Jacket Copy

Books, authors and all things bookish

« Previous | Jacket Copy Home | Next»

Creationists to distribute Charles Darwin books for free. What's the catch?

Charles DarwinEvolutionLiving WatersOn the Origin of SpeciesRay Comfort


Evangelical Christians plan to distribute more than 100,000 free copies of Charles Darwin's seminal work on the theory of evolution, "On the Origin of Species," on college campuses this month. Are the evangelists affiliated with the religious organization Living Waters really spreading the word of Charles Darwin?

Yes -- but.

"All we want to do is present the opposing and correct view," says actor Kirk Cameron, a supporter, in a video on the website. That view, which both precedes and counters Darwin's theory in the copies of the book they will distribute, has been penned by the organization's leader, Ray Comfort. In a 50-page introduction, no less. An excerpt:

Keeping in mind that the most intelligent of human beings can’t create even a grain of sand from nothing, do you believe that the “something” that made everything was intelligent? It must have been, in order to make the flowers, the birds, the trees, the human eye, and the sun, the moon and the stars. If you believe that, then you believe there was an intelligent designer. You have just become an unscientific “knuckle-dragger” in the eyes of our learning institutions that embrace Darwinism. But you are not alone if you believe in God.

Which learning institutions may expect Living Waters representatives to show up on their campuses with boxes of the Comfort-introduction edition of "On the Origin of Species" hasn't been announced, although Living Waters described the schools as "100 of America’s top universities" in an e-mail to the Los Angeles  Times. According to the website, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort will pass out copies of the book together on Nov. 19, perhaps here in Southern California.

Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was first published 150 years ago, on Nov. 24, 1859. It begins:

When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species -- that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.

The book, having been in the public domain for quite some time, is also available for free via Project Gutenberg. With no introduction but Darwin's own.

-- Carolyn Kellogg

Photo: A Galapagos giant turtle, one of the creatures Darwin studied during his expedition on the HMS Beagle. Credit: Pablo Cozzaglio / AFP / Getty Images

Comments () | Archives (86)

The comments to this entry are closed.

More nonsense from Cameron and Comfort. Simply, they don't believe in evolution. Their book is meant to bewilder the public and seek a larger audience by wearing the veil of science to lend legitimacy to their fact deficient arguments.

They attempted to tackle evolution on their TBN network religious program, 'The Way of the Master'. It involved a chimpanzee at a dinner table engaging in things that chimps do. It would have been funny if Cameron and Comfort had not intended it to be a serious discussion of evolution. You can check it out on YouTube yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGh48yt4flI&feature=related

Why do they focus on Darwin, and not the thousands of other scientists that have spent decades researching evolution and forming the basis for all modern biology?

Why should creationists believe in evolution? They're quite obviously not beneficiaries of nature's successful efforts at self-improvement.

What I find increasing hypocritical about these creationists is how they use small portions of scientific facts to support their ridiculous claims. But reject the very same scientific facts when viewed in its entirety. It’s also interesting to note the creationists who use the bible to prove the bible, (“see it says right here in the bible…it must be true.”) The simple fact is; people have no greater importance than any other living thing. You want to know the meaning of life? Well here it is…reproduce to maintain the continuance of the species, that’s what you’re for. Whether it’s a fly, a bird, a fish or a human…. We are here to reproduce. Humanity has to step down from the pedestal it has created and come to grips with the fact we are no greater than the birds above are heads, or the worms beneath our feet and the sooner we can accept this the better of we’ll become.

what these idiots fail to understand and Darwin clearly states in the title of his work, is that this work deals with the origin of species, not the origin of life, which Darwin never touched upon and he himself professed to not knowing the answer.

And of course,creationist argue (as was first put forward with the case of the watch and watchmaker) that because something is complicated and intelligent it must have had a designer and maker and yet when a person counters with your god is presumably intelligent and complicated who made it? Then we get the nonesense about an eternal god and not being created, so their logic is flawed by their own arguement.

Thankfully, I do not live in a country where such dangerous beliefs hold sway or have any political power.

Here is a really great book that should answer any and all questions about this topic, with historical facts to back it all up:

"Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell

Read it today and put this thing to bed once and for all...

According to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, the Comfort/Cameron version of the Origin of Species has not just had Comfort's introduction added, but Darwin's introduction is removed, and key chapters at the heart of his theory have also been removed. Therefore, the creationists' argument against the most rigorous theory in science, upon which all other science, not just biology, has been based for the last 150 years is, by their own admission, so weak that they can't offer "the opposing viewpoint" without cheating by omitting the sections they have no argument for. This is the kind of thing that we got used to during the Orwellian years of the Bush administration, and I'm sure these guys are avid admirers of the Carl Rove play book, but their chicanery and obtuseness only serve to make monkeys out of them.

Ironically, Cameron and Comfort both embody one of evolution's most successful adaptations: faith. Richard Dawkins provides a wonderful explanation as to why people like this believe what they believe and why they so strongly feel the need to spread their beliefs: they are simply acting out behaviours that natural selection has bred into them. Sadly, they don't see this, and give in to these urges without thought. Much like a child will cry for almost any reason, before they learn to control their emotions. Blind faith may be the result of natural selection, but it is also childish, and must be evaluated for what it is: a remnant of our development as a species, no different than our appendix. I suggest reading The God Delusion whether you believe in god or not - it's a rare light in an increasingly dark world.

dont be too hard on cameron, the existance of god may be the only thing that explains his very momentary fame.

No matter what they do, It all comes down to:

Creation: whatever the bible says that is it! there is no need to research, to study, to analyze and to test!....how can you try to prove any creation, when you already have the conclusion: It was created by god's mind.

I wonder, if god thinks, Is it created? I hope god doesn't think bad thoughts because that would become creation in a bad way.

Let's not forget the full title of the book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." What race was the "favoured" race? Definitely not black folks.

I urge everyone to read Ray Comfort's introduction first for yourself and see if he has some valid claims. Don't just discount it because he is a Christian. See if what he says has some truth. What if Darwin WAS racist? What if he WAS sexist? What if Darwin WAS misinformed? What if there is more to this? Let's read it and find out.

Biased much ? This reads more like a clarion call to battle for evolutionists then a piece of news. All the people want is a fair hearing... to me, it sounds like a fair and honest approach to the matter. Given that evolutionary theory wrt the evolution of man has been so rampant with fraud, cronyism and political correctness, it's a breath of fresh air. Let people make up their own minds regarding this issue rather than controlling the information they are exposed to is my view. Let evolution stand on it's own rather than having it stand on bad science and a "anti-everything-else" approach...

Why do we have to take the Bible literally on creation? There are a whole slew of books in the Bible that even the evangelicals don't take literally: leviticus, deuteronomy, the song of solomon, revelation, ... Why can't we just add Genesis to the list and stop arguing?

what a pair of idiots...

As a practicing Catholic (btw - Catholics are Christian) and one who has a deep faith in God I find it sad and unfortunate when Christians create a false argument that faith in a creator (God, Allah, Brahma,etc) is inconsistent with the belief in the evolution of that creation. I believe that God was the energy/force behind the creation of everything - but I also believe that what was created evolves and modifies to environmental changes. I wish that those that post recognized that the view of creationism in this article is not the only view of creationism from a faith-based point of view.

Creationists clearly say they BELIEVE - not prove or know. E.g. I believe in God and that he created the earth and all animals and plants, and I do not believe in evolution. Prove the opposite! No-one ever observed evolution or was able to reproduce it, why shall I believe something which is just a theory? I do not have to prove my point, I believe, that's it. Same with evolution, people BELIEVE that it is right. What is the difference?

Even God did not make the Earth and its inhabitants from nothing. The correct translation of the ancient Hebrew word 'bara' that appears in Genesis does not mean create from nothing, but to fatten or fill up something that already exists. The act of creation in its original context was regarded as a process of elaboration and transformation, not dissimilar to the process modern science sees as shaping new species from old by natural selection.

What Darwin saw that no one had seen before was the process, and had he known the details at the molecular level, it might have kindled in him an even greater awe for the mystery we all call life. Neither science nor religion will ever solve this one, but both can marvel in it.

It's easy to indulge in name-calling when you don't like the other person's point of view, but what are the facts?

The "Idiots who fail to understand Darwin" include many respected scientists with impeccable credentials in the fields of paleontology, biology, micro biology, molecular biology, genetics, astronomy, physiology and a host of other relevant disciplines. See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

And while there are certainly some creationists who "use the Bible to prove the Bible", not all evolutionists use well formed logic either. The use of poor logic by some supporters - on both sides of the issue - doesn't invalidate either position.

Despite the evolutionists' incessant rhetoric, the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. Much as they would like it to be fact, it isn't. It hasn't been proven. It has to be accepted by ... well, faith.

Is the McDowell book supposed to prove how ridiculous creationist arguments are? He does a fine job if you want to believe a for-profit evangelical speaker over years of actual science and research. Historical facts, not scientific research.

Darwin's book is 150 years old. In that time, practically ALL of the basic science has been refined and verified. Meanwhile, all Creationism can come up with is "maybe it happened like this, we can't be sure it didn't".

If the best this group can to do is pick nits with Darwin's details, they're just an annoyance.

Apparently Creationists are willing to fight and die for their beliefs. While evolutionists will obviously fight to survive. Hence, giving Creationists less opportunity to pro-create. Therefore, Darwin's theory as it applies also to extinctions, applies sadly to Creationists.
Food for thought....

Does making Darwin wrong make the bible right?

During these scary times, I can see why the bible thumpers are coming in for the kill. Fear is the basis for religion.
To wonder and live in the context of not always having answers is hard enough. Accepting the very real possibility that this world is a delightful accident and when we die, that is the end- oh can you feel the fear? Most people do not have the capacity to deal with this fact or possible fact.

Why is it that Christians must know every nook and cranny about Evolution but yet, when an Evolutionist uses concept terms like, "Luck", "Possibly", "It's believable...", "There's a chance...", and other metaphysical words or phrases , then they're not held to the same scrutiny about explaining their epistemology about the immaterial or abstract? Christians don't hold Darwinian evolutionists to a high knowledge of theology. So why the other way around?

And besides, if we're just all bags of protoplasm, molecules-in-motion, then live and let live..., "Survival of the fittest". Creationists, according to the mechanism of Evolution, are just acting upon the operation of their synapses... their brains are just working naturally. To say otherwise or even say who's wrong or right would be incompatible with Naturalism.

I could be wrong but according to what, who? And to add, no matter which side you're on, we all argue in circular reasoning. At least Christians have a historical, validated source that's last through the centuries, the Bible... and not some theory or mantra postulated that's been altered over the years in order to secure funding on the latest fossil find on "Neanderthal man" when it just turned out to be the bone... of another monkey.

I am sure that even Darwin, in his wildest dreams, never expected his theory to be so successfully proved, years upon years after his death.

I find it shocking that ignorant people, even today, constantly threaten us in the age of reason. It's called the scientific method and much like the universe itself it doesn't care what you believe, but only what you see.

I agree, everyone should read "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. It is hilarious, and another nail in the coffin of the pretense of discourse that is the creationist argument. Do us all a favour and stop trying to "argue rationally" your irrational beliefs.

cRuZe said: "The simple fact is; people have no greater importance than any other living thing." So if an unknown man and your favorite pet are drowning and you could only save one, good riddens to the person? That is despicable!

Sounds like these Evangelists should really understand what they're arguing against before distributing literature en mass that asserts their flawed understanding.

I don't see it as an easy task to clearly and fully understand both one religion and one scientific philosophy, let alone multiple or generalize more than one of each. So how can we correctly argue between the two? Few people seem to be able to do so.

Where are they exactly deriving some argument between the material and the immaterial?

Presenting "On the Origin of Species" as describing the modern understanding of evolution is like handing out service manuals for Ford Model-T's claiming they describe the servicing of the Space Shuttle. It's dishonesty masquerading as openness. And the folks doing it know it.

The catch is that this is not the original "Origin of Species". IT IS, however, the re-written creationist version of it. Stealth at work, AGAIN.

Our only hope is that a new form of "Darwin-ism" is adopted by those that believe in the scientific method.

Let "technical darwinism" thin the herd.

If someone wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Fine, just sign this waiver so we don't have to recesitate you after your skull's crushed.

Want to drive without a seat belt? Fine, sign the same paperwork as that motorcyclist.

Eventually, we'll be down to those that actually have functioning grey matter between their ears. Face facts, those that chose delusion over fact are beyond reproach.

How can anyone possibly question evolution with the new N1H1 virous ;-). As for what started life, well it wasn't some guy with autocad and a good idea in the clouds. For that answer you simply have to accept we are all stardust. From there its a crap shoot, but look at how lucky we were ;-)

Sounds okay to me! What I find interesting is that many evolutionists are so bigoted in their reactions towards any opposing view.

Forget McDowell's religious propaganda. Now *here* is a book worth reading, "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," by Chris Hedges. "Debate with the radical Christian Right is useless," Hedges notes. "We cannot reach this movement. It does not want a dialogue... This movement is bent on our destruction. The attempts by many liberals to make peace would be humorous if the stakes were not so deadly. These dominionists hate the liberal, enlightened world formed by the Constitution, a world they blame for the debacle of their lives. They have one goal – its destruction."


The existence of God and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. But the Biblical concept that we have only been here a few thousand years is a myth.

Strict creationists are a fringe group amongst Christians. Most Christians don't have a problem reconciling the Bible and evolution.

Hi. I'm going to tell you what to believe happened when our universe was created. Not from any kind of scientific examination of the facts, or any in depth understanding of physics, but just yknow, cause i read this book once called 'The Bible'. And i mean, cmon. Any book thats called simply 'The Bible', well thats got to be one hell of a book, right? And it's got to be right about everything it talks about, even if its written in a kind of medieval prose/exaggerated historical record *nudge nudge wink wink*.
OH, and by the way, uh, if you don't agree with my biased opinions, you'll be going to hell. SO YOU BETTER LISTEN BUB.

Just rip out the first 50 pages with the drivel from 'banana guy' Comfort and his sidekick 'crocoduck' Cameron then you have a perfect free copy of ...On the Origin of Species...

CDS: It's not biggotry when someone is dismissed for claiming the Earth is flat. It's not biggotry when someone is dismissed for claiming the atoms don't exist becasue they can't "see" one with their own eyes. It's not biggotry when someone is dismissed for claiming the basis for all of modern medicine, biochemistry and biology is wrong. What it is, is simply rational people not allowing their time to be wasted by people who reject all evidence, logic and reason.

There is no god.

There is no evidence of god. Faith, belief, and fairy tails written by early man do not constitute fact or "truth". If you believe these things your brain is insufficiently evolved to think analytically. You are fortunate then that modern society protects your infantile intellect from extinction.

The universe came into existence, not from "nothing" as claimed by religion, but from the rapid expansion of a point singularity.

Man came into existence as the result of billions of years of spontaneous random adaptions to environmental conditions that started with the earliest organic molecules. The adaptions which favored survival were retained and replicated because the adapted organism had a higher probability of success. Extinctions are just the opposite of this process.

These processes are neither elegent or by design. They are better described as random brute force. It is like the analogy of billion monkeys typing on billion typewriters for billion years - eventually the random assembly of a shakespeare play would be output, along with a lot of meaningless nonsense.

While everyone deserves a chance to express their point of view, there is something inherently devious about the packaging of this message. People are being handed something which has been represented as the viewpoint Charles Darwin, but is reality something quite different.


The Origin of Species is an something of an institution and in that light is can be said that it bears some similarity to the original, all-time best-seller the King James Bible.

What do you suppose the reaction would be if someone were to distribute an edition of the bible including a forward which included arguments against the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible?

If the theme or central message of the work has been altered, it is deceitful to publish it under the same title. I would have no argument with this if the book were to be published as "Comfort's Views On The Origin of Species."

They're creationists! No one should take them, even a tiny bit, seriously. They should be pushed to the margins of civilised society, with all the other crazy groups, and completely ignored. What a waste.

"Bannana-Hands" Comfort and "Croco-Duck" Cameron are at it again. These guys are charlatans. Plain and simple (emphasis on the simple).

Like it or not, evolution is established fact. Attempts to use science to argue otherwise are devoid of credibility.

But that doesn't change another fact: that the truth of every word in the Bible is part of the creed of some Christian denominations. While that isn't a valid reason to teach lies to our children - by telling them that there are genuine doubts about evolution - it is a reason for biology to be taught in a culturally sensitive manner in the public school system, in order to respect the First Amendment rights of families in such denominations.

This doesn't mean "teaching the controversy" or the things they've asked for; it will come closer to patronizing them, for example by dutifully referring to the allegations of certain scientists in textbooks, as though we were dealing with a criminal case currently before the courts.

"The idea that there is a "guy in the sky" who really gives a darn about humans, the most destructive creature on the planet is , to me, the absolute height of arrogance.

Personally I don't get the whole God vs Evolution issue. In my mind, and again this is just my opinion, God was the first scientist. God making the universe in days or billions of years makes no never mind to me. I love science and I am fascinated by both evolution and string theory. I choose to believe in God, its my choice but I also am completely able to say I could be wrong. I think that if both sides in this debate could do the same thing and just agree to disagree we would all be better off.

Anyhow that's just my take. God Bless 8)

This is less a stunt to distribute On The Origin of Species and more of a stunt to distribute 50 pages of grotesque ill-logic in the vein of "If you believe 'a' then you therefore believe everything else we believe; One of us! One of us!".

It's sad that Cameron and his ilk were Left Behind when it came time for science class, but cheer up... just because you're ignorant of science doesn't mean it isn't all still very very real.

Hey, sounds good to me. School is so expensive, it's nice to get things for free every once in awhile. So you have a few pages of garbage to rip out? Still sounds like a great deal to me! :)

All six editions of Darwin's book can be accessed on Darwin Online:

I'd like to see Creationists challenging Scientologists, not scientists.

Religion is nothing but a big lie. Beleiving that a creat magicien actually invented the world from one swing of his majic wend is ridiculous.

RELIGION IS THE WHORST THING EVER INVENTED BY MAN. it need to be ban for to good of humanity

1 2 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


Explore Bestsellers Lists





Tweets and retweets from L.A. Times staff writers.