civilisation, which looked down on other people, but Darwin and his supporters tried to justify this scientifically, evidently without fear of an omniscient Creator. The dispute between Owen and Darwin was perpetuated by Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, with language that is clearly disrespectful to the humanity of African people. Huxley said:

“if we place A, the European brain, B, the Bosjesman brain [San people of southern Africa], and C, the orang brain, in a series, the differences between A and B, so far as they have been ascertained, are of the same nature as the chief of those between B and C.”14

Owen had argued that the brains of all tribes of people were broadly the same size, thus providing similar intellectual ability.3 A few years later, following the Emancipation Proclamation by US President Abraham Lincoln (1 Jan 1863), Huxley still considered Africans to be less evolved than European people; he commented that “ … no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average [African] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man.”15 Not only was Darwinism inherently racist, it directly led to the justification of developing eugenic and fascist programmes.11

https://commons.wikimedia.orgNamibian-bushmen-girls
San people of Namibia, 2009

There is something profoundly wrong with the evolutionary belief that African people are closer to an ape-like ancestor than Europeans. The biblical account instead asserts that all mankind, Europeans, Africans, Native Americans, Asians, etc. are genetically related to Noah’s family, and hence genetically connected to Adam as the direct creation of God. Humanity is one family, as Augustine of Hippo asserted, despite differences in skin colour, size and ability.

“But whoever is anywhere born a man, that is, a rational, mortal animal, no matter what unusual appearance he presents in colour, movement, sound, nor how peculiar he is in some power, part, or quality of his nature, no Christian can doubt that he springs from that one protoplast [first-formed man, Adam].16

Not about statues but about Darwinian racism

This is not really about the removal of a statue on the landing of the Natural History Museum, rather it is questioning the Darwinian ideology that permeates our western culture today: the teaching in schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions, including major museums, and media such as the BBC, and other secular broadcasters globally. And this ideology is foundationally racist. We wish to challenge Darwinian ideology, in school text-books with their published racially-inspired march-of-progress drawings and diagrams, and in numerous television programmes.

Look around any of the world’s major natural history museums, or browse their websites, and you will see exhibits that teach the narrative of human evolution, represented by dark skinned humanoids from Africa and Asia with ape-like features. In London’s Natural History Museum, examples include Homo erectus and Homo naledi, supposedly descended from the hominins Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus.17 The message of this exhibition for children of African descent is not going to be positive for their self-esteem, neither will it encourage them to pursue science when it so disrespects their humanity.

Black footballers still face monkey chants in some European nations because of the legacy of Darwinism; sadly it is particularly so in some former communist states of East Europe.18

Homo-naledi_-Homo-erectus
Are these representations not born of racist ideology, in blurring the distinction between Africans and apes? Homo naledi from South Africa (left), and Homo erectus from East Turkana, Kenya (right) (The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London; licensed under the Open Government Licence).

How should Christians respond to racism?

So how should Christians respond to evidence of racism? In the UK, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury’s anti-racism taskforce objective rightly states that:

“Where racism is found, it must be challenged. Whether masked in our behaviours, whispered in our pews, institutionalised in our systems, or paraded on our streets, the Church as the body of Christ is called to oppose those actions which cause others to be treated as less than fully human.”19

With this in mind we may ask how Christians should respond to Darwinism, and how it is represented and promoted in society, especially as it relates to the descent of human beings?

Unfortunately, many Christians have moved to accept theistic evolution, and so inadvertently support the inherent racism in Darwinism. In effect this compromise adds a theological gloss to an essentially godless creed, one which does not fully value all of humanity. One of the most widely read popular works in support of theistic evolution is that of British molecular biologist Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? Alexander follows theologian John Stott (1921–2011) who famously postulated Adam as Homo divinus, a Neolithic farmer called out to be the covenanted divine image-bearer, or federal head for mankind.20 And yet this leaves unchallenged the wider evolutionary narrative. It also effectually establishes two classes of people, those directly descended from Adam, and those not directly related to the image bearer. Similarly, the American organisation Biologos advocates theistic evolution, and also has wide support amongst Christians; see Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of BioLogos, Theistic evolution and Christian faith.

Summary

Biblical creationists have for decades called into question the inherent racism in Darwin’s theory of evolution, but this has been widely ignored. But now with Black Lives Matter and similar movements, there is a growing spotlight on historical racism, with pressure to remove statues linked to slavery and race divisions. We wonder how long Darwin’s statue in the Natural History Museum can survive scrutiny, and equivalent statues in similar museums globally.

But more widely, we point out that all images representing the descent of man from an ape-like ancestor are also inherently racist and need to be removed—from museums, school text-books, university courses, and television programmes. As Christians committed to the truth of Scripture, we hold that all of mankind is related to Adam as one family. But unlike modern cancel culture, the Christian message is that people have an opportunity to repent, to turn away from racist ideology, and accept Christ’s offer of forgiveness.

References and notes

  1. This happened outside a shop while he was in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 25 May 2020. Return to text.
  2. Cave, N., Why cancel culture destroys the creative soul, The Spectator, 31 December 2020; spectator.co.uk. Return to text.
  3. Cosans, C.E., Owen’s Ape & Darwin’s Bulldog: Beyond Darwinism and Creationism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–192, 2009 Return to text.
  4. Girouard, M., Alfred Waterhouse and the Natural History Museum (1999 ed.), Natural History Museum, London, pp. 57–58, 1981. Return to text.
  5. Coniff, R., Darwin’s Revenge: Statues of two 19th-century rivals battle it out in London’s Natural History Museum, The Atlantic, September 2008; theatlantic.com. Return to text.
  6. Elmhirst, S., Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?, theguardian.com, 9 June 2015. Elmhirst writes “Over the years, Dawkins, a zoologist by training, has expressed admiration for Darwin in the way a schoolboy might worship a sporting giant.”See also: Bergman, J., Darwin, the idol of Richard Dawkins and his followers: Richard Dawkin’s God is Charles Darwin, Creation-Evolution Headlines blog, 1 February 2019, crev.info. Return to text.
  7. Simpson, C., Natural History Museum to review potentially ‘offensive’ Charles Darwin collection, telegraph.co.uk, 5 September 2020. Deverell, R., Addressing racism past and present, Kew Gardens, 12 June 2020; kew.org. Return to text.
  8. The publication, Nature Ecology and Evolution, has also addressed the issue of race in science, even in evolutionary science, recognising “systemic racism in scientific research”. The editorial comments that, “We need to ensure that ecology and evolution research is a career in which Black scientists feel safe and welcome.” Editorial, Black Lives Matter in ecology and evolution, Nat Ecol Evol 4:893–894, 2020 | doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1250-2. Return to text.
  9. Nelson, R., Racism in science: the taint that lingers, Nature 570: 440-441, 27 June 2019. A book review of Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini, Beacon, 2019. And Ejedewe, P., Anti racist curriculum in further education: More than just words of a page, fenews.co.uk, 22 February 2021. Return to text.
  10. Wilson A.N., Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker, John Murray, London, 2017. Return to text.
  11. Bergman J., Deconstructing Darwinism—a theory gone bad, a world gone mad, Book Review: Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker, by A.N. Wilson, J. Creation 32(3):25–30, December 2018. Return to text.
  12. Wilson, A.N., Must Darwin fall?, theoldie.co.uk, 22 June 2020. Return to text.
  13. Darwin, C., The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, 155–156, 1890. Return to text.
  14. Huxley, T.H., On the zoological relations of Man with the Lower Animals, Natural History Review 1:67–84, 1861. Return to text.
  15. Huxley, T.H., Emancipation–Black and White, in Collected Essays, Science and Education 3.3:66–75, 1865. Return to text.
  16. Augustine, City of God, XVI, chap. 8, in: Schaff, P. (Ed.), Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 2., T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1979. Return to text.
  17. It is noted that the first recognised Homo erectus remains (only a tooth, skullcap and thighbone of ‘Java Man’), were found in Indonesia by Eugène Dubois in 1891–92. Return to text.
  18. Davies, G., Racism in soccer an ‘epidemic’ that mirrors disturbing trends in Europe: Advocates, ABC News, 1 February 2020; abcnews.go.com. Return to text.
  19. Williams, H., Immediate action is needed to address racism, says taskforce, Church Times, 2 March 2021; churchtimes.co.uk. Return to text.
  20. Alexander, D.A., Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? Monarch Books, Oxford, p. 237, 2008; Stott, J.R.W., Understanding the Bible, Scripture Union, London, 1972. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Bryan C.
Yes, it should be removed, and why not put up a petition on [an online petition website - link deleted per feedback rules] and I would sign it. .... I think it is outrageous, that racism is on the increase and people want to pull down statues but nothing is done about Darwin, who mentioned it in his second book [comment edited slightly].
Chris B.
one of my favorite songs from when I was a child going to Sunday School was the following:

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow black and white
They are precious in his sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

And lest anyone forget, a special messenger, Phillip, was sent by an angel to an Ethiopian with questions, this being told in Acts 8:26-40, with a definite miracle after Phillip completed his task. The Ethiopian was saved and baptized.

This would never have happened had God been less caring for blacks than whites.
Susan N.
Yes his statue should be removed and Adam's statue reinstated.
Jay B.
The real issue here is truth. Lies, no matter the content, should always be removed. Darwin's beliefs and expressions on race are wrong, not because they make blacks more closely related to apes than whites (after all, if that were actually true, it wouldn't be racist), but because they don't reflect reality.
Philip R.
B CR wrote, "Modern biological science, that is based on Darwinism and genetic evidence, now states that the differences between races is inconsequential." I would challenge the idea that modern biological science is indeed based on Darwinism. Read some of the many articles on this site explaining the difference between operational science (such as biology) and historical science (such as evolution). Another article on this site points out that "men like Linnaeus, Pasteur, and Mendel founded sub-disciplines of biology without any help from Darwin ... Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, has admitted, “Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all” " Yet another article quotes scientist Philip Skell: "I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. ... Darwinian evolution—whatever its other virtues—does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." Contra the claim that modern biology based on Darwinism has effectively denied racial differences, I would say that modern biological science (based on observation) has disproved Darwin's evolutionary view that some people are more evolved than others. That is, as has happened numerous times, the actual operational science has contradicted a claim of evolution.
BC R.
Andrew, Thank you for your response and for allowing my comment to be posted. I've posted to other Christian sites that refused to publish my comments no matter how mildly worded.

May I direct you to the subject line of the email that directed me here. "Should Darwin's statue be removed from the Natural History Museum in London?" This and the opening paragraphs of the article would suggest to the vast majority of people who just skim articles such as yours that Darwin and the Confederate Generals who's statues have been causing so much controversy are somehow related in kind.

This is the "I was just asking questions" defense, popular amongst the conspiracy theory crowd. It's a disingenuous rhetorical device used to disseminate propaganda favourable to your cause.

As for the meat of your article there are plenty of scholarly articles out there that refute your claims. The article is merely designed as an "argumentum ad consequentiam". Evolution can not be true because some bad things happened is not an argument on the validity of the proposition.

Modern biological science, that is based on Darwinism and genetic evidence, now states that the differences between races is inconsequential. Deferences between the so called races are mostly cosmetic and no one race is either better or worse than the other. So even if your article were true it's now out of date and no longer applies.
Andrew Sibley
I have less knowledge of US debates regarding statues of confederate generals, than arguments over statues of British men such as Cecil Rhodes and Edward Colston. How does Darwin compare to Rhodes for example? I am not engaging in rhetoric or propaganda, but asking pertinent questions about the consequences of ideas for the sake of straightening a crooked path. I said: "This is not really about the removal of a statue on the landing of the Natural History Museum, rather it is questioning the Darwinian ideology that permeates our western culture today." I have not argued that Darwinism is not true because of the consequences – CMI has books and many articles that show that Darwinism cannot be true on purely scientific grounds; see Sandford’s book, Genetic Entropy. You say that ‘Modern biological science’ holds ‘that the differences between races is inconsequential.’ And yet we all know that evolution is promoted in museums and schools through the use of popular icons, not the details of science papers. But even so, despite the fact that the out-of-Africa model is becoming confused by competing research teams, evolutionists and museums can't let it go easily. We still find papers such as this. Henn et al. 2011. Hunter-gatherer genomic diversity suggests a southern African origin for modern humans, PNAS.
BC R.
This article is ingenuous in that the statues being taken down are of slave holding confederate officers who fought to retain slavery. Where Darwin may have had racists views common to the era he was also an abolitionist working to end slavery. He was in direct position to those people whose statues we're removing. If anything they should be erecting more statues to him for his work to end slavery.

To tar Darwin with the same brush as those heinous individuals who committed treason, and started a war in order to keep their slaves is further evidence of the moral depravity of the Creationist movement.

They don't allow links in these comments. (I Wonder Why) but Google "darwin abolitionist" and you'll find articles detailing Darwins stand on slavery.
Andrew Sibley
No where does the article say that Darwin was a supporter of slavery as a young man - his unitarian Wedgwood family were leading abolitionists - but his troubled conscience in later life may have caused his long term illness. By the time he wrote The Descent of Man he was arguing that Africans and native Australians were less evolved, thus providing scientific justification for racism and social Darwinism. See Desmond, A. Darwin the Abolitionist, Prospect Magazine, Feb 28 2009. Whereas the Christian gospel is to make disciples of all nations because mankind is one family, Darwin's utopian vision became one where the 'civilised' races would replace those deemed less evolved.
Ron H.
Yes, his statue should be removed because evolution spawned people with demonic doctrines such as Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler, et al, including white supremacists . Presentations could be made to the Museum of Natural History with the hopes they would do the right thing and remove this statue and cease honoring one of seven men who still rule from the grave.
Gordon S.
Modern I.D. scientists have pretty much called the man's 19th Century scholarship into question and he certainly had wrong opinions. I believe he was a racist in his ignorance. But tear down his statue. Why? He is an integral part of history and indirectly responsible for the horrors of the 20th Century. But, we must never forget his work even though it proved so deplorable. It is history.
David P.
"But more widely, we point out that all images representing the descent of man from an ape-like ancestor are also inherently racist." It's not racist - it's true that all primates have a common ancestor: Darwin proposed it and DNA has now proven it. Sadly you distort and ignore what science undoubtedly shows: that all of us homo sapiens have a common ancestor ape like creature that has taken hundreds of thousands of years to evolve - not the trifling 6000 that you continue to claim in the face of overwhelming evidence. Your "evidence" is the Bible. That's it.
Philip Bell
Those parades of ape-to-human are inherently racist, even if the very artist did not intend it. Invariably, as one moves from left to right, the shade of skin changes from dark to light. See the example, from an Australian school textbook in this article: Icon Illusion. The same image featured as a full poster spread in the February 2009 edition of National Geograhic for Kids.

Even if subliminally (and as stated, unintended by the artist), the impression given is that dark skin is 'more primitive' and gives way, over hundreds of thousands of years, to 'more advanced' lighter skin. Without doubt, there has been a baneful impact of such images upon the younger generations. Moreover, such images, albeit well-known icons of evolution, are baseless as far as scientific (anthropological) evidence is concerned, as detailed in this comprehensive paper on the subject: The ape-to-human progression: the most common evolution icon is a fraud

But don't just take our word for it as biblical creationists. Read what just one leading evolutionary palaeoanthropologists has said in recent years, Henry Gee, a senior editor of Nature writing in that very journal:
“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of human evolution, this line-up is tosh. Yet we cling to it. … Almost every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin [human ancestor], someone else refutes it.”
Gee, H., Craniums with Clout: A look at two early human fossils reveals prejudices in ideas about human evolution, Nature 478:34, 2011.
John J.
While I agree that the human race began with Adam and Eve, can it not also be a true statement that the human race came through Noah and his wife and their three sons; Shem, Ham and Japeth and their wives? This makes our common ancestor Noah a much closer common relative than Adam. We all have had our genetics in Noah. I know GOD breathed into Adam the breath of [life] in Eden's garden and he became a living soul. Adam went from being a clay figure on the ground, skilfully crafted by GOD into the first human being, and as such our lives were all breathed into Adam that day. To suggest that one of Noah's sons was inferior to the other two is not supported by scripture.
Damien C.
So how much longer will the city whose name was changed in honour of 'Darwin' remain in the most traditional area of aboriginals whom he claimed were less than human? How many of the Aboriginals were persecuted and killed under Darwinian racist belief?
I think it's time to return the city to the original name and remove this disgrace that belittles the Aboriginals of Australia.
Steven T.
You seemed much kinder when discussing Robert Fitzroy, the Christian creationist captain of the Beagle, who defended the institution of chattel slavery against Darwin, who attacked it. This doesn't really seem entirely in the spirit of removing the beam from your own eye before picking the mote out of your brother's. In addition, you omit Darwin's point -- I think it a rather relevant one -- that according to his theory, since variation exists in all populations and is constantly arising, there cannot be any trait, on which one could erect a claim of racial inferiority or superiority, that is found in all members of one population of a species and no members of another.

Mine is this claim that evolutionary theory is "foundationally racist." Are you saying that the theory is intrinsically and necessarily racist? Are you saying that everyone who accepts evolutionary theory is racist? Are you suggesting that, e.g. Jerry Coyne is a supporter of the Nazi holocaust? Are you saying anything relevant at all?

Evolution neither rests on Darwin's personal authority (moral or scientific), nor is it limited to his original ideas, nor need it incorporate every idea he ever had (e.g. his rejected pangene theory of inheritance). You might as well attack heliocentrism because Galileo thought the planetary orbits were perfect circles, and they're not.
Andrew Sibley
Thanks for your comments: I’ll address your points briefly. 1. Fitzroy was an impetuous young man with a narrow outlook when he argued with Darwin about slavery, which clouded his early judgement – he was captain of a ship, navigating in dangerous waters, a long way from home, while in his early 20s. FitzRoy’s Christian faith grew as he aged, and, for example, while he was governor of New Zealand, he defended the human rights of Maoris against the white settlers. Darwin’s faith seems to have faded as he grew older, with consequences for his views on race. 2. Read the comments in the Descent of Man and Huxley’s comments, and AN Wilson’s opinion. 3. I have acknowledged that many evolutionists are not racist, that scientists are seeking to address issues of race, but we have to consider the consequence of ideas. 4. Indeed, when it suits, some evolutionists shy away from Darwin (he is an idol to others), but you can read recent papers that suggest sub-Saharan Africans have more ancient DNA – the very evolutionary search for the earliest human communities implies a hierarchy that lends itself to racism. There are several links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people. We believe the San people are part of one human family, and like all of us are descended from Adam.
Dan M.
I believe Darwinian ideology is straight from Satan, and it makes me nauseous. The number one irrational thought process concerning the BLM movement is, trying to defeat hate, with more hate. It is doomed to fail in producing anything good, if all BLM wants to do is destroy! Don't destroy statues, rather expose the true legacy of the person represented with a plaque, truthfully explaining what they believed. In the case of Darwin's statue, place a plaque in front of it explaining how he was a racist trying to justify racism through bad science for everyone to read. In this way, we are educating people about faulty beliefs of the past, and exposing the truth. … Let us not retaliate against hateful ideas, but expose them, correct them and move on. Dwelling on the past and "get even" thinking will never allow a people to proceed into the future with any productivity. The love of Jesus is the answer, then, now, and always. Apply His golden rule, (Matt. 7:12). We never get it right, because, (Gen 6:5 and Isa 59:7). These days I only pray that some would listen and wait for His kingdom. (Edited slightly].
Andrew Sibley
We would draw a distinction between the ideological Black Lives Matter movement, and the belief that black lives really do matter, which we fully support. We believe in mercy which seeks repentance instead of cancellation.
Alison S.
I believe that Charles Darwin's remains were moved into Westminster Abbey.
Philip Bell
Indeed, Darwin was both buried there and his funeral took place there, see: Why evolution hurts the church.
Pratha S.
I agree with everything you said -- and of course you're right! Unfortunately, I don't think anything is going to change concerning Charles Darwin -- statues or otherwise. Why? Something that the Lord said confirms this. He talked about 'the world loving it's own'. If it's of the world, they'll love you, if it's not {if it's of God}, they'll hate {or be against} you. Because the world has long accepted Darwin, I would not expect anything to change. Somehow, Darwin will get a pass on this one {despite current conditions}. Don't get me wrong, yes, I would like to see these kind of changes too. But because the world loves it's own, I would not expect anything to change.
David G.
We don't believe that all people are created by God. We know it.
Peter G.
Well argued article. It is such a 'holy grail' of humanism - their idol - the Darwin bust or statue - like the Shakespear bust represents their stone tablets of inviolability.
(Thought) If the DNA sequence of man / woman was displayed - several volumes I know - but perhaps high-lighting the few bases of difference between individuals. Surely there would be a greater difference between male and female than between the races... Origins is the key - Darwin had no idea of the incredible complexity of the cell - sadly leading protein folding researchers still attribute the amazing tertiary and quaternary features of proteins and their sequential combinations to the cold hand of chance. it's worse than equating a clay tablet to an ipad or interactive white board - just a few accidental differences.
Philip Bell
Your question is rather off topic. Use the search engine at creation.com to find lots of articles on 'race', genomic differences, etc. However, answers to your specific question aren't easy to find, hence the following response to your 'thought':

Any two humans picked at random from the world's 7.9 billion people have 99.8% identity in their genomes. The average difference between two ethnic groups ('races') has often been quoted in the past as 6% of that 0.2% = 0.012%; tiny in other words. Such figures can change with new studies but the message is the same; so-called racial differences are so insignificant that a biological basis for racism is non-existent.

The human Y chromosome (men only) has hundreds fewer genes than the X chromosome (females are XX, males XY), but almost two-thirds of the Y genes have a counterpart on the X chromosome. Some sources quote 92.8% overall similarity between men and women but that is based on the assumption of no overlap between Y and X chromosomes, so the true figure is likely to be a little higher than 92.8%.

Regardless of the comparison (99.8/99.99% vs 98.2%; which figures may be revised), there is no sound biological basis for racism. The findings of modern genetics totally undercut Darwin's assumptions (and those of his contemporaries) about differences between so-called australoid, negroid, mongoloid and caucasoid races (a view taught in schools just around a century ago). Of course, such beliefs which had such appalling consequences for countless victims of extreme eugenics policies and millions of victims of eugenics-inspired genocides during the twentieth century.
King T.
Thank you very much for brining this article to us - highlighting and making concrete the racism that lived in the evolutionary idol called Darwin.
I really like the thought that Christians should be using the cancel culture's own creeds against the cancel culture itself!
Here then is the ideal opportunity to raise a meme movement to discredit Darwinism on the grounds of it being a racist and derogatory ideology that causes great HARM ( that much favoured word ) to countless minorities around the world.....
There is no need to go out into the streets to launch physical protests or deface statues. All we have to do is use the very words that Darwin wrote and spread it around on the web, pointing out the incredibly racist attitude that arises from evolutionary thought.
The bible clearly says we are to destroy strongholds. Here then is one other way in which to at least weaken the grip of that paradigm that opposes God.
Just a thought.
Richard G.
You've done it again. God bless CMI for relentlessly pursuing 'inconvenient truths' such as Darwin's blatant racism and sexism. I refer to what Darwin and co said about women's and black people's very low standing by evolutionary pronouncements. Methinks it would be powerful if one of you scholars quoted what Darwin and co said about women and their place in evolution. It's outrageous, and I reckon if those evolutionists' actual words concerning women were known, untold numbers of women alone, could be converted from their hell-bound future.
I am related to Darwin, quite likely doubly so, because he married his cousin, contrary to evolution's so-called wisdom. I prefer to be known as connected to the Wedgwood side of the family. At least the Wedgwood's have class, with their exquisite pottery. Who wants to be connected to a man who gave Hitler, Mao, and other mass murderers an intellectual excuse for their heinous crimes? It may be enlightening to some readers if you quoted evolutionists' words re women but more potent surely would be to quote God's word, the world's best selling book, with no rival, e.g. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." .... Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Him (Jesus Himself) has everlasting life." Unbeatable. Hope, and a happy future assured.

Thanks for your comments Richard: Interestingly, Josiah Wedgewood, Darwin's grandfather on his mother's side, is noted for the anti-slavery medallion which reads Am I Not a Man And a Brother?
Geoff C. W.
Ironically, one of Australia's capital cities is named after the racist Darwin, and it has a Charles Darwin University in it: 'a leader in indigenous education', according to their website. This is in an area heavily populated by indigenous Australians. Time to change the names!

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.