[_ Old Earth _] Charles Darwin: Great man of G-d.

[The Bible Thumper]

And very zealous for the L-rd up until his 40th birthday, at which point he focused all his attentions on his new theory.
Even in his last words, he cried out to the L-rd!

 

[lordkalvan]

And very zealous for the L-rd up until his 40th birthday, at which point he focused all his attentions on his new theory.
Even in his last words, he cried out to the L-rd!

Most sources (including Darwin) attribute the start of the decline in his belief in Christianity to his time on the Beagle. As to the tale of his last days, this may or may not be true. The evidence for Darwin's 'recantation' comes solely from the testimony of the committed Christian Lady Hope who supposedly visited Darwin some six months before he died. Many members of Darwin's family deny that this event took place. Even if true, Lady Hope's testimony scarcely supports the idea of a death-bed conversion. In 1922 Darwin's daughter Henrietta wrote:

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.

Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

See also:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm
http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

 

[The Bible Thumper]

And very zealous for the L-rd up until his 40th birthday, at which point he focused all his attentions on his new theory.
Even in his last words, he cried out to the L-rd!

Most sources (including Darwin) attribute the start of the decline in his belief in Christianity to his time on the Beagle. As to the tale of his last days, this may or may not be true. The evidence for Darwin's 'recantation' comes solely from the testimony of the committed Christian Lady Hope who supposedly visited Darwin some six months before he died. Many members of Darwin's family deny that this event took place. Even if true, Lady Hope's testimony scarcely supports the idea of a death-bed conversion. In 1922 Darwin's daughter Henrietta wrote:

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.

Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

See also:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm
http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

It looks like the 'deathbed conversion' in the links you provided is a conversion from "evolutionizm" over to "Christianity." Since there is nothing inherently contradictory between ToE and Christianity, we can assume the links to be somewhat biased.

Since Lady Hope did indeed visit Darwin, we can surmise that anything contrary is fabricated by the haters of Christianity (those people who for whatever reason percieve Christianity as being intolerant). Since it is not within the character of a good Christian lady to lie--about anything--we can guess that, while Darwin did hold on to his theories, he nonetheless screamed out for G-d in his last day. This will make him a theistic evolutionist, and a great man of G-d!

 

[lordkalvan]

It looks like the 'deathbed conversion' in the links you provided is a conversion from "evolutionizm" over to "Christianity." Since there is nothing inherently contradictory between ToE and Christianity, we can assume the links to be somewhat biased.

I agree that there is nothing that demands incompatibility between Christianity and evolutionary theory.

Since Lady Hope did indeed visit Darwin, we can surmise that anything contrary is fabricated by the haters of Christianity (those people who for whatever reason percieve Christianity as being intolerant). Since it is not within the character of a good Christian lady to lie--about anything--we can guess that, while Darwin did hold on to his theories, he nonetheless screamed out for G-d in his last day. This will make him a theistic evolutionist, and a great man of G-d!

If you want to guess this, by all means do so; you may be right and then again you may be wrong. Unfortunately the evidence to support your guess is non-existent and that which there is appears to render it invalid. The best evidence available suggests that Darwin remained an agnostic to the day of his death. Of Lady Hope's story, Darwin's son Francis had this to say in 1918:

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.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope

Lady Hope may or may not have been a virtuous truth-teller, but her memory at least played tricks with her as in one version of her story she has Darwin in bed at the time of her visit, in another lying on a sofa.

See: http://scibel.gospelcom.net/content/scibelarticles.php?id=3

Henrietta Darwin, by the way, was a pious Christian lady herself.

 

[The Bible Thumper]

The suggestion that these good Christian ladies actually lied--Christian grandma's, no less--is grasping for straws of the highest order. Especially considering the Atheist publication you cited in Post #2 tells us they flatly denied Lady Hope even existed. Then when it was proven she did exist, the Atheists said she never even knew Darwin, let alone talked to him. When that was proven false, the Atheists change their stories and deny Lady Hope talked to Darwin on his deathbed.

Gee. Three lies from an Atheist source versus two good-natured Christian ladies. Who are we to believe? You are a fool if you believe the Atheists!

 

[The Bible Thumper]

Darwin. Great man of G-d!

 

[lordkalvan]

The suggestion that these good Christian ladies actually lied--Christian grandma's, no less--is grasping for straws of the highest order. Especially considering the Atheist publication you cited in Post #2 tells us they flatly denied Lady Hope even existed. Then when it was proven she did exist, the Atheists said she never even knew Darwin, let alone talked to him. When that was proven false, the Atheists change their stories and deny Lady Hope talked to Darwin on his deathbed.

Gee. Three lies from an Atheist source versus two good-natured Christian ladies. Who are we to believe? You are a fool if you believe the Atheists!

But the 'good-natured Christian lady' Henrietta Darwin contradicts the 'good-natured Christian lady' Lady Hope, so your argument makes no sense. I did not reference an 'Atheist publication', by the way, although the sources I did reference do discuss the controversy surrounding Lady Hope's visit from both sides.

My purpose is only to point out that you have no evidence for your conclusion about Darwin's attitude towards God and Christianity in his last days and just because you (or I) wish something to be so does not make it so. To quote the two 'creationist' sources I referenced:

We would have liked to conclude that, on balance, [Lady Hope's] account is truthful, but there is also much against it, and we cannot come to a firm conclusion either way. Whichever side is right, it leaves unanswered questions on the other side. We have presented the evidence for and against, and must leave the reader to decide. No doubt, as ever, the prejudices and bias with which each one comes to this controversy may have already predetermined the result of their conclusions.

Source: http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm

The most important aspect of [Lady Hope's] story, however, is that it does not say that Charles [Darwin] 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 [Darwin's wife] 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.

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

 

[The Bible Thumper]

OK, so the question will likely remain forever unanswered.
Remember, though, the purpose of this thread is to prevent Atheists from stealing Darwin and snatching any Christianity he had. Atheists like to commit that kind of identity theft, you know. I won't let it happen!

 

[lordkalvan]

OK, so the question will likely remain forever unanswered.
Remember, though, the purpose of this thread is to prevent Atheists from stealing Darwin and snatching any Christianity he had. Atheists like to commit that kind of identity theft, you know. I won't let it happen!

As, like you, I do not see any necessary conflict between evolutionary theory and belief in God, I do not have a problem with recognizing Darwin as a Christian, an agnostic (apparently the most likely) or an atheist (probably the least likely). And, like you, I do not want to see Darwin appropriated by any faction just because they believe it strengthens their position to have such a great man on their 'side'.

 

[The Bible Thumper]

OK, so the question will likely remain forever unanswered.
Remember, though, the purpose of this thread is to prevent Atheists from stealing Darwin and snatching any Christianity he had. Atheists like to commit that kind of identity theft, you know. I won't let it happen!

As, like you, I do not see any necessary conflict between evolutionary theory and belief in God, I do not have a problem with recognizing Darwin as a Christian, an agnostic (apparently the most likely) or an atheist (probably the least likely). And, like you, I do not want to see Darwin appropriated by any faction just because they believe it strengthens their position to have such a great man on their 'side'.

Unlike some posters here and elsewhere, I happen to have a high opinion of you. It's a shame there aren't more posters like you around, but then I digress...
Anyways. The identity theft has already begun, as this thievery of Darwin's identity from richarddawkins forum clearly illustrates:

 

[Bryce]

[quote="The Bible Thumper":8nsyztwl]OK, so the question will likely remain forever unanswered.
Remember, though, the purpose of this thread is to prevent Atheists from stealing Darwin and snatching any Christianity he had. Atheists like to commit that kind of identity theft, you know. I won't let it happen!

As, like you, I do not see any necessary conflict between evolutionary theory and belief in God, I do not have a problem with recognizing Darwin as a Christian, an agnostic (apparently the most likely) or an atheist (probably the least likely). And, like you, I do not want to see Darwin appropriated by any faction just because they believe it strengthens their position to have such a great man on their 'side'.

Unlike some posters here and elsewhere, I happen to have a high opinion of you. It's a shame there aren't more posters like you around, but then I digress...
Anyways. The identity theft has already begun, as this thievery of Darwin's identity from richarddawkins forum clearly illustrates:

[/quote:8nsyztwl]

I knew it!
Darwin built a time machine before his 'death' shaved off his beard, strategically placed it on his head and started teaching British school kids some elementary principles about evolution!

[Joking]

 

[John]

HAHAHAHA *Saved*

 

[The Bible Thumper]

Dawkins, by commercially posing right next to Darwin, almost has that effect on his believers...

 

[John]

Dawkins, by commercially posing right next to Darwin, almost has that effect on his believers...

Bleh, i am not a fan of Dakwins, after reading his book i took it outback, threw it in the air and blasted it with a 12ga shotgun.

 

[Dante-Alighieri]

Dawkins, by commercially posing right next to Darwin, almost has that effect on his believers...

Bleh, i am not a fan of Dakwins, after reading his book i took it outback, threw it in the air and blasted it with a 12ga shotgun.

O.o Well that seems like a waste of money, as well as a tad dramatic.



Dante

 

[Caroline H]

It looks like the 'deathbed conversion' in the links you provided is a conversion from "evolutionizm" over to "Christianity." Since there is nothing inherently contradictory between ToE and Christianity, we can assume the links to be somewhat biased.

Everything about evolution is inherently contradictory to the Bible. God created the world and all that is within it in 6 days. If you want to believe in evolution, don't throw it under the umbrella of Christianity...there is no excuse for that.

 

[lordkalvan]

^ And yet scientists like Keith Miller have no problem reconciling their sincerely-held Christian beliefs with an unequivocal acceptance of the evidence for both evolution and a universe whose age is measured in billions of years. See Miller's article on the Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation at:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.html

 

[Dante-Alighieri]

If everything about evolution is inherently contradictory to your belief in a literal Genesis, then I think it's your interpretation that needs to be reviewed.

The Bible claims that truth is revealed in creation, and when all evidence (and I'm not exaggerating here) in the world and even in the universe points to a very old Earth and to the fact of evolution, then you're left with a dilemma of God either being a deceiver, or literally interpreting Genesis is not the way to interpret it.

However, I think it is a slap in the face to the hermaneutic process of reading scripture to come to the conclusion that Genesis was intended to be a literal depiction of the beginning of the world. The context and hermaneutic aspect both scream that it is not a passage to be taken literally.

During the time of Moses, the biggest (theological) issue was not HOW the World came to be, but rather, what was the nature of the deity(s) that created the world. Polytheism (as well as animism) were the big thing during the time of Moses, so keeping that historical and cultural context in mind, I find it hard to see how anyone could read Genesis literally.

What the author was trying to convey was that the universe did have a beginning, and that there was ONE god who created all. The depiction of God created not only the heavens and the Earth, but also all the animals, all plants, and everything in the universe serves to snuff out any beliefs in animism which were prevalent at the time.

No one during that time cared how long the Earth had been around, no one cared how the Earth had came to be (everyone already presumed that some sort of deity had created it), what concerned them was which deity and what the nature of this deity was. To ignore the allegorical message of Genesis in favor of a literal interpretation is to commit hermaneutical suicide.



Dante

 

[John]

[quote="The Bible Thumper":2g0491cf]Dawkins, by commercially posing right next to Darwin, almost has that effect on his believers...

Bleh, i am not a fan of Dakwins, after reading his book i took it outback, threw it in the air and blasted it with a 12ga shotgun.

O.o Well that seems like a waste of money, as well as a tad dramatic.



Dante[/quote:2g0491cf]

Naw, i just don't want that trash in my house.

 

[Dante-Alighieri]

Naw, i just don't want that trash in my house.

Would you then equally throw out all scientific achievements and practical benefits that have come about as a result of the theory of evolution?
Such as medicinal drugs and pesticides for instance?



Dante