Four articles appear below:

1   The Dark Side of Charles Darwin
2   Darwin's "Dark Side" Not So Dark
3   Darwin's Dark Side
4   Regarding Dr Bergman



The Dark Side of Charles Darwin

Author: Dr. Jerry Bergman
Publisher: Master Books (2011)
Category: Biography, General Interest, Social Issues
Reviewed by Kitty Foth-Regner
edgarsfan@aol.com
(Investigator 143, 2012 March)


These days, it can be pretty difficult to know whom to believe on any given topic. Is fluoride dangerous? Is our economy really on the mend? Do Labrador retrievers truly represent the pinnacle of canine perfection?

Fortunately, when it comes to important matters, there's pertinent advice to be found in the Bible. One tool that I find especially useful is Matthew 7:18: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That's the verse that kept popping into my head as I read Dr. Jerry Bergman's latest book – The Dark Side of Charles Darwin: A Critical Analysis of an Icon of Science.  

Was Charles Darwin good or corrupt? And what does the answer to that question tell us about the evolutionary theory that he spawned? Good or evil?

To hear the world tell it, they don't come much better than Charles Darwin. Oh, he may have been a bit neurotic, perhaps, but he was truly a genius whose only sin was destroying, through careful scientific research, all that Victorian nonsense about a Creator God. In fact, he actually set us free! Praise Charlie!

But there's a lot more to this story – and anyone interested in getting to the truth on the matter of Darwin's character, and therefore on the fruit of his life, would do well to read The Dark Side of Charles Darwin.

In this highly readable and easy-to-digest book, Dr. Bergman reports everything we need to know about Darwin and his theory. For instance, he:
•    Presents the truth about those quirky Darwinian neuroses, making the case that Charlie had not only been crippled by problems such as out-of-control anxiety disorders, but had quite possibly been a full-blown psychotic. (Dr. Bergman is eminently qualified to say so. His nine college degrees include multiple graduate degrees in Psychology and his work history includes over ten years' experience as a licensed professional clinical counselor. )

•    Describes in disturbing detail Darwin's "powerful sadistic bent" in his dealings with the animal kingdom, his passion for engaging in "wanton killing purely for the pleasure of killing," his "almost pathological drive to kill."

•    Exposes Darwinism as scientific malpractice resulting from plagiarism and faulty scholarship – and in the process explains persuasively and concisely why the creation hypothesis is far superior.
Dr. Bergman spends perhaps 80% of the book building a rock-solid case for linking the phrase "The Dark Side" with the revered name of Charles Darwin. And then he turns to examine the fruit of that dark side, including:
•    Racism. Dr. Bergman provides ample evidence that Darwinism is essentially racist. Darwin may have held to politically correct views against slavery and in support of humanitarian aid to the less fortunate, but he was personally a committed racist who believed that the "prehistoric" races hadn't advanced much beyond the level of animals.

•    Eugenics. Darwin's defenders may claim that eugenics is a perversion of Darwinism. Not so. As the quotes Dr. Bergman provides make clear, Darwin deliberately laid the foundation for the idea of improving the human species through controlled breeding. Dr. Bergman admits that Darwin's approach may have been essentially passive. But "active eugenics" is the next logical step, one that was taken to horrifying levels within 50 years of his death.

•    Sexism. Charlie didn't think much of women in general. Dr. Bergman documents this claim thoroughly, for example by showing us how Darwin exalted man's intellectual superiority, attributing it to "a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands." And here we ‘60s-era feminists blamed our oppression on century after century of patriarchal society! Turns out old 19th Century Charlie was one of the geniuses behind it.
From the viewpoint of eternity, however, Darwin's fruit is even more terrifying. "Among at least the leaders of the scientific hierarchy," Dr. Bergman writes, "he destroyed the most common basis for believing in God – the argument from design."

I suppose a case can be made that we should pity the man. As Dr. Bergman points out, he probably had to deal with suffocating guilt over having developed a theory to, in Darwin's own words, "murder God." But somehow I can't seem to muster up any sympathy for him.  After all, according to Romans 1, creation is the one proof that leaves us without excuse. Take it away – or explain it away via "oppositions of science falsely so called" – and man is left with nothing but a callused conscience, a Bible that may never be consulted, no reasoned hope for a glorious afterlife, and no fear of what might await him instead.

Charles Darwin was not a good man, so he could hardly have produced good fruit. Dr. Bergman's book makes it abundantly clear that the fruit of this "icon of science" is pure evil. I'd call The Dark Side of Charles Darwin an essential read for anyone who regularly does battle with Darwinian demons in the minds of loved ones, friends and even perfect strangers.

Kitty Foth-Regner is a freelance writer and the author of Heaven Without Her (Thomas Nelson, 2008).



DARWIN'S "DARK SIDE" NOT SO DARK

Anonymous

(Investigator 146, 2012 September)


Kitty Foth-Regner (#143) denigrates evolution and the science surrounding it by arguing that Charles Darwin was a bad "tree" and a bad tree produces rotten fruit. Foth-Regner bases her reasoning on Dr Bergman's book The Dark Side of Charles Darwin.

Is it reasonable, however, to reject scientific discovery on the basis of the scientist's behavior or beliefs apart from his work? To illustrate, consider the science of arithmetic and a teacher grading a test for Grade 1 children:

The teacher sees that Tom has written 5 + 5 = 10 and reasons "Tom misbehaved today; he was a 'bad tree' and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit; therefore Tom's arithmetic must be wrong and I'll mark it wrong." Later she grades Kiara's paper and sees Kiara wrote 5 + 5 = 8 and reasons, "Kiara was well behaved today; she was a 'good tree'; therefore 5 +5 = 8 is correct."

Sometimes scientists fabricate experimental results — in effect tell lies — and this makes their science wrong. We might use the bad tree/bad fruit comparison in such a case. But when observation and experiment is reported without deception, is checked and duplicated by numerous peers, successfully predicts future discoveries, and agrees with dozens of other sciences, it's senseless to reject it for the reason that the discoverer wasn't always ethical in his personal life. When Jesus said "A bad tree produces bad fruit" (Matthew 7) he meant that evil motives produce evil conduct — he wasn't telling us to reject discoveries based on experiment and observation.

In response to Foth-Regner's article I skimmed through two books — Charles Darwin by Gavin de Beer (1963) and Darwin (1991) by Adrian Desmond & James Moore. It seems that Darwin was more moral than most. He was too busy with research, writing, family, and ill-health to have had time for so much bad conduct that we should single him out over others as a "bad tree".

Foth-Regner's misjudgment of Darwin is based on politicians who misused his theory to justify racism and eugenics, and apparently on so-called "scientific creationism" which claims the Universe is 6000 years old.

The wrongful application of science by politicians, however, does not convert a discovery into an error just as misquoting the Bible to justify evil does not refute the correct use of the quote.

And to understand why "scientific creationism" is not science, consider another belief — one we recognize as silly — that the Fairy Queen created the world in 1850 AD. A skilled believer could defend this silly belief as follows:

1.    He could cite believers in fairies such as scientifically-trained Sir Arthur Conan Doyle creator of Sherlock Holmes, as well as people who claim to have             seen fairies.
2.    Because fairies fly he could introduce thousands of scientific articles about flight. This genuine science would effectively muddle the issue.
3.    He could claim that the world of 1850 was too complex to have come about slowly, therefore was designed and created suddenly "ex nihilo" — millions         of people popped into existence in 1850 along with memories created to be consistent with the observable world.
4.    He could introduce conspiracy theory to explain scientists' rejection of this belief.
5.    He could list our moral deficiencies and claim we are all "bad trees" producing the "bad fruit" of disbelief.

Beliefs that begin with imagination, prejudice or indoctrination — such as the Fairy Queen and 1850 — are easy to defend because there is no limit to human rationalization.

What the believer in the Fairy Queen cannot do, however, is start with science — i.e. with observation and experiment as reported in textbooks and journals — and from this establish that the Fairy Queen created the world in 1850. There's no way to start with science and establish the Fairy Queen's 1850 creation. Likewise, there is also no way to start with science and establish that a god created everything 6000 years ago. In other words "scientific creationism" is in the same category as the Fairy Queen and uses obfuscations similar to the five itemized above.

For decades I've built a case for the Bible and Christianity that starts with science. I've established a foundation of testable statements in the Bible that are scientifically confirmed. I also gave six reasons for concluding God exists (#143) and did so without getting sidetracked with "evolution versus creation".
 
Foth-Regner (citing Bergman) says Darwin "destroyed the most common basis for believing in God – the argument from design" and developed a theory to "murder God". However, we're more likely to "murder God" if we reject science since if science is wrong then the evidence for the Bible and God must be discarded. An "argument from design" for God's existence needs to find that design where everything started, and not 6000 years ago or 1850 or any other arbitrary date.





DARWIN'S DARK SIDE

(Investigator 147, 2012 November)


Anonymous' "Darwin's 'Dark Side' Not So Dark" (#146) is a good example why we should never judge a book by a book review. Of the 38 reviews published about my book, of the 4 that were negative, it is clear not one of then even read the book, Of those that were positive, all of them likely read the book.

I did not skim two books, but rather The Dark Side was the result of 30 years research and reading over 60 biographies on Darwin as well as reading Darwin himself. Before it was published, it was reviewed by several doctoral level historians who specialize in Darwin. I included almost 1,000 references in my book The Dark Side of Darwin. It was not written to disprove Darwinism but rather to probe Darwin's motivations for trying to prove evolution.

I have also published over 700 articles that document Darwinism, as defined as evolution from organic molecules to humans purely by time, the outworking of natural law, mutations and natural selection, never happened and could never have happened. The scientific evidence has proven this beyond doubt.

An example is, my review of the literature related to the common claim that very few genetic differences exist, as few as one percent between chimpanzees and humans, found that in fact significant differences exist in genomic sequence, gene regulation, regulatory genomic regions, microRNA, and gene splicing between chimpanzees and humans.

The DNA sequence differences and genetic mechanisms reported in the literature support the conclusion that significant and unbridgeable genetic differences exist between humans and chimpanzees. In short, based on human chimp genome data provided in published reports, the similarity is not more than 87%, and likely closer to 70%, or about a .9 billion base pair difference.  I found an unbridgeable chasm exists between human and chimp genomes. It is clear if we evolved, we did not evolve from chimps or any other higher ape.

Jerry Bergman




 
REGARDING DR BERGMAN

(Investigator 148, 2013 January)


My article Darwin's Dark Side Not So Dark (#146) was neither a review of Dr Bergman's book nor a judgment of his book based on a review.

It was a response to Kitty Foth-Regner (#143) and I included a reason to dismiss Young-Earth-Creationism as unscientific because she apparently supported Young-Earth-Creationism.

My agenda in Investigator is to check biblical statements by consulting mainstream journals, newspapers and books. This method reveals ever more of the Bible as accurate and reliable, but it does the opposite to "Young-Earth" beliefs.

Dr Bergman's anti-evolution articles in Investigator are helpful and I read them with interest.

Anonymous

http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/

http://ed5015.tripod.com/