Each and every evening, I make it a priority to visit Ken Ham’s absolutely appalling website, www.answersingenesis.org. It isn’t so much that I’m a masochist, but I do oftentimes find the nonsense Ham ad libs to be amusing, or even, in a very odd way, charming.

Imagine my excitement to discover his latest podcast entry, which turns out to be as much honest and enlightening as it is classic rock. In it, Ham attempts to expose evolution’s “racist roots.” He first recites a 19th century newspaper article which describes the natives of Tasmania as “a lower order of the human race.” Ham then recounts an alleged story where Charles Darwin’s grandfather dug up the grave of a Tasmanian aboriginal man to be placed on display at the Royal College of Surgeons. He thusly concludes that evolution is inherently racist. We have therefore all descended from Adam and Eve…and those who hear the podcast have therefore all gained a better understanding of the non sequitur.

Oh Ken, you’ll be the the end of us all.

Linking evolution to racism is nothing new; Creationists have used this tactic for years upon years in an effort to trivialize evolution. Despite Ham’s effort, his latest anecdote fails to make such a link.

Most skeptics have heard this all before, and it’s no longer easy to appear surprised. Anti-evolutionists such as Ken Ham seem to believe that claims of Darwin’s racism somehow refute the incontrovertible nature of evolution. Even were it the case that evolution stood on such shaky ground, it’s not necessarily true.

Yes, I wrote “necessarily,” and, to perhaps shock you even further, I wrote it in italics. What could that possibly mean? Could I actually be agreeing that Darwin was a racist?

Well, yes and no.

Before I begin this point, remind yourself that we’re talking of people born in the 1800s. Wait a few seconds, and remind yourself again of this fact. Repeat as necessary until this consideration has been stapled onto your memory. Now, continue reading.

To call Darwin a racist wouldn’t necessarily be untrue, but it would be considerably unfair. I say this because, as any rational, fair-minded historian will tell you, the vast majority of people at this time were, in fact, ill-disposed toward other races. It would therefore be entirely unjust to dismiss Darwin’s research on account of him being a product of his times. So yes, it’s true that Darwin had many reservations concerning other races, as was normal for anyone of his time period.

But Darwin was not the racist monster most creationists portray him as. Darwin may have had his prejudices, but he did not hate the other races, a fact which becomes overwhelming clear in his journal entries:

[...] a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.¹

He also had one rare, redeeming sentiment: He was adamantly opposed to slavery:

But I suppose you are all too overwhelmed with the public affairs to care for science. I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. N. America does not do England Justice: I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, & I am one, even and wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in. Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God how I should like to see the greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished.²

Does this at all seem reminiscent of another noteworthy figure opposed to slavery throughout the 19th century?

Here’s the first hint: He shares the same birth date as Darwin.

Second hint: He’s known as one of the greatest American presidents in history.

Final hint: His grave was later dug up, whereupon his beard was stolen and soon put on display on Ken Ham’s face.

Yes, I’m indeed talking about Abraham Lincoln. The man best known for freeing the slaves. The man who struggled to bring peace to a fractured nation. The man who fought for equal rights regardless of race, was himself, by certain accounts, racist.

So were Ken Ham to suggest that we must immediately reject and demonize anyone who had held racist views no matter what the period, by my understanding of phrenology, the following should cause Ham’s head to explode, releasing his chin-strap from its 57-year-long prison:

I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.³

What does this mean? Well, really, not much. Both Lincoln and Darwin did much good throughout their lives, but were still products of their time. To claim that their legacies can be annulled by flaws to their character is nonsensical. And so, despite Ham’s attempts to devalue evolution by accusing it of racism, very little changes for him. He still has the overwhelming burden of proof in arguing against evolution, which, frankly, he probably already knows. This is why, I suspect, he consistently resorts to denigrating evolution rather than attempting to concretely disprove it.

Try again, Ken.