why does the recanting of darwin's beliefs still remain unproven?

Question

and why is it that we choose what we do and don't want to hear?

truthorfiction.com says his beliefs remain unproven. Its only a question. If you get defensive you need to question your own beliefs

Answer 1

Evolution fails to hold up under scientific scrutiny. No intermediate forms anywhere from any field of science. Not a single bacteria changed into a different bacteria after millions of generations of replication under observation. Not a single gene out of place. NOTHING. Further, the whole primordial ooze bit directly contradicts one of the prime principles of biology....biogenesis. Life can only come from other life....never from non-life.

Understand, I am not saying there is not a scientific chain of causation behind the origin of species. It is simply unknown at this time (and likely to remain unknown based on the lack of development in this area). However, there is no debate between science and theology with regard to this. One does not in any way preclude the other. Put another way, God probably chooses to work through universal natural law (the part of this we know about is science). Evolution though, is one theory that is proven false. Scientific observation contradicts it in a very big way.

Further, it's the whole evolution vs creationism debate that is a problem. Marxists are trying to use this phony debate to try and trick people out of their faith. They know that evolution is bull, but keep it alive for political reasons. This specifically prevents any real investigation into the scientific basis for the origin of species...which is very sad. The scientific method was invented to prevent manipulation of knowledge for political gain. It's sick that it has been turned against itself in such a manner.

Understand what it means for "scientists" to support evolution even though it does not hold up under the scientific method. Science is not something that allows a call to authority. To say, this must be true because experts believe it is true, has no meaning in science. If you want to say something is true, you need to provide evidence. And this, evolutionists cannot do. For them to insist that evolution is true even though it fails this most basic test for if something is scientific or not means that they are no longer scientists. They have stepped outside the method and lost all legitimacy for it.

Another way to say this is they need to either put up or shut up.

Answer 2

Darwin's theory of evolution is properly called a scientific theory: it is a refutable universal statement about the way the world works. A characteristic of any such theory is that it is in principle impossible to prove that it is true; there is always the possibility of an exception lurking somewhere where nobody has yet seen it. It is, however, possible to prove that a scientific theory is wrong, by finding such an exception. If that happens, you need to change the theory to account for the discrepancy. Scientists are always on the lookout for discrepancies in their pet theories, if they don't find one, confidence in the theory is enhanced, while if they do find one, something can be learned and the theory modified to fit the new data.

Although a theory cannot be proved, it can become established, meaning that people in the field use the theory to make predictions because the predictions are correct. In this sense, Darwin's theory is as solidly established as anything in science: people use it all the time, because it works all the time. Which is not surprising, when you consider the little bit that is needed for it to work. You need two things:
- The possibility of variation -- that, due to a genetic error, a daughter organism is genetically different from the parent. We see this all the time: every commercially important plant or animal is a variant of an original wild type; sometimes the variation is so extensive that the variant is no longer sexually compatible with the original wild type -- i.e., it's a new species.
- A method of selection, such that a "favorable" variation is more likely to reproduce. Natural selection is obvious; in the case of commercial plants and animals, the selection is typically human.

It is possible to prove that the predictive value of any theory obtains strictly from its refutability. It follows immediately that an irrefutable theory can predict nothing and is useless. All "creationism" or "intelligent design" theories are in principle irrefutable -- you could never demonstrate that such a theory is false -- so all such theories are useless (even though they could be correct). It follows from all of this that the previous responder's answer to your question is hogwash.

Answer 3

Evolution is a worldwide accepted theory by scientists for well over 100 years now. There has NEVER been a article published in a peer-review journal that could discredit evolution. There have been modification and revision, but the theory as a whole stands as strong as gravity as a theory.

People who say there are missing links or holes in the theory have obviously never studies it. There is a clear, unarguable progression from the Cambrian (~550 million years ago) to now with no gaps at the Family or Class level. There are some strange Genus or Species, but these are rare and easily explain by the incompleteness of the fossil record.

People also tend to try to discredit radiometric dating in the process, another worldwide accepted and applied scientific fact.

We study science. That means we make hypotheses and observation. Religion is based on faith, something that has ZERO part in science. You can believe, or have faith in, whatever you want, but to not accept evolution as the cause for modern, past, and future biodiversity is just ignorant in the true sense of the word.

One more thought: if science COULD prove evolution wrong and creation right (and thus God as real), it would have been done. That would be the single greatest scientific discovery of all time. Not only do scientists love glory, but they love to show each other up. If creation could be prove, it would have been done a long time ago. Science can not prove creation because that is based on faith and faith alone. Science has no place for faith (except when it comes to funding).

Source(s):
AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution

Answer 4

Whether or not Darwin recanted his theory of evolution is unimportant except as a measure of the intolerance of society during his lifetime. His theory, although incomplete because of the lack of knowledge of genetics at that time, is supported by vast amounts of data. It has been documented that Galileo recanted his position that the earth went around the sun when the religious leaders of his time threatened putting him on the rack and pulling him limb from limb. Now however even the most devout creationists will admit that the earth goes around the sun and the earth is not the center of the universe.

Answer 5

Darwin's beliefs have been proven, and it would mean very little if they wern't. Please bring up specific points to dispute. If you want a debate, then go ahead and debate instead of making cheap shots and straw men to knock over.

EDIT: Anyone who uses one website based on email forwards as a source for such a topic needs to question their method of discerning truth from fiction. To be sure, I wasn't being defensive. That is a fairly common argument that proves nothing but attempt to instill doubt where doubt doesn't belong anymore. You aren't in the big leagues yet, but you have to defend your position a bit. Grow up.

Answer 6

Um ... truthorfiction.com is run by an ordained minister (read the "About" page). Not exactly what one could call unbiased in this matter.

The trick with these things is to look for "Peer Reviewed" journals. That way, someone can't just stand up and say whatever the heck they want, they have to have someone in the fields in question look over the data and conclusions to validate the science.

Answer 7

Dude, once and for all the ENTIRE scientific community, comprised of the most BRILLIANT minds embraces evolution because it is the most REASONABLE explanation we have for our TRUE ORIGIN.
you backwater wackos would have them throw it all away because the MOUNTAINS of evidence have a few pieces missing and have them revert to what??? this concludes the earth is less than 10,000 years old!? LOL! never mind the universe! Do you people have even one logical thought in your brain? oh, yes, that's right, carbon dating can't be relied on as an exact science, therefore, we coexisted with the DINOSAURS?! RU kidding me? surely you jest.
You people frightfully think this adds up. Terrifying really, I fear for humanity. Because if the masses believe something like that, what other strange things are they ready and willing to believe?
You know, you guys are a maniac leader away from burning witches and heretics again, stoning people for disobeying their parents and having premarital sex (justifying it with the bible verses), etc. etc. Thank GOD we live in a SECULARIZED, democratic society. nutcases.

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

Evolution, or Darwinism, is really nothing more than common descent with modification through genetically passed on traits. Darwin wasn't the first to suggest the theory of evolution, nor natural selection, although he was the one responsible for popularizing it in the scientific community.

Just like Darwin, I was at one time a Young Earth Creationist, who believed that the earth was 6,000 or so years old and that all life was specially created by God through a miracle. However, as I grew older, I carefully examined the evidence for evolution, and the arguments against it. I also examined the creationist criticisms of the evidence for evolution, and I found that they do not hold water. Ditto with the ancient earth/young earth controversy.

None of this has convinced me to not believe in the bible, God, or Christ as my Savior. I treat genesis allegorically instead of literally, and I think the fundamentalists who go around twisting science to try to prove their narrow and clearly incorrect interpretation of Genesis are severely mislead and do more harm than good.

The resulting debates between YECs and science leads many people to believe that they must make a choice, either/or, between accepting Christ or rejecting religion for science. It is both unfortunate and unnecessary that someone cannot believe in both, as I do, but YEC fundamentalists don't offer such an option.

We don't necessarily choose what to hear, but we do choose what to accept. I choose to accept evolution because the evidence is strong, and remains effectively unrefuted for the last 100+ years. Further, my spiritual salvation is not endangered by my belief in evolution. Nor would it be assured by believing in literal creation.

I accept the bible, the existance of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent God and Jesus as my Savior solely on faith. I don't need science to prove anything to me for this. The true dichotomy is that Jesus preached that faith is what we need to be saved, and that faitth is what God wants from us, but YEC's seem to teach that belief in their psuedoscience is going to save your soul.

I strongly disagree.

There has never been a recanting of Darwin's beliefs. Although the intricate details as to how evolution occurs is still being debated, 99% of the 400,000+ experts in many different scientific disciplines accept that common descent with modification over billions of years lead to the variety of life that exists on earth today.

Neither did Darwin recant his own theory on his deathbed, as many dishonest creationists often claim. Even the YEC organization, Answers In Genesis, rejects this argument as untrue (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp). Even if Darwin did recant, along with some other prominent scientists, scientists who accept evolution do so based on the evidence for it, not just because darwin said so, which is quite unlike the YEC's, who accept creationism not based on any evidence for it, or against evolution, but because they think the bible says so. It doesn't, but that's what they think.

The bible simply states who created the universe and everything in it. It states why all of this was created. It is sorely lacking details as to HOW God did it, and how isn't nearly as important as WHO, or WHY.