what do you guys think about evolution? correct me if im wrong (and i could be), but didnt darwin admit that he was wrong about evolution? didnt he say that evolution didnt happen?
2006-11-20 02:43:34 · 19 answers · asked by annie 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
evolution has never been proven, and it never will be... its not how we came to be...
does it not show something that once he entered christianity, he saw the truth and stated that evolution was wrong... he renounced himself... ok, so if the one person who was closest to the evolution theory, renounced what he had found, why on earth would people follow what he said to be untrue?! blind i tell you, blind! if people really called themselves "followers" of darwin, they would follow him to the christian way of life... and then not follow darwin anymore, but his Maker, God... evolutionists are hyporcites in more ways than one.
2006-11-20 02:46:26 · answer #1 · answered by lily 5 · 1⤊ 7⤋
No, Darwin did not abandon the valid scientific theory he had been the first to recognize. He did mention several points which he, in his rather primitive understanding of biological evolution, could not reconcile with his somewhat simplistic theory. This is always the case when a pioneer in an area of science recognizes a new reality of major proportions. The most one researcher can hope to accomplish is a general outline of the basic concepts. It takes many years of research by other investigators to flesh out such a theory, discover additional evidence, and build upon the theory, adding new information, modifying the original theory as evidence requires, and scrapping elements of the theory that do not stand up in light of new evidence. Or, scapping the entire theory, if it turns out that new evidence simply doesn't support it. So far, all available evidence indicates that Darwin was essentially correct as far as natural selection goes, but that natural selection is only one of several important processes that contribute to the evolution of species.
2006-11-20 02:59:40 · answer #2 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Darwin admitted nothing of the sort but in any case Darwinian theory is one tiny facet of evolution-it only explains a biological mechanism. The fact of evolution is proven with or without Darwin, although his theory has yet to be seriously challenged so that is accepted as factual by the majority of biologists. What Darwin did do was totally reject the Christian fundamentalism of his youth-why is that point never highlighted by the religionists?
2006-11-20 02:50:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Dumb question. Do you think he researched all his life and wrote books on evolution only to say in the end that there is no such thing as evolution ? I don't think so. Read up on it yourself.
Besides Darwin there were others working on the same sort of research and were coming to the same conclusions.
P.S Are you American ?
2006-11-20 03:11:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
He didn't. It was a myth. According to Wikkipedia:
Despite this hope, very similar stories [about recanting his beliefs and becoming Christian] were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915 which claimed he had converted on his sickbed.[9] Such stories have been propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians. His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[10]
2006-11-20 02:49:59 · answer #5 · answered by Byron A 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
That sounds like the wishful thinking of religious fanatics, akin to the bogus stories of the deathbed conversions of skeptics. Darwin did not repudiate his work, and it is being misrepresented by religious fanatics. Darwin never speculated on the origin of LIFE-- he accepted it as here, and once here, accounted for the origin of species through natural selection. That is why informed religious people can believe in Evolution.
2006-11-20 02:48:00 · answer #6 · answered by kreevich 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0J0JNU
That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”
Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html
Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this
What Hath Darwin Wrought?
http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/
Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q
Darwin & Eugenics....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTPHvedOOU&feature=related
Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUjhgsEJFw
Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCbfzmhAN8
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660
2014-12-23 03:12:41 · answer #7 · answered by The Lightning Strikes 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Charles Darwin died on 19 April 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 House2 in the autumn of 1881. 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 8 February 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 23 February 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, 28 September and Sunday, 2 October 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.
2006-11-20 02:54:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
No he never withdrew his support for evolution.
Many creationists try to spread this around. And anyway ask yourself this. If Einstein decided that he had been wrong... would he really have been wrong? We use his equations today in GPS satellites and many other uses. It's irrelevant whether one scientist refutes something even if he thought of it. The vast majority of biologists support evolution as a fact.
2006-11-20 02:45:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think things evolve but not in a sense apes to humans. Philosophicly we can prove it wrong with the five sense and the knowledge of humans. If a ahuman can only create or know thinsg based on experience what about evolution it would need and experience to create senses and without experience you would need an 6th sense to create something new.
One interesting thought is about humans coming from fish. Since legends of pagan religions have mentioned fish gods and man coming out of the sea. Also Jesus mother's name in hebrew means bitter water. Also the style of the pope hat resembles a fish priest in ancient pagan religions. Just food for thought.
2006-11-20 02:50:27 · answer #10 · answered by Labatt113 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, not exactly. What he said was that the fossil record would prove him wrong. So far it has. There are many fossils of animals that are extinct. Even new ones are found every year, but nothing that can be "linked" to any other specie. "Macro-evolution", that is, one specie changing into another one, continues to be just an elusive wish.
2006-11-20 02:58:19 · answer #11 · answered by Desperado 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋