Darwin didn't say "Creator" in the first edition of The Origin of Species (1859).
He added the word in later editions (from 1860 on), because he was sensitive to accusations that he was promoting atheism, especially since many of his family including his wife, were orthodox Christians. In some of his later correspondence he regretted that use of language, describing it as "Pentateuchal".
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-4065.html
In his early life Darwin was conventionally Christian, and studied to join the clergy. In his later life he would have described himself as "agnostic", a word coined by his friend Thomas Huxley.
2007-08-14 13:10:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
Darwin did believe in God in his earliest years. However, I believe there were numerous deaths and tragedies in his life that made him doubt the existence of a loving God. Evidently, if Darwin did believe in God, his faith was not great, otherwise he would not have never become unbelieving.
As a matter of fact, Darwin attempted to prove evolution using his "natural selection" theory, but Darwin was in no way trying to disprove Creation. At least, that is what I hear. Hope that helps.
2007-08-14 15:01:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by an ambassador for risen Christ 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Notice how many answers here down play the Creator part, which pretty much proves what most of us already know, that is, most evolutionists believe that evolution disproves God and religion, which on it's face is absurd.
The theory of evolution and it's process, natural selection, is no closer to being proved now, then it was when Darwin dreamed it up.
The Creator he referred to is the same one that 90% of the world population believe is there, God. The miracle of life is so very complex and to think that life simply happened is not very logical.
God is the only logical answer.
2007-08-14 23:40:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
That's not the whole quote. As they say, context matters. "I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."
2016-05-17 23:44:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by lelia 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Likely the same Creator we refer to everyday: God. Darwin was brought up when God was taught in the schools as part of the nation's heritage and as a fact.
What Darwin posited on us was only a theory, and he knew it. His followers have corrupted his work and use his theory to replace science and God, which was likely what Darwin never wanted to do.
But I can't speak for Darwin, though. It is still a theory I have no reason to believe in.
2007-08-14 13:10:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
The early life of Darwin showed his interest in theology but his views about religion changed over time. In his book The Origin of Species”, he introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It was controversial because it contradicted religious beliefs which underlay the then current theories of biology. Darwin's book was the culmination of evidence he had accumulated on the voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s and expanded through continuing investigations and experiments since his return.” He theorized that all species of life have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors through the process of natural selection."
I shared the opinion that the reference to the word “Creator” means the creation of species by natural creation.
In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." However, he was always insistent that he was agnostic and had never been an atheist.”
2007-08-14 14:36:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by henry 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
Don't you realize that these are the very same people who told us that Pluto was a planet in school.Now their saying its not a planet after all.Theirs is the theory, God's word has remained the same since the beginning of time..
2007-08-15 04:08:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by don_steele54 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hon - I would be hard pressed to find the reference any time soon - but there is a biography that speaks of how he came back to Christ later in life and spent the end of his days trying to get the scientific community to recant the evolutionary theories. Author Mrs. Charels Cowan wrote about it - but, again... it would take me ages to unpack my boxes and find the text to refer you to.
I hope someone else can find it ahead of me. Peace.
2007-08-14 15:15:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Depoetic 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I offer no references for my opinion, but I'm am of the belief
that Darwin was truly repentant before he passed. It is my
opinion that Darwin actually believed in Jesus. Hi Kidd!
I Cr 13;8a
2007-08-14 13:08:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 7
·
7⤊
0⤋
Clearly Darwin's scientific research was infinitely more valuable to human understanding of our origins than were the results his theological studies which managed to tell us nothing new or meaningful at all.
2007-08-15 02:12:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5
·
0⤊
1⤋