Growing Pains Star Wages War on Darwin, Vandalizes Books

By Melissa Lafsky | September 22, 2009 4:50 pm

Forgive them, Darwin, for they know not what they do. Former child star Kirk Cameron, known for his role on the incurably bubbly ’80s sitcom Growing Pains, has announced via Youtube a plan to subvert the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. His brilliant plan? He wants to deliver 50,000 copies of an “altered version” of the book to students at dozens of U.S. universities. In other words, he wants to commit mass vandalism.

According to the Huffington Post:

Cameron explains that this “very special” edition of the “Origin of Species” will include an introduction explaining “Adolf Hitler’s undeniable connection” to the theory of evolution, and highlighting “Darwin’s racism” and “his disdain for women.” Cameron’s edition also exposes the “many hoaxes” of evolutionary theory, while presenting a “balanced view of Creationism.”

Watch the video here:

And for an excellent play-by-play response, watch this:

For more of the story, see HuffPo.

MORE ABOUT: Darwin, evolution, religion
  • Art

    I am sickened and appalled.

  • Joe Bogus

    I didn’t watch “Growing Pains”, so I’ve no idea who this moron is, but seems to me he’s committed a criminal act by mutilating a book and presenting it as the original. Perhaps each of his 50,000 copies should be inserted into any of his orifices (I’d tell you where I’d like to start, butt….).

  • Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor)

    Kirk Cameron is “very special.”

  • M Burke

    I think the blonde is worse… she’s babbling with a ankh around her neck. Seems like this blog is intent on attacking ~one~ religion.

  • Will

    Didn’t Darwin say something along the lines of “The quickest way to kill off a species is to ‘purify’ the gene pool.”?

  • MartyM

    Oh? How on earth could the blonde be worse? Kirk is propagating that bogus idea that Christianity is under attack. That 80% of the population in this country are being oppressed by the 15% atheist and agnostic population. That they are not allowed to pray in public or show signs of their religion on any public property. It’s a demonstrably false idea. Not to mention the original false idea he’s peddling.

  • Mike

    I take great pride and effort to ensure that there are no Christians in my life – or any other religious persons. Not that I don’t believe they can’t worship and do what they choose…it’s just that EVERY PERSON I have ever known, who has been religious* always, always at some point, has tried to “prove me wrong” and convince me that I am lost and in need of finding Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior. They will drop hints, say things, make comments, try to argue. I just find my life so much better without them. This also applies to anyone who has a narrow view on any topic.

    * I have not ever, for no particular reason, closely known anyone of any other religion besides christianity, so I can’t and do not speak for everyone elses experiences and beliefs and how they deal with others with different views.

    Basically, anyone, saying they are anything other than agnostic is a baffoon, because knowbody knows jack squat. Nothing can currently be proved, or disproved when it comes to the true nature of the universe, its creation, consciousness, what exists outside it, after we die, etc. Anything other than “don’t really know for sure” is based on pure ego and delusions of self importance.

  • Nim

    an ankh makes her religious?

  • Wendy

    I’m pretty sure that the woman in the video doesn’t worship ancient Egyptian gods, it’s just fashion. In fact, there are plenty of people who wear crosses for fashion, and aren’t Christian. Also, condemning Cameron’s thoroughly idiotic actions is not “attacking” a whole religion. Apparently, someone else likes to wear crosses…on their back. As for Cameron, that sounds illegal, and I don’t see him doing very well in prison.

  • Ian

    I thought this was a science blog.

  • Skwish

    It seems to me that many wacky attacks like this boil down to the simple striving for power. This guy needs to leave his mark on something, even if his mark is a destructive one. Give him what he wants, and there will be no end to it. Let him fade into obscurity. Meanwhile, the rest of us should continue the work, and not let wackys keep us from what we do.

  • Lexi

    How is this a “life or death issue”?

  • Gadfly

    Hey Mike, where’d you grow up? An enclave of extreme fundamentalists? I assure you 90% of Christians couldn’t care less what you believe. I was raised as an atheist. I found my faith at 40. It was a personal decision. No one ever tried to “drop hints, say things, make comments, try to argue”. I, for one, am glad you wouldn’t hang out with this Christian since you are evidently a closed-minded bigot.

  • Eamon

    Wow! Imagine a book that improves EXPONENTIALLY if you rip (certain) pages out of it.

  • Cain

    ZomGitzCriss has already talked about the Ankh. It was a gift from her husband.

  • Kelly

    I love the blonde. Her video is great, and she’s so right – it would be funny if it weren’t so sad!

  • Greg Fish

    I’m amazed Ray and Kirk have time to do anything besides stare at bananas in awe and write books that would make fifth grade science teachers froth at the mouth and use up a gallon of red ink to mark all the mistakes…

    Also, is it just me, or does the creationist phrase “undeniable connection” stand for “inanity that’s been debunked by anyone who sat in a legitimate science or history class for more than 15 minutes can and has debunk but I will repeat anyway because I refuse to understand what the word ‘wrong’ means?”

  • Greg Fish

    PS: I actually talked to an NCSE expert on German pseudoscience. Hitler was a bozo who had no conception of Darwin and thought that heredity was transferred by blood well after the theory of modern synthesis began to emerge and Mendel’s work was rediscovered. He knew as much about Darwin as Ray and the zombie child star he drags along with him almost everywhere he goes.

    Also, Hitler was a devout Catholic and the Vatican had to apologize numerous times for Pius XII’s lack of intestinal fortitude in excommunicating him.

  • aidan

    A bit of role reversal i must say. Didn’t it used to be that the theory of evolution wasn’t allowed to be taught! Hitler was a christian anyway so there’s just as much blame, if there is any. He needs to look up on the info in more depth i think. Saying children are not allowed to worship freely and not being exposed to the the “truth” isn’t that freedom of choice to believe in want you want to believe. I was brought up in a christian home and came to the the veiw of there not being a God in veiw on my own. Surley he can also see that the 10 commadments are the corner stone of western law. Anyone who believe’s him and his veiws are frankly just as idiotic as him,

  • James

    This whole thing of Evodelusionism is a religion. Clear and simple. There is no trail that shows any form of genus evolution. All you have is a trail, using DNA that shows a genetic stability and not much else. Every, so called, creature that “evolved” only “evolved” from the parent of the genus and all you have is a complete trail showing a genealogy and no transformation into a new genus.
    The trails all dead end with the first of the genus as you go back in time. And without DNA evidence all you have is people’s beliefs projected on fossils.
    This whole thing is mythology.

  • Swampus

    Mike, I’m sorry you’ve had such bad experience with Christians. I too have met many like the ones you describe. That said, some Christians actually try to live their lives in accordance with the teachings of Christ. I’ve found that these are usually very nice people to be around. They tend to be non-judgmental and have a genuine compassion for humanity.

    I write this as a mostly atheist who lives in the bible belt (I’m mostly atheist and sometimes pagan. It depends on how many naked women are dancing around the drum circle on that particular day).

  • Pingback: Hot chick with brains and accent refutes Creationism… and former 80’s sitcom star Kirk Cameron?()

  • MarkD

    >>This whole thing of Evodelusionism is a religion. Clear and simple. There is no trail that shows any form of genus evolution.

    Wrong, mtDNA. It’s used continuiously to relate different species and genuses and organize them into the tree of life. We can see very exacltly when the divergence from the human/chimpanzee common ancestor happened… it also happens to coincide with the fossil record, and the regular DNA evidence says the same thing…. Imagine that. Can you guess why they all say the same thing? How many cooberating sources of evidence do you need?

    Don’t forget, mtDNA evidence is accpeted in a court of law for proving ancestry.

  • Will

    James, I don’t think you are using the word genus correctly. There are over 1400 different species of fruit flies in the genus Drosophila, which can all be traced to a common ancestor by small changes in their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. About a dozen species in the genus have had their genomes fully sequenced, so it’s pretty easy to see the genetic changes that occurred during their divergence. So the DNA in a genus doesn’t show ‘genetic stability’. Perhaps you mean species.

    If you go a little farther back in time and compare the DNA of Drosophila and related genera to other Diptera, it’s also evident that all flies in the Drosophilid family radiated from a common ancestor. There isn’t any dead end. And the genetic evidence is in complete agreement with the evidence from comparative anatomy, comparative physiology and paleobiology. People’s belief in the accuracy of the evolutionary record is based entirely on the evidence. If there were any evidence to the contrary, the view of the scientists would change accordingly. But all the evidence converges on the evolutionary explanation for origin of species, genera, families, orders and all taxa.

    Readers of this blog are unlikely to be persuaded on matters of science by somebody who evidently wasn’t paying attention in their ninth grade biology class.

  • Seth

    Rock on, will!

  • John Heininger

    Argue as you will, every breeder in all of history knows there are natural boundaries beyond which lifeforms cannot reproduce, even hybrids. , These natural limits can be called anything you wish, species, kind, whatever. And any suggestion that there is an evolutionary continuum from the simple to the complex, and from one kind to another, is pure unsubstantiated hype, lacking any solid verifiable empirical basis.

    Indeed, there exists not a single uncontested example of supposed evidence for the evolutionary continuum that conclusively proves the evolutionary continuum to be an empirically established fact, allowing NO ALTERNATIVE OPTION or interpretation. By this I mean conclusive (empirical based) evidence that is NOT based on subjective presuppositions, inferences, interpretations, conjecture, assumptions, explanations, or speculations.

    By evidence, I do NOT mean disputable examples of supposed evolution being observed today, where all we have is change and variation within a particular lifeform. For example, where scientists start with a virus, finish with a virus, and never have anything but a virus in between. Or where you have bacteria in, bacteria out; lizard in, lizard out; fruit fly in, fruit fly out; dog in, dog out etc. As this can well be interpreted as adaptation and variation within a particular lifeform, and does nothing to prove the evolutionary continuum from simple to complex lifeforms.

    Dawkin’s dependent Darwinian earthly deity will not do. Natural selection is a blind and mindless deity. It is simply a biological process mechanism. It has absolutely no way of knowing where anything, or everything, is evolving to, or why. As such, this “blind watchmaker” would not have the necessary overall perspective or intelligence to evolve different life forms, at different rates, at different times, or not at all (stasis), in order to ultimately produce a finely tuned symbiotic living environment, containing finely balanced co-dependent ecosystems. That would require a truly divine perspective and effort.

    As Soren Lovtrup, a professional biologist specialising in Systematics and Developmental Biology, rightly concludes in Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

    — .

  • Sarah

    I’ve listened to Cameron on Evangelical radio stations… this is… wow. Just when I thought there was an end to the blathering- nope. It’s still spewing.

  • Generic

    John, are you being stupid on purpose?

    The change and variation we can and do witness today IS evolution. Domestication IS evolution. We can see it work in real time.

    What you are proposing is impossible, because, if you knew as much as you act like you do, you’d know that the drastic changes you demand to see are impossible to witness in a short period of time. The drastic changes you demand take millions of years.

    What the hell do you expect to see, a duck with the head of crocodile? Quit being an idiot.

  • Jason Hoskin

    RE: John

    Three Points:

    1) If the standard for accepting a theory or fact was to have an eye witness account, then we would have to set free all murderers who killed their victims in the absence of any eyewitnesses. DNA evidence, fingerprints, a murder weapon belonging to the accused – all inadmissible since they rely on mere “inferences.”

    Many scientific theories are not supported by direct eyewitness accounts. No one has ever seen an electron, a bacterium, or a virus. Our acceptance of each rest on “inferences.” However without the scientific theories that rest on on their existence, life on Earth would return to the Dark Ages that the enemies of science seek.

    I am not convinced that we don’t have examples of macro-evolution within the scope of human history. I am tempted to challenge my opponents to look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that a wolf is the same species as a Chihuahua. However reductio ad absurdum arguments are not effective against those who accept the absurd.

    This instance of speciation is one of many such described in the Origin of Species. It occurred in a few dozen or hundred generations of selective breeding by humans. Just imagine would could be accomplished over hundreds of millions of years by the much more powerful forces of natural selection. I would be interested in hearing of evidence of these barriers to speciation that you speak of, John. I recommend Richard Dawkin’s latest work – “Greatest Show on Earth” which clears up many of these issues better than I can here.

    2) All theories are disputed. There are still flat-earthers, those who dispute the heliocentric model of planetary motion, and those who deny that HIV causes AIDS. Not to mention holocaust deniers. The point is not whether or not a theory or fact is disputed. The point isn’t even the quality of the contrary “evidence” or the character of the disputants (incidentally the overwhelming majority of biologists, liberals or conservatives, theists or atheists, support the theory evolution.) The issue is whether or not the evidence supports the theory of evolution. The evidence is overwhelming and permeates all aspects of biology, and is supported by evidence from geology and physics. The theory of evolution is far far more supported than say, man-made global warming. Unlike the latter, there is not a shred of physical evidence supporting any alternate theory.

    3) John cannot imagine how evolution could produce finely tuned complex ecosystems. Therefore according to John, evolution isn’t a plausible explanation for biodiversity. This is a perfect example of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from incredulity). According to one version of this fallacy, a statement is automatically false because it has not yet been proven true. In other words, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This does not apply to this situation, since evolution is true. Therefore, John’s fallacy is one of argument from *personal* incredulity. In other words, because John personally does not understand how ecosystems arise via evolution, then evolution must be false. This is a far weaker and more fallacious position then the root fallacy! John’s claim underscores the need for the return of college courses in critical thinking now pejorative called “informal logic” to our philosophy departments. This should be a requirement for all college graduates, and should come at the expense of “multicultural” requirements, but that is matter.

    By the way, I agree that the woman in the second video is obnoxious. I could not finish the video. With friends like this, evolution needs no enemies. Let us not fight irrationality with more irrationality.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


Quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe.

See More

Collapse bottom bar