Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Did Darwin Recant?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00

Logan

Member
Here is an article I ran across. I have often heard that Darwin underwent a death bed conversion into Christianity. This is an interesting article on why this might not be true. It is written by Russell Grigg at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp.

CHARLES DARWIN died on April 19, 1882, at the age of 73. To some it was deplorable that he should have departed an unbeliever, and in the years that followed several stories surfaced that Darwin had undergone a death-bed conversion and renounced evolution. These stories began to be included in sermons as early as May 1882.1 However, the best known is that attributed to a Lady Hope, who claimed she had visited a bedridden Charles at Down House in the autumn of 1881.2 She alleged that when she arrived he was reading the Book of Hebrews, that he became distressed when she mentioned the Genesis account of creation, and that he asked her to come again the next day to speak on the subject of Jesus Christ to a gathering of servants, tenants and neighbours in the garden summer house which, he said, held about 30 people. This story first appeared in print as a 521-word article in the American Baptist journal, the Watchman Examiner,3 and since then has been reprinted in many books, magazines and tracts.

The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin’s family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on February 8, 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was ‘false and without any kind of foundation’,4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had ‘no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view.’5 Charles’s daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for February 23, 1922, ‘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. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … The whole story has no foundation whatever’.6 Some have even concluded that there was no Lady Hope.

So what should we think?

Darwin’s biographer, Dr James Moore, lecturer in the history of science and technology at The Open University in the UK, has spent 20 years researching the data over three continents. He produced a 218-page book examining what he calls the ’Darwin legend’.7 He says there was a Lady Hope. Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842, she married a widower, retired Admiral Sir James Hope, in 1877. She engaged in tent evangelism and in visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s, and died of cancer in Sydney, Australia, in 1922, where her tomb may be seen to this day.8

Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, September 28 and Sunday, October 2, 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present.9 He describes Lady Hope as ‘a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality.’10 He points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies — Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favour of a few people’s attending a religious meeting. The alleged recantation/ conversion are embellishments that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ‘holy fabrication’!

It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles’s views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.
 
Very interesting I must say. I really don't have any thoughts of my own on this. I've known that there has been alot of mistakes on his theory. We now live in a world where technology booms. And Creationist and evoultionist alike found fault's in his theory. I don't know if he came to Christ or not. I have heard this thrown around before. But I never thought much of it.
 
Not that it really makes any odds one way or the other, but we will likely never know for certain. There are too many parties on both sides who would act to place their own views on such an occurenece.
 
Even if he had recanted(which he probably didnt) it would have no bearing on his theory, as it is grounded in facts and evidence, not faith.
 
drumminlogan said:
Here is an article I ran across. I have often heard that Darwin underwent a death bed conversion into Christianity. This is an interesting article on why this might not be true. It is written by Russell Grigg at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp.
Apparently you didn't know that Charles Darwin was a Christian all of his life? He was even Baptized as a baby. Only when he went on his 5 year voyage on the HMS Beagle did he start to doubt the existance of god. And even then, in his books he mentions "The Creator."
 
I'm relatively sure he didn't 'recant' his theory. He died believing, he was a postEnlightenment thinker after all, that it tied in with the way 'God shaped the world.' Or the way god allowed the world to be shaped, he may have been a deist afterall, can't say as I haven't read his writing.

Either way it does not detract from the facts. Evolution is established as a biological process. Natural selection can be confirmed.
 
Late in life, Darwin said that he was slightly inclined toward agnosticism. But most of his life, he was a Christian.
 
I wouldn't say so, his own words describe him pretty much as an agnostic anyway. Of course, it has no bearing on the validity of his theories, but no, it seems like a fabrication.

Talkorigins has a faq on it, if i recall correctly.
 
There is little doubt that Darwin DID return to reading the scriptures in his last days. The fact that he read the Bible is well documented. What is not documented, is whether he actually embraced Jesus as his saviour, or if he renounced his belief in evolution.

There is something fishy about both sides of the story. First Lady Hope says she was there on his deathbed, while Darwin's family claims she was never there. Later, we find out that Lady Hope had indeed visited Darwin many times, but that the last visit was several months before he died.


Some more background on the Lady Hope/Darwin story:

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm
 
Well, the family cant be there constantly... I am an atheist, and even I read the bible, though, for different reasons than most people.

And again, even if he had recanted, it would have no effect on evolution, or its validity, so I dont know why people even bother...
 
CrimsonTide said:
And again, even if he had recanted, it would have no effect on evolution, or its validity, so I dont know why people even bother...

That's true, evolution remains an invalid theory, no matter who proclaims it.
 
CrimsonTide said:
care to support that?

I'm not going to make your case for you, you're the one who is claiming that your false religion is self-evident. Evolution is a fraudulent theory without a shred of proof to support it.
 
A) Evolution is not a religion
B) It is the staus quo, and an established scientific principle, that, when applied, works. It is YOUR job to prove that it doesnt occur.

Oh, ou jst commited a Burden of Proof fallacy. Why is it that smple aristotilian logic is lost upon rabid creationists?
 
Bryan said:
CrimsonTide said:
care to support that?

I'm not going to make your case for you, you're the one who is claiming that your false religion is self-evident. Evolution is a fraudulent theory without a shred of proof to support it.

I like how you figured that out, it must have really stretched your mental prowess. Given you brought the claim up, it is you who must refute evolution.

Looking at your past posts, I expect another attack on Darwin followed by another wall of ignorance tactic or maybe a few Bible passages.

Perhaps you could look up the false dichotomy fallacy too and laugh at how silly you just made yourself look.

Additionally, we DO post evidence. We can't help it if you're too ignorant/lazy/stupid to read it and form a coherent argument that doesn't insult a 6 year old's intellect.
 
I didn't bring it up. Crimson Tide did. I never posted any Bible links. I didn't post any evidence because that the point, there isn't any. All you bozos did was post a couple of drawings, followed by the "millions of years ago" fairytale.

It's sad really. You find a couple of bone fragments, then you invent this wild detailed history about what it looked like, what it ate, when it lived, what it evolved from, what it evolved into, then proudly proclaim it as fact. Then you show everyone your DRAWINGS as the proof?

Get over yourself. You don't know anything, you made it all up, and you are lying your face off to try to cover it up.
 
Bryan said:
I didn't bring it up. Crimson Tide did. I never posted any Bible links. I didn't post any evidence because that the point, there isn't any. All you bozos did was post a couple of drawings, followed by the "millions of years ago" fairytale.

Ah, see here how the accuser simply "forgets" their original post. Perhaps I should quote it for them...

That's true, evolution remains an invalid theory, no matter who proclaims it.

Like we said, care to back that up?

It's sad really. You find a couple of bone fragments, then you invent this wild detailed history about what it looked like, what it ate, when it lived, what it evolved from, what it evolved into, then proudly proclaim it as fact. Then you show everyone your DRAWINGS as the proof?

Get over yourself. You don't know anything, you made it all up, and you are lying your face off to try to cover it up.

As opposed to Creationists who use a faery tale book to jump to the mother of all conclusions. The same book that says Pi is equal to 3, that bats are birds and that we all started from just two people on the planet.

To say you are hypocritical is to say an atomic bomb makes a loud bang.

Concession accepted. I do enjoy knowing I have had better debates with the local primary school children. At least they don't have closed minds like yours, but prove me wrong. Post material refuting our "drawings" and "fairytales" and I may just give you the benefit of the doubt that you are able to out argue a 6 year old.
 
Admiral,

1) What you quoted from me was a response to Crimson Tide.

2) When did I ever say I was a creationist? When did I ever quote any Bible verses?
 
Bryan said:
"millions of years ago" fairytale.
Ahem, That's Billions of years, 4.6 to be exact.

"Perhaps nothing in Earth science has greater significance than the enormous span of time involved in the formation of the world and its inhabitants as we see them today. Such a prolonged interval of time has alone made it reasonable for us to regard the geologic and evolutionary processes as being able to produce the notable changes that have obviously taken place. In turn, these changes require the passage of time in generous amounts; time denied by eminent scientists even within our own century. To the geologist, time is what space is to the astonomer; vastness beyond the thoughts of people of an earlier age, enough to make all things possible."
 
Back
Top