Charles Darwin recanted the Theory of Evolution on his deathbed.

This would be the ultimate comeback for any who are troubled in any way by the Theory of Evolution. What could be more damming evidence against Darwinism than the professions of Darwin himself? Well, the story that he recanted his evolutionary convictions is a dubious one.

Writes Recent-Creationist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:

“[The Darwin Recanted Story] is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked the evolutionary theory.” (Sarfati, Jonathan Refuting Evolution 2, USA: Master Books, October, 2002, p.213.)

Also Hank Hanegraaff, another staunch opponent of the Evolution Theory and Conservative Christian, agrees:

“First it should be noted that whether Darwin did or did not renounce evolution does not speak to the issue of whether evolution is true or false…James Fegan was correct in calling the Darwin legend ‘an illustration of the recklessness with which the Protestant Controversialists seek to support any cause they are advocating.’”(Hanegraaff, Hank The FACE that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998, p.124)

So in conclusion, two leading members of the Creationist Movement acknowledge that the story about Charles Darwin recanting Evolution is just that: a story.

If we came from apes then they should not still exist.

Below is an online article from the Answers in Genesis, arguably the most influential and prolific Young-Earth Creationist Organization. They acknowledge the Bible as infalible and state as part of their mission statement being that of defending it from the very first verse.

"In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this 'pussyfooting,' as he called it. He said, 'In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.'

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying “If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?”

So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (“races”) and the

evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of “letters” of new information.

Answers in Genesis article found here.