Much is said in the blogsphere about William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, authors of Design of Life.

Many Darwinists refer to Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells as dumb. For that matter they refer to me as dumb. Let us for the sake of argument accept that characterization by the Darwinists, what does this have to say about Darwin?

Darwin by his own admission said:

I attempted mathematics [at Cambridge University ], and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps of algebra. This impatience was foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.

Charles Darwin
Autobiography (p. 58 of the 1958 Norton edition)

Early steps of algebra? Hmm, like the following was too hard for Charles Darwin:

1 + 1 = 2
multiplying both sides by x we have

1x + 1x = 2x

which reduces to

x + x = 2x

multiplying both sides by y we have

yx + yx = 2xy

dividing both sides by yx + yx we have

1 = 2xy / (yx + yx)

multiplying both sides by y we have

y = 2xy/ (x + x)

Apparently such operations were too much for Darwin’s feeble brain, but perhaps I should not make light of the fact Darwin was not well endowed with the kind of mind like that of mathematician Bill Dembski who could make such calculations in his sleep.

For that matter, Jonathan Wells, who scored 1600 on his SATs, had a BS in Physics and a PhD from Berkeley in Biology, could easily comprehend such math.

So awe inspired was Darwin with the ability of certain men to manipulate symbols algebraically, he said:

for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.

Charles Darwin
Autobiography (p. 58 of the 1958 Norton edition)

Gee, even I can execute such elemetary algebraic operations. I even did so not only with real numbers but even within modulo-2 vector spaces!

It would appear then, Darwin did not have as much brain power as Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, nor even lil’ ole me. That’s pretty pathetic.

So, I’ll kindly remind my critics that if they view me as an imbecile, by way of inference, in light of Darwin’s math skills, Darwin was an even greater imbecile. And that’s pretty pathetic if a YEC has substantially more brain power than Charles Darwin….

. . . The boy [Darwin] developed very slowly: he was given, when small, to inventing gratuitous fibs and to daydreaming;

Sir Gavin de Beer