Darwin - Did He Regret Spreading Evolution?
Fire_Eel
Join Date: 2003-08-19 Member: 19950Members
Join Date: 2003-08-19 Member: 19950Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Fact or fiction?Non-religious discussion</div> Charles Darwin - AKA The father of evolution
He was born in 1809 and died in 1882. His ideas of evolution shocked the world as during that time, people in the western countries looked to the Bible as being the only source to explain the creation of the world and animals.
Darwin started out as a Christian, and believed in the Bible. He also had a great love for animals and nature and travelled upon the HMS Beagle for 5 years. This years, he collected plant and animal samples, did reports, studied wildlife, the ocean, collected fossils and went to the Galapagos Islands. His study led him to believe in many things.
He believed that the world was not created in October 23, 4004BC and was less than 6000 years old. He believed the continents were once closer together and that the animals once lived together, when they went to new lands, they evolved into new species. He also believed the world was constantly changing.
Darwin was famous as a naturalist, an adventurer and he wrote books about his travels. He did 15 years of research, discussed with his friends, and people such as Alfred Russel Wallace who shared similar ideas and theories of evolution. In 1859, he published the book "The Origin of Species" and promoted his theory of evolution.
The years after, many people believed in him, and his theory. Yet, there was much hatred, and people were infuriated at his work and claimed he had no parts for god in his book. In USA, there were even campaigns and mass riotings just to ban his ideas of evolution from school.
I 've read many books about Darwin and his theories. Darwin to me is like Jesus to a Christian, not that I am implying he is our saviour though. I throughly believe in evolution, and have had many discussions with my religious friends as well as people over the internet.
However, at least 2 Christians have told me this : At his dying bed, Darwin completely regretted his ideas to spread Evolution, to doubt and not believe in god. He started out as a Christian and he would die as one.
Frankly, I couldn't downright accuse them of being liars. I had no proof to point out they were wrong. I knew Darwin did start out as a Christian but I do not know if he really did regret his decision to promote Evolution. The books I read about him promoted Evolution and never included any information about whether he regretted it or not, thus, I do not have a neutral source to determine if what the Christians told me were untrue.
Could anyone(Christian or not) please shed some light on this?
Please note this is NOT a discussion to talk about whether there is Evolution or there is God, this is about whether Darwin finally believed in god when he died and not believe in his theory of evolution.
Mods, feel free to lock this if it turns out to be an ugly arguement.
He was born in 1809 and died in 1882. His ideas of evolution shocked the world as during that time, people in the western countries looked to the Bible as being the only source to explain the creation of the world and animals.
Darwin started out as a Christian, and believed in the Bible. He also had a great love for animals and nature and travelled upon the HMS Beagle for 5 years. This years, he collected plant and animal samples, did reports, studied wildlife, the ocean, collected fossils and went to the Galapagos Islands. His study led him to believe in many things.
He believed that the world was not created in October 23, 4004BC and was less than 6000 years old. He believed the continents were once closer together and that the animals once lived together, when they went to new lands, they evolved into new species. He also believed the world was constantly changing.
Darwin was famous as a naturalist, an adventurer and he wrote books about his travels. He did 15 years of research, discussed with his friends, and people such as Alfred Russel Wallace who shared similar ideas and theories of evolution. In 1859, he published the book "The Origin of Species" and promoted his theory of evolution.
The years after, many people believed in him, and his theory. Yet, there was much hatred, and people were infuriated at his work and claimed he had no parts for god in his book. In USA, there were even campaigns and mass riotings just to ban his ideas of evolution from school.
I 've read many books about Darwin and his theories. Darwin to me is like Jesus to a Christian, not that I am implying he is our saviour though. I throughly believe in evolution, and have had many discussions with my religious friends as well as people over the internet.
However, at least 2 Christians have told me this : At his dying bed, Darwin completely regretted his ideas to spread Evolution, to doubt and not believe in god. He started out as a Christian and he would die as one.
Frankly, I couldn't downright accuse them of being liars. I had no proof to point out they were wrong. I knew Darwin did start out as a Christian but I do not know if he really did regret his decision to promote Evolution. The books I read about him promoted Evolution and never included any information about whether he regretted it or not, thus, I do not have a neutral source to determine if what the Christians told me were untrue.
Could anyone(Christian or not) please shed some light on this?
Please note this is NOT a discussion to talk about whether there is Evolution or there is God, this is about whether Darwin finally believed in god when he died and not believe in his theory of evolution.
Mods, feel free to lock this if it turns out to be an ugly arguement.
Comments
What they told you is probably based around the Lady Hope story, which even the most feverent creationists around, such as those at that website, deny has any credibility. They are not lying to you, they were merely conned by a popular myth.
Just incase you've been hearing this from some of the same kind of people I talk to, he wasn't a sad and lonely man angry at religion for something-or-other. He had ~11 kids, and a wife that never left him even though he came out with scientific theories directly contradictory to her beliefs. Sounds like they were pretty happy to me, not to mention busy.
This scramble has also come up with stuff like an incident of dinosaur footprints appearing next to human footprints (I have yet to see any real evidence for this), well-known (and mysteriously unnamed) biologists denouncing evolution as a baseless claim, and the entire "all of our archaeological dating systems are broken and worhless" routine.
To me, this recanting story is just part of that volley of unrelated arguments formulated by different preachers and believers. It sounds like the kind of thing that you would tell a captive audience that believes most everything you say.
I know that as I say this, I sound like an atheist denouncing all forms of religion an exploitive method of controlling the masses. I just want to let you guys know that I'm not one of those people. I'm just saying that when people believe in something strongly, they'll do anything to prove themselves right. It's simple human nature.
Evolution may just as well be God's work. He may or may not have tinkered with it. Maybe he nudged evolution the right way so that man would appear in his image. I kinda feel sorry for people who have to discount either the religion or evolution to give the other a meaning (omg veiled insult!).
Evolution may just as well be God's work. He may or may not have tinkered with it. Maybe he nudged evolution the right way so that man would appear in his image. I kinda feel sorry for people who have to discount either the religion or evolution to give the other a meaning (omg veiled insult!). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's Intellegent Design, which doesn't jive with Evolution. Evolution is unguided, by definition. Evolution is random change; to have something telling it how to change wouldn't be evolution.
It's viewed in most scientific circles as Creationism in new clothes.
Evolution may just as well be God's work. He may or may not have tinkered with it. Maybe he nudged evolution the right way so that man would appear in his image. I kinda feel sorry for people who have to discount either the religion or evolution to give the other a meaning (omg veiled insult!). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's Intellegent Design, which doesn't jive with Evolution. Evolution is unguided, by definition. Evolution is random change; to have something telling it how to change wouldn't be evolution.
It's viewed in most scientific circles as Creationism in new clothes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, no it's not. Evolution has two facets - directed selection, and random mutation (which I'm given to think is pseudorandom anyway). And who's to say that God' can't direct randomness?
Evolution may just as well be God's work. He may or may not have tinkered with it. Maybe he nudged evolution the right way so that man would appear in his image. I kinda feel sorry for people who have to discount either the religion or evolution to give the other a meaning (omg veiled insult!). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's Intellegent Design, which doesn't jive with Evolution. Evolution is unguided, by definition. Evolution is random change; to have something telling it how to change wouldn't be evolution.
It's viewed in most scientific circles as Creationism in new clothes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, no it's not. Evolution has two facets - directed selection, and random mutation (which I'm given to think is pseudorandom anyway). And who's to say that God' can't direct randomness? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh... because then it wouldn't be random?
God is impossible to empirically observe so... sure, why not. I prefer to keep the supernatural out of science though. It makes it rather messy, especially when you extend that to other sciences.
Still doesn't make it not I.D. though.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Dictionary.com"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ("Dictionary.com")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Example: Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And can you explain "pseudorandom"? You're of the opinion that God goes around saying, "This Microbes T shall now be a G."?
[edit: You're going to have to elaborate on what exactly you mean by "Why the hell not?" Which part are you talking about?]
And can you explain "pseudorandom"? You're of the opinion that God goes around saying, "This Microbes T shall now be a G."?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
something like that, yes.
No, this is just one of those early desperate attempts that was made to try and discredit evolution due to the lack of evidence to the contrary.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah, but you see - pseudorandom direction by God and random evolution would be empirically indistinguishable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And so why did God decide to have bacteria derive the evolution of type III secretion systems, which are for the sole purpose of destroying tissues, killing the host (Superantigen secretion for example) and other detrimental effects? Did God just decide one day that bacteria that had been killing people for millions of years should get better at it with a new kind of weapon?
The idea really has just about as much credibility as progressive creationism.
Simple, there is no basis for the argument as to why there would be a particular 'higher' purpose for a bacterium developing a factor for enhanced pathogenicity, beyond simply being more fit for its environment. Obviously, bacteria have many such factors that they have developed for the purpose of harming, or being able to harm their hosts and I ask from a progressive creationist point of view, why God would have directed the evolution of such things to begin with?
After all didn't you, yourself in another thread recently say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->however, my pet peeve is people who make statements without logically backing them up, and i challenge that here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which makes me wonder why you don't challenge 90% of what you post yourself.
But I'll tell you what, you tell me why God would make bacteria develop better pathogenicity factors to kill human beings, and I'll tell you why the Invisible Pink Unicorn gave humans a better immune system to fight them.
*edit* and I'll be happy to hear which posts you have problems with. I am fairly confident in my analytical skills, but I'm sure they're not nearly as good as someone of your awesome mental caliber. -_-
Thank you for avoiding the argument, as I knew you would do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But the whole point is that it's not incompatible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is where you are wrong, because you still haven't defined what exactly is 'pseudorandom' or not and where and when this process occurred. You see, what you might not realise is that I do not inherently disagree with the concept, just that there is no logical basis for ascribing the theory to the evolution of organisms. It is simple philosophy, but I have trouble trying to justify such a position because it logically demands explanations for why certain things exist such as type III secretion systems.
You see Wheeee, if God directed evolution as you claim may be possible, you have to justify why God did such things as make extremely pathogenic bacteria, one of which recently nearly claimed the life of my mother. If you cannot do so, you have no basis for your argument, in other words you have no support for your position and you can't claim your position is equally valid as another argument. For example, that bacteria and other organisms evolved their traits due to their survival or fitness benefits completely without the involvement of any higher being what-so-ever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* and I'll be happy to hear which posts you have problems with. I am fairly confident in my analytical skills,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You still haven't justified your argument from the start by providing some logic as to why God would direct the evolution of organisms, and this inherently comes with those that kill and cause misery to billions of human beings throughout history. If it is NOT totally random, and it has been directed by God, then it is inherently not random and has been done for a purpose. I've merely said for you to justify your position by providing some form of logical explanation for why God would direct the evolution of various organisms.
You can keep dancing around and pretending that I'm not seeing whatever vague point you're making, but you're not doing anything to have or further a discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but I'm sure they're not nearly as good as someone of your awesome mental caliber. -_- <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And of course you rabbit on about, whatever, I'm not sure what this is supposed to further or similar about the defence of your argument. Of course, if your intention was to be patronising and to probably scrape just at the edge of an <i>ad hominem</i> without quite crossing the line, you've amply demonstrated some clear skill here. I've already made what problems I have with your argument very clear and you've been less than 'happy' to answer any of it, more than showing the ability you have to debate particularly with such brilliant rebuttals as 'why not' to 'logically' back your arguments.
Evolution may just as well be God's work. He may or may not have tinkered with it. Maybe he nudged evolution the right way so that man would appear in his image. I kinda feel sorry for people who have to discount either the religion or evolution to give the other a meaning (omg veiled insult!). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You hit it on the nail, lord lolfighter.
My hidden, perhaps TOO hidden, point, was that religion and science, and their respective spokespeople, elected or self-made, should stop squabbling and just acknowledge that they will never find a common standpoint (unless science advances far enough to completely prove or disprove God's existence). The crusades belong to the dark ages, and just why do you think they called those ages that? Start being tolerant of viewpoints other than your own, people.
My hidden, perhaps TOO hidden, point, was that religion and science, and their respective spokespeople, elected or self-made, should stop squabbling and just acknowledge that they will never find a common standpoint (unless science advances far enough to completely prove or disprove God's existence). The crusades belong to the dark ages, and just why do you think they called those ages that? Start being tolerant of viewpoints other than your own, people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said you were wrong. I was merely trying to steer you away from associating Evolution incorrectly with the theory of Intellegent Design.
That said, it's really not about tolerance. It's about religion being put into things it's not supposed to, just as science gets put into things it shouldn't be in. The supernatural, whether you believe in it or not, has no place in science, just as science has no place in telling you whether God exists or not.
God decided to create a universe, and fill it with all kinds of natural laws that would play out spontaneously. These laws were random in the sense that God didn't control them, but they were also also inextricably bound to His will. These laws include the Theory of Gravity (well to him it wouldn't be a theory) and evolution.
Now, the Bible never says the first Day was 24 hours long. It just says Day and Night. So a "day" could have been a couple million/billion years (in accordance with recent geological evidence). Notice how humans only showed up on Saturday. There was plenty of time before humans came onto the scene for evolution to have created all life on Earth. And the best part is, because God created the mechanics for evolution, life was still created by God....just not directly. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's about religion being put into things it's not supposed to, just as science gets put into things it shouldn't be in. The supernatural, whether you believe in it or not, has no place in science, just as science has no place in telling you whether God exists or not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Religion has just as much place creating creation stories as science does. After all, religion starting doing it FAR before science came into the mix. It's the same (except exactly opposite) as the Church excommunicating Galileo and putting him under house arrest because his work said Earth wasn't the center of the Universe. Science can disagree with religion, but if you're not going to convince someone don't tell them, "they have no place" coming up with theories about how we began. What I'm trying to say is, science doesn't have a monopoly on our beginnings, so relgion isn't "sticking it's head into science" when it contemplates Creation.
Science does not concern itself with the existence of a higher being. This does not say that a scientific person will or will not believe in a higher power, but simply that possible supernatural influences into the world's functioning, which are essentially what we qualify as acts of god, are not repeatable or otherwise rationally observable for a human being and thus outside the scope of the scientific endeavour, which is to understand, explain, and possibly predict the universe's functioning.
The question of divine influences behind natural phenomena is of no concern to science. Let all vulcanoes erupt because Loki writhes beneath the earth, let evolution happen because god influences it according to an ineffiable plan, let the sun be the face of Ra; science won't ever confirm, and seldomly deny these metaphysical notions.
Religion deals with faith, not observations of the natural world.
Science deals with observations of the natural world, not faith.
These are two totally different views of the world. They contradict each other at a very basic way. Intelligent Design is a way to blend these two very different world views into one quite odd way of understanding the world. If you believe things like Intelligent Design, why stop at biology? Why not go for geology or physics? Tectonic Plates are just pushed around by a playful God sitting in the middle of the Earth! Inertia is just God's hand telling us to stay where we are!
It's the same thing.
That first sentence was absolutely correct, the second was absolutely incorrect. The only source of friction between the two is the question about what is empirical and what is not. Outside this, the two groups of world views (for there is more than one religion and more than one scientific school of thought) do just not concern each other.
Intelligent Design, in turn, is one of a wide variety of philosophical devices. Like nigh to all thoughts, it can easily be ridiculed by extremising it. This does not make the attempt of integrating science and faith into a combined worldview, which has been the doing of many of the most brilliant philosophers of recent times, any less valid.
Science does not concern itself with the existence of a higher being. This does not say that a scientific person will or will not believe in a higher power, but simply that possible supernatural influences into the world's functioning, which are essentially what we qualify as acts of god, are not repeatable or otherwise rationally observable for a human being and thus outside the scope of the scientific endeavour, which is to understand, explain, and possibly predict the universe's functioning.
The question of divine influences behind natural phenomena is of no concern to science. Let all vulcanoes erupt because Loki writhes beneath the earth, let evolution happen because god influences it according to an ineffiable plan, let the sun be the face of Ra; science won't ever confirm, and seldomly deny these metaphysical notions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunatly NemO, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.
The purpose of Science is to find the truth in the universe - establish how things are, how they were - to find answers.
If the Universe contains a higher being, then the purpose of Science would naturally lead to a better understanding of that being.
If you apply that to the study of the earths past, under your definition of what science does or does not include, then we can come up with no other explanation for the way things are beyond "evolution" - a theoretical impossibility when given the minute chances involved.
However, if you allow for the possibility of a "higher being" who influences, directs, or even "creates", you can create a picture for the origin of the universe / world / man with a much higher probability and a much better explanation for the way things are. Scientists should be barking up that tree in their search for truth.
A little side note, just because something isn't repeatable (or directly observable) doesn't mean that you cant find evidence that it happened or exists.