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

The BBC TV series Darwin’s Dangerous Idea1

by

First published: 5 May 2009 (GMT+10)
Re-featured on homepage: 4 May 2021 (GMT+10)
“Charles Darwin and his followers have shown how all life on the planet evolved from a single source. The mechanism they call evolution by natural selection means competition, extinction and the emergence of new life forms without the need for a director or conductor. The Creator shimmers and vanishes like a mirage.”
Image wikipedia.orgVernon Myman Lyman Kellogg (1867-1937)
Vernon Myman Lyman Kellogg (1867–1937)

So says political pundit Andrew Marr, one of the BBC’s most senior journalists, in the first of his three BBC2 programmes celebrating evolution and its legacy during the last century and a half. While there was much to agree with in this thought-provoking series, Marr is careful to point out, “At a stroke Darwin had demolished the biblical account of creation.” Of course, it’s hardly surprising to see that the BBC would be celebrating Darwin, given its self-confessed anti-Christian bias. At a 2006 “impartiality” summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, “Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment. … executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away—but would not do the same for the Koran.”2

Marr himself admitted that the corporation was unrepresentative of British society:

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.”

The full implications of Darwinian philosophy are given considerable treatment during the course of three hours of footage, so it is not possible in a short review to do more than distil a few of the many major points made.

The first programme, Body and Soul, shows how evolutionary theory was taken to logical, but extreme conclusions by some world leaders and dictators and has been used to justify war, atrocities, ethnic cleansing and genocide. While Marr tries to argue that these were abuses of Darwin’s theory, this is at odds with his own statement:

“Multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die. He called this law Natural Selection. This was creation according to Darwin, no Adam and Eve, no need for God. And in God’s place, an indifferent mechanism that relentlessly scrutinised every single individual of every species. It selected the best adapted and remorselessly eliminated the rest.”

During 1915, American pacifist and entomologist Vernon Kellogg had cause to dine with members of the German high command.

“Kellogg was horrified by what he heard. ‘The creed of natural selection, based on violent, competitive, fatal struggle, is the Gospel of the German intellectuals’, Kellogg wrote. … Kellogg was shocked by this grotesque Darwinian motivation for the German war machine.”

Questioning his own pacifism, Kellogg wrote an account of the late-night conversations and tried to influence America to enter the war.

Marr discusses how the likes of Sigmund Freud and JBS Haldane applied Darwin’s ideas to human behaviour and morality, not least in the area of sexuality. In the second half of the twentieth century, “[Darwinian scientists] … showed how sympathy, empathy and compassion, the building blocks of human morality, weren’t unique to humans at all, but part of our animal inheritance.”

Marr opines that many of the world’s religions have embraced or accepted Darwin, but realises that those with traditional biblical and Christian moorings have put up a resistance.

“[Darwin] has returned us to Nature, to its wonder, to its glory and to its danger. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution questions almost everything we thought we knew about ourselves: Where we come from, why we behave as we do, the origins of our morality.”

Yes indeed. One must wonder how Christians compromising with Darwin’s big idea cannot see that ‘theistic evolution’ is an oxymoron because it tries to embrace two systems of thought that provide competing and diametrically opposing world views.

In Born Equal, Marr explores the influence of Darwin’s theory on culture and politics—and particularly the issue of racism and the Nazis’ ‘Final Solution’. Following the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Darwinism began to influence a number of the leading thinkers of the day. Herbert Spencer, a champion of ruthless extreme business tactics,3 coined the now-famous term ‘survival of the fittest’ to describe natural selection. “Spencer was the first to turn Darwin’s theory into a political manifesto … go with [the struggle of life], don’t resist it; reward the strong and purge the weak. But it gave Darwin’s theory a misleading spin. Darwin proposed that Nature favours the best adapted individuals, not necessarily the strongest.”

Nonetheless, Darwin was happy to use Spencer’s description of his theory in his 1869 revision of The Origin:

“Darwin’s adoption of those four words would have consequences for a hundred years. … Darwin might have been an enemy of slavery, but [his ideas] were soon being used to justify the triumphs of the white colonialists over indigenous populations.”

However, Marr’s attempt to relieve Darwin of guilt by association is unconvincing, as Darwin himself wrote in his Descent of Man that the ‘civilised races’ would exterminate and replace the ‘savage’ ones. And he really was a “social Darwinist”.4 Genuine skulduggery involving the Royal College of Surgeons in London and the Tasmanian authorities is described honestly by Marr and will undoubtedly have shocked some viewers—aboriginal people certainly suffered greatly at the hands of Darwin’s dangerous idea.5

Image wikipedia.orgWinston Churchill
Winston Churchill (1874–1965)

There is also an informative potted history of eugenics, beginning with its brainchild (and Darwin’s cousin) Francis Galton, who became obsessed about using Darwinian selection to produce improvements in the human race.6 Science fiction author Herbert George Wells supported both Darwin and eugenics.7 His book Time Machine was a stark warning about the dangers of the degeneration of the human race. Few British people are likely to have heard of ‘The Feeble-minded Persons Control Bill’, put forward almost a century ago, the aim of which was to segregate selected men and women in special institutions to control their breeding—this was Great Britain! Moreover, the first international conference on Eugenics was held in London in 1912, at which Winston Churchill called for the sterilisation of the ‘inferior’ by a simple surgical operation. The presidential address was delivered by none other than Charles Darwin’s son Leonard.

“When it was debated by the House of Commons, [this] bill was voted down by Parliament. The 1912 eugenics conference marked the end of any real idea of state-sponsored eugenics in Britain, but not in Scandinavia, not in Germany, not in America.”

In the US, a distinguished Harvard biologist called Charles Davenport advocated eugenics. He was funded by the Carnegie Institute in 1910 to encourage the breeding of a superior American population.8

Eugenics was supposed to be the answer to all society’s ills, from dealing with ‘imbeciles’ and invalids to controlling criminals and preventing over-breeding by paupers! And the churches that compromised with Darwin were among the strongest supporters of eugenics, while the biblical churches opposed it.9

Of course, it was in Germany that the brew of eugenics, genetics and Darwinism produced its worse fruit—the idea was that the Aryans (the German “Master Race”) were being threatened by contamination from the other races.

Photo stock.xchngAuschwitz
Auschwitz II (Birkenau)
“Darwin’s theory gave a veneer of scientific respectability to the struggle for ‘racial purity’ that was central to Nazi philosophy. … In 1935, Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the S.S., introduced a eugenic breeding programme to strengthen the Aryan race. German officers were encouraged to father children with Nordic or Aryan mothers.”

This was just one small part of the Nazis’ attempt to create a fitter “master race”.10 American ideas were implemented in Germany to justify the sterilisation of many people. Doctors who didn’t comply were penalised.11 Later, the Gestapo started to round up people of “impure race”. The Nazis sent around 250,000 of these men, women and children to the gas chambers from 1939–1945 in what was code-named ‘Operation T4’.

“ ‘Survival of the fittest’ had become translated to mean ‘murder of the weakest.’ ”

Of course, the Jews had been singled out as a dangerous genetically inferior race. Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’ “resulted in the deaths of gypsies, communists, Poles, Slavs, mentally and physically disabled, homosexuals, political and religious dissidents and six million Jews.” Following the War, attitudes radically altered in the realisation of the full horror of Nazism, and the similarities between different peoples were emphasised as being far greater than the differences. Yet evolutionary thinking still had a strong influence on the western conception of humankind.

While discussing the mapping of the human genome, Marr says

“The uncomfortable truth at the heart of Darwin’s theory is still with us in the twenty-first century. We are all one species but we aren’t all the same.”

His own Darwinian world-view shows through clearly as he discusses the prospect of genetic testing, which “allows us to find out more about our own evolutionary history than ever before.” But he admits that such tests could be used to influence how governments, schools, potential employers and even marital partners treat people—a very bleak, though not unrealistic, prediction. While Darwin might well have balked at such an outcome, it is indeed a natural consequence of rejecting divine revelation and embracing an anti-biblical world-view.

The last of the series is aptly titled Life and Death. In it, Andrew Marr argues that Darwinism and environmentalism are closely entwined, moreover that the former is the key to averting “one of the greatest disasters in the history of our planet.” The approach he takes is not new and it is not subtle.

“Most people thought [extinction] was the result of the Great Flood, sent by God to punish man, as described in the Bible story of Noah’s Ark. Darwin doubted this.”

(It’s thus hardly surprising that the BBC has also mocked the biblical Flood and Ark account.12) He chose to interpret fossils differently and decided that “extinction was a vital and necessary part of the process of evolution. … But burdened by his thoughts of life and death, and extinction, he soon began to retreat from the limelight. He knew that he had the seed of a dangerous idea, one that would undermine the Bible and Christian teaching” (emphasis added).

Marr spends time discussing the events surrounding Darwin’s publication of The Origin and the contributions of other natural scientists of his day, followed by a consideration of the conservation of the English countryside. Several uncontroversial examples of natural selection are described, although viewers who are aware that the standard textbook example of colour changes in peppered moths (Biston betularia) has been exposed as badly flawed,13 will have been surprised to see it featuring in Marr’s programme. In spite of the fact that major books and articles exposed the numerous problems with this evolutionary icon over ten years ago, it is claimed “Peppered moths had excellent pale camouflage and were almost invisible on pale, lichen-covered trees but there was also a dark form of the moth. This was much rarer than the light variety as it was easily spotted and eaten by birds.”

Accompanying pictures show the moths resting on bark on tree trunks, in spite of the fact that it is now widely acknowledged that they rest on twigs in the canopy. It was reported in Nature that experts had only observed them on tree trunks twice in 40 years! Moreover, bats are as likely as birds to be predators of these moths and since they hunt by echolocation—not by sight—it is far from settled that bird predation was the major factor in shifting proportions of light and dark Biston moths. But not wanting the facts to ‘mar’ a beautiful story, viewers are assured that this “remains the classic textbook example of Darwinian natural selection in action”. And of course, most people are still sadly unaware that natural selection is something perfectly logical and factual, and in fact was first described by creationist Edward Blyth.14 All examples of adaptation by natural selection occurring to date involve elimination or culling of genetic information. Extrapolated over time, this would lead to extinction, not uphill evolution.15

The basic idea in this final instalment seems to be that Darwin’s vision was responsible for giving human beings the impetus and rationale to look after the environment in which we find ourselves. Biblical revelation is seen as irrelevant.

“We have to preserve the environment, the natural world inside which we live. And it’s that—not equality or the existence or not of God—which is the most urgent message from Darwin’s essential idea. We have to change our behaviour as a species. If we don’t we know what follows.”

This is the Gospel according to Darwin, as expounded by one of his self-confessed modern-day disciples—some readers of this review may recall that Marr nominated Charles Darwin as his ‘Greatest Briton’ in a BBC series, several years ago.16 At the time he said: “[Darwin] is destined to be the prophet and guide of the next few hundred years. His time is only just beginning.”17 Again, Christians who see no harm in adding evolution to the Bible should pause and reflect long and hard on their reasons for clinging to Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.

References

  1. This was first screened in the UK in 3 parts on 5th, 12th & 17th March 2009. Return to text.
  2. Paul Revoir, Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives, Daily Mail, 22 October 2006. Return to text.
  3. J. Bergman, Darwin s critical influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism, Journal of Creation 16(2):105–109, 2002. Return to text.
  4. Bill Muehlenberg, Darwin and eugenics: Darwin was indeed a Social Darwinist , 18 May 2007. Return to text.
  5. Darwin s body snatchers, One Human Family, pages 51–61. Return to text.
  6. R. Grigg, Eugenics death of the defenceless: The legacy of Darwin s cousin Galton, Creation 28(1):18–22, 2005. Return to text.
  7. J. Bergman, H.G. Wells: Darwin’s disciple and eugenicist extraordinaire, Journal of Creation 18(3):116–120, 2004. Return to text.
  8. Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York/London, 2003; see review by J. Sarfati, America s evolutionists: Hitler s inspiration? Creation 27(2):49, 2005 <creation.com/weak>. Return to text.
  9. Christine Rosen, Preaching Genetics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004. See also reviews by R Grigg, ‘Hooray for eugenics’, Creation 30(3):50–52, 2008 and by J. Bergman, The church preaches eugenics: a history of church support for Darwinism and eugenics, Journal of Creation 20(3):54–60, 2006. Return to text.
  10. Richard Weikart, R., From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004; see review by J. Sarfati, The Darwinian roots of the Nazi tree, Creation 27(4):39, 2005; <creation.com/weikart>. Return to text.
  11. Augusto Zimmerman, The Darwinian Roots of the Nazi Legal System, J. Creation 22(3):109–114, 2008. Return to text.
  12. B. Hodge and J. Sarfati, Yes, Noah did build an Ark! Refutation of Did Noah really build an ark?, by Jeremy Bowen, BBC, 26 March 20o4. Return to text.
  13. C. Wieland, More about moths: A recent attempt to restore the reputation of the peppered moth as an evolutionary icon falls flat, 5 January 2008. Return to text.
  14. R. Grigg, Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild: If you thought Darwin’s Origin was original, think again! Creation 26(2):39–41, 2004; <creation.com/brainchild>. Return to text.
  15. See C. Wieland, Muddy Waters: Clarifying the confusion about natural selection, Creation 23(3):26–29, June 2001,<creation.com/muddy>. Return to text.
  16. Great Britons, BBC 2, screened in 2002. See www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/10_october/19/great_britons.shtml, Last accessed 28 April, 2009. The British public voted Darwin as the fourth greatest Briton of all time. Return to text.
  17. Andrew Marr, The most natural selection of all, The Daily Telegraph, Weekend, p. 1, 19 October 2002. Return to text.

Readers’ comments

Nicholas S.
Charles Darwin allowed his own history, to cease believing in God, to then generate his fallacious theories. Interestingly, when someone is at life's potentially last ebb, their worldview changes. An atheist (of many years) relative, when in hospital asked for prayers the day before triple bypass heart surgery. Of course we did pray. Life's journey has a way of reminding us of how tenuous our existence is, Psalm 144:4, James 4:14. The quote of Andrew Marr pointing out: “At a stroke Darwin had demolished the biblical account of creation”, Isaiah 2:22, puny man, questioning the Existence of God the Creator. Yet we have the discovery of the fact of how explicitly Fine Tuned the universe is. A question should again be asked, this time of Charles Darwin (if he were alive):  Charles, how is it our earth is: Within Galactic Habitable Zone; Orbiting main sequence G2 dwarf star; Protected by gas giant planets; Within circumstellar habitable zone; Nearly circular orbit; Oxygen-rich atmosphere; Correct mass; Orbited by large moon? In this day, asked this question, surely he would change his mind and agree with the Existence of God the Creator, Romans 11:36. Thank you Philip of CMI for revealing the deplorable underlying fact of Charles Darwin's fallacious theories i.e. anti-God and subsequently, ultimately anti-humanity; compassion lost. We keep praying for those succumbed to blithely following Charles Darwin (as if he was some sort of pseudo demigod) and abstract evolution theory (as if it is some sort of pseudo demigod), through their such entrenched stubbornness, Psalm 78:8, to instead follow God, Matthew 19:26.
Philip Bell
True, occasionally unbelievers have second thoughts as they face death. Experienced pastors of many years whom I have known testify to the fact that death-bed conversions to Christianity are sadly very rare; those rare cases are, of course, wonderful. Tragically, those who have hardened themselves to the Gospel's claims (really Christ's claims) during their lifetime must face death as best they can. See e.g. this article: Christopher Hitchens: Staring Death in the Face: And the difference that Biblical Creation makes!.

I am also reminded of the words of Stephen Jay Gould, one of the giants of evolutionary theorising in the second half of the twentieth century, conscious of death looming as he battled cancer in the 1980s (he recovered, then died from a different cancer entirely in 2002):
"It has become, in my view, a bit too trendy to regard the acceptance of death as something tantamount to intrinsic dignity. Of course I agree with the preacher of Ecclesiastes that there is a time to live and a time to die—and when my skein runs out I hope to face the end calmly and in my own way. For most situations, however, I prefer the more martial view that death is the ultimate enemy—and I find nothing reproachable in those who rage mightily against the dying of the light (my emphasis)."
Gould, S.J. The median isn’t the message, Discover, June 1985.

[In fact, he slightly misquoted Scripture here because Ecclesiastes 3:1–2 reads, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die...” (my emphasis); the poignancy of his words as an unbeliever notwithstanding.]
Abe M.
If evolution is true, labels like 'imbecile', 'inferior', the like, are fallacious as they would have to be created by evolution in the first place. =).

The point, then, is, an origins (Creator) that would never create such traits in his creation in the first place (there's no need to exterminate the creature as from it's origins it maintains intrinsic value/worth bestowed by it's Creator). =).

Thus, evolution is still dead in the water! =).
Pratha S.
Unfortunately,this is nothing new. The BBC has been biased and prejudiced against God and the things of God for decades now. When the BBC was first founded, they went by Christian principles. But a few decades later, all that had changed, and they have been going in the wrong direction ever since. I stopped listening to them years ago. Today, their founders wouldn't even recognize their own organization. In the hallway of the BBC, is a large plaque dedicating the organization to following Christian principles -- but it's in Latin, and most people can't read this. So most people don't even know what it says -- including most of the people who work there. If it was written in English, then of course everyone would know -- and expose the BBC for what it really stands for today. Of course that's probably why the plaque was written in Latin in the first place.
Philip Bell
Regarding the Latin inscription in the BBC's entrance foyer, an English translation reads:
“This Temple of the Arts and Muses is dedicated to Almighty God by the first Governors of Broadcasting House in the year 1931, Sir John Reith being Director-General. It is their prayer that the good seeds sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace or purity be banished from this house, and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report [a clear reference to Philippians 4:8], may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness.” See Biased broadcaster promotes a liberal agenda—the Noble Liar.
Bill P.
First point, Kings, kingdoms, nations, armies, etc. have ALL had a hand at trying to destroy GOD'S WORD & they have ALL failed. So if Andrew Marr thinks that "at a stroke of a pen Darwin has demolished Biblical creation", ("In The Beginning God created the heavens & the earth") then he does not know history. IMO all Darwin has done is add fuel to the fire of racial hatred.
As believers in The Gospel of Jesus Christ we know, that "from one man God made ALL the nations of the world, establishing beforehand their borders, & the times they would prosper. He did this so that man might seek Him & reach out to Him, when in truth He is not far from any of us" (ACTS chap 17 v. 26-27).
I have the blood of 3 different "ethnic" backgrounds flowing through my body & The Word of God teaches me that ALL 3 come from the same father of all humanity who is Adam.
As far as the environment is concerned, YES we should care for it as God intended but humanity blew it in "The Garden" when man made the choice to sin against our Creator. (If we do it the way "the world" wants to do it the 1st thing that would happen is that the world would reduce the number of people from 8 billion to around 2 hundred million.)
I look around & my heart is saddened seeing so many being deceived into believing that humanity is divided into "races", when in truth what we really see are different ethnic groups all from the same blood that flowed through Adam.
Also sad is seeing so many being deceived w/the lie of global warming when IMO this earth is still recovering from "The world wide flood during Noah's day".
The father of ALL lies has done his job well but even now he is a defeated foe, destroyed by Jesus Christ from "The Cross" & raised from the dead on the 3rd day. Case closed & AMEN !
John C.
Macro evolution is a big hoax perpetrated on mankind. The law of Entropy demands that life Devolves, and therefore requires a mind to create and maintain life/DNA. After years of objectively studying the debate of evolution vs. creation, I continue to be amazed that any intelligent person concludes that life emerged from pond scum. I came back to theism largely because of scientific evidence.
Rick V.
"We have to change our behaviour as a species. If we don’t we know what follows.”

I'm always puzzled by their statements such as this. If we don't, what happens? According to them, we'll evolve. The weak will die, which is as it always has been. There's no impetus there, unless the point is to STOP and fight against evolution. If we have nuclear war, and the earth is destroyed, who cares? Not us, because we'd all be dead. There is no cry of midichlorians [sentient life forms from 'Star Wars', Ed.], just the silence of rocks hitting each other in space. There will be another planet with primordial ooze.
Because we love giraffes and elephants? What about those who love to fight, what makes anybody's love better than anybody else's? We're all just stardust....

I thank God for the faith given to believe and understand His Way.
Dan M.
Sorry, Mr. Marr. Entropy is a real scientific measurable fact. It is genetic, environmentally, and cosmologically universal. It is going the wrong way for your religion to be rational. It is as a result of the curse and there is only one solution and His name is Jesus the Christ.
Still, not one of you Evo's has presented a reasonable explanation of how DNA formed in the primordial, (pond scum) ocean and then crawled out to be us. Darwin thought the cell was a bag of protoplasm and had no idea of the mind-blowing complexity contained therein. So how did the first fully functioning cell come about, being that our DNA is degrading, not evolving? You have no idea, but you still believe, (by faith) that evolution is true? And you call my faith in a supreme creator irrational while invoking miracles of your own. The only difference is, your god is impersonal, immoral, undemanding, and uncaring while mine is on a rescue mission for rebellious mankind. We would have no environmental problems if mankind put as much effort and resources into solving our problems as we do in making war and killing each other. But that is your religion, (natural selection). And lastly. of course, he doesn't bash the Muslims. They are not as forgiving as us Christians who are commanded to love thy neighbor. So it is possibly out of cowardice he refrains. The only thing that matters is the truth, and Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, (John 14:6). If that makes me an idiot in your eyes Mr. Marr, well then I'm a happy idiot, soon to be redeemed out of this fallen world.
Richard G.
Though born in NZ I am related to Darwin but Mr Bell ably exposes BBC's Marr for us plebeians. We are all sinners and therefore we don't think truthfully nor deeply. We make our decisions certainly not according to the evidence but we choose as it suits us quite apart from any evidence. We Christians should be out spreading the wonderful news of eternal life given free by our Creator who is so concerned about our sin that He gave Himself on the Cross instead of us, to save us from sin's awful punishment. We are so shallow that we need a constant reminder of God's good news. Satan is busy duping people and we must be busy urging them to believe in Jesus to be saved. A simple pamphlet is a sufficient start. It's cheap to produce them and easy to distribute in latter boxes or street corners. In establishing many churches and Christian groups in Japan for 61 years I have found the simple pamphlet given out widely to be a wise way of working. Quote the Bible e.g., "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Then say "The Bible has no rival. It has no errors. To write the World's Best Seller you need to be able to change 85000 bad and sad people every day into glad saved people, and you must foretell the future with 100% accuracy. Until you attain that you have no right to disbelieve God speaking in His Word the Bible." For the rare honest thinker you might have to introduce CMI's unparalleled 8000 helpful articles.
Let's lead the simple majority with simple presentations.
Luke M.
What a shame that the BBC presenter didn't read as much Genesis as he did of Darwin's 'Origins'. God commanded humans to care for and rule over creation right from the start.
Geoff C. W.
“We have to preserve the environment, the natural world inside which we live."
On the contrary, Mr Marr. If we are the product of evolution, then it doesn't matter what we do with the environment. If we mess it up and we perish, we perish. So what? That's his evolution working perfectly. We simply cede the world to species which can survive in it, if any. If we are nothing, no loss! Why should anyone care?

Have something to add?

Important: This is not a Q&A forum. If you have unresolved questions, please search our comprehensive Q&A pages or contact us directly.

Remaining characters: 1800/1800

Please use your real name. If your comment is published, your name will be displayed as "John D." Privacy Policy

Privacy & Guidelines