The "Origin into Schools" campaign hopes to provide readers with an opportunity to compare Darwin's work and its counterpoints on a side-by-side equal basis and free of censorship.
Resize 
Related
- Evolution does not preclude God
- Religion and science coexist in evolutionary theory
- Religious belief based on faith, theory based on fact
TOPICS: creationism, evolution, darwin
Related: Darwigin of the Species
As part of a nationwide “Origin into Schools” campaign, volunteers were on campus Wednesday to distribute 2,000 free copies of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” including a special introduction advocating a creationist counterpoint.
The books, sponsored by evangelist Ray Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron, include a 50-page introduction attempting to counter Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Campaign volunteers are visiting 100 of the country’s top universities in the nation to hand out a total of 100,000 copies, coinciding with the 150th anniversary of the book’s publication on Nov. 21.
Comfort’s introduction is written from a creationist point of view and argues that Darwin was wrong in his conclusions on evolution.
Sections claiming Darwin was an atheist and evolution is a logical precedent for Adolf Hitler’s policies of genocide have ignited nationwide controversy.
Biological theorist Richard Dawkins has recomended ripping out the 50 pages, and the Secular Student Alliance has urged protests at the dropoff points.
Volunteers declined to comment, except that the introduction was an effort to debunk evolution. They expected to receive bad reviews from some readers, particularly atheists.
Organizer Kirk Cameron, known for his role in 1980s TV show Growing Pains, stated the book incorporated “the history of evolution, a timeline of Darwin’s life, Adolf Hitler’s undeniable connection with the theory, Darwin’s racism, and his disdain for women” in a Sept. 21 video posting on his Web site LivingWaters.com.
The campaign stresses it is providing readers with an opportunity to compare Darwin’s work and its counterpoints on a side-by-side and equal basis free of censorship.
Ian Broverman, an engineer who has worked with Tech on robotic installations, wrote a lighthearted text on the Internet called “Darwigin of Species” seeking to refute Comfort’s special introduction.
“I think they have the right to promote their message, but most people have heard that message, and have made a choice,” Broverman said. “It has more of an impact on how people view religion and faith. ... It drives people away.”
Student responses were mixed, with some accepting and others refusing copies altogether. Others said they took them in an effort to be polite but did not intend to read it.
“I don’t plan on reading the book,” said Amanda Heffelfinger, a junior psychology major. “I just took it because I didn’t want to say no.”
Gordon Block contributed to this report.
Leave a comment 36 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
Don't people have anything better to do?
Reply to this Top
Speak to the organizer of this event. All comments welcome. http://www.lastwordsradio.com this Saturday night 9PM PST. Call 888-995-KKLA
Reply to this Top
Although I'm non-religious, I don't mind the free book. I appreciate the intent, and now I have 50 amusing pages to read in addition to the Origin of Species. Pretty nifty.
Reply to this Top
I am absolutely horrified. When I received my book and started to read it, at the time I didn't know who this guy was, but I preceded to tear every page out that misrepresented Charles Darwin.
Reply to this Top
You must follow the link to "Darwigin of the Species" and read that...Mr. Broverman did a fantastic job of refuting all of Mr. Comfort's nonsense.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/cms/resource/pdf/Darwigin%20of%20Species.pdf
Reply to this Top
By the way, it's 170,000 copies, I just read, not 100,000.
Rose, please, Broverman's statements somewhat emotional ranting. In "professional" papers we need to avoid emotions and opinions and focus on the facts.
Top
Religulous types don't dispute evolution in the sense that things change over time. In the past few hundred years of recorded history, we humans have grown to be taller... and don't forget how a majority of women have developed blond hair - I'm joking about the latter part! In 500 more years, perhaps we'll all just be moderately different in skin shades as the races continue to interbreed.
The prologue in the handed out book stated some factual stuff that we never heard in evolution classes, such as Richard Leakey's (a prominent paleoanthropologist) statement that humans (and other species) simply appear to have arrived 'suddenly' and that there is no proof of transition between species -- this from a prominent evolutionist.
Top
The problem is this:
1. Creationism has no hard proof. It's conjuncture based on faith in words someone has written.
2. Evolution has no hard proof (yet). It's conjuncture based partially fitting puzzle pieces, without proof of concept, essentially faith placed in the words that someone has written.
Two hundred years ago creationism was taught as truth and evolution as a terrible thing. These days [in most schools] only evolution is taught as the only truth and creationism as a terrible thing.
These days, the "theory" of evolution is taught as indisputable fact, with teachers giving little thought to the fact that it is in of itself titled as the "theory of evolution." Any debate on contrary to evolution is squashed in most universities and high schools. Again, it reminds me of hundreds of years ago when creationism dominated and suggestions otherwise were squashed.
Top
I can place the following skeletons in succession and could convince eager young minds that a mouse developed into a human: mouse -> rat -> squirrel -> cat -> dog
Why don't we debate the missing links - a rat and a squirrel cannot interbreed... so, there should be equivalent numbers of fossils of the missing-link species. DNA isn't reliable, degrading quickly. Many real-world cases exist of trying to use DNA to see if a dead person, like Billy The Kid, is a relative of a living person, and the DNA is too badly damaged in that fairly-new dead person to be used. Even in the World Trade Center aftermath, some of the body parts were unusable for DNA (?from heat?).
What of Lucy? Could such fossils not be irregularities in a species? Think of it, if you found the fossil of a midget on a dig in Africa, what might you think? Or if you found the skeletal remains of Joseph Merrick, the "Elephant Man," perhaps you'd think he was a branch in our developmental chain that was killed off by other branches in battles.
Top
What if you found 100 midgets skeletons in the south of a country, then 1000 kilometers north you found 100 2.2meter people [large basketball player sized].. Perhaps you'd surmise they were separate evolutionary developments. But, then what then if you found 100 skeletons of normal-height people situated 500 kilometers between them both? Perhaps you'd surmise that the miniature people migrated northward and eventually became very tall people. But, in fact, it's separate tribes not even interrelated.
Top
Eric, you are a a classic example of the central creationist argument - the argument from ignorance. First, people getting taller over the past few hundred years has nothing to do with evolution; it is a result of better nutrition. Also, you're idea about future skin color has nothing to do with evolution unless you can demonstrate that there is some survival advantage to being of mixed race. Richard Larkey's assertion is an outright lie. There is ample evidence of the slow evolution of humans (just Google/Wiki it). There are mountains of evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution based on science and reason. Visit talkorigins.org if you don't believe me. Evolution is a fact and you don't know what the scientific definition of theory is. Evolution is a "Theory" the way gravity is a "Theory"; scientific theories are more powerful than facts because they explain the facts. As for the rest of your rant, look up "strata layers" and "fossil dating" and you will learn that time plays an important role in evolution.
Top
Tore them out?
What did he say that was so offensive?
What false statements did he make?
What misrepresentations?
To just get mad is not mature nor logical.
He quoted some powerful statements by significant paleontologists, so what have you to say to these very people that you likely studied in school, but whose quotes you probably never saw up to this point. Perhaps it is our schools that have misrepresented these paleontologists by only telling us part of the story?
Perhaps you have committed yourself to a though process and cannot consider contradictions because you've built up so much on those premises. Guess what, the religious types are the same way.
Let go of your preconceptions and consider the that there is sometimes more to learn -- but, as with everything, consider it cautiously, do not discard what you believe, but challenge your beliefs so you know that what you believe is true.
Reply to this Top
What did Ray Comfort claim that is offensive, false, and misleading? For starters, he claims that the Nazis and the Holocaust happened because people believed in evolution. He claims that Darwin was a stanch racist. He claims that there scientific problems with the Theory of Evolution. For every paleontologist he quotes, there are 1000 who disagree with him. There are a greater proportion of historians that deny the holocaust than biologists who deny evolution. The bounds of what we can learn from the Theory of Evolution are limitless.
Top
I wonder how Christians would feel if we had the Bibles reprinted with an intro on the Big Bang Theory, and explanation on evolution, with a warning that everything thereafter is complete and total bull?
All views are available in the world. You don't need to muck up historical text with by imposing your own viewpoint. But then, that has been the Christians way throughout history. I guess we should be grateful bombs aren't attached.
Reply to this Top
Dana, that is "defamation" and "attack" is essentially what happens when religious types try to raise an issue of "creationism" -- not even of the concept of "GOD" but just that things are so complicated that it is impossible to the universe and its laws happened merely at random.
Try raising such a challenge yourself sometime as an experiment. MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE shows that most (not all) instructors retaliate aggressively when challenged, particularly if you do research papers to the contrary of their points of view.
Ever wonder why younger people tend to think very much alike? Because your instructors feed us all the same source of knowledge. Instructors have much power in that way.
Reply to this Top
Go for it, Dana! If truth is truth, then Christians have nothing to fear with science and the Bible placed side-by-side as you propose. In fact, the earliest modern scientists thought of nature and the Bible as God's two books. The idea of biblical inerrancy was carried over by the first scientists to apply to nature, where they assumed laws of nature, inviolable laws of nature, had to hold sway, in keeping with God's unchanging nature.
Reply to this Top
Dana: "Christians ... I guess we should be grateful bombs aren't attached."
Are you serious?
Please enlighten us as to these Christian bombers in the United States?
You shouldn't make statements like this without evidence.
Why do liberals have such flipped points of view? I'm assuming your heavily liberal?
I bet you are the kind to stand up and say that Muslims shouldn't be viewed with suspicion despite all the shootings and bombings in the world (it's a very small minority of Muslims and all the rest shouldn't suffer for those crazed killers).
Liberals are often so hypocritical, so interesting to observe, so emotional, so vindictive and critical, often avoiding arguing factually but rather spitting hateful words and rumors.
I don't understand why several of you are so worked up by a simple 50 page evidence-laced foreword. He did no modifications to Darwin's book itself.
Those that are offended have not stated one thing to state WHY the guy was wrong. What did he state that was wrong? So far, the comments here have just the spewing of anger.
One poster here seems to have made a correct statement, that evolution has become your faith, your religion. It is interesting to consider that there is equal willful ignorance on both sides, especially when considering the old Catholic church, or current non-westernized Islam, and also the ignorance of university professors.
Reply to this Top
Christian terrorists in the USA? How about Tim McVeigh and Cho Seung-Hui for starters. African Americans are more likely to commit crime, but it is still wrong for police to practice racial profiling (I'm hoping you understand this). Instead of interrogating all Muslim Americans, perhaps we should interrogate all people who make violent threats against innocent people. That way we can catch Christian American and the Muslim American terrorists.
I am upset about this stunt because it is an attack on science. I believe that we need to have a stronger appreciation for the scientific community if we are to have a snowball's chance in the future.
Evolution is not a religion; it is based on reason, observations, deduction, and evidence. Evolution is a fact - get over it.
Top
John F, you repeatedly stated the "Theory of Evolution" and then sate "Evolution is a fact."
Then, why is it still called a theory?
Because it isn't proven, good sir...
There is proof of minor evolution, surely, but not for making the giant leaps from primate to man (not to mention all the other claimed cross-barrier animal leaps).
Sir, there should be astounding numbers of fossils showing the progressive stages from primates up to human. There is so few skeletons that appear to fit in between our structures. If you have found 500 fossilized primate skeletons, then there should be thousands, if not millions, of skeletons showing the slow progressive changes up to modern man.
Have you considered that the very few findings of "ape like men" may be congenital defects in either ape or man, or a unique breeding of primate that died off (say an orangutan with some form of ape) - died off much like, say, pterodactyls did.
Repeatedly paleontologists state a species died off millions of years ago only to later pretend they didn't say it when a "prehistoric" fish is dredged up, alive, from the sea. Be real, there are some major holes and egos to be cast aside.
This is NOT WORTH ARGUING OVER, it is worth discussing and investigating without preconceived notions and egos.
Top
The Theory of Evolution is a fact. Just like the Theory of Heliocentrism, Atoms, and Gravity are facts. A scientific theory is not an 'unproven fact'.
We humans ARE apes, primates, and animals. This is basic biological classification. It would be statistically impossible if every single one of the thousands of pre-Homo sapien fossils we have discovered was just a deformed human or monkey. Did you now that genetically, we are closer to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to orangutans? We humans were not created in our present form, we evolved to be this way. Just take a minute out of your day at look at all the fossils of human ancestors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution_fossils
Top
JohnF,
You're contorting facts: You may as well have said Timohy McVeigh was a Republican party bomber, or a Caucasian bomber. He did not do the Oklahoma bombing BECAUSE he was a Christian terrorist, killing to make a statement to gain rights for Chrisitian or to establish a Christian ideological hold over non-Christians. He, AT TIMES, merely said that he had a belief in God and LOOSE beliefs consistant to his Catholic upbringing. He was no a practicing Christian, such as attending regularly attending church (not that that makes you a "good" Christian anyways).
McVeigh bombed because he hated the Federal government, its corruption, its stripping people of their freedoms, its not listening to the people. Everyone complains of these things, but he was, uh, crazy, like most "extremists." He felt killing innocents along with hated government employees was worthwhile to win the battle over the government.
So, "christian terrorist?" - you've totally misled readers.
Top
Eric Rudolph; he bombed abortion clinics and killed many people.
Top
Anonymous: I mentioned the abortion bombings last week.
I personally do call these abortion clinic bombings and shootings "terrorism", but their reasoning differs some from religious fanaticism.
"Abortion: there are valid fears, but much different from Islamic terrorism. Since the 70's: Christian arsons & bombings took place almost entirely when offices were empty, but some "accidental" death happened. Shootings: 4 or 5 doctors have been injured and 2 killed. These terrorist acts happened because they felt millions of babies were being destroyed, not for the progress of a Christian world.
Islamic terrorism usually pushes the spread of Islamic law."
These abortion terrorizing people feel the doctor is 'murdering' hundreds if not thousands of real "humans." They see no difference between a developing fetus that will become a baby one day and a developing
born baby that will become an adult one day.
But, this all has strayed far from the point of what was wrong in the foreword of the Origin of Species book give-away.
Top
JohnF,
Cho Seung-Hui left a note in his room with rantings AGAINST Christianity. His killings werent to bring attention to perceived Christian injustices. He said he to "die like Jesus Christ" to state he would martyr himself, to represent mistreated uncool, unsporty, low-income people.
This differs from most so-called "Muslim Terrorists" who kill primarily to further the spread of Islam. They say "God is great" upon committing murder and often their remaining family receives rewards from the Islamic community for their martyring.
D. Nouries statement implied Christians are literally killers of science-minded people. Western Christians cause almost-entirely non-violent stirs. They feel kids are force fed one point of view. Forget creationism, even contrary science is omitted. Its similar to non-Christians kids made to participate in Christmas plays or say the Pledge of Allegiance.
No one ignores recent killings in the SUPPOSED name of Christianity. Charles Manson said he was Jesus, Jim Jones said he was God, these are ultimate sins in Christianity. They did lots of anti-Christian stuff. Its crazy to consider them Christians.
Abortion: there are valid fears, but much different from Islamic terrorism. Since the 70's: Christian arsons & bombings took place almost entirely when offices were empty, but some "accidental" death happened. Shootings: 4 or 5 doctors have been injured and 2 killed. These terrorist acts happened because they felt millions of babies were being destroyed, not for the progress of a Christian world.
Islamic terrorism usually pushes the spread of Islamic law.
Reply to this Top
My dear jj,
You have entirely missed the point of my argument. You originally asserted something along the lines of how we should view all Muslims with suspicion. I pointed out that there have been mass murderers who were not Muslim. Therefore we should view all people who make violent threats against innocent people with suspicion (Islamic terrorists included). The particular motive does not matter.
Your ideas about Islamic terrorism are also misplaced. Are you aware that the majority of Islamic terrorist victim are other Muslims? Their goal is not to spread Islam but to create an absolute radical Islamist theocracy.
Top
Guess what? You have your wish check out a Latin American Bible and in the front of the Bible it gets into an elaborate explanation of the origin of life in evolutionary tense. If you wish and permit me the ISBN is Ediciones Palinas: 84-285-1044-44 and (Ed. Verbo Divino): 84-7151-456-7. These are a Catholic Bible and are written in Spanish. I dont know if you can find them in English but they do get into a evolutionary explanation on the origin of life witch I found very refreshing. So I hope this sort of thinking in the religious community will find its way into a more common ground for everyone.
Reply to this Top
"The campaign stresses it is providing readers with an opportunity to compare Darwins work and its counterpoints on a side-by-side and equal basis free of censorship."
Then why are there chapters missing?
Reply to this Top
Sean, there is nothing missing from Darwin portion. Check again. There's just the intro.
Reply to this Top
I am amazed! Do people read any book just because it's free?
Reply to this Top
He says that we believe Darwin's theory without even considering the alternative. Does he mean the "Book of exaggerations" as the alternative? With all the sensational stories aimed at driving fear into all of us of some God watching over us all? Gimme a break K.C!
Reply to this Top
You're right. God's not watching. Do whatever you want. No consequences. Ever.
Reply to this Top
Yes, you do not need to believe in a God watching over you. This is not at all what this is about. This is about the facts taught about evolution. Our instructors teach it as fact and neglect to tell us the contrary points that prominent anthropologists themselves state about fossil records and DNA. It's like they have blinders on and wish to keep us equally as ignorant. You can state it is just the same as the ignorance shown by the Catholic church when it was proposed that the Earth was not flat!
I can see some of us on this site with hands cupped over ears saying, "la la la la I cannot hear you, la la la la" and as stated several times, to just tear out the 50 page prologue this one Christian guy put in the front of the free books.
Yeah, tear it out, burn the books, protest information revealing serious flaws in our theory of evolution.. seriously, is this behavior exhibited here not the very same actions by the old church that you guys despise? It's hypocrisy on your part.
You should welcome debate.
The prologue didn't say anything cruel or vindictive. Yet, you respond with sarcastic stabbing words.
Facts, please, present facts.
What were the lies this guy put in the prologue?
Reply to this Top
Steve,
By the "alternative" I don't take him to mean a belief in the Bible, Torah, Khoran, etc.
I think he means there are major holes in the evolutionary theory and professors won't allow you to debate these holes.
Our books don't even show the converse and/or contradictory statements of renowned anthro-paleontologists. It's like our books have been created via selective data mining, they show evolutionary supportive comments from author XYZ and omit comments to the contrary from the very same author XYZ.
These religious types just don't understand why they're shut out for stating, "wow, things are so complicated, how could it all have just happened at random? There's a 'law' of the universe that makes things work, it's clear, why do we say it's random?"
The planets are hung just ever so perfectly in their harmonious orbits. Why doesn't gravity cause the universe to collapse upon itself again (maybe given trillions of years it will). Why do creatures have faulty characteristics if natural selection is true.
The observations are endless. And it all happened at random? All working in synchronous harmony.
The "big bang" -- that in of itself is a "God" -- how did the matter exist prior to the explosion? Answer, "it just was." Asked how God came to exist, answer, "He just was."
Reply to this Top
By 'alternative', he does mean those bronze age fairy tales. There are not alleged 'holes' in the Theory of Evolution, there is only the creationist argument of ignorance. Just because you don't understand it does not mean that it is false. Evolution through natural selection is not random, it is an exact and unforgiving process.
They don't have a section in biology textbooks questioning the validity of the Theory of Evolution for the same reason they don't have sections questioning the validity of the Holocaust in history textbooks.
Top
JohnF, you said there aren't "textbooks questioning the validity of the Theory of Evolution for the SAME REASON they don't have sections questioning the validity of the Holocaust in history textbooks."
Wrong. There is an ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE.
There were thousands upon thousands of witnesses and people who actually experienced the Holocaust. Some argue the Holocaust was an American conspiracy of Hollywood special effects and trouble making Jews. But when even past Nazis have talked of the exterminations, and hundreds/thousands of people of other nationalities, like Poles, talk of their experiences IN the camps, it becomes virtually impossible to deny what took place.
People haven't witnessed evolution in the leaps and bounds that span the missing fossil records that are supposed to join species.
The evolutionary trees have been modified several times - of course each time people speak of the paths as factual and inarguable and anyone who dares question otherwise is a Neanderthal at best, a Christian fool at worst...
Paleontologists and archeologists are continually debating with one another over what they believe/think took place in the stream of evolution...
They disregard stuff like a vertical tree found in the earth whose height is layered by millions of years of strata). Or like why trees in the lake by Mount St. Helens became petrified after the volcanic explosion. You may look at Texas' mini grand canyon and say it was formed in millions of years when it was formed from a flash flood.
Top
I'm coming in a bit late on this discussion, though I'm well aware of both sides.
I actually read the 50 page intro. and did not see Ray Comfort claiming that Charles Darwin was an Atheist. In fact, quite the opposite (c.f. Page 36ff). Comfort also largely let Darwin speak for himself and even brought in what many others said or even artistically drew about Darwin and his theory when he was writing.
Anyone serious about this and truth should look at what Comfort actually wrote before merely dismissing it, attacking it, or falsely reporting about it. Alas, it takes work to do this and most simply don't want to take the time to do the hard work, consider the whole picture and think.
Charles Pugh
www.vtlesssonstolearn.com
Particularly related to this see: http://www.vtlessonstolearn.com/node/132
Reply to this Top