Answers in Genesis makes a rather unsurprising pig's ear out of a book on Darwin that I have but have not yet gotten around to read:
Darwin’s Sacred Cause, by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. Among the pearls of this "analysis" we find:
... In their efforts to rescue Darwin and evolution from its obvious racist implications, Desmond and Moore have tried to paint Darwin as the kindly humanitarian scientist, only seeking to release his fellow man from the bondage of oppression and ignorance. While their efforts are laudable, in the end their argument is not convincing, failing on several counts.
First, even if Darwin did intend to strike a blow at slavery by his concept of a common origin of the races, his proposal ultimately lent more “scientific” justification to the practice than was possible before. The resulting increase in racism is well-documented. Even the late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould noted, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following acceptance of evolutionary theory.”
So Darwin should have known beforehand that people with racist attitudes would try to use his findings and conclusions as an excuse for continued racism? And based on such pre-knowledge he should have prevented this from happening exactly how?
Second, a more basic question comes to mind. If man is just an animal, just a higher form of ape, present in the accidental world as a result of blind chance, then what is wrong with slavery? Isn’t slavery just a form of selection? Isn’t slavery just the stronger surviving at the expense of the weaker?
Not so fast: this looks a lot like trying to derive an ethical/moral "ought" from an observed "is", and that's a logical fallacy (the name of which I always forget).
Third, if the abolition of slavery to be accomplished on the basis of his new scientific worldview, was indeed the great issue in Darwin’s life, why is it only now coming into focus? As mentioned, Desmond and Moore authored one of the two definitive biographies of Darwin (the other being the two volume Charles Darwin by Janet Browne). In this work (as in Browne’s volumes) Darwin’s opposition to slavery was noted on occasion (his rift with Captain FitzRoy over slavery during the Beagle voyage, for example). It was not, however, presented as the driving force that it seems to be in this new book. Even in his own autobiography, Darwin himself does not dwell significantly on this issue. If Darwin was so wrapped up in his sacred cause, why has it taken so long to discover it?
For Pete's sake! If someone writes a book about a specific theme, OF COURSE that book will emphasize that particular theme more than previous books, which were not specifically about that theme. "Discover" indeed!
The Bible shows that men were fully human, all equal in God’s eyes from the beginning of the creation. None are lesser beings or transitional precursors. The biblical view allows us to see that the origin of racism and slavery is in the hearts of sinful man. Man’s inhumanity to man has existed from the Fall; however, there is no justification for it in a biblical worldview.
No? Guess you did not read your bible, then. Try e.g. Deuteronomy 13:2-19, Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-11, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Jeremiah 51:20-26, Isaiah 13:15-18, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Romans 1:24-32, Ephesians 6:5 or 1 Timothy 6:1-2, just to name a few.
Darwin proponents will undoubtedly enjoy this book. They would welcome any opportunity to minimize or dismiss the racist implications of an evolutionary worldview. However, this alternative point of view comes at a cost. If the premise of the book is true, then Darwin is no longer the unbiased seeker of truth. If his hatred of slavery was a major driving force for Darwin, then the claim that the “facts speak for themselves” is invalid. Darwin’s interpretation of the evidence was colored by his preconceived ideas.
Here the double standard is evident. If the Bible is your starting point (your worldview) and you interpret your findings within that framework, then you are unscientific because you have a bias. However, Charles Darwin bringing his bias against slavery to the table as he “scientifically” examined the evidence seems to be perfectly acceptable here. Sounds like having your cake and eating it too.
And exactly how did Darwin MISinterpret the facts (or hide or downplay something pertinent, maybe?) due to his values? At least one example would help to make such a sweeping condemnation a little bit more interesting...
Darwin’s apologists have often suggested the Darwin was not racist and that he was only using the language of the day to describe these other ethnic groups. Somehow the “after all, everybody does it” argument seems rather shallow. It is more than a little inconsistent that he was so concerned about others and then would refer to them in these terms. One might ask: in what circumstances would you consider being called a “savage” anything less than derogatory?
What an extremely intelligent question to pose to someone living 150 years after the fact! I would call African-American people "blacks", if I still spoke the way my family did in Baltimore in the 1960s, and I that's only 50 years ago. My parents looked down on those people who spoke of "negroes", but a few decades before that had been quite OK and in general usage (read some Mark Twain to get an idea, for example). Furthermore, I would have continued to speak about "blacks" if I had not observed a change in the preferences of the American English environment. But somehow Darwin should have been "above" or ahead of the historical changes of language and capable of writing in a style that would be palatable for people 150 years later- ???
Plenty more here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... cred-cause
. And then when they come back, they can 
