The religion that Darwin created in his own image leaves many things to be desired, but chief among them are the insidious consequences of his views on human dignity, equality, and the unity of the human race. Listed among the more dark consequences of his ideas are the fruits of Hitler’s genocides, and those of the Marxist-Maoist-Leninist-Stalinist-Pol-Potist-Kim-Il-Songists of our age. The ideas motivating much of these despots are rooted deeply in the utterly false assumptions about “race” that Darwin developed and that have well-served a whole generation of racists and dictators and other such. It is high time that we stepped back from Darwin and ask whether his religion has served humanity well, or whether it has actually wrought little more than destruction, perhaps even more than any other ideological force in the past several hundred years?
Why, I must ask therefore, do so many millions of people uncritically accept his interpretation of the creation, its origins, and the purpose of human life when such ideas can be credited with untold catastrophic destruction of creation and humans? Sadly, to see that Darwin was/is not alone in his views, see “Scientific Racism.” See also my comments on polylogism.
In regards to Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis and his developing of the concepts about “race,” it is stated well by VanDoodewaard:
“. . . Darwin elucidated that he had not only conceived a new philosophy of origins, but also a new hierarchy of animal humanity: Caucasians were most advanced, then came Negroes or Australians, followed by the gorilla and the baboon. Abandoning the plain language of the text of Genesis, meant the abandonment of the unity of the human race in the dignity and equality of being created in the image of God.”
(VanDoodewaard, The Quest for the Historical Adam, p. 141)
From the mouth of the monkey: in Darwin’s own words
“The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. 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, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* 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 negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp. 200-201)