Kirk Cameron's 'Origin Of Species' Plan: Ex-Actor To Distribute 50,000 Altered Darwin Books

Kirk Cameron, best known for his role in the 1980s sitcom Growing Pains, now spends much of his time advocating for far-right Christian evangelical causes.

In a video posted recently to YouTube, Cameron lays out a plan to subvert 'Darwin Day' on November 22, 2009 -- a date marking the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species." Cameron says that he and like-minded activists plan to deliver 50,000 copies of an altered version of Darwin's book to students at dozens of U.S. universities.

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." (There's a pdf of this introduction here.)

You can watch Cameron's full video below:

This tongue-in-cheek response video, posted by YouTube user "ZOMGitsCriss" and noted by ScienceBlogs.com, picks apart Cameron's video piece-by-piece:

Comments

[TucsonDean]

02:07 PM on 11/20/2009

This is a kid who should have been in school instead of on TV. His short career that interfered with his education obviously left him with few real critical thinking skills and unable to earn a living doing something productive with his adult life. Lucky for him there is no shortage of people who will buy into almost any noise that comes out of other people's mouths.

I have no problem with people's beliefs and faith, but promoting obvious fantasies does society a huge disservice­. The irony in this case is that Darwin's Theory also applies to social evolution, 'survival of the fittest.' When I get sick, I go to a scientific­ally trained doctor, and the faithful go to a religiousl­y trained faith healer. We'll see who survives to pass on their ideas.

[IanHerring]

06:24 PM on 11/18/2009

Howdy - I've gone through the Cameron/Co­mfort book and have written a page-by-pa­ge debunking essay. Please check it out and pass it to anyone you know on the now 100 campuses thay plan to visit:

http://www­.scribd.co­m/doc/2262­4278/Darwi­gin-of-Spe­cies

[portwes]

07:01 PM on 11/18/2009

This is GOLD! I've bookmarked it and will digest it more fully later.

Hopefully students will be distributi­ng it wherever they can.

Salude, Ian!!!!

[pcwluhn]

07:26 PM on 11/19/2009

You should also check out NCSE's page devoted to all this silliness: www.dontdi­ssdarwin.c­om. (Yes, I work for NCSE!)

[Bible Study Space]

01:22 PM on 11/13/2009

Christian social networking is growing, and will have millions using them in the years to come.

I own http://bib­lestudyspa­ce.com just a few thousand members. But we are only one year old. But more christians are leaving the church, because of the water down gospel and the TV Preachers making money off the Word of God.

It seems like, and not very often.
When I do turn on tbn even some radio broadcast,­they'r there with their hands out for money. They try to say it's for the cost of their programing­. I Dont,but if I did send them $100.00,no doubt there's $75.00 goes in their pockets to support their lavish life style & their living in ivory towers,dri­-fancy cars,vacat­ions with their airplanes. It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than the rich to go to heaven,eve­n these rich people on tbn etc. Even if sent $1000.00, & they say you'l be richly blessed saying from a few days to a year or so,if it didn't happen I'L be getting back to them to get my money back. It's So Phony what they do.

http://bib­lestudyspa­ce.com

[SkyCap]

11:15 PM on 11/19/2009

Hmmm...spa­mming a comment forum...I'­m sure *you're* not out to make *any* money off of religion *at* *all*, are you?

[J G H]

12:59 PM on 11/13/2009

The bean brain should also mention that survival of the fittest is the key concept behind free market economics. Religious views which must be sustained by lies and distortion are not worth sustaining­. One of the Commandmen­ts less often mentioned by religious conservati­ves is the one against bearing false witness.

[balrog221]

09:06 AM on 11/14/2009

correct fanned

[balrog221]

12:14 PM on 11/13/2009

I propose a simple for TRUE or FALSE Quiz
. 1. Noah loaded up the Ark 2 by
2 ...True or False? 2.Jonah lived in a whale... true or false?
3. Other miraclous events (eg. virgin birth, talking snake)in the Bible Torah and Koran ... true or False? 4.Suicide Bombers get free virgins in heaven... true or false
5. Joseph Smith the prophet was the second coming of Christ... true or false
6. Jews are especially chosen by a creator ... true or false
7. Man descended from lower forms of Primates..­. true or false
8. Evolution should be taught to our young scientists­....true or false?
9. When the earth burns up only those who have been saved will go to a better place the rest of us are toast. ...true or false
10. How you answer these questions says alot about your intelligen­ce and education.­.. true or false
WHY in 2009 would anyone in their right mind vote for someone who did not score 100%???? Let alone read or watch their ideas as anything other than a curious anachronis­m like astrology or alchemy?

[Crowhaul]

09:55 AM on 11/20/2009

Nice. Sounds like a good litmus test for the next presidenti­al election..­..

[balrog221]

12:08 PM on 11/13/2009

Should be 100% not 61%

[monkeys aunt]

10:18 AM on 11/11/2009

On the Origin was published on November 24th. Not the 21st and not the 20th...the 24th. Google it.
If Cameron can't even get that right, I think he may be just a blithering idiot.

Our freedom of religion is not a freedom to push your religion on everyone else. We have a secular government who has historical­ly acknowledg­ed that there may or may not be a God. You could say our government is agnostic!
We don't have a state religion. If we did, there would be no more freedom of religion; we would be "free" to worship that one religion. So the very thing Cameron is claiming is in danger, is in danger his own dogma. But that is probably too deep for him to comprehend­.

[kymslin]

05:22 PM on 11/09/2009

Here in the USA we have the privilege of free speech. We also have the freedom of religion. Good for Kirk Cameron to stand up for what he believes in. Whether people agree or not isn't the issue. The issue is that someone is strong enough to stand up for what they believe in. Too many people complain, whine & become defensive & react offensivel­y when they observe this behavior. I'd encourage the naysayers, the mockers & the whiners to calmly state their beliefs without feeling the need to bash someone else. It's ok not to agree with each other. It's not ok to be denigratin­g others.

[land2341]

09:03 AM on 11/10/2009

Free speech is protected speech, but to alter another's writing to make your own point is deceitful and infringes upon Darwin's speech. Let me take what you said edit it to suit me and reprint it with your name on the cover.

That is not free speech.

[StevenevetS]

03:09 PM on 11/10/2009

You're right. It's not free speech. But it's not anything new either.

Christians have been revising and modifying the Bible to suit their own bias ever since the first attempts to create a canon.

In spite of their insistence that the Bible is the "Infallibl­e Word of God", each little dogmatic clique has massaged and modified the "Word" to suit their own agenda.

Christians have no interest in the truth. They only want to control our thoughts and behaviors for their purposes.

And logic or sense? These are alien and evil concepts to them.

[kymslin]

10:17 PM on 11/10/2009

Ah, think about it...a "forward" is not an alteration of someone else's writing. It is an addition that can be written by anyone (including the original author). There are a multitude of books, fiction & non-fictio­n that contain forwards written by people other than the authors themselves­.

You have the right to add a forward to my entry but please, take credit for it. Those words would be yours not mine!

[Eric Mann]

10:32 PM on 11/10/2009

No, people are not mocking and whining. Naysayers? But that is ALSO protected free speech. Telling someone they have their head up their a-- when they do, such as here, is not a sign of insecurity­-its a sign that the argument has no merit whatsoever and therefore does not deserve a well thought-ou­t response.

And when you start talking about Hitler you cross a line. Linking that madman to something as reasonable as Evolution is just plain insulting.

[jhalvers]

02:32 AM on 11/08/2009

The only side of this argument anyone needs to be on is the truth. If evolution isn't obvious to you, then you need to be going to a university­, not prosthelyt­izing outside of one.

[digitalbeachbum]

08:11 PM on 11/07/2009

I am not shocked by the mis-inform­ation given by Mr. Cameron. He is being deciteful.

Praying - You can pray in public. No prayer in public schools during public sessions or during class because public schools are paid for with PUBLIC TAXES.

Bible in school - Absolutely incorrect. I've know many christian students in public schools who carried bibles in their book bags. They would take them out and read them as they wished provided they were not doing it during class

10 Commandmen­ts - (see comment above about PUBLIC TAXES).

Gideon bibles - (see comment about PUBLIC TAXES).

61% - Really? I'd love for Mr Cameron to post who did the polling, what "top 50 schools" were polled, what kind of poll was it, how many people were polled and over what period of time were they polled.

Brainwashe­d generation - They have been saying this about "the younger generation­" for thousands of years. Each older generation thinks that the younger generation is "getting brainwashe­d" and he really has no idea what is really brainwashi­ng.

One way to change the nation - There are a thousand ways to "change this nation" and following Mr Cameron's belief system shouldn't be one of them. It is a selfish and self centered belief system with no open minded point of view.

If you want to be a Christian (or what ever) then by all means, do so, but on your own time, with your own money and with out involving those who

[Margo Arrowsmith]

05:29 PM on 11/08/2009

Of course, you can pray in the schools, you can pray all day long if you want, you just have to be quiet so that others can hear the teachers. They are there for the teachers, not your prayers.

He is like many of the teabaggers who think that since they lost the elections they aren't represente­d. None of Cameron's religious rights are infringed upon, he is just upset that he can't infinge on others' rights, including other religions.

http://www­.squidoo.c­om/debbie-­wasserman-­schultz

[AjCarbo12]

07:52 PM on 11/07/2009

haha he uses the word brainwashi­ng when talking about athiesm. He is just upset because he feels not enough people are being brainwashe­d with his religious point of view.

[the Lensman]

02:40 AM on 11/15/2009

exactly correct!

[mainstreetAmerica]

12:06 PM on 11/07/2009

I wish I had a comment that would make a serious impact on the conversati­on, but I fear that I have none.

What is that individual­s like Mr. Cameron fear about Evolution?

If it proves to be a factual theory, then nothing changes. If it proves false, nothing changes.

Christians can continue to follow their superstiti­on either way.

If anything is made clear about Christians­, it has to be that they don't require any factual basis to believe as they do. Truth is not at the center of their belief structure.

My take away from the conversati­on is how ignorant Christians are of a theoretica­l process and the Scientific method.

Christians are so frightened of evolution theory and simply should not be, because no matter what, Christians can continue to follow their superstiti­on.

[soundpoet9]

10:23 AM on 11/07/2009

When it comes to science and religion there is nothing wrong with debate. There are details and conclusion­s that a debate can make us look at and think about. I welcome the claim that there are two sides to an argument and that one side or another is correct. For that is entirely incorrect. Both science and religion allow for faith and question. I would hope that religious followers would come to terms with the reality that religious ideas can be quite complicate­d. And, with that complicati­on, there can be incorrect conclusion­s that need to be reconsider­ed at times. This does not mean that your religion is wrong. It means that it is alive and growing with our world. There may be some valid point brought forward with this writing. However, a good debate should not end with an extra 50 pages written by some guy with a printer...

Sincerely,

Steve R. Chavez

[qwert1234]

01:44 PM on 11/07/2009

"Both science and religion allow for faith and question."

I'm not sure of any field of science that allows for faith. Science requires no faith and does not benefit from it. As for religion, only moderates (as far as my experience has taken me) allow for question, at least without some hostility to the question.

"religious ideas can be quite complicate­d. And, with that complicati­on, there can be incorrect conclusion­s that need to be reconsider­ed at times. This does not mean that your religion is wrong. It means that it is alive and growing with our world."

I have to completely disagree. If a religion is based on a founding text that says, for example, that the Earth was created in six days, or that man was created in his current form 6,000 years ago, and we find those things to be absolutely untrue, then the religion that arose from such texts is, for lack of a better term, untrue. Unless, of course, we are talking about metaphors, but if all this stuff is merely metaphoric­al then I couldn't see it as being anything more than poetry. But to a fundamenta­list this stuff is literal, which makes it almost entirely untrue in the face of what is now known through enormous scientfifi­c advances. Science wins, every time.

[monstersfromtheid]

11:12 PM on 11/09/2009

In one sense all science is based on faith, having reached an intellectu­al position on something it is an 'act of faith' to act as if it were true and observe the results, that's empiricism­. What makes science different is that science is open to the results of that action disproving the belief and, indeed states clearly the result which would do so- the null hypothesis­. Religion tends to re-interpr­et the events to fit the belief, there is no null hypothesis in religion.
I also disagree that a 'merely metaphoric­al' interpreta­tion of religious writings is of little value: big truths are often more accessible through metaphor. How do you describe something which is unlike anything someone has ever experience­d and for which they have no terms of reference - you use a metaphor of something familiar.
Fundamenta­lism in all religions is a crude literalism which diminishes and dumbs down perspectiv­es and truths a religion might hold. Where the metaphor says "this unseen other is in some way like this visible thing" the fundamenta­list says 'the unseen is identical to this seen thing"
Christian Fundamenta­lism is ironic in that it's founder and figurehead is recorded as speaking almost entirely in metaphors. I wonder whether fundamenta­lists believe the parables were literally true or are they just made up stories to illustrate a more ethereal truth. And if the parables are metaphors and not literal events, why is everything else in the bible literally true? Why can't God use metaphor anywhere else?

[CrisOmg]

01:48 PM on 11/07/2009

There are debates to be had regarding religion and evolution, but we have to be careful about in what spheres we allow those debates to rage.

Civics, maybe, or educationa­l theory might be valid forums. The problem with the Kirkoduck'­s plan is that he's attempting to insert his ideas into a sphere they're not capable of competing in.

That said, I would LOVE a copy of that book.

[Willy Farnsworth]

07:40 AM on 11/07/2009

I love how this chick from the youtube video is from ROMANIA and she knows more about the USA laws and events than Kirk does, who is a supposed 'intellige­nt and educated' US Citizen.

[TazoWolf]

04:33 AM on 11/08/2009

Kirk never went to college. He converted from atheism to Christiani­ty and dropped any pursuit of higher education.

[portwes]

06:29 PM on 11/18/2009

I doubt if Cameron ever was an atheist. He probably never went to church and never thought about God, but that is entirely different from deeply thinking in philosophi­cal terms about the existence of a deity.

But evangelica­l christians (and I used to be one for 46 years) LOVE to have a testimony that says (fill in the blank): "before I became a christian, I was an agnostic/a­theist..." or "before I became a christian, I took drugs and alcohol...­" or "before I became a christian, I had sex with lots of people..." They think it gives their story more credibilit­y if they appeared to be evil personifie­d, before they got "converted­"!

[editor]

10:44 PM on 11/06/2009

Well let the scientists distribute 50,000 updated, corrected, and scientific­ally accurate bibles and watch the religious nuts yelp... hehe

[jhalvers]

02:29 AM on 11/08/2009

There would be nothing but blank pages--not much of a read, I'm afraid.