They also refused to do a review of my book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! Can’t imagine why.

The same paper permitted a local Muslim to accuse Cal Thomas of bigotry comparing him to Jew-haters in Nazi Germany! What chutzpa! A Muslim “spokesperson” accusing a highly respected and talented Christian journalist of bigotry! That’s like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath! I wrote in defense of Cal but the editors refused to publish it.

Later, they ran a cartoon showing an “Evangelical Zealot” standing on the chest of a hapless and helpless Muslim as the “zealot” crams “Fundamentalist Christian Dogma” down his throat? For those who did not understand the cartoon, the heading informed readers the gist of it was “Converting the Muslims.” Again, I came to the defense of Truth but the editors refused to make a correction.

I called the editors and publishers and challenged them pointing out historical truth but they refused to budge. One editor did admit that the cartoon was a mistake but evidently, they didn’t have enough paper and ink to permit me to write a correction! It was a matter of courage or lack thereof.

ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their website dealing with creation and evolution since there had been much coverage dealing with the subject in various journals. Evolutionists had been hammered and major university professors had begun to ask embarrassing questions making evolutionists uneasy. Consequently, major journals cranked out hysterical propaganda pieces to do damage control for the Americans United for Separation for Church and State (who recently had their annual meeting in a New Jersey telephone booth), PAW, National Center for Science Education, ACLU, and assorted atheists, agnostics, and associates who bow before the idol of evolutionary science.

Galloping to the rescue of beleaguered evolutionists came Time, Newsweek, USA Today, New York Times, and others spouting untrue, unfair, unscientific drivel to con the gullible public into believing the humbuggery of evolution and that those who advocate creationism are Bible thumping fanatics. (I almost never thump my Bible and when I do, it is not really hard.)

Evolutionists trotted out weary accusations against creationists, implying all are “Fundamentalists” (gasp!), always denigrating them, often suggesting a belief in a flat earth! Really desperate evolutionists even suggested that we carry a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday! I am shocked, shocked that educated scientists would stoop so low. This is further proof, if it is needed, that many scientists are asinine, arrogant, and audacious bigots in defending their religious philosophy called evolution. Of course, bigots are as easy to find in a secular university as a bowling ball in a bathtub.

With the above vicious libel of creationists, ABC News, after commissioning me to write an anti-evolution piece for their website, refused to use it because I was “too militant!” No, I was too accurate and had too much sting. They wanted a mild piece so they could point to it and say, “See, we are balanced. We provided a forum for the other side.” But they did not want a challenge to the evolutionary myth.

Evolutionists must never be presented as fools, fanatics, fakers, and frauds but creationists can be presented as inept, incompetent, and insane! That is dishonest and the major media moguls wonder why they have been abandoned by thinking people! Even an Oxford professor can understand the reason.

But the censorship continued.

I wrote the editor of Pulpit Helps, a major Christian publication with which most preachers are familiar. My concern was with a review done by the editor about a book of sermons by Martin Luther King, Jr. I enclosed a column that dealt with King that they could publish providing some fairness and balance. They refused to publish my column. The correspondence was very revealing and by no means unusual:

To the Editor:

I just read your message to me regarding Martin Luther King, Jr., and of course, we can disagree about King. I have fought for that privilege (to disagree) in Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism for 35 years.

However, I am surprised and amazed and somewhat disappointed that Pulpit Helps would be fearful of facing the truth of any matter. It is one thing for secular journals to worship at the shine of political correctness and another for Christian magazines to do so.

You mentioned that you were in high school when King was killed so you have grown up in an atmosphere where King has been idolized and almost beyond scrutiny especially in the public schools and the media.

You wrote, “I wanted to view King’s life in a balanced perspective and have an accurate view of him as a man, civil rights leader, and preacher.” You surely must be kidding! You did not do that in your review. Did you have “balance” in your review when every word was positive? You wanted accuracy when you praised his preaching and never mentioned his heresy! I assume that your reading of King was very limited; maybe only to the book you were reviewing!

You also wrote, “Neither do I agree with those who demonize him.” Is telling the truth demonizing him? You know, I believe between the two of us, I have a much more balanced, fair, and accurate view of King. I think some good came from some of his work while enormous harm also resulted. Unlike many conservatives and many haters, I think King was right in the bus boycott and I believe that because Blacks should have equal rights to public facilities (since they pay taxes) as do Whites. Blacks should not have been subjected to back of the bus status and colored water fountains. However, private businesses are something else altogether! The government has no authority (power yes, authority no) to tell a private businessman how he must run his business. But of course, that is another issue.

You said, “Since the piece in Pulpit Helps was a book review and not an article we will not print your submitted article.” Of course, that is a classic cop-out! Surely, Pulpit Helps is interested in balance, truth, and accuracy.

You did not deal with the various criticisms of King in my article. Please note that your book review dealt with King’s preaching. While you might like the particular book you reviewed, surely you were obligated to reveal to your readers that the book did not reflect King’s preaching and his beliefs. King was a life-long Liberal who rejected the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Christ. Do you take the position that one can reject those doctrines and be a Christian? If so, you have removed yourself from mainline, orthodox Christianity!

Remember that the Apostle of Love in his second epistle told us not to even bid one God speed if he did not hold to the doctrine of Christ. Do you disagree with John or do you disregard John? And to disregard means to disobey! It seems you are more impressed with the writings of King than you are of John! At this point, you are defending King and disobeying John! King often spoke publicly to radio and television audiences of Christ and “faith” but never did he challenge men to place faith in the propitiatory work of Christ to experience personal salvation! He did not because he did not believe that was essential for one to have eternal life. I assume you and the folks at Pulpit Helps do believe it.

You did not deal with King’s many adulterous affairs as he admitted to Parade magazine. How can you do a book review of such a man without one word of caution, without one word of suggestion to readers that further research might be helpful? And to emulate his life would be disastrous.

Do you think the fact that King was murdered wipes out the many sins in his life? Do you think that because Blacks were mistreated during that period, that fact somehow excuses his sins? Are you suggesting that because he made some positive contributions, his doctrinal errors and his wicked life should be overlooked?

Does King get special treatment because he was black or because he was murdered or because he was a preacher? What drives you and others to give him the “kid glove” treatment? Why not treat him fairly, honestly, and accurately? Why do you and others seem to have a mission to protect King’s image? Why not tell the truth as you do, I assume, in other matters? Question: If David Duke wrote a book that was true, fantastic, a classic and an incredible contribution to American literature, would you review it without mentioning that he was a former KKK member? I think not.

Another question: Bill Clinton writes a classic bestseller. Not one paragraph in it that any honest, fair, and informed person disagrees with. Would your review be totally positive without mentioning that he had been a moral leper, had been impeached by the House, had lied under oath, and had sold or given valuable information to the Chinese Communists, etc.?

Brother, why not treat people like people, not as white, black, rich, or poor? Just people. Why make decisions based on how you and the magazine will be perceived rather than on the merits of the case? Does truth matter anymore?

You refused to deal with King’s thievery of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University and many of his other writings that were plagiarized from others without even a suggestion of giving credit. If you did not know about that, it is inexcusable. If you did know about it and refused to mention it in your review, that too was inexcusable.

You did not even try to deal with King’s love affair with Communist Party functionaries during his very public life. Note that he was not simply involved with Communists but with Party activists! He hired many Communists to run various field offices and even refused to fire them when he was told by his politically sensitive friends that such action would be wise. Your selective quote of his regarding Communism does not cancel his ardor for the Communist Party members with whom he climbed into bed.

King was a Black opportunist who used people: Blacks, Whites, union leaders, the media, etc., to further his own cause. You have helped perpetuate his false image by burning incense to him with your book review. I am disappointed in Pulpit Helps not being willing to stand for Scriptural truth regarding separation from doctrinal error as well as separation from personal immorality.

Sincerely,

Don Boys, Ph.D.

Christ said that He was the Truth so how can anyone, claiming to know Him, be careless with the truth?

Censorship is alive and well in America.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

There are only four possibilities as to how the universe got here: First, it created itself, but surely no sane person believes that. Think that possibility through. How could something that doesn’t exist, create itself? A person who takes that position has not drunk long from the well of learning. In fact, he hasn’t even gargled! One main reason this first suggestion is not true is because it conflicts with the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law says that there is no new material or energy being created. It can be redirected but nothing can be added to the existing supply, so the first possibility is an impossibility!

The second possibility is that the universe has always been here! How about that? With that suggestion, the evolutionists wiggled around many problems with the first suggestion. The universe was not created by God or by itself. It has always been here! This second possibility is not possible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law, which no evolutionist argues with, says that everything is running down. The Second Law screams disease, decay, degeneration, and death. So if the universe has always been here, it would repeal the Second Law.

The third possibility is that the universe is not here! Everything is an illusion! This possibility was suggested by ancient Greeks as they sat around their saunas. (Those guys spent too much time in steam rooms and it boiled their brains.) They suggested, “Hey, maybe we are wasting our time discussing how the universe got here. Maybe it isn’t here! We only think it’s here. We only think we’re here.” Of course, that possibility is contrary to the Law of Common Sense.

The fourth and last possibility as to the origin of the universe is–God did it! That’s it. Search out the great thinkers of the present and past and you will not arrive at any other possibility as to the origin of the universe. When sane people reject the first three “possibilities,” they are left with the fourth one: God created it! And if God created the universe, He could have (and did) create man. Evolutionists scream like a stuck pig when we bring God into the discussion, but if that’s how it happened, that’s how it happened. Sorry about that guys, but you are stuck with it.

In every talk show I’ve done on the subject, evolutionists have asserted “creationism is religion and evolution is science.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost. Both evolution and creation are based on faith as informed, honest scientists admit; therefore students should be exposed to both. It’s incredible that Christian parents are taxed to promote a scientific teaching that is contrary to science and their religious beliefs!

It is a fact that thousands of qualified scientists don’t believe Darwin’s gradualism as taught in schools. Many others have many doubts about its validity qualifying for the moniker of, Darwin Doubters. And most evolutionists get apoplexy when we remind them of that fact! I’ll remind them since I like to see evolutionists sweat and squirm, and they don’t sweat and squirm with grace.

Dr. Soren Lovetrup, scientist from Sweden, said, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He added that evolution is “anti-science,” and is “false.” Scientists, who don’t know Lovetrup, should be driving trucks, not defending the farce, fakery, foolishness, and fraud of evolution.

World famous astronomer Fred Hoyle said, “The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong,” The most respected French scientist Pierre Grasse called Darwinian evolution, “a pseudo-science.” A. E. Wilder-Smith, with three earned doctorates in science, said evolution is “impossible.” Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creationists.

Dr. H.S. Lipson, an agnostic physicist, admitted, “I think…the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further added, “To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all.” No, but it’s being propped up at every secular university in America–with taxpayers’ money!

Fossil expert, Stephen Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.” Darwin even agreed with that! No informed evolutionist appeals to the fossil record to support his philosophy of origins. When he does so, he places himself in the category of flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers, and snake handlers.

After evolutionists admit they made fools of themselves with the fossil record, they should admit they cannot explain: the answers to the beginning of life; the Cambrian explosion; design of the universe; the absence of transitional fossils; the anomalies in the geologic column; why evolution suddenly stopped; how males and females evolved at the same location and time in history; where the scientific laws came from (how does a “law” evolve?) and did they come before or after the “big bang”? Furthermore, what was the catalyst for the big bang? And where did the cosmic egg (that allegedly exploded) come from? Maybe the cosmic chicken laid it?

After those answers we’ll discuss how evolution can be true, being in conflict with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and various other scientific laws. We’ll also discuss frauds perpetrated by scientists to prop up their cockamamie theory.

It is a fact that Chuck Darwin, not a trained scientist, but an apostate preacher, fired a blank when he fired a shot heard around the world, and evolutionists are still cocking and firing that same gun.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that isn’t there! So sad. No student is educated if he doesn’t know both sides of the issue.

It’s also a fact that my critics always refuse to deal with these facts.

(Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.)

ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their website on the evolutionary controversy when state school districts were considering a balanced presentation of origins. I wrote the article, and then rewrote it to conform to their space guidelines, but it never showed up on their website. I was told that it was “too militant,” and the readers couldn’t comprehend it! Isn’t that interesting? I pointed out that famous evolutionists have called Creationists “kooky,” “yahoos,” “stupid,” “liars,” “not to be trusted in any way,” “ignorant,” “insane,” and a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” Yet, I’m too militant!

Yes, I am militant, mad, but not malicious; after all, this a war, but the problem is that I put the evolutionists on the spot! And, of course, the media elite are, for the most part, evolutionists, so I am attacking them when I attack evolution. They don’t have answers so they suck their thumbs and whine about creationists being militant and unfair! Their accusing a Creationist of being unfair is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath!

I pointed out that ABC News could have asked me to “tone it down” a bit since they don’t like militancy unless it is from screaming feminists, radical Blacks or homosexual activists. The fact is, as I told my ABC contact, the network is guilty of suppression, if not official censorship! Bigotry! Intolerance! Gasp! Is it possible for ABC to be guilty of such atrocious sins?

About the same time I had my differences with ABC, a letter from a university professor was published in USA Today that had to be dealt with in the interest of fairness, reasonableness, and balance. But the “nation’s newspaper” was not interested in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. They refused to publish my reply. Surprise, surprise, surprise! It is interesting that USA Today paid me for eight years to write columns for them on various subjects but they refused to publish this pro-creation, anti-evolution piece for free! I’m not sure there is a connection but have you noticed that since I refused to write anymore for them, the paper has become almost like one of the weekly give-aways? (OK, just a little self-serving, but an interesting observation.)

Creationists are often called “Bible-thumpers” but I seldom thump my Bible. Well, now and then a few thumps, but not really hard ones. What ABC and USA Today don’t want is to put evolutionists on the spot. The paper did publish an excellent column but it did not deal with the scientific reasons to reject evolution. It could not do so in less than 600 words, but they can say, “Hey, we published a rebuttal to the evolutionist.” That is devious, deceptive, and dishonest; but it is standard operating procedure for the secular media.

The professor’s letter in USA Today seemed to reveal that he had not read anything on the subject of creation/evolution in the last 25 years! The average layman is not expected to be aware of the scientific literature, but it is outrageous for a college professor, who takes it upon himself to speak to the issue, to be so uninformed.

The professor relied on hyperbole to convince the uninformed that his philosophy/religion (not science since it doesn’t meet the definition of science) of evolution is a fact. He compared evolution to gravity, which exposed his desperation. Then he said that evolution is not controversial among mainstream scientists and “among most of the general population.” John must be living in a cave!

Why should creationism be taught in schools? Because that’s the way man arrived on the planet! Creationists believe a sovereign God created everything out of nothing, while most evolutionists and atheists believe nothing created everything out of nothing! Or, nothing became something and something became everything! I choose to believe, “In the beginning, God created….” I choose to believe that because Scripture and science support that fact.

Some facts: The People for the American Way admitted that most Americans want both evolution and creationism taught in public schools. Huffington Post reported that only 15% of Americans believe that man arrived on this planet through evolution without God having any part of the process. The remaining 85% believed in creationism or God-directed evolution. A recent poll asked, “Since the universe has organization, I think there is a Creator who designed it.” More than 72% of Americans agreed!

According to USA Today, scientist Eugenie Scott was appalled that some of our presidential candidates also believe in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. I debated Eugenie at least twice and on Pat Buchanan’s radio show where she admitted that God could have created the universe!

Well, that was a huge concession for an avid evolutionist, and most evolutionists will not willingly go to the origins issue. They have to be pushed there. They want to jump over “billions of years” to Darwin’s mythical “warm, little pond.” Well, I’m ready wade in that pond of which there is not a shred of evidence but I first want to know where the pond came from! Where did the earth come from? What about the universe? Evolutionists stampede away from that issue as if their hair was on fire!

The media think they are sophisticated even scholarly in promoting evolution; however, they are only proving what most people have known for years: they are incompetent, irresponsible, inept, imbalanced, and insincere.

Additionally, they are the most overpaid people east of Hollywood.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

Others praise Darwin as being “opposed to racism endemic to his culture.” Wrong again because Darwin and his Disciples were shameful, disgusting racists. The above quoted evolutionary fawner was simply espousing his religion, the religion of evolution. He knew not of what he spoke (or he lied) for all informed people know that Darwin and his early followers were unabashed, unregenerated, and unrepentant racists. And he is to be honored in the U.S. with a special day!

Darwin and his disciples were pseudo-scientists and also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin who faked drawings to support evolution and was found guilty in a university court trial. But he was not fired! He and others laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler’s racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, “I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible.” What a sad, shameful, and shameless historical fact.

I wonder what that “climate” is doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so; for if one believes that life has no purpose and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, honor, faithfulness, and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin’s impact on Hitler and Germany: “We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy….The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood.”

Furthermore, Joe Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin’s book that he found on a shelf in a church school! Such books are as dangerous as rattlesnakes in a day care center.

The unreasonable, unbiblical, and unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity, and unbelief reaching into the future and adversely affecting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that Blacks were closer to man’s ape “ancestors” than the white race! Even the title of Darwin’s book is overtly racist: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin labeled Blacks as one of the unfavored races! During a broadcast with an Anglican preacher, famous atheist/evolutionist Richard Dawkins revealed that he did not know the full title of Origin!

Darwin’s disciple and main defender T. H. Huxley wrote, “It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man….The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins….” I “siced” the above places not because he used the term, “Negro” but because he did not capitalize it. Darwin never repudiated him or his statements. How would “dusky cousins” be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

However, it gets worse. Henry F. Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, declared, “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.” Wow! The most radical KKK nut doesn’t believe that!

It is a little unkind for me to remind everyone that Harry identified a single tooth (Nebraska Man) as evidence that humans evolved from apes! Moreover, that single tooth (did I mention that it was the famous Nebraska Man?) turned out to be a pig’s tooth! Ahh, isn’t science exciting?

Edwin Conklin, who was professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that Blacks had not evolved as far as Whites and “Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be.” Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever having an NAACP medal struck in his honor. Too bad.

The major race haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men such as Nietzsche, who often said God was dead (and I didn’t even know He was sick), called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits. Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and those people and their philosophies and policies are responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and shallow thinkers worship at Darwin’s shrine. But not really amazing at all.

Yes, the foundation of racism and its hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching. And a jerk from Jersey wants us to honor Darwin!

Chuck Darwin was the fountainhead of racism and evolutionists are stuck with him. Breaks my heart!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

A column in the news this week quoted a critic of Creationism asserting that Darwin “was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the racism endemic to his culture.” That critic was simply espousing his religion, the religion of evolution. He knew not of what he spoke (or he lied) for all informed people know that Darwin and his early followers were unabashed, unregenerated, and unrepentant racists.

Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, (Darwin was an apostate preacher) but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who faked drawings to support evolution (and was found guilty in a university court). He and others laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler’s racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, “I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible.”

I wonder what the “climate” is doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness, and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin’s impact on Hitler and Germany: “We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy….The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood.”

Furthermore, Joe Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin’s book that he found on a shelf in a church school! Such books are as dangerous as rattlesnakes in a day care center.

The unreasonable, unbiblical, and unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity, and unbelief reaching into the future and adversely affecting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that Blacks were closer to man’s ape “ancestors” than the white race!
Even the title of Darwin’s book is overtly racist: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Whom do you suppose Darwin tagged the “Unfavored Races?”

Darwin’s disciple and main defender, T. H. Huxley, wrote, “It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man….The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins….” (I “siced” the above places not because he used the term, “Negro” but because it did not capitalize it.) Darwin never repudiated him or his statements. How would “dusky cousins” be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

However, it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, declared, “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.” Wow! The most radical KKK nut doesn’t believe that!

Edwin Conklin, was professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that Blacks had not evolved as far as Whites and “Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be.” Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever having an NAACP medal struck in his honor. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men such as Nietzsche who often said God was dead (and I didn’t even know He was sick) called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits. Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and those people and their theories and policies have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin’s shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred, and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching. Chuck Darwin was the fountainhead of racism and evolutionists are stuck with him. Breaks my heart!