Evoultion- Whats wrong with it?

[Susan]

hehe, don't waste your time with BL.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by TruelightUK:
Personally (not necessarily living or dying by the literality of Genesis) I don't have a problem with evolution, provided that we acknowledge that God is in charge!....I would also say that the evolution of humanity fro other more primitive primates IS contrary to the principles (not just the li9teral words) of Genesis, which sees the creation of Adam and Eve as a totally distinct process from that of the rest of the animal kingdom.

Anthony

Yes, the Bible does show that God is in charge. And it does teach that God specially created human beings--but the original Hebrew text and passages from the Talmud (the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law) and from ancient Jewish commentators indicate that the Bible does not close the door on the possibility that there were other people—including men before Adam—but that Adam was the first human being to be created with an eternal soul.

Hebrew has two words for soul--nefesh and neshama--and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that “God created…every animal,” it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of animal life. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation, which distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third “creation” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our eternal and immortal soul, our neshama (the first two “creations” were of the universe and of life).

The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English. It is usually translated as: “…and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). The Hebrew text actually states: “…and the adam became to a living soul.” Nahmanides, seven hundred years ago, wrote that the “to” (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word “soul” in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed as “it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.”
Did you catch that? According to Nahmanides, who is the major kabalistic commentator on the Bible, the biblical text has told us that before the neshama there could have been something like a man that was not quite a human.

Note that Nahmanides’ writings preceded discoveries of modern paleontology by hundreds of years---and the Bible said it three thousand years before discoveries of modern science.

I don't know to what extent (if any) God used evolution in His creative plan--but it doesn't affect my faith in either God or the Bible, as I personally do not see a conflict between modern scientific discoveries or ancient Biblical scriptures.

 

[Rafael]

Interesting. I am learning everyday that God is larger than the mechanisms He may have employed with His creation.

 

[Andrew]

"I don't know to what extent (if any) God used evolution in His creative plan--but it doesn't affect my faith in either God or the Bible, as I personally do not see a conflict between modern scientific discoveries or ancient Biblical scriptures."

When God created things, he spoke to the respective environment/atmospheres.
eg for the stars, he spoke to the heavens,
for the land animals, he spoke to the land,
and for the sea creatures, he spoke to the sea.

but when it came to man, he spoke 'to himself' saying "let us make man in our own image". that tells us something. man did not come out of the land or sea environment -- sea creatures and animals (like monkeys) did -- but from the 'environment/premise' of God himself.

so to say that man evolved from animals is to contradict this spiritual truth becos we are saying that man came out of the premise/environment of land or sea, instead of God.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by Andrew
"I don't know to what extent (if any) God used evolution in His creative plan--but it doesn't affect my faith in either God or the Bible, as I personally do not see a conflict between modern scientific discoveries or ancient Biblical scriptures."

When God created things, he spoke to the respective environment/atmospheres.
eg for the stars, he spoke to the heavens,
for the land animals, he spoke to the land,
and for the sea creatures, he spoke to the sea.

but when it came to man, he spoke 'to himself' saying "let us make man in our own image". that tells us something. man did not come out of the land or sea environment -- sea creatures and animals (like monkeys) did -- but from the 'environment/premise' of God himself.

so to say that man evolved from animals is to contradict this spiritual truth becos we are saying that man came out of the premise/environment of land or sea, instead of God.

First off, we cannot say that man being created in God's image extends any further than a spiritual likeness, God being non-corporeal. Anyway, I happen to believe, given that God developed humanity through evolution, there was a point in which God specially imparted the soul into humanity. God breathed life into something crafted from "the dust of the earth," a poetic expression which indicates man's origins in a metaphorical way (life came from the same essence with which he created the earth); and that at this imparture of God-consciousness, "man became a living soul," the chosen and specially crafted species being thusly created in God's image.

 

[cougan]

Evolution is nothing more than mans theroy. In fact the bible itself shows that the creation took 6 literal days.

Exodus 20:8 " Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your
God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your
daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor
your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the
earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh
day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and
hallowed it.

Notice how the verses within this context are using the word days and day. No one would argue that the 6 days that they worked nor the Sabbath day were longer than a literal day. But as you can see clearly in verse 11 that the world also was created in 6 literal days and God rested on the 7th literal day.

There are alot of things scientist cant explain about our world. For instance did you know that the ocen floor does have that much new crust on it. At the rate that oceans and rivers eat away at the land that we live on they estimate it that it would only take 14 million years for the all land to be underwater. This is one very strong argument why the earth isnt anywhere close to the age that evoultion puts it at.

In fact when you look at the planets and how the earth if it were just slightly off axis one way or the other we would either get burned up or freeze to death. The fact that nobody has ever been able to produce something from nothing show that there must of been a creator. Everything is balanced in nature and in us. The bible is amazingly scientifically correct. There are many interesting things that OT talk about like how evaporation works that was not discovered until around the 17 century. If the book was just written by some unispired men you definately see many problems and errors in what they state but you just dont find that in the bible.


 

 

[Andrew]

Didaskomenos,

So in a simple sentence like "God made man" you wld stretch it all the way to mean God used chaotic and messy evolution over billions of years to do that. sorry, it wld take me more faith to believe that wild speculation. I'll just take God at his Word.

cougan,

looks like we have something we can agree on here. I'd say amen to your post.

 

[Susan]

I am not an evolutionist by any means, but that reasoning of "So in a simple sentence like "God made man" you wld stretch it all the way to mean God used chaotic and messy evolution over billions of years to do that. . ." might not work with the evolutionists here.

The reason would be thus: When I say "I started the car" or "I booted up the computer" those are statements simply stating what I did, not statements explaining the mechanical processes of what happened when I did it.

Hope you understand. . .I'm sorry for pointing it out. . .
I would say AMEN to your post aside from that though, and I also say AMEN to cougan's post.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by cougan:
In fact the bible itself shows that the creation took 6 literal days.

Six 24-hour days is definitely a valid interpretation of what is meant by the six yoms in the Genesis account of the creation. But if you think creation took six consecutive 24-hour days (144 hours total), should we measure those 144 hours from our perspective looking backward in time toward creation, or should it be measured at the speed of outward thrust from the moment of creation looking forward for 144 hours toward the present time? Forward in time or backward in time? Which do you think? Or does it make any difference to you?

You might also note that Moses, who wrote the passage you quoted, also wrote Psalm 90. Verse 4 of Psalm 90 says: "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." A watch in the night was usually four hours.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by Andrew
Didaskomenos,

So in a simple sentence like "God made man" you wld stretch it all the way to mean God used chaotic and messy evolution over billions of years to do that. sorry, it wld take me more faith to believe that wild speculation. I'll just take God at his Word.

cougan,

looks like we have something we can agree on here. I'd say amen to your post.

Susan's anticipation of my answer is pretty good. Who said anything about God using "chaotic and messy evolution"? What makes you call it chaotic and messy? Were you there? At any rate, it was guided in his own way, and if you haven't noticed, God often guides things slowly from their messiest states to perfection - that's the story of the Christian life. Why shouldn't God have done this in nature to get us here?

And what's that inane sentence, "I'll just take God at his Word [sic]" all about, anyway? As though you actually knew what his "Word" was saying in the first place! I'm using the same "Word" as you, but I feel it's necessary to study both God's creation and the Bible, and make my interpretations of the Bible based on more than, "Well, it looked like this to me the first time I read it - of course I'm right!"

 

[Athlon4all]

First off the Bible says in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Now also, adding evolution to the Bible presents several problems with the doctrine of Salvation and Hope for a new Heaven and a New Earth. Evolution says that over time man has evolved from apes and all the animals to where we are now, and in order for that to happen death and destruction must've been going on all ever since creation, including before man "evolved" and the problem with that is that there was no sin until man sinned, and there was no physical or spiritual death before the fall (In Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Thats saying that man will eventually die physically, and this is when God is laying down the Judgement because of man's sin) so how do you explain this problem of death and destruction before man's "evolvution"?

Also, Evolution says in essence again that death and destruction has always been, now Revelation 21:1-4 says "1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." See the bolded part? This is a precious promise, but why should it return to this if Death and destruction has always been since the beginning of time?

These are 2 major issues with Christianity-Creation+Evolution. Another thing is that we should base our thinking on God's Word (which is the Bible, II Tim 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness And I guess, here's the thing, where is Evolution indicated in any way by the Bible?

Evolution encourages Man being above God thinking, and that is very dangerous.

Scientists are not on a mission to prove or disprove the existence of God, but rather to investigate the natural world.

Unfortunately it isn't that way, at least for Atheistic Scientist's who do not have Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. They will always be under the influence of the Devil, and they will always seek to through satan's influence to disprove God any way they can.

 

[Sinai]

You might note that after recording the work performed by God on each of the six creative days, Moses concluded by saying "and it was evening and it was morning day _____ (one, second, third, fourth, fifth, the sixth)." There is no such concluding statement regarding the seventh day: the day of God's rest.

Any thoughts as to why that might be?

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
Evolution says that over time man has evolved from apes

That is incorrect. Evolution states that man and "apes" evolved from a common ancestor, which itself was not an "ape".

And I guess, here's the thing, where is Evolution indicated in any way by the Bible?

Where are Gamma Ray Burst phenomena indicated in any way by the Bible?

Evolution encourages Man being above God thinking, and that is very dangerous.

Man can have more thought capacity than God? I don't think so.

Unfortunately it isn't that way, at least for Atheistic Scientist's who do not have Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. They will always be under the influence of the Devil, and they will always seek to through satan's influence to disprove God any way they can.

And how far does your "at most" reach? Does it include all Christians that are evolutionists?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

First off it is a waste of everyone’s time to attempt to refute evolution with faith. Of course people who believe in creation are against evolution, the big bang, etc.... What I believe about creation and more importantly the creation of man will not be swayed by science, and of course the evolutionist will not be swayed by faith. So all I have left is to counter your position with is logic. Evolution does not make sense, and there is no solid evidence to prove that it takes place.

(It has been a while since school, so forgive me if the jargon is not up to date or fuzzy.)

1. There is the concept that "mutation" or random, accidental genetic changes in species is the mechanism of the evolution. This change mechanism is usually presented to us in two methods. One is "Gradualism" and the "Giant Leap".
Gradualism states that changes come to pass very slowly from one generation to another, and that these changes, or experiments of nature, enable some individuals to be better adapted than others to survive and therefore pass this positive trait on to another generation. The problem with this is that a gradual improvements in an individual would never be significant enough to give that individual any edge over those who do not have the improved trait. For example; an elephant with 1/10 of and inch more hair would not have any more survivability than a normal elephant in the coming ice age. The gradual changes would not equip the individual to survive any better than the rest. The changes are just to small.
The "giant leap" mutation is more likely to succeed. Problem is, these sorts of mutations are rarely beneficial to the individual, and are more often harmful. In addition, as we have been watching the animal and plant kingdom now for over 150 years with the knowledge of evolution... we have yet to see this mechanism turn. Where are these new improved species? We have watched untold millions of generations of fruit flies and peas pass by and yet we do not see these beneficial mutations occurring, Where is the proverbial beef? One of the requirements of good science is to experiment and then reproduce your results to confirm. Yet even in controlled scientific conditions we cannot observe a single instance of beneficial mutation... either by gradualism or the giant leap.


2. There is the concept of "natural selection". Here we see two giraffes. One with a short neck, and the other with a long. Food shortage comes to the land and naturally the long necks have the advantage over the short because they can reach the taller trees. The long is "selected" for survival over the short. Ok.
One problem.
This theory still requires that there be a long and short to start with. It does not explain where the short (or long for that matter) came from. This is not "natural selection." This is "natural rejection." Nothing new is coming into being. They both had to be there to start with. This does not support any theory of evolution, where new species come into being. It does support "devolution", where existing species are choosen for extinction.

3. Evolution requires vast periods of time to occur. A species of dinosaur might be 100 million years to evolve. A bird 200 million. The more complex the species the longer the time. Man is by far the most complex creature to walk the face of the earth. Best estimates place man and his ancestors on the earth for less than 2 million years. This is way to short a time to evolve from a monkey to an Einstein. Unless one believes in an alien daddy, it does not work.

Evolutionists have to come up with a better mechanism of change than mutation and natural selection before evolution can be considered seriously.


Thanks for listening

 

[Andrew]

Charles Darwin himself regretted what he had postulated at his deathbed. ie he admitted he made a boo-boo.

It always amazes me why any Christian wld want to fight for the belief that his ancestors/ papas and mamas were tree swinging apes. as they grow and learn more about the image of God through learning more about the beauties of Jesus, shldnt they move farther away from the "ape image" or "monkey business"? *LOL

 

[Susan]

Charles Darwin himself regretted what he had postulated at his deathbed. ie he admitted he made a boo-boo.


The cause of Creation is not furthered by legends and rumors. Go to any rumor-debunking site and you will find that one. It's like the "Joshua's Long Day Spotted By NASA" hoax.

 

[Andrew]

Bet its a rumour debunking site set up by monkeys. *LOL*

Want scripture, I've got lots of it. but can you take it? or will you lean back to "science"?

Is the creation account in Genesis literal?

Hebrew for "day"

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yom". It can mean a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of it (day as distinct from the night).

Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word "yom" is never used to refer to a long period of time, as in thousands or millions of years.

In Hebrew, should the word "yom" be used in an indefinite sense, it will be clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning is not intended.

First-time use not symbolic

Some people say that the word "day" in Genesis is used symbolically.

This is impossible as a word cannot be symbolic the first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically if it has first a literal meaning.

For example, we are told that Jesus is the "bread of life". We know what this means because we understand the literal meaning of "bread", and are able to apply it symbolically to Jesus. The word "bread" cannot be used in this sense unless it first has a literal meaning.

Likewise, the word "day" cannot be used symbolically the first time it appears in Genesis, as this is where God introduced the word "day" and defined it as He invented it.

Some might argue that this point is flawed because Job is an earlier book, in the sense that Job lived before the time of Moses. But this is like saying that the Holy Spirit was outdated when He inspired Moses to write Genesis, and that He made a mistake when He put Genesis as the first book of the Bible.

The Bible itself defines "day"

Many forget that the Holy Spirit himself has defined the word "day" the first time it appears in the Bible. A basic rule of thumb in Bible study is to "let the Bible interpret the Bible"!

* Genesis 1:4 -- "God called the light 'day' and the darkness He called 'night'." The first time the word "day" is used, it is defined as "the light" to distinguish it from "the darkness" called "night".

* Genesis 1:5 -- "And there was evening, and there was morning Ñ the first day." This is the same phrase used for each of the other five days and shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (periods of light and periods of darkness).

Incidentally, those who say that the word "day" in the above verses means millions of years must answer the question: "What is a night?"

Daylight without the sun?

But how could there be day and night when the sun wasn't created yet, until day four?

The word for "light" in Genesis 1:3 means the "substance" of light that was created. Then, on day four in Genesis 1:14-19, we are told of the creation of the sun, which was to be the source of light henceforth.

The sun was created to rule the day that already existed. The day merely had a new light source.

Perhaps God deliberately left the creation of the sun to the fourth day to show that He is the light, the source of life and the sustainer of life, because He knew that man would one day worship the sun as the source of life.

Problems with taking "day" to mean millions of years

* Our seven-day week

Exodus 20:9 tells us that we are to work for six days and rest for one. This is why we have a seven-day week.

The reason for this is found in verse 11: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent, whatever is used as the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1 must also be used here.

So, if we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, then we should do the same in Exodus 20:11, which would make nonsense of our seven-day week!

* What are "years" and "seasons" then?

In Genesis 1:14, God said: "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years."

If the word "day" here is not a literal day, then the words "years" and "seasons" in the same verse would be meaningless.

To be consistent, if we do not take them as literal years and seasons either, then what are they?

Likewise, we are told in Genesis 1:26-28 that God made Adam on the sixth day. We know that Adam lived through the rest of the sixth day and through the seventh day. Genesis 5:5 says that he died when he was 930 years old.

If we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, how do we understand "930 years"? What is a "year"? Or, for that matter, a "night", a "week", a "month"?

* Covenant with day and night

Jeremiah 33:25-26 -- "This is what the Lord says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob, and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.'"

God's "covenant with day and night" began in Genesis 1. There is no clear origin and definition for day and night in the Bible other than Genesis 1. Therefore, this must be where the covenant began.

However, this covenant would make no sense and be on shaky ground if "day" is not taken literally in Genesis 1. And, again, what would "night" mean?

A day as a thousand years?

* 2 Peter 3:8 -- "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

* Psalm 90:4 -- "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, all like a watch in the night."

The two verses are used by many to teach that the days in Genesis must each be a thousand years long.

But the verses are not saying that God defines a "day" as "a thousand years". That would contradict His original defintion in Genesis 1:4,5. Also, note that the word "like" is used.

In both cases, the truth being presented is that God is neither limited by natural processes nor by time. The Creator of time is "outside" time!

Also, neither verse refers to the days of creation in Genesis. In 2 Peter 3, the context is Christ's second coming. In Psalm 90, the context is Israel's rebellion in the wilderness and the mortality of man.

The verses also indicate that God, not bounded by time, can do in a very short time what men or nature would require a very long time to accomplish, if they could succeed at all.

Interestingly, evolutionists say that the chance, random processes of nature required millions of years to produce living things and man.

Many Christians have accepted this by saying that God took millions of years to create, which is the very opposite of what 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 are saying!

Bloodshed and death

When Adam and Eve sinned, they tried to cover their sins with fig leaves -- a works religion (and a reason why Jesus cursed the fig tree).

God had to clothe them with animal skin, instead, which meant that an animal was killed -- a blood sacrifice, for without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).

So, according to the Bible, blood was shed only after man sinned. There were no killings before that. Also, man and animals were instructed to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29,30). Man was only allowed to kill and eat animals after the flood (Genesis 9:3).

Evolution, however, teaches that there was bloodshed and death (survival of the fittest) for millions of years before man existed.

Jesus, Luke and Paul took it literally

Many Christians believe that the creation account is only symbolic -- sort of like a fairy tale or legend.

What is their authority for deciding what is literal and what is symbolic in the Bible? Are they making their decision based on what a popular man-made theory teaches?

As Christians, we should let the Bible tell us whether is it symbolic or literal, and it does!

Jesus took the creation account in Genesis literally:

* Matthew 19:4 -- "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

* Mark 10:6 -- "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Can you imagine His listeners replying: "But Rabbi, that is not to be taken literally!"

So did Luke:

* Luke 3:38 -- the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

How can a genealogy list a man who didn't really exist?

And most of all, Paul:

* Romans 5:14 -- Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

* 1 Corinthians 15:22 -- For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

* 1 Corinthians 15:45 -- So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

* 1 Timothy 2:13 -- For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

* 1 Timothy 2:14 -- And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

All these verses would be meaningless if Adam and Eve were not real first man and woman.

Science above the Bible?

Christians try to make the word "day" in Genesis 1 mean thousands or millions of years because they feel that they have to make God's Word fit into a popular science theory, rather than the opposite.

Firstly, they are putting an ever-changing, man-made theory above God's unchanging Word.

Secondly, dating methods that indicate an old earth make as many as 14 assumptions, many of which could be wrong.

Thirdly, there are other dating methods that indicate a young earth (thousands of years old).

 

[Susan]

I told you I was a 6-day Young Earth Creationist. If you don't believe me that's fine.
However we are fighting for the same cause, and I would think you would like to know when you are standing on shaky ground (rumors, unproven). I would. . .
So please don't lump me with the evolutionists.

 

[Andrew]

OK sorry, thot you were one of them monkey bizness evolutionists, judging from your post.

i said that cos my pastor said that. so i didnt just talk of my head. so my pastor may be wrong, or the site may be anti-creationist. dosnt matter.

 

[Sinai]

As Susan has pointed out so well, "The cause of Creation is not furthered by legends and rumors." Neither is it well served by insisting that the Bible says something that it does not say, or that only one's own favored interpretation of a scripture can possibly be correct when the original language suggests otherwise.

For example, while most of what Andrew posted could be classified as a valid interpretation of the scripture posted, much of it could be interpreted just as validly other ways. As Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs (one of the most respected Christian theologians and Bible scholars of the past century) pointed out:

“The fact is that the Bible does not say dogmatically how long the creative period lasted. The Hebrew word for ‘day’ (yom), like the English word, may mean any number of things: twenty-four hours, a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time. Since the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of Genesis 1, it must be concluded that he did not spell out this detail. Had he said “a twenty-four hour day” or “an indefinite period of time” that would settle it. But since he did not do so, the time element is not a vital point in faith.”

Andrew made some excellent points and did a great job explaining why he thinks his interpretation is more likely to be correct than a different interpretation. However, I would suggest that he may be more likely to win others to his way of thinking if it is presented as being a more likely interpretation rather than insisting that any other interpretation just simply has to be wrong.

By the way, although Susan is correct that Darwin's deathbed recanting appears to be a myth, you might be interested with the wording Darwin used to close his Origin of Species (including the sixth edition in 1872, which was the last edition during Darwin's life): "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." In other words, he did at least acknowledge the Creator in his concluding remarks.