In May of 2008 the British House of Commons passed a new version of its Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill. Under this new set of rules scientists working in Britain are allowed to produce embryos that are part human and part animal. Many were troubled by this possibility and expressed concern, especially about where this might lead in the future. The press of course proceeded to try to paint anyone who questioned the wisdom of such research as backward, ignorant, anti-science bigots.

Sadly these sorts of experiments are nothing new. They had been tried before, however the technology to produce human - animal hybrids had not been sufficiently developed and these experiments failed. The best known of these experiments were carried out by the Nazis. They made a number of efforts to cross apes with Jewish concentration camp victums. One of the goals of such experiments was to prove that Jews were in fact racially inferior. The theory being that, if Darwin was right and all life forms had descended through a chain of ancestors in hierarchical fashion, it would be easier to hybridize a Jew with a lower life form such as an ape because Jews were lower on the “Tree of Life” than other humans. Fortunately it is not necessary to review this disgusting, unimaginably cruel “work” here.

However the Nazis were not the only ones to attempt to cross humans and apes. When many Soviet archives were opened in the 1990’s, new light was thrown on the little known Soviet attempts to hybridize humans and animals. The most famous of these was the work of Ilia Ivanov, a biologist who specialized in hybridization. In the 1920’s Ivanov began going to Africa to collect great apes. These animals were brought back to Russia and experiments were planned to try to produce half human - half apes. At least five women actually volunteered to be inseminated with primate sperm but alas, it was not to be. After several unsuccessful experiments, the program was eventually terminated for a variety of reasons including the untimely death of “Tarzan” the orangutan who was supposed to be the prime sperm donor for the volunteers.

Here is where the spin comes in: these experiments were originally embraced by the world’s Darwinists, however Darwin’s apologists are now trying to cover up what Ivanov was really trying to prove with these experiments. The original proposal to the Soviet Academy of Sciences survives and it gives Ivanov’s reasons as to why the Soviet state should finance his experiments. The primary reason given was to prove that Darwin was correct and that humans had evolved from apes. If a human could be hybridized with an ape, it would provide powerful evidence that we were closely related biologically. It went further and stated that this would strike a blow against religion and provide the Soviets with a powerful propaganda tool. Not surprisingly The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism conducted fund raising on behalf of the project.

Arguably this leaves no doubt as to what Ivanov was out to prove. However no amount of fact dissuades Darwinists from their opinions. Despite the undisputably clear records, Ivanov’s “real motives” are considered a “mystery,” by some. This is a mystery that no doubt requires the efforts of a academic “Inspector Clouseau” to solve. So in the most recent issue of “Studies in the History of Philosophy and Science, Part C” can be found the “real reasons” for Ivanov’s experiments, and low and behold, Darwinism had almost nothing to do with it. It seems that the very absence of evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that the Politburo members were actually out to create the perfect “Socialist Man”. Ivanov’s work was in reality an experiment in “Positive Eugenics.” Given Soviet history perhaps a human - horse hybrid might have been closer to the perfect “Socialist Man” then a human - ape hybrid.

The history of Darwinism is one of ugliness and cruelty. And regrettably the ugliest and cruelest chapters probably have yet to be written.

Source:

“Beyond Eugenics: the forgotten scandal of hybridizing humans and apes”, Studies in History of Philosophy and Science, Part C: Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, vol 39, Issue 2, pp 205-210.

I would like to make a few points clear before going further. I do not oppose the idea of “evolution.” Evolution is change through time. Obviously organisms and everything else changes through time. “Darwinism” is the claim that this change is driven by the purposeless, meaningless, undirected, natural process of “Natural Selection” (Survival of the Fittest). I find the scientific evidence for this philosophical assertion unconvincing and indeed, I am far from alone in this. So the question as is not whether or not “Biological Evolution” occurs, but rather - What is the cause of this “Evolution.” Is it a purposeless, natural cause or is there an intelligence guiding this evolution?

Harry Truman was right, “History is bunk.” The more I learn the more undeniably true this statement becomes. Most “history” consists of claims crafted into a media template that fills some political or philosophical agenda. The picture that emerges is usually substantially at odds with the facts. There are few places where this has been truer than the case of Charles Darwin and the legacy of Darwinism.

Darwin’s apologists have been busy ever since the 1860’s fabricating this template. For example racism is no longer popular. Racists are today seen as evil people. Consequently, “Saint Darwin” could not possibly be a racist. Thus the title of Darwin’s most famous book has been progressively sanitized. The volume which today goes by the title “The Origin of the Species” was originally titled “On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Survival.”

First, the secondary title of the book “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Survival” was dropped. It is widely recognized though rarely admitted by scholars that Darwin’s book was initially most warmly embraced by racists of every stripe. English colonialists, slave owners, sweat shop owners, monarchists and all types of racial supremacists agreed that Darwin had indeed proven why they were superior and it was only natural that they should be at the top of the social hierarchy. Indeed Marx used it to justify European colonialism and Hitler and the Nazi’s used it as the reason for “Aryan supremacy.”

Next “by Means of Natural Selection” was dropped or down played since it has been accepted by the Neo-Darwinists that natural selection alone indeed cannot explain the origin of species. But that is another matter too vast to discuss here.

But now the Darwinists are being confronted with what may be the biggest challenge they have ever faced, the evidence that Darwin’s greatest ideas weren’t even his but were stolen from his grandfather and Alfred Wallace. In a new book called “The Darwin Conspiracy” Roy Davies (himself a former Darwin apologist) makes a detailed and compelling case showing that Darwin actually stole his major ideas from Alfred Wallace.

While the media often traces Darwin’s “discovery of natural selection” to an “ah ah” moment while observing finches in the Galapagos Islands, Darwin scholars have long recognized that their is no evidence to support this claim. His notes of the time record no awareness of this mechanism. It was not until Alfred Wallace sent Darwin a letter in 1858 describing Natural Selection that Darwin claimed that he had discovered it twenty years before but had just never gotten around to publishing it. (Some of his apologists would later claim that his “reluctance to publish” was for fear of persecution by Christians).

Davies book meticulously reviews the documents involved and makes a compelling case that Darwin in fact plagiarized Wallace’s ideas. Given the differential in their social status and connections Wallace agreed to co-publish the theory (half a loaf is better then none), which up until the 1950’s, commonly was attributed to both of them but from which Wallace’s name has been recently dropped. As it turns out Wallace had to be dropped, as his other writings are an embarrassment to Darwinists because Wallace exhibited a strong tendency toward acceptance of the idea that the evolution and natural selection observed in nature were working within some sort of Divine plan.

A joke among Chinese paleontologists is that, “In the US you can criticize the government, but you can’t criticize Darwin, in China it is the other way around”.