What if Darwin converted on his deathbed?

[Yoder777]

Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionists often dispute the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion, especially since his family members rejected it. However, there is nothing in the Lady Hope story itself that I see as rejecting evolution. Instead, Darwin appeared to be more open to the truth of Christian faith than he was in previous years. When Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, he never intended for it to conflict with Christian faith, as evidenced by his letter to Asa Grey:

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)
Cretinism or Evilution?: Darwin Quotations on Design

 

[TLK Valentine]

What if he converted? It would change absolutely nothing.

That's what probably irks me more than anything else about this particular creationist lie -- it serves no purpose.

 

[CabVet]

A refutation to your story from a creationist website, no less:

Darwin's Deathbed Conversion a Legend? - Answers in Genesis

Their conclusion:

"Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible."

 

[Adaephon]

A refutation to your story from a creationist website, no less:

Darwin's Deathbed Conversion a Legend? - Answers in Genesis

Their conclusion:

"Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope's story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn't. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible."

Answers in Genesis is also crazy. So I'm not sure how much that is worth...

 

[CabVet]

Answers in Genesis is also crazy. So I'm not sure how much that is worth...

They are crazy against evolution, so even if they reject the deathbed conversion story it must be false.

 

[Yoder777]

What if he converted? It would change absolutely nothing.

That's what probably irks me more than anything else about this particular creationist lie -- it serves no purpose.

To me, if you actually read the story, it suggests the compatibility of evolution with Christian faith.

 

[verysincere]

What if he converted? It would change absolutely nothing.

That's what probably irks me more than anything else about this particular creationist lie -- it serves no purpose.

I'm not clear on the purpose of the OP but I do happen to find the entire Lady Hope "story" an interesting one and some time ago I spent a number of hours researching it. It seems that most people approach the Hope-Darwin "interaction" with an exaggerated agenda, at one of extreme of the spectrum or the other. (Obviously, some creationists want to use it to somehow "prove" that Darwin somehow abandon this theory in the last hours of his life and some anti-creationists wish to use the story to prove that there is no limit to creationist lies. I find both extremes silly and pointless.)

From my own study, I concluded that Darwin was probably much more positively inclined toward Lady Hope and even Christian evangelism than many want to admit. On the other hand, I certainly agree with TLK Valentine that EVEN IF Darwin genuinely went to the extreme of "renouncing" his theory of evolution and everything he wrote about it *AND* even if he became a last-minute, 100% devoted-to-God follower of Jesus Christ, it would have no ramifications for the fact that the theory of evolution has survived 150+ years of rigorous attempts at falsification! And perhaps more importantly, anybody who seriously THINKS that a Darwin deathbed conversion would have ANY impact on the validity of evolutionary theory has thereby blatantly exposed their ignorance of science and the scientific method. (Indeed, the ignorance represented by such an assumption is appalling.) Does anyone truly believe that if an Isaac Newton had denied his Laws of Motion and Gravity on his deathbed, it would alter the scientific facts in any way? Would a fever-induced repudiation of Gregor Mendel's writings on his deathbed have made a difference in the science then or now. I wince at the utter inanity of such arguments. Surely we Christians should do more than remain silent when our woefully uninformed brethren promote such "logic".

But I certainly would agree with the OP to the fact that the Lady Hope story is a fascinating one---and that it deserves far more scrutiny from a HUMAN INTEREST perspective, even if not at all a scientific one. I have no knowledge of Darwin's spiritual state at the time of his death but I see little evidence which demands that he MUST have been an atheist in his final days. But who knows?

At the same time this is yet another example where the ignorant but overly-adamant rants of my evolution-denying Christian brethren understandably arouses the frustration and even the anger of their opponents--- and only serves to discredit their movement (and all too often, the reputation of Christ-followers and the Bible in general) because it so pointlessly exasperates everyone who is exposed to the bogus argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionists often dispute the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion, especially since his family members rejected it. However, there is nothing in the Lady Hope story itself that I see as rejecting evolution. Instead, Darwin appeared to be more open to the truth of Christian faith than he was in previous years. When Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, he never intended for it to conflict with Christian faith, as evidenced by his letter to Asa Grey:

I'm not sure what you're looking for in this thread. You're mixing two different trains of thought: soteriology & evolution.

From a soteriological standpoint, I'm glad there is a Lady Hope story associated with Mr. Darwin, as that tells me he died and went to Heaven. I have to wonder why others would not embrace this story as at least a ray of hope for the poor man's soul.

From an evolutionary standpoint ... well ... that's a different story.

 

[verysincere]

To me, if you actually read the story, it suggests the compatibility of evolution with Christian faith.

I haven't read the cited version of the story---but I've no doubt that it would harmonize with the natural compatibility of evolution with the Christian faith. Seeing that is easy for me because I know enough of the definition of both to never suspect that there ever COULD be any incompatibility between evolutionary processes and Christianity. (Indeed, to consider them in conflict would be much like saying gravity theory or atomic theory is incompatible with the Christian faith. Yes, there was a time when Christians feared that explaining planetary motion by gravity instead of God's angels pushing the planets around was a threat to Christian faith. But I can only wish that we will eventually outgrow that kind of childish fear---although a little reading in these forums demonstrates that modern Christianity hasn't universally reached that kind of maturity yet.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not sure what you're looking for in this thread. You're mixing two different trains of thought: soteriology & evolution.

From a soteriological standpoint, I'm glad there is a Lady Hope story associated with Mr. Darwin, as that tells me he died and went to Heaven. I have to wonder why others would not embrace this story as at least a ray of hope for the poor man's soul.

Wouldn't the story have to be true in order for the association to have any meaning?

 

[CabVet]

I'm not sure what you're looking for in this thread. You're mixing two different trains of thought: soteriology & evolution.

From a soteriological standpoint, I'm glad there is a Lady Hope story associated with Mr. Darwin, as that tells me he died and went to Heaven. I have to wonder why others would not embrace this story as at least a ray of hope for the poor man's soul.

From an evolutionary standpoint ... well ... that's a different story.

Others don't embrace the deathbed confession story because it never happened.

 

[verysincere]

Others don't embrace the deathbed confession story because it never happened.

At least it appears from the reply posts so far, everybody universally agrees that whether or not the story is factually true makes not a bit of difference to the status of evolutionary processes.

And seeing how agreement on these threads is rare, that's something interesting in itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't the story have to be true in order for the association to have any meaning?

Yes ... who says it isn't true?

 

[AV1611VET]

Others don't embrace the deathbed confession story because it never happened.

They were there?

 

[CabVet]

They were there?

Oh, this is too much. No, they were not there, but other people were, including Darwin's family members.

Darwin's Deathbed Conversion a Legend? - Answers in Genesis

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm not sure what you're looking for in this thread. You're mixing two different trains of thought: soteriology & evolution.

From a soteriological standpoint, I'm glad there is a Lady Hope story associated with Mr. Darwin, as that tells me he died and went to Heaven. I have to wonder why others would not embrace this story as at least a ray of hope for the poor man's soul.

From an evolutionary standpoint ... well ... that's a different story.

Kudos.... you have the art of the troll down to a science.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Yes ... who says it isn't true?

Darwin's own family.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least it appears from the reply posts so far, everybody universally agrees that whether or not the story is factually true makes not a bit of difference to the status of evolutionary processes.

I agree.

And seeing how agreement on these threads is rare, that's something interesting in itself.

Elijah was outvoted 450 to 2 (counting God); so popularity contests around here can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, this is too much. No, they were not there, but other people were, including Darwin's family members.

I disagree.

The story conveys the idea that Mr. Darwin and Lady Hope were alone.

In fact:

Everyone in Darwin's family denied the validity of the story. In 1918, Darwin's son Francis wrote that "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304–317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so." In 1922, Darwin's daughter, Henrietta Litchfield, said she did not believe Lady Hope had ever seen her father and that "he never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A." Leonard, Darwin's last surviving child, dismissed Lady Hope's account as a "hallucination" (1930) and "purely fictitious" (1934).

SOURCE

It appears that neither his son nor his daughter were in the room, else they would have made it plain they were; especially his daughter, whose words testify to the fact that she indeed wasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kudos.... you have the art of the troll down to a science.

We were all present in the room the day my mother died; but not the day before, or the day before, or even the day before that.