[PatrickHenry]

It's a matter of semantics. Darwin's theory required the earth to be several hundred years old. That could be rephrased to say evolution predicted an earth at least that old -- the first accurate prediction based on an observed rate of change.

True. One could look at the age of the earth as either a failed objection to the theory, or as a successful prediction of the theory. Pretty good either way. The most important thing, I think, is that the theory is consistent with other fields of science. Including things learned in fields that didn't even exist at the time he developed the theory.

[ChessExpert]

Modern dogma requires that we believe in Darwin and reject racism. This may not be so easy. Consider the alternate title of The Origin of the Species:

The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

"Favoured Races"? Tut-tut. If Darwin anticipated the scientific racism of the 1920s and 1930s, perhaps this too could be considered confirmation of his theories.