Something To Think About

[jessa92627]

WHY IS IT THAT FOLLOWERS OF DARWIN ALWAYS SEEM TO FORGET, THAT BEFORE HE DIED HE AMDITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG, AND THAT HIS THEORY OF EVELUTION WAS ALL JUST THAT A THEORY AND THAT THERE IS NO PROOF BEHIND IT

 

[Fireinfolding]

WHY IS IT THAT FOLLOWERS OF DARWIN ALWAYS SEEM TO FORGET, THAT BEFORE HE DIED HE AMDITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG, AND THAT HIS THEORY OF EVELUTION WAS ALL JUST THAT A THEORY AND THAT THERE IS NO PROOF BEHIND IT

Dont know, I never heard his theories, though better for me that I didnt huh?

 

[Rebekka]

WHY IS IT THAT FOLLOWERS OF DARWIN ALWAYS SEEM TO FORGET, THAT BEFORE HE DIED HE AMDITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG, AND THAT HIS THEORY OF EVELUTION WAS ALL JUST THAT A THEORY AND THAT THERE IS NO PROOF BEHIND IT

Writing in all caps is seen as shouting.

 

[Chickapee]

what was Darwins theory ?,

that man and beasts are closely related ? hee hee
Peace C

 

[Solidlyhere]

Jessa Posts a Thread for pro-Darwinians in a Christians-Only forum.

Well, I don't know how many Darwinians you expect to find here, but your facts are not quite right.

Darwin did NOT renounce his Theory.
He did state that it was only a Theory (but that is all it ever was).

And, some of Darwin's work IS True.
Survival of the Fittest, for instance.
This one has been proven over-and-over again.

So, Jessa, unless you have some solid facts, I think you heard-it-wrong from someone else.

 

[LibraryOwl]

This is from a quick google search, taken from http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/darwin-deathbed.html

There is a story that Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist and developer of the theories of evolution through natural and sexual selection, recanted his life's work and agnosticism and accepted Christianity on his deathbed. It has been circulating through evangelical publications and broadcasts for many years. The story originated with Lady Hope (a.k.a. Elizabeth Reid Cotton, widow of Admiral of the Fleet Sir James Hope), an evangelist in Darwin's neighborhood of Downe, England. She said in a 1915 speech to a Moody evangelical school in East Northfield, Ma., that on his deathbed Darwin had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews. Supposedly, he wished for singing and worship at his home, regretted that his evolutionary "speculations" were taken so seriously and had caused such evil, and that he accepted the Christian scheme of "salvation." The story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner and has been in circulation ever since. The evidence shows that the story is not true. Lady Hope was not present at the deathbed of Darwin. The multiple independent accounts of his death, written by those who were there, make no mention of it. His children who were there at his death wrote articles and letters that specifically refuted the recantation and conversion story. Lady Hope did show such detailed knowledge of Darwin's home and estate that she must have visited Darwin at some time late in his life, though not at his deathbed. Darwin himself was disturbed with the misuses "Social Darwinism" made of his theories. He thought that Christianity was good for common people, though not for himself and other educated men. Darwin was revising his theories in the latter part of his life, to take new information into account, though he did not doubt that evolution had occurred, only how it had happened. Lady Hope probably heard all of this in a visit to Darwin late in his life, and conflated it imaginatively into a deathbed recantation!

Also, remember that the facts are never an enemy of the faith. It is evident that the universe is very, very old, and that dinosaurs walked the face of the earth long before man. It is evident that species gentically mutate in a way that could theoretically lead to divergent species over long peroids of time. It is possible that men evolved from apes, though perhaps it was not so. It is certain that a few things in the Bible are not absolutely true. These are facts, God is not pleased with a man who denies them, for he that denies facts denies reason and holy wisdom, and is not what God meant him to be.

What is sinful about the arch of Darwins theory is not those facts which it discovers and elaborates on, but how it interprets them in several ways. For instance, Darwins belief that God did not exist, and his views on ascestics consequent on evolution. It is sad to observe that Darwin, great mind that he had, might have published his theory as a devout Christian and not been the cause of falling for so many scientists. Perhaps scientists would be a much more faithful lot than they are now had he not interpreted the facts in such a way; perhaps there would not be such a scism between such us Christians as aknowledge the plainly obvious and such us Christians as denounce their brothers for believing what is plainly true.

Yet for Darwin, we must admire him in some ways. Absolute intellectual honesty is a cold thing, but it is an honest thing. Perhaps he is better in God's eye than a man who argues from the book that the world must be flat.

 

[elsbeth]

Darwin never said it was anything BUT a theory.

 

[Dannager]

Wow, there are like eight things wrong with that OP.

 

[dana3262]

WHY IS IT THAT FOLLOWERS OF DARWIN ALWAYS SEEM TO FORGET, THAT BEFORE HE DIED HE AMDITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG, AND THAT HIS THEORY OF EVELUTION WAS ALL JUST THAT A THEORY AND THAT THERE IS NO PROOF BEHIND IT

But did he really recant:

Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This is completely fabricated and has no foundation in truth whatsoever. A woman named “Lady Hope” spoke to a church group shortly after the death of Charles Darwin. She claimed that she was at Darwin’s bedside on the day of his death. She also claimed that Darwin recanted on evolution and accepted Jesus on his deathbed. Her claims are not only unsupported, but are directly opposed by Darwin’s daughter, Henrietta. Henrietta stated “I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. My father never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. I am upset that the U.S. Christians have fabricated this conversion nonsense. The whole story has no foundation whatever.” February 23, 1922.

Yes evolution is a theory,its never been claimed as more than that:

Evolution has been proven false (is only a theory). Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Some Christians have spread misinformation about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

I haven't stated an opinion here whatsoever and this post is for informative purposes only!

 

[Dannager]

But did he really recant:

Yes evolution is a theory,its never been claimed as more than that:

I haven't stated an opinion here whatsoever and this post is for informative purposes only!

Just a small nitpick, but the information on macroevolution you cited isn't quite correct. Macroevolution is a fact (in addition to being a theory) as we have observed speciation (macroevolution) firsthand multiple times. For some examples, you can check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Mallon]

I often find myself wondering whether someone should reject evolution if they can't spell it...

In any case, please refer to this:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/689/

 

[ReformedChapin]

Just a small nitpick, but the information on macroevolution you cited isn't quite correct. Macroevolution is a fact (in addition to being a theory) as we have observed speciation (macroevolution) firsthand multiple times. For some examples, you can check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

That's the most naturalist biased website I have seen in my life. And no, only microevolution is a fact.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I often find myself wondering whether someone should reject evolution if they can't spell it...

In any case, please refer to this:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/689/

I think we should concentrate more on the arguments rather than rhetoric.

 

[Dannager]

That's the most naturalist biased website I have seen in my life.

Well, sure. Of course they're going to side with the position supported by the evidence.

Choosing the supported side isn't bias. It's intellectual honesty. Stop trying to justify your rejection of the evidence.

And no, only microevolution is a fact.

As the link clearly demonstrates (unless you decide to reject every one of those examples for no reason whatsoever), macroevolution occurs and is thus a fact.

 

[Deamiter]

That's the most naturalist biased website I have seen in my life. And no, only microevolution is a fact.

What is your definition of macroevolution? The only consistent definition I've ever found was related to speciation and new species have been observed. Of course, creationists often claim that it should be defined as the emergence of a new kind, but until they can define kind and sort current organisms into consistent categories, this definition is useless.

In science there is only evolution since the imaginary separation between micro and macro evolution has never been demonstrated.

I think we should concentrate more on the arguments rather than rhetoric.

Indeed we should (perhaps even when criticizing websites instead of the content?) And methodological naturalism is a necessary component of science since science cannot study that which is not found in nature. Given that the site is designed to demonstrate the scientific facts regarding evolution and the age of the Earth, it's hardly surprising that it should be naturalistic.

 

[Mallon]

I think we should concentrate more on the arguments rather than rhetoric.

If Darwin really did recant on his deathbed, would that be a valid argument against evolution?

 

[theIdi0t]

Darwin never said it was anything BUT a theory.

I'm just going to cut and paste to save me some time:

"When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

A theory never becomes a fact. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than facts. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory."

 

[philadiddle]

THAT HIS THEORY OF EVELUTION WAS ALL JUST THAT A THEORY AND THAT THERE IS NO PROOF BEHIND IT

He did state that it was only a Theory (but that is all it ever was).

Darwin never said it was anything BUT a theory.

As theIdiOt said, the word theory has a different meaning then what u ppl think. It is a fact that we evolved. It is a fact that as you go down throught the strata in the earth there is a continual change in what existed on earth. A theory is something higher then a fact, it explains the facts. Just like how gravity is a fact, and the theory of relativity is the best explanation for it. Facts can be quite useless without theories. There have been many theories of how we evolved, all using different methods. Natural selection is the theory that has the most evidence so it has stuck around. With advances in genetics and micro biology the evidence keeps piling up in favor of the theory of evolution.

That's the most naturalist biased website I have seen in my life.

It's no more biased towards naturalism then high school textbooks. If I want to learn about the natural world and it's laws, there is nothing wrong with reading from a site like that.

And no, only microevolution is a fact.

Macro evolution is an accumulation of microevolution. Please show me what mechanism stops microevolution from drifting too far from a specific "kind" of animal.

 

[philadiddle]

Here's a good explanation of what a theory is in science. And it's a video so if you learn better from listening it'll be perfect. It's only 3 or 4 minutes long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k3g1mRx3LE&mode=related&search=

 

[Galle]

That's the most naturalist biased website I have seen in my life. And no, only microevolution is a fact.

Well, sure. Of course they're going to side with the position supported by the evidence.

Choosing the supported side isn't bias. It's intellectual honesty. Stop trying to justify your rejection of the evidence.

It's sentiments like NewGuy's that gave rise to sayings like "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." It's silly to think that because someone comes a conclusion, they must therefore be biased. What some people simply have a hard time understanding is that not all claims and assertions are equally valid and we should not treat them as if they are.

I suspect that there's a good deal of anti-intellectualism behind this sort of thing. People involved in pseudosciences such as creationism (or homeopathy or denying that HIV leads to AIDS or linking autism to vaccines) tend to understand that their claims are not held by experts. But rather than have the intellectual integrity to examine why this is, they tend to make up motivations. Creationists often claim that evolutionists are motivated to "deny God, lest they have to live by the Creator's rules". Or evolutionists are "materialists" who are unfairly biased against non-natural explanations and who therefore a priori and unscientifically reject the wonderful science that is creationism. Or there's some sort of worldwide conspiracy, and if any evolutionist doesn't toe the party line, she'll lose her funding. For those involved in medicine-related pseudosciences, there's a similar list of motivations: medical researchers are biased against new discoveries that don't fit, they're biased against spirituality, they're pawns of Big Pharma, etc.

There's also a strange trend to think that we should treat everything as a controversy, in which we should at least act as if every claim is equally true and spend half our time on one claim and half our time on the other. Of course, the pseudo-scientists don't really believe that, it's simply a fallacious appeal to our sense of fairness. As far as they're concerned, "equal time" is a lot better than no time for their viewpoint, and they spin this as "we're being fair and equal while our opponents are trying to squash discussion!" Most people see right through this, but those who are uninformed and too lazy to examine the issue can't see the difference between the two viewpoints and so see "equal time" as a reasonable compromise.