Why do creationists dishonestly use the following quote to try to show that even Darwin doubted evolution?

Question

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

................ yet always fail to quote what came next..............

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. "

Answer 1

They are only following their commandment
Thou shalt not lie, unless it can help our case.
Plus, I think a lot of them receive misquotes from the church or e-mails and the thought of actually checking its validity never crosses their mind.
Same reason they start questions with "I really want to understand the X,Y and Z religion", then give the best answer nod to someone who answers God is the only way, those people are all sinners.

Answer 2

I'm a creationist. I have heard this quote but don't use it.
Whatever Charles Darwin said or didn't say is fairly irreverent if you ask me. His theory on the evolution of the Earth has taken on a life of its own. I am curious to know which ToE you believe in as there are 3 that I'm aware of (according to evolutionary scientists) and the 'hopeful monsters' theory that has started to compensate for the holes found due to science finding holes in his original theory sounds more fabricated that the 'creation myth' that Atheists keep referring to.
Whether Darwin agrees with his own theory or not won't change most people’s perceptions of ToE. Science will, but in time and that is something that many people don't have enough of.

God Bless and I hope that you ask these types of questions about Atheistic arguments just as you ask them of Christian ones.

Answer 3

I am a creationist and have never seen or used this quote. Therefore I did a search on www.answersingenesis.com and found it. It makes the quote and then makes this statement:

"Nevertheless, Darwin proposed that beneficial changes leading to the development of the eye accumulated over many generations, each intermediate being useful to its possessor."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/darrall.asp

I don't see this as dishonest. Perhaps you can provided an example showing this misuse?

Answer 4

A couple of issues ago National Geographic Magazine showed photo's of different species and fossils to illustrate that among others that Darwin was correct in his second quote.

Just because a humble scientists is willing to concede if he doesn't know doesn't mean he was wrong or science can never prove his ideas.

The misuse of such quotes is just another example of the flagrant abuse that many people are willing to commit in order to prove a point. Not that I'm saying scientists are always innocent; but many religious people commit this abuse even to their religious texts. Either read it all or commit to a subjective reading of everything that does not try to possit universal truths but subjective truths.

Answer 5

that is not all of them of path, yet "Bert" has in basic terms presented yet another prize occasion, desperately wrenching S J Gould out of context. (yet a speedy seek exhibits many creationist web pages exhibiting it like a efficient captive. Few if any would look after his total argument: “the renowned concept of evolution does not require slow substitute. It in actuality, the operation of Darwinian tactics ought to yield precisely what we see interior the fossil checklist. it truly is gradualism that we ought to reject, not Darwinism." - See The Panda's Thumb.) it may, partly, be a carry-over from the tendency to "info text textile" from the bible, particularly than address the extra stable ability of wisdom an entire piece of writing, secular or sacred, in its literary, historic and cultural context. If that is naivety and a propensity to settle for statements and soundbites from authority with out weighing and checking them, there is an possibility that some would improve out of it, whilst they understand what silliness they are spouting in some situations. I evaluate myself sceptical, yet i've got had to do away with countless myths from my suggestions, that i'd gained particularly luckily in till now days. an person-friendly one... i became taught that the cavalry have been the stable adult males and the Indians (sic) have been the undesirable adult males. Hmm.

Answer 6

One reason is that The Bible is read by Chapter Verse, and not linearly. This method of reading is often apply to other texts.

Answer 7

Because they have a talent for taking things out of context and grasping for straws to try to prove that silly creation myth.

Answer 8

Adaptation by natural selection does *not* prove evolution! It just proves that God, in His omniscience and omnipotence, was omniscient and omnipotent enough to know that some living organisms and their descendants would have to be able to adapt or die out (like most of the giant reptiles did), and He was able to create them in a manner where they would be able to adapt within certain parameters!

Answer 9

Bacause they love their strawmen. There's a list of diiferent types of logical fallacies on wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi I like to go through them to see what type of fallacies religious people like to use.

Answer 10

For obvious reasons.
Its not important. Even if Darwin himself did doubt evolution, it wouldn't make it any less of a fact.