Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
It's documented.
Charles Darwin Biography
It has been falsely claimed that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed. The claim can be dismissed by his never having left the church. This claim is discussed in The Survival of Charles Darwin: A Biography of a Man and an Idea, by Ronald W. Clark (Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1985), p. 199:
"Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: 'How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done.' He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he 'would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss.'
"With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. 'I was present at his deathbed,' she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. '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. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.'" (Ellipsis original.)
Charles Darwin Biography
It has been falsely claimed that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed. The claim can be dismissed by his never having left the church. This claim is discussed in The Survival of Charles Darwin: A Biography of a Man and an Idea, by Ronald W. Clark (Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1985), p. 199:
"Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: 'How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done.' He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he 'would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss.'
"With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. 'I was present at his deathbed,' she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. '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. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.'" (Ellipsis original.)
The one statement above in red is an obvious lie because there is documented proof the Lady Hope did infact meet with Darwin a number of times. Henrietta's quote has no foundation...
Hahaha Okay, so you guys are in fact trying to somehow prove that YOUR hearsay (which fits nicely with what you choose to believe) is better "evidence" than actual documented fact?? How can you stand this, Dex??
Risus, your affirmation that the statement you highlighted is patently false shows a good deal of ignorance- do you happen to have the entire interviews all transcribed?? If not, the possibility that it was edited for clarity or brevity leaves WAY too many alternate possibilities as to the meaning behind the quote, just cos there's one you like doesn't mean the others are somehow invalidated
Oh and GerryH, look up "bad debating" for some tips so you don't make ridiculous logical missteps like the one you're currently working on
Risus, your affirmation that the statement you highlighted is patently false shows a good deal of ignorance- do you happen to have the entire interviews all transcribed?? If not, the possibility that it was edited for clarity or brevity leaves WAY too many alternate possibilities as to the meaning behind the quote, just cos there's one you like doesn't mean the others are somehow invalidated
Oh and GerryH, look up "bad debating" for some tips so you don't make ridiculous logical missteps like the one you're currently working on
Well, there's plenty of damn good proof to flesh out evolution pretty nicely. I have not seen any proof, testable proof, EVER of any sort of invisible, all powerful beings.
I just thought you were suggesting that if the ENTIRE thing couldn't be explained fully, then evolution was just as sound a theory as creationism, which is just not logical
I just thought you were suggesting that if the ENTIRE thing couldn't be explained fully, then evolution was just as sound a theory as creationism, which is just not logical
It is unreasonable to demand that the evidence meet your expectations of what it ought to be when you know so little of what science is and how it works. It's also a major essay just to summarize the multiple converging lines of evidence that justify the conclusion that humans and apes share a common ancestor, and I really don't feel like doing that much work on your behalf. The information's widely available, you can do your own research. You might start with Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale, it's available in paperback now, and Mayr's What Evolution Is, and visit the TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
I'm not argueing evolution vs creationism..... They want idispitable proof of God.... then give me indisputable proof of evolution.
I don't want it "fleshed out rather nicely"... indesputable, 100% from start to finish of mankinds evolution.
SO you are saying that there are NO gaps in the science of evolution. No "best guess because of the preponderance of evidence". No "logical steps". The entire line from single cell to mankind can be laid out without interruption...no gaps......
It's unreasonable for ME to demand that evidence meet MY expectations? hmmmm....interesting... yet you demand that evidence presented on the existence of God meet YOUR expectations.
There are some speciation gaps, could be for a number of reasons - the founder effect, for one.
If evolution actually took place, there should be NO chimpanzees in existance today, only humans.
The one animal evolutionists CANNOT explain is the duck billed platypus.
Read this and follow some of the links at the bottom. Draw your own conclusions, but the weight of evidence is against you. The issue's really irrelevant to the status of the theory though, and I don't propose to discuss it further.