• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Darwin's doubts about his theory

JesusAddicted

Active Member
Jan 10, 2017
29
7
30
Earth
✟20,325.00
Country
Moldova, Republic Of
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi! Can you please help me? Is it true that Darwin doubted about his own theory? I heard somewhere that he even rejected it before his death, but I don't know if it's true. Do you know something about this? Please add some links so I can check out the information. Thank you!
 

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,818
7,835
65
Massachusetts
✟390,983.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There's a story to that effect, but it's unlikely to be true. A woman named Lady Hope claimed that she visited Darwin near the end of his life and that he told her he'd abandoned the theory and (if I remember correctly) had converted to Christianity. His friends and family told no such story. A historian and biographer of Darwin, James Moore, wrote a small book about the Lady Hope story. (It's out of print but I have a copy at home.) His conclusion was that Lady Hope might well have visited Darwin, although he wasn't actually on his deathbed at the time, and he probably did say nice and soothing things about Christianity, but that anything else was her misinterpretation of his statements.

There's no reason at all to think that he rejected his theory, which he worked on extensively for decades. In any case, Darwin's opinion doesn't really matter. In the time since then, evolutionary biology has become the overarching framework that ties together most of biology, explaining and
predicting a vast range of data of many different kinds.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi! Can you please help me? Is it true that Darwin doubted about his own theory? I heard somewhere that he even rejected it before his death, but I don't know if it's true. Do you know something about this? Please add some links so I can check out the information. Thank you!

To make it to eternal life Christ said the only way to base your faith is only this and nothing else, not even a theory about how God created in particular --

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

The only way most any of us will get to heaven (unless they die early, while still having faith) is only by hearing Christ's words (in the gospels) and putting His words into practice in our lives.

If you do that, you'll make it. If you don't do that, your chances are very slim it would seem.

It won't matter even 0.001% which theory about how God created you guess is the right one.


 
Upvote 0

PropheticTimes

Lord Have Mercy
Site Supporter
Dec 17, 2015
955
1,315
Ohio
✟249,603.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, Darwin clearly made statements regarding doubts within his own theory -

- “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

- “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

Darwin was concerned that the lack of transitional fossils disproved the theory. He hoped that in the years to come there would be more fossil finds that would prove the theory as he stated it.
It has been about 150 years since he wrote that book, and countless more fossils have been found as people search for missing links, but the innumerable transitional forms have not been found.

More here - Charles Darwin Doubts about His Theory
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,818
7,835
65
Massachusetts
✟390,983.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
- “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
Here's a more complete quotation:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Do you think the fragment you posted conveys Darwin's thoughts on the evolution of the eye accurately? Do you think the source you took it from was being fully honest?
- “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
Do you realize that Darwin was not talking about fossils here?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
82
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,445.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Here's a more complete quotation:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Do you think the fragment you posted conveys Darwin's thoughts on the evolution of the eye accurately? Do you think the source you took it from was being fully honest?

Do you realize that Darwin was not talking about fossils here?

Thank you for debunking that egregious bit of cherry picking.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
@PropheticTimes

It looks like you had been fooled by a quote mine. Quote mining is when someone takes a small part of a larger quote in a way that makes it say the opposite of what was being said or say something other than what was being said. It's basically lying - and people fall for it, copying the original lie without knowing it's a lie. Darwin's eye passage is very often quote mined by those creationists who have no problem lying. That's why it was so easy to expose as a quote mine. The same goes for the "transitional forms" quote.

I'd be sure to thank sfs for exposing those who had lied to you, allowing you to keep from repeating their lies again, maintaining your Christian honesty and integrity, free from sin.

In Christ-

Papias
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi! Can you please help me? Is it true that Darwin doubted about his own theory? I heard somewhere that he even rejected it before his death, but I don't know if it's true. Do you know something about this? Please add some links so I can check out the information. Thank you!

Darwin knew what he saw. He didnt fully understand evolution. He made predictions that he hadnt determined were true (and would not be determined true until later in time). He had questions that he could not answer for himself.

I wouldnt say that he doubted his theory, otherwise he wouldnt have written an entire book in support of it. But he was ignorant of many aspects of it, and he was open in describing this ignorance.

And actually this is common in historic writings of the forefathers of modern science. You can pick up some of James Hutton's historic publications, and its just the most interesting thing seeing how ignorant they were. They knew they discovered something big, but they had no idea just how big it was. They discovered the tips of icebergs, not knowing just how large the iceberg was beneath the water.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's a more complete quotation:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Do you think the fragment you posted conveys Darwin's thoughts on the evolution of the eye accurately? Do you think the source you took it from was being fully honest?

Do you realize that Darwin was not talking about fossils here?

@JesusAddicted
Its interesting to see how deceptive some people are. @PropheticTimes Will you admit that your post was deceptive?
 
Upvote 0

adhidw

Active Member
Mar 20, 2017
55
10
67
indonesia
✟31,959.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi! Can you please help me? Is it true that Darwin doubted about his own theory? I heard somewhere that he even rejected it before his death, but I don't know if it's true. Do you know something about this? Please add some links so I can check out the information. Thank you!

I have no information about whether He doubted or not, but I think this theory seems deserve to be doubted ( pardon me if I digress from the OP ) .

As long as I know , it said that the species existing today came from the species living millions of years before, so for example; Human, Tiger, shark, eagle, crocodile have the same ancestor millions of years ago , am I right?.

If we observe from the example of the above 5 species then we try to group:

1 Human.

2 Tigers, sharks, eagles, crocodiles we call "animals" (may be added with other species if necessary).

If today were directly opposed to competition between humans and animals then there is no doubt that Human surely will come out as sole winners as the most dominant species meaning that all animals must be extinct.

If humans today are as dominant species, then a few million years ago in the same way there must have been a single winner as well as a dominant species x, and this must be the ancestor of human and animal today according to the theory of evolution, species dominant x --- > becomes the current human and animal.

From this perspective the logic is that now there is only one species as the most dominant and the other species must have been eliminated before (there are no animals today), or there may be many species but surely those species have growth in knowledge and civilizations that are also relatively similar ( difficult to conquer each other / balanced).

Again we try to observe between humans and animals in the example mentioned above; a few thousand years ago surely people do not know computers, nuclear weapons, cross-planetary vehicles, etc. (for example: thousand years ago humans still used horses for their vehicles), we see that this giant of growth /exponential growth being achieved by this very dominant species named Human just in a relatively short of time. But on the other hand there is no growth at all, shown by how they get their daily food and the type of raw food from thousand years ago until now is still the same etc.

Now from the different growths, as well as the existence of today's diverse species of creatures, where only humans are so dominant over others (no balanced rival for humans) then: how can the theory of evolution explain about this ?, and there is one more question from me : Is it all related to "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge about good and evil in the garden of Eden"? .

May these verses help us;

Gen9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Darwin never really expressed any doubts about natural selection. In On the Origin of Species he suggested that if there was an organ that could not have originated by gradual means his theory would completely fall apart. That isn't a doubt, it's more like a null hypothesis. Darwin believed that his theory shouldn't effect your religion, unlike many modern Darwinians he had no real problem with religion. He didn't like the doctrine of hell but other then that never expressed a strong opinion.

By the way, the report that Darwin recanted something on his death bed has been proven to be false. I've grown fond of Ole flycatcher over the years, he doesn't seem like a bad man to me. The man honestly admitted to problems with his theory which is all you can really ask of a person. I don't think there is any genuine indication that he was a Christian but I don't think he was ever really opposed to religion of any kind. His was a search for answers, he choose an alternative worldview that was opposed to 'special creation'. I think he was wrong about the subject but there have certainly been more fierce opponents of essential doctrine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adhidw
Upvote 0