WorldNetDaily columnist Richard Blakley -- a fervent believer in the Big Lie about election fraud in 2020 -- has been on an anti-evolution tear of late. In his Feb. 17 column, he argued evolution can't be real because nobody has ever observed it, then argued that Charles Darwin was a racist because of the title of his book advancing the idea of natural selection:
Now, I understand that staunch evolutionist grab on to Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species," but did you know that that is not the entire title of the book? Why do they never mention the entire title?
Let's look at the title of Darwin's book and see what we can learn. Darwin's book in entitled, "On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."
Oh, so the book is really about the "preservation of favored races in the struggle for life." Surely, no one would consider this book a racist book, would they? Well, Darwin did. He is quoted as saying, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man," chapter 3, and World Book Encyclopedia 1952, p. 336)
Let me see, what else was popular in 1859 when Darwin's racist book was published? Oh yeah, now I remember. It was slavery. Darwin's book was used as a justification for slavery and has been used ever since to justify "ethnic cleansing" and Hitler's thoughts behind creating an Aryan race.
As someone who has actually studied Darwin has noted, the term "favored races" was added to the title by Darwin's publisher, John Murray, and was a synonym for variety or breed, not an explicit reference to skin color in humans. (Note Blakey's sleight of hand in skipping to a Darwin book published 12 years later to attempt to tar "The Origin of Species" as racist.)
Blakley concluded by huffing: "So if evolution is not science, why is it being taught as such? If people are taught they are simply evolved animals, why would you expect them to act different from an animal? On the other hand, if people are taught they are made in the image of God, and God has had a plan for their life since before the foundation of the world, the mindset is totally different, with much different results."
In his Feb. 24 column, Blakley began by talking about his previous column as if he had not written it, obtusely stating that "In a recent column at WND it was shown that evolution does not fit the definition of a scientific theory, nor does it even fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis." He then tried to argue that believing in evolution is heresy against religion: "Perhaps through receiving the religion of evolution, and denying the Word of God, people are also being 'willing ignorant' – concerning the heresy of evolution."
Blakley pulled the same non-atribution stunt in his March 9 column:
In recent articles published by WND, it was shown that the idea of evolution is not a "scientific theory," nor is it a "scientific hypothesis," and it is "heresy" by definition of these terms and, therefore, should not be force fit into the teachings of "Holy Writ."
Blakley didn't explain why he wouldn't tell readers he wrote those pieces and that they are opinion columns and not just "articles." Instead, his goal here was to tar evolution because it may "lead to racist beliefs and end up with racist actions," going Godwin and then some:
Vladimir Lenin, a disciple of Marx, led Soviet Russia from 1917 until 1924. Following the evolution-influenced teachings of Marx and Darwin, Lenin killed between 100,000 and 500,000 people in mass executions as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Josef Stalin studied at a theological college, but became an atheist after reading Darwin's book. Implementing Darwin's evolutionary teaching, he decided there was no basis for conscience or morals, and led the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, killing over 20 million people in ethnic cleansing.
Adolf Hitler "formed racial and social policies based upon evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and superiority of certain 'favored races' (as stated in the subtitle of Darwin's book)." Hitler is responsible for the "murder of 6 million Jews, many blacks, gypsies, and other groups deemed unfit to live."
Chairman Mao Zedong of China regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favorite authors. During the 1949 Communist takeover of China, Christians were executed at the rate of 15,000 per month, murdering approximately 60 million people. Missionaries who survived stated when the Communists took over schools, they did not teach communism, but instead, they were teaching evolution ("Creation," vol.18, no. 1, p. 9).
Blakley's source for much of this is a religious tract -- and, of course, this is nothing but guilt by association and character assassination. It also ignores the fact that Darwinism was officially rejected by the Soviet Union over the final 15 years of Stalin's rule (and its supporters purged) in favor of an offshoot promoted by Stalin-favored scientist Trofim Lysenko, whose theory was so egregiously wrong that it caused crop failures in the USSR for decades.
Blakey concluded by portraying the Columbine massacre as perpetrated by students adhering to Darwinian concepts:
Was it access to guns that was the core problem? While white supremacy is wrong, was that the core problem? Or was the core problem the taxpayer-funded, heretical, racist teaching of evolution that warped the minds of these young men, making them murderous, brute beasts who killed people they viewed as lower on the evolutionary scale?
I have an idea. If you truly want to "cancel" something that would make a positive difference for society, then "cancel" the racist, false-science, heretical, racist teaching of evolution. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Blakey didn't point out in any of Darwin's writings where he advocated for genocide.