In "The Darwin Myth", author Benjamin Wiker offers a critical analysis of Darwin's theories as well as the social, scientific, and religious implications of his work, leading us to the inevitable truth about Darwin's powerful - yet ultimately poisonous - legacy. Scientists often challenge conventional wisdom and spark debates that last for generations. But no scientist has fuelled more debate than Charles Darwin. To some he is the revolutionary 'father' of evolution. To others he is the perverse 'originator' of modern eugenics. And in "The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin", author Benjamin Wiker brings these conflicting identities to light. He offers a critical examination of Darwin's theories as well as the scientific, social, and religious implications of his life and work. In "The Darwin Myth", Wiker reveals: How Darwin's theories were originally met by scepticism and criticism - much of which he couldn't refute and are still valid today; why Darwin didn't 'discover' evolution; and how science itself suggests God created the universe. Laying out the evidence and sound scientific arguments, Wiker illuminates the inevitable truth about Darwin's powerful - yet ultimately poisonous - legacy.
The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse the best books of summer including blockbusters, beach reads, and editors' picks in our Summer Reading Store. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
Ben Wiker's brilliant biography of Charles Darwin sheds more light on the contrast between Darwin the kindly man and the chilling logic of his theory than anything I have read. I highly recommend it.--Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of law emeritus University of California, Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial
Benjamin Wiker's compelling account of the life of Darwin treats its subject as too few biographers do--not as an icon, not as a devil, but as a man. Very highly recommended.--Michael Behe, Ph.D. author of Darwin's Black Box
Ben Wiker brilliantly demonstrates that Darwinism (which is not the same as 'evolution') is atheism masquerading as science. And like its intellectual cousin, Marxism, Darwinism has deeply corrupted our civilization.--Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Books about Charles Darwin and his theory too often they try to make Darwin into a secular saint, unworthy of criticism, or else they try to demonize him. Wiker avoids these extremes. All readers, regardless of their views on biological evolution, will have much to learn about the man and his ideas from this important biography on the bicentennial of Darwin's birth.--Guillermo Gonzalez, associate professor of physics, Grove City College, and co-author of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery
Being myself one who has been both a hard-headed atheist evolutionary and a Bible-thumping creationist it is truly a joyous relief to finally have such a clear, brilliant, and balanced presentation of Charles Darwin's life, beliefs, and motives. Cutting away the myths from both sides, Dr. Wiker enables us to finally see the man for who and what he really was. A must read, and on top of this, a thoroughly good read.--Marcus Grodi, host of EWTN's The Journey Home --. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Benjamin Wiker's compelling account of the life of Darwin treats its subject as too few biographers do--not as an icon, not as a devil, but as a man. Very highly recommended.--Michael Behe, Ph.D. author of Darwin's Black Box
Ben Wiker brilliantly demonstrates that Darwinism (which is not the same as 'evolution') is atheism masquerading as science. And like its intellectual cousin, Marxism, Darwinism has deeply corrupted our civilization.--Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Books about Charles Darwin and his theory too often they try to make Darwin into a secular saint, unworthy of criticism, or else they try to demonize him. Wiker avoids these extremes. All readers, regardless of their views on biological evolution, will have much to learn about the man and his ideas from this important biography on the bicentennial of Darwin's birth.--Guillermo Gonzalez, associate professor of physics, Grove City College, and co-author of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery
Being myself one who has been both a hard-headed atheist evolutionary and a Bible-thumping creationist it is truly a joyous relief to finally have such a clear, brilliant, and balanced presentation of Charles Darwin's life, beliefs, and motives. Cutting away the myths from both sides, Dr. Wiker enables us to finally see the man for who and what he really was. A must read, and on top of this, a thoroughly good read.--Marcus Grodi, host of EWTN's The Journey Home --. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From the Inside Flap
The Man Behind the Myth
In the 150 years since the publication of Origin of Species, Charles Darwin's reputation has wavered between two extremes--secular saint or heretic. But the truth is much more complicated than that. While he was by all accounts a kind and virtuous man, Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection has been one of the most destructive ideas in history.
So who is Charles Darwin? What did he really believe--and what did his research really prove? In The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, Benjamin Wiker cuts through the myths and misconceptions and sets the record straight.Taking a "warts and all" approach, Wiker offers a critical examination of Darwin's theories as well as the scientific, social, and religious implications of his life and work.
In The Darwin Myth, Wiker reveals:
* Why Darwin didn't "discover" evolution
* How Darwin set out to create a godless version of evolution
* Why many of his best friends and allies criticized Darwin's theory, and how he never refuted their objections
* How "social Darwinism" is not a misapplication of Darwinism, but is Darwinism
* Why Darwin's theory supported natural slavery, an institution he abhorred
* How much of what we know about Darwin comes from his Autobiography--which at key points is downright misleading
* How Darwin helped make ideological atheism the battle cry of science
Instructive and illuminating, The Darwin Myth casts aside Darwinism's politically correct veneer and offers a critical, scientific analysis of Darwin's life and his history-changing theory.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Benjamin Wiker is a full-time writer, husband of one wife, and father of seven children. He has a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, an M.A. in Religion from Vanderbilt University, and a B.A. in Political Philosophy from Furman University. He has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), Thomas Aquinas College, and Franciscan University. He is now a full-time writer and speaker.
Benjamin Wiker's website is www.benjaminwiker.com.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
91 of 135 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Biographies of Darwin tend to either demonize the man or present him as a secular saint. Benjamin Wiker, a Catholic theologian and member of the Discovery Institute, tries to present in this slim volume a biography of Darwin that at once affirms the man while at the same time criticizes the theory. It is an admirable attempt, but in the final analysis it falls a little short. Nonetheless, the book is by no means as hostile to Darwin as the subtitle implies.
Darwin the man was much as he portrayed himself to be: humble, caring, a devoted father, and a devout Whig with liberal political sympathies. Unwilling to live as a wealthy gentleman, unable to work as a doctor, and ultimately bored by the prospect of becoming a clergyman, Darwin "found" himself as a naturalist. One of the many little "lies" that he told in his autobiography was that he was hired as a naturalist for his famous voyage on the Beagle: in fact he was a gentleman companion on the trip, but such stretching of the truth is common in an autobiography. It is certainly true that Darwin was a celebrated scientist by the end of the trip, thanks in no small part to his natural theology teachers John Henslow and Adam Sedgwick.
But Darwin did promote one myth about himself that this little biography correctly notes. His famous theory was not a result of a careful examination of the scientific evidence. Rather, the theory came before the facts, and Darwin's argument for "natural" selection was a deliberate attempt to exclude the divine from the natural world altogether. Of course, the whig theory of history now paints Darwin as the sober scientist, and his opponents like Wilberforce as committed defenders of biblical inerrancy, but this simplified view of history is only held by protagonists in a cultural debate. The reality is that even Darwin's friends and supporters often felt natural selection was inadequate to account for the facts of evolution, and the "Whig" theory of history (scientific progress displaces superstition) was as much a cause of Darwin's theory as it was an explanation for its success.
All of this is moderately interesting, and for the most part rather well documented in the historical record. But the subtitle misleads readers. The problem is not that Darwin might have told some lies: most of us do for one purpose or another. The problem is that Darwin probably did not recognize what he said as lying. He believed in his grandfather's theory of "transmutations;" he believed (not exaggerated) the originality of his own contributions, and he believed that his science displaced God, even if he allowed Asa Gray to popularize his theory with a theological pastiche. The reason Darwin believed all this was that he was a man of his age. He accepted Malthus, just as many intellectuals have since, and on even less evidence. He was a third generation skeptic among a 19th century party that viewed religion as superstition, albeit appropriate for the lower classes and women. And despite his aversion to slavery, his acceptance of class and race distinctions made it all too easy for Darwin to see in humanity proof of evolution and to classify people as lower and higher.
What this book really does then is not expose Darwin's "lies"--there were none. It simply shows he was a man of his age. Indeed, Wiker correctly notes that a theory of evolution would almost certainly have arisen even if Darwin had died before completing his manuscript. But what Wiker glosses over is that Darwin's theory is intellectually dependent on more than just Whig philosophy, Lyell's geology, and Malthus. It was also dependent on a particular trend in Anglican theology which tried to distance God from the evils of this world. This trend is what made Darwin so acceptable to so many who did not share his skepticism. In short, Darwin's skepticism and the naturalist philosophy he tied to his science are bound firmly with a particular view of theology. Indeed, it is a type of theology which is still popular today and this explains why Darwin's ideas, unlike say Marx and Freud, have not fallen by the wayside. In the final analysis, what makes this a nice little book is that it correctly shows that science is a human enterprise and does not occur in a cultural vacuum. It is a lesson well worth remembering.
Darwin the man was much as he portrayed himself to be: humble, caring, a devoted father, and a devout Whig with liberal political sympathies. Unwilling to live as a wealthy gentleman, unable to work as a doctor, and ultimately bored by the prospect of becoming a clergyman, Darwin "found" himself as a naturalist. One of the many little "lies" that he told in his autobiography was that he was hired as a naturalist for his famous voyage on the Beagle: in fact he was a gentleman companion on the trip, but such stretching of the truth is common in an autobiography. It is certainly true that Darwin was a celebrated scientist by the end of the trip, thanks in no small part to his natural theology teachers John Henslow and Adam Sedgwick.
But Darwin did promote one myth about himself that this little biography correctly notes. His famous theory was not a result of a careful examination of the scientific evidence. Rather, the theory came before the facts, and Darwin's argument for "natural" selection was a deliberate attempt to exclude the divine from the natural world altogether. Of course, the whig theory of history now paints Darwin as the sober scientist, and his opponents like Wilberforce as committed defenders of biblical inerrancy, but this simplified view of history is only held by protagonists in a cultural debate. The reality is that even Darwin's friends and supporters often felt natural selection was inadequate to account for the facts of evolution, and the "Whig" theory of history (scientific progress displaces superstition) was as much a cause of Darwin's theory as it was an explanation for its success.
All of this is moderately interesting, and for the most part rather well documented in the historical record. But the subtitle misleads readers. The problem is not that Darwin might have told some lies: most of us do for one purpose or another. The problem is that Darwin probably did not recognize what he said as lying. He believed in his grandfather's theory of "transmutations;" he believed (not exaggerated) the originality of his own contributions, and he believed that his science displaced God, even if he allowed Asa Gray to popularize his theory with a theological pastiche. The reason Darwin believed all this was that he was a man of his age. He accepted Malthus, just as many intellectuals have since, and on even less evidence. He was a third generation skeptic among a 19th century party that viewed religion as superstition, albeit appropriate for the lower classes and women. And despite his aversion to slavery, his acceptance of class and race distinctions made it all too easy for Darwin to see in humanity proof of evolution and to classify people as lower and higher.
What this book really does then is not expose Darwin's "lies"--there were none. It simply shows he was a man of his age. Indeed, Wiker correctly notes that a theory of evolution would almost certainly have arisen even if Darwin had died before completing his manuscript. But what Wiker glosses over is that Darwin's theory is intellectually dependent on more than just Whig philosophy, Lyell's geology, and Malthus. It was also dependent on a particular trend in Anglican theology which tried to distance God from the evils of this world. This trend is what made Darwin so acceptable to so many who did not share his skepticism. In short, Darwin's skepticism and the naturalist philosophy he tied to his science are bound firmly with a particular view of theology. Indeed, it is a type of theology which is still popular today and this explains why Darwin's ideas, unlike say Marx and Freud, have not fallen by the wayside. In the final analysis, what makes this a nice little book is that it correctly shows that science is a human enterprise and does not occur in a cultural vacuum. It is a lesson well worth remembering.
83 of 125 people found the following review helpful
By Keith
Format:Hardcover
The book's underlying argument: because science prescribes to methodological naturalism, Darwin, by following this methodology, proposed the theory of natural selection thereby leaving God out. "That evolution must be godless to be scientific is the Darwin Myth, so profoundly misleading that it must be called a great lie,..." (pxi) According to the author then, this myth has supposedly distorted our understanding of the scientific evidence and the debates surrounding evolution (but not any scientific debates). So the author's core complaint here is with methodological naturalism generally, and Darwin's adherence to it in formulating the theory of natural selection.
Simply stated, methodological naturalism mandates that hypotheses or the causes behind phenomena are to be explained using only natural processes. Supernatural or theistic explanations are not admitted at the outset. It's not that scientists don't believe there is a God; it's just that introducing 'Him' into the explanatory process is irrelevant. The reason for this is that methodological naturalism has been enormously successful in providing explanations, in furthering research and in providing practical engineering applications for example. Science, per definitionem *is* methodological naturalism.
Even though science arose out of disciplines more mystical in nature (as in alchemy becoming chemistry for instance), the superstitious side sent countless individuals down nonproductive alleys and dead ends. Supernatural explanations (if there is such a thing) are unproductive. They really don't explain anything. In spite of there always being some things currently deemed supernatural or inexplicable, they may or may not be explained in the future as some unusual natural phenomena. But it doesn't follow that because science doesn't currently have an answer, that the explanation *must* resort to a supernatural one.
Additionally, the idea that a supreme being created everything or intervened is not the only supernatural hypothesis one could propose. The list could be endless: from lesser gods to evil spirits, demons, Satan, goblins, mind control, psychic energy, aliens? etc. How would one eliminate the panoply of possibilities? How would one, by empirical means determine whether a particular event is the work of God or Satan for example?
The author complains about the Origin's 4th edition containing a reference to the creator as being merely a sop--a concession to appease the religious--but it actually shows that it makes no difference to Darwin's basic argument whether a creator is added in or not. Darwin is just saying that once life got started, it diversified via the process of natural selection without *any* interference from God. He doesn't really discuss the origin of life from non-life (abiogenesis). This point is continually lost on creationists discussing origins or Darwin or evolution.
A reasonable job is done in providing a biographical portrait of Darwin and the genesis of his theory. We are told that we're going to get a more honest rendering; one that is without the usual heroic Whig history that usually issues from other Darwin biographers (who are Darwinists no doubt). He gives us the 'straight goods' on some items in Darwin's autobiography. One has to wonder how these biographers get it so wrong whereas this Discovery Institute senior is giving us a truer, nonpartisan? account. But Whig science history is appropriate here as Steven Weinberg comments; "What Herbert Butterfield called the Whig interpretation of history is legitimate in the history of science in a way that it is not in the history of politics or culture, because science is cumulative, and permits definite judgments of success or failure." ([...])
So one really can say whether a scientist in the past got it right or wrong. Darwin got it right.
The author examples Mivart's (a contemporary of Darwin) problems he had with Darwin's theory using the flounder's eyes example where, after being born, one eye migrates to the other side of this fish. Mivart can't see how this could possibly happen by natural selection. There's a great answer now and the author is just pointing out the old God-of-the-gaps argument here: we can't explain it so God must of done it. But note that this hasn't explained it either. Why wouldn't God just 'make' a flounder with eyes already on one side so it doesn't have to migrate to one side after it was born? Anyway, Google: Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument.
Trying to say that others previously came up with the idea of evolution and Darwin contributed nothing significant seems disparaging to his contribution and his theory. Lucretius (99-55 BC) didn't believe in new species arising from older ones. He denied that land animals evolved from aquatic ones. Species were born from the earth period. Darwin's grandfather Erasmus (who wrote Zoonomia), had no self-governing systems of how species change such as reproduction, selection, variation and inheritance. Lamarck was wrong. With Vestiges of Creation by Robert Chambers, life spontaneously generated and it was progressive in nature with (Caucasian) Man at the top. Chambers had no transitions; species just suddenly appeared in leaps. There was no discussion of adaptation and variation. If Darwin's theory was like previous ones, why did it hit like such a bombshell then? It's not simply about sales-pitching your idea or having influential friends.
Near the book's end, the tired rhetorical Hitler card is played and 'Darwinism' is indicted for the Nazi atrocities; but this is entirely irrelevant to the veracity of Darwin's theory, his place in science history and the theory's importance within evolutionary biology today. The author's implicit religious undertow here is that we need an absolute moral compass (based on the Bible and Christianity I would guess) to guide our lives. Darwinism--that godless form of natural selection--not only fails to provide one, it supposedly has undermined previous (religious) ones. It also can't explain the origin of our exalted traits such as reasoning, aesthetics or morality. So we supposedly need a more-inclusive theory that does include these: supernatural selection?
Darwin, and all of science for that matter, didn't take God out; just the miracle part was removed. It's not godless natural selection; it's miracle-free natural selection.
Simply stated, methodological naturalism mandates that hypotheses or the causes behind phenomena are to be explained using only natural processes. Supernatural or theistic explanations are not admitted at the outset. It's not that scientists don't believe there is a God; it's just that introducing 'Him' into the explanatory process is irrelevant. The reason for this is that methodological naturalism has been enormously successful in providing explanations, in furthering research and in providing practical engineering applications for example. Science, per definitionem *is* methodological naturalism.
Even though science arose out of disciplines more mystical in nature (as in alchemy becoming chemistry for instance), the superstitious side sent countless individuals down nonproductive alleys and dead ends. Supernatural explanations (if there is such a thing) are unproductive. They really don't explain anything. In spite of there always being some things currently deemed supernatural or inexplicable, they may or may not be explained in the future as some unusual natural phenomena. But it doesn't follow that because science doesn't currently have an answer, that the explanation *must* resort to a supernatural one.
Additionally, the idea that a supreme being created everything or intervened is not the only supernatural hypothesis one could propose. The list could be endless: from lesser gods to evil spirits, demons, Satan, goblins, mind control, psychic energy, aliens? etc. How would one eliminate the panoply of possibilities? How would one, by empirical means determine whether a particular event is the work of God or Satan for example?
The author complains about the Origin's 4th edition containing a reference to the creator as being merely a sop--a concession to appease the religious--but it actually shows that it makes no difference to Darwin's basic argument whether a creator is added in or not. Darwin is just saying that once life got started, it diversified via the process of natural selection without *any* interference from God. He doesn't really discuss the origin of life from non-life (abiogenesis). This point is continually lost on creationists discussing origins or Darwin or evolution.
A reasonable job is done in providing a biographical portrait of Darwin and the genesis of his theory. We are told that we're going to get a more honest rendering; one that is without the usual heroic Whig history that usually issues from other Darwin biographers (who are Darwinists no doubt). He gives us the 'straight goods' on some items in Darwin's autobiography. One has to wonder how these biographers get it so wrong whereas this Discovery Institute senior is giving us a truer, nonpartisan? account. But Whig science history is appropriate here as Steven Weinberg comments; "What Herbert Butterfield called the Whig interpretation of history is legitimate in the history of science in a way that it is not in the history of politics or culture, because science is cumulative, and permits definite judgments of success or failure." ([...])
So one really can say whether a scientist in the past got it right or wrong. Darwin got it right.
The author examples Mivart's (a contemporary of Darwin) problems he had with Darwin's theory using the flounder's eyes example where, after being born, one eye migrates to the other side of this fish. Mivart can't see how this could possibly happen by natural selection. There's a great answer now and the author is just pointing out the old God-of-the-gaps argument here: we can't explain it so God must of done it. But note that this hasn't explained it either. Why wouldn't God just 'make' a flounder with eyes already on one side so it doesn't have to migrate to one side after it was born? Anyway, Google: Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument.
Trying to say that others previously came up with the idea of evolution and Darwin contributed nothing significant seems disparaging to his contribution and his theory. Lucretius (99-55 BC) didn't believe in new species arising from older ones. He denied that land animals evolved from aquatic ones. Species were born from the earth period. Darwin's grandfather Erasmus (who wrote Zoonomia), had no self-governing systems of how species change such as reproduction, selection, variation and inheritance. Lamarck was wrong. With Vestiges of Creation by Robert Chambers, life spontaneously generated and it was progressive in nature with (Caucasian) Man at the top. Chambers had no transitions; species just suddenly appeared in leaps. There was no discussion of adaptation and variation. If Darwin's theory was like previous ones, why did it hit like such a bombshell then? It's not simply about sales-pitching your idea or having influential friends.
Near the book's end, the tired rhetorical Hitler card is played and 'Darwinism' is indicted for the Nazi atrocities; but this is entirely irrelevant to the veracity of Darwin's theory, his place in science history and the theory's importance within evolutionary biology today. The author's implicit religious undertow here is that we need an absolute moral compass (based on the Bible and Christianity I would guess) to guide our lives. Darwinism--that godless form of natural selection--not only fails to provide one, it supposedly has undermined previous (religious) ones. It also can't explain the origin of our exalted traits such as reasoning, aesthetics or morality. So we supposedly need a more-inclusive theory that does include these: supernatural selection?
Darwin, and all of science for that matter, didn't take God out; just the miracle part was removed. It's not godless natural selection; it's miracle-free natural selection.
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
By Wally Mees
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
If you've been paying any attention at all to the guild of neo-darwinism, you know it's in serious trouble. Where did stuff come from? How did it become alive? How did live critters become sentient? How did sentient beings become self-aware? None of these topics have anything to do with this book. In this book, you'll learn of Darwin's grandfather and his father - two Darwins whose ideas Charles claimed as his own on his way to making a name for himself. The hierarchy of human "races" in his view that, stunningly, left large-headed Charles himself at the top of the "evolutionary" hill - that in itself makes reading this book a delight.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
The real Darwin
All the things that schools in America don't want you to know. Just why Darwin's teachings are so dangerous and little truth in them.
Published 3 months ago by Jiles N. Carter
5.0 out of 5 stars
Prejudice
Knowing, through my own research that most of what the book says is historically accurate, I'm very glad someone published such a book. Kudos to Wiker!! Read more
Published 5 months ago by G. Hitch
5.0 out of 5 stars
The title is misleading
Despite the title, I thought the book really balanced. It is written by an evolutionist whose goal is to not discredit Darwin's theory, but just to give an accurate biography of... Read more
Published 18 months ago by John
4.0 out of 5 stars
Time to move on.
Photosynthesis (the process by which plants convert sunlight into energy) is a proven phenomenon. It is observable. It is a scientific fact. Read more
Published 19 months ago by Stephen Moser
1.0 out of 5 stars
What a disappointment
Having read, and learned from, "10 Books That Screwed Up the World, (hate that title, though), I was looking forward to this book. However, I was disappointed. Read more
Published on August 21, 2010 by L. Martin
3.0 out of 5 stars
Missing Core Christianity
The book is a nice read, but would be a great read if it reflected Christianity.
Today's "Christianity" attempts to appeal to the unbeliever by apologizing for Jesus. Read more
Today's "Christianity" attempts to appeal to the unbeliever by apologizing for Jesus. Read more
Published on July 19, 2010 by Active Reader
1.0 out of 5 stars
A sad book by a sad man
Well, Where to start.
First, why is it that everyone seems to think that writing history (I am classifying biographyas a form of history) requires na actual scientific... Read more
First, why is it that everyone seems to think that writing history (I am classifying biographyas a form of history) requires na actual scientific... Read more
Published on July 14, 2010 by S. F. J. Smeets
5.0 out of 5 stars
Better Than Expected...
Readable, charitable and cogent. The Darwin Myth is not overblown propoganda but rather sober and grace filled in its treatment of Darwin. Read more
Published on November 5, 2009 by Bobbyjon Bauman
1.0 out of 5 stars
Exciting story, but unfortunately not of the Real Charles Darwin
Wiker mostly is interested in discrediting evolutionary biology, and in this pursuit this book offers nothing new. Read more
Published on November 4, 2009 by Herbert Gintis
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Balanced VIew of One of the Nineteeth Century's Most Influential...
Coming from Regnery I thought this book would be a one-sided slam at someone they don't like. This relatively short book is very fair to Charles Darwin. Read more
Published on October 19, 2009 by Harold W. Miller
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
|
|
So You'd Like to...
|
|
