The Evolution Hoax Exposed

by Igor Alexander

Lately, I’ve been researching the origins of atheism, secular humanism, and organized skepticism, which has naturally led me to take a closer look at the origins of evolution theory, which lies at the bottom of these movements and ideologies. I’ve started to read an interesting book called The Evolution Hoax Exposed (originally published under the title Why Colleges Breed Communists), by A. N. Field, first published in 1941 (with additional printings in 1971 and 1984).

It’s a common assumption among both White Nationalists and Christians [1] that so-called “racist” ideologies stem from a belief in natural evolution. Here we have a book arguing that to the contrary, the idea of there only being “one race — the human race” [2] is a direct consequence of the widespread acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution. From pages 77-78:

Evolution teaches the mutability of species. Modern scientific observation is becoming increasingly impressed with the great stability of species as the outstanding fact about living organisms. Darwin in concluding the Origin of Species proclaimed that there was no essential difference between varieties and species, species being all the time in process of evolution into new forms, and varieties being merely incipient new species. “We shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species,” he declared. Living organisms being nothing but a series of dissolving views with everything in transformation, Darwin laid it down that in future naturalists in labelling species would only have to decide whether any form happened to be “sufficiently important to deserve a specific name.”

This idea is in line with a notion freely advanced in intellectual quarters today: that there are no pure races of mankind, and that it therefore follows there is no difference between a white man and a negro. On these lines we had Mr. Bernard Shaw holding forth in South Africa a few years back that the uplift of that country would be brought about most quickly by the two million whites intermarrying with the seven million black inhabitants of the country.

On the Darwinian view individuals alone exist in nature, species being purely an arbitrary concept. Nevertheless, species seemed to be sufficiently real to Darwin for him to devote a book of 700 pages to trying to account for their origin. Louis Agassiz, in reviewing Darwin’s book in the American Journal of Science for July, 1860, commented on this anomaly, and asked: “If species do not exist at all, as the supporters of the transmutation theory maintain, how can they vary? and if individuals alone exist, how can the differences which may be observed among them prove the variability of species?” It does not appear that Agassiz ever got an answer to this conundrum.

According to evolutionist teaching, living things are a chance product of inorganic matter, and are being continuously pruned and moulded into new shapes by their environment. The living forms are, so to speak, mere jelly or plastic putty, struggling together for existence, in a given environment, and by natural selection attaining an endless succession of forms increasingly adapted to the environment. The environment is the determining factor, and heredity amounts to little or nothing. [3]

From page 86:

Current belief today is that the savage races of the world are in the same state civilised man is supposed to have been in a few thousand years ago, and if left alone would ultimately rise to civilised status by process of gradual “evolution.” Lord Raglan in summing up the diffusionist case in his most interesting little book, says all the evidence is in exactly the opposite direction, and that “no savage society, when left to itself, has ever made the slightest progress.” The only change that has ever been observed to take place in these isolated societies is a change for the worse.

If you want to read an anti-evolution book written from a Christian perspective that won’t insult your intelligence, The Evolution Hoax Exposed is one of the best I’ve come across. It’s well written, researched, and argued and doesn’t smack the reader over the head with quotes from the Old Testament on every other page. It’s thoughtful and nuanced but cuts straight to the point. As an agnostic, there was nothing in it that I found offensive or that made my eyes roll. The author is more concerned with debunking atheistic materialism in general than in promoting a particular religion, denomination, or cosmological dogma.

Some of the science is outdated, but that’s to be expected from a book written 70 years ago. It detracts little from the author’s central arguments. The book has shed light on issues that have been nagging at me for a while and has filled several gaps in my world-view.

Though out-of-print, copies are still available from a few online booksellers (e.g. Omni Books) and a .pdf file is available here.


[1] See, for example, Chapter 18 of the Catholic book Creation Rediscovered, by Gerard J. Keane, which argues that Darwinism was at the root of the “racism” of German National Socialism.

[2] While the idea may have come from Darwin, the actual slogan “there is no race but the human race” comes to us from jewish anthropologist Otto Klineberg. For an explanation of how American anthropology came to be dominated by loxist jews, read Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique (.pdf available here).

[3] It’s interesting to note that Gregor Johann Mendel, whose research into heredity forms the basis of modern genetic science and which, according to some, invalidated Darwin’s theory of evolution, forcing evolutionists to abandon it and come up with a revised version, was an Augustinian priest.

9 responses

  1. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Alex Linder has rightly asserted that believing that sub-Saharan blacks can be civilized is akin to believing in alchemy, i.e., that lead can be transformed into gold.

    But where does the widespread Western belief in racial alchemy come from? From Christian Universalism? Not entirely. It also comes from the theory of natural evolution, which posits that one species can morph into another in response to its environment.

    This should be obvious, and yet so many racialists and White Nationalists, consumed by a blind, nearly loxist, hatred of Christianity, don’t see it. As George Orwell said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

  2. Blacks and Whites are the same species. They are not the same people as their evolutionary pathways were different. Blacks and whites in their prehistory had different environmental pressures and different selective strategies that culminated in their being distinct groups from one another as a result of long term geographical isolation. Sub Saharan Africa and Europe being radically different environments with significant obstacles that separate them – specifically for prehistoric man.
    Environment will change blacks, their diet and the climate within the area which they inhabit will over a period of time influence the traits which are passed onto each successive generation.
    Note that this takes a long period of time to cause any real noticeable difference in a group – but it can also be short depending on the pressures that they are put under. eg. a disease that kills 99 percent of blacks. Then only 1 percent and a few of the lucky ones will survive to pass on their genes and thus they would be a distinct group from their ancestors of which the majority were lacking the trait that enabled them to survive the disease. Simple natural selection and the mutation that enabled it.

    No evolutionist believes that Blacks will change overnight into Whites. Its a laughable claim especially for anyone familiar with selective theory – or not saddled with cognitive dissonance of the leftist variety. It can happen though, over successive generations with interbreed where the black genes and then mulatto genes are diluted out with White ones. Or vise versa, whatever you want really.
    Its perfectly possible for a black person to become pretty much totally white over what- 3 generations? If their offspring choose whites solely as mates. At least their non-whiteness would most likely be unnoticeable to the naked eye.

    Evolution probably gives White people the best insight into why they SHOULDNT have anything to do with blacks, as evolution naturally creates hierarchies and highlights distinct differences and their importance in an organism and also educates a person on many of the important facts that form the basis of life on earth – solid scientific truths rather than fables – something which rationally counters the modern “Equality”…Multiracial, leftist, liberal, Marxist crap. You cannot believe in evolution and then at the same time believe that Race is only skin deep – without being brain damaged.

    Anyway, thats just my laymans opinion. I hope it made sense.

    1. Igor Alexander | Reply

      “I hope it made sense.”

      It made perfect sense, and I already understood all that. I’m just not sure I agree with it.

      My point, of course, wasn’t that blacks are a seperate species or that they could “evolve” into a different race overnight (though sudden and drastic changes are entirely within the realm of possibility if you subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). My point was that there is essentially no difference between a Darwinist claiming “chimp and human DNA is 98.5 per cent the same, therefore monkeys are our ancestors” and a neo-Bolshevist saying “humans as a species are 99.9 per cent genetically identical, therefore we should all join hands and sing kumbaya.” It’s exactly the same argument. The latter obviously came from the former.

      “You cannot believe in evolution and then at the same time believe that Race is only skin deep…”

      Yes, you can. That was the whole point of my post.

      The core idea of Darwinism is that boundaries are ephemeral, that we are but Play-Doh that is molded by our environment. How does that support the doctrines of racial nationalism?

      If all blacks need is a better diet and environment in order to “evolve,” then why shouldn’t we help them along like the communists say we should? Nature may be cruel but there’s no reason we should be, now that we’ve short-circuited nature’s laws through our high intelligence and entered into a civilized state in which we have as much control over our environment as it has over us.

      Darwinism rejects the possibility of evolution at the group level. It states that evolution can only happen at the level of the individual; Dawkins even goes so far as to say that it happens at the level of individual cells. How is that view compatible with group survival, the core idea of racial nationalism?

      But my misgivings about Darwinism aren’t entirely ideological; I have problems with the theory because I simply don’t believe it is true. Even calling it a theory is generous. It’s really more of a hypothesis, one that is contradicted by all that we know about breeding and genetics.

      Do natural selection and adaptation occur? Sure. But there is no evidence to suggest that given enough time, bears can transform into whales. That is magical thinking, as far out there as the idea of turning lead into gold or water into wine. I’ll only believe it when I see it.

      Someone will ask, “then how did we come into existence if not by evolution?” Well, I don’t have the answer, but I’m not going to accept a flawed hypothesis for lack of a better one. I would find it easier to accept that we’re an extraterrestrial’s science fair project than that any life on this planet “evolved” through the mechanisms claimed by neo-Darwinists.

      There is no logical reason for white nationalism to attach itself to Darwinism. The success of one does not depend on that of the other. If anything, Darwinism lends itself more to a “one world” ideology than to a movement which seeks to preserve global diversity like racial nationalism does.

      The only aspect of Darwinism which I can see appealing to white nationalists (or to a subgroup of them, at any rate) is that it asserts the survival of the fittest, but it’s not like we needed Darwin to tell us that life can be a struggle. All that the widespread acceptance of evolution and the application of Darwinian ideas to areas outside of biology has accomplished is to make whites more amoral, materialistic, and individualistic than they used to be. That has done at least as much damage to our race as Christian Universalism.

  3. Igor Alexander | Reply

    The following is a comment which I found posted at Richard Dawkins’s website. I didn’t cherry-pick it to support my position; it’s typical of how many, possibly most, Darwinists think.


    “[T]here is a strong and very important link between mass murder for racial and religious reasons and a lack of understanding about evolution.

    Imagine if the notion of racial superiority had been properly explored in a scientific way in post WWI Europe, with the media, information and analysis we have today, showing the degree of similarity between people at the genetic level. If the notion of racial “purity” had been investigated with DNA ?

    Further what if the notion of atheism as a force for good, uniting people, rather than the destructive influence of religions had been allowed to flourish ?

    Of course I am aware there were many other factors leading to the continuation of WWI, and this is fantasy, and a simplistic analysis, but I wonder if the rational Germans educated in evolution between the wars may have rejected National Socialism. Evolutionary biology and prominent atheism may have prevented the holocaust altogether.”

  4. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Another typical comment from a Darwinist:

    “The evidence is … conclusive. Nazism was not inspired by evolution, and indeed, much of Hitler’s own writings are creationist in tone. The Nazis destroyed evolutionary textbooks as seditious (much as modern day creationists would love to), and the Nazi view of the biosphere is wholly at variance with genuine evolutionary theory, involving fatuous views of race ‘purification’ by the establishment of monocultures that are the very antithesis of genuine evolutionary thought, which relies upon genetic diversity.”

  5. Igor Alexander | Reply

    I’d like to issue a challenge to proponents of the “eugenics and IQ charts” school of white nationalism. The challenge is to provide a rational explanation, within the framework of Darwinian evolution and eugenics, for why a white woman (let’s say she’s Dutch) should not have children with a Japanese man of high intellectual accomplishment (let’s say she has an IQ of 119 and he has an IQ of 126).

    If you believe in evolution and eugenics, then the fact is, there is no logical argument against race-mixing when the individuals are well matched. A Dutch-Japanese mongrel can perform calculus or play the piano or swing a baseball bat as well as anyone. I maintain that Darwinism and its application as eugenics have nothing to do with the struggle for racial self-preservation. If anything, Darwinian ideas weaken racial and ethnic solidarity.

  6. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Here’s a paradox I’ve been contemplating: According to Darwinism, the fittest survive. In Darwinian terms, “the fittest” means those animals which reproduce the most. Who within the white race is having the largest families? It’s the Christians. Therefore, according to the tenets of Darwinism, Christians are the fittest and it’s them and not the atheists of our race who will survive.

  7. Certainly evolution can work in reverse, when the conditions that created the highly evolved mind disappear, and unnatural guided selection favours those savages… seems lately that fetal alchohol syndrome, crack whorism and other debauchery create unplanned pregnancies… the film ‘idiocracy’ explores this quite well.

    But natural selection is the engine of evolution so when it all falls as I hope and pray it does, that the more highly intellectually, morally and spiritually evolved will once more be on an open playing field with the wretched dis-eugenic spawns which include our present day ‘elites’ and a lot of the middle classes.

  8. I think you know me, I love this 13econ1216, It’s a nice post. May be u can go this way follow us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: