1 The Dark Side
of Charles Darwin
"Dark Side" Not So Dark
3 Darwin's Dark
4 Regarding Dr
The Dark Side of Charles
Author: Dr. Jerry Bergman
Publisher: Master Books
General Interest, Social Issues
Reviewed by Kitty
143, 2012 March)
These days, it
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?
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."
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.
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?
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
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.
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. )
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Foth-Regner is a freelance writer and the author of Heaven Without Her
(Thomas Nelson, 2008).
DARWIN'S "DARK SIDE" NOT
(Investigator 146, 2012
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.
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:
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."
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.
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".
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.
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.
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:
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
Because fairies fly he could introduce thousands
of scientific articles about flight. This genuine science would
effectively muddle the issue.
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.
He could introduce conspiracy theory to explain
scientists' rejection of this belief.
He could list our moral deficiencies and claim we
are all "bad trees" producing the "bad fruit" of disbelief.
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.
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
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".
(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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
REGARDING DR BERGMAN
(Investigator 148, 2013
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
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.
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.
Bergman's anti-evolution articles in Investigator are
helpful and I read them with interest.