Jump to content
Science Forums

Darwin and Evolution


The D.S.

Recommended Posts

I have a quick question that many of you may/may not know the answer to.

 

Ive been hearing that Darwin, on his death bed, refuted his own claims of Evolution and claimed Christianity. I have heard this from several public school graduates as well as a private Christian school grad. Is any of that true? Why would teachers be telling there students such claims?

 

I did find out, however, that not all of Darwins ideas originated from his own mind. Herber Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", not Darwin, as he used it in his book Origin of Species. Spencer came up with his theory of social evolution and Darwin modeled a part of his evolutionary claims from that same idea. Could this be what they are misinterpreting as Darwins "refuting claim"? Perhaps he was merely admitting that not all his work was original in his ideas.

 

Can anyone shed some light for me on this topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a quick question that many of you may/may not know the answer to.

 

Ive been hearing that Darwin, on his death bed, refuted his own claims of Evolution and claimed Christianity. I have heard this from several public school graduates as well as a private Christian school grad. Is any of that true? Why would teachers be telling there students such claims?

 

I did find out, however, that not all of Darwins ideas originated from his own mind. Herber Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", not Darwin, as he used it in his book Origin of Species. Spencer came up with his theory of social evolution and Darwin modeled a part of his evolutionary claims from that same idea. Could this be what they are misinterpreting as Darwins "refuting claim"? Perhaps he was merely admitting that not all his work was original in his ideas.

 

Can anyone shed some light for me on this topic?

 

 

This may be the quote in question, but it was not said on his death bed.

 

 

 

"Out of thousands of species in the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be transitional forms. This lack of transitional forms poses, as Darwin said, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [evolutionary] theory."Charles Darwin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With fossil records, we get the remains of the animals with the most units, since the odds increase we will find specimens if there are tons of any particular species. The transitional animals may not produce many units, so the odds decrease that fossil remains will ever be recovered. Based on the data set we have, the best interpretation of the data can not honestly include the affect of transitional species, since they are not a significant part of the solid data base. The result is the best interpretation of the data although very scientific, can also be biased. This is not done purposely, but is due to the nature of the data set and the type of theory that fits that hard data.

 

Let me give an analogy. Say we went out to the sea and dropped a net to gather fish. This is the data set. Based on that data set one is asked to come up with the best scientific theory for the type of fish in that sea. If one stays true to only the solid data, and avoids unscientific speculation not supported by hard data, the best theory may say there 5 types of fish in that sea. Darwin was intelligent enough to see the data set was bias. If a few transitional species existed, there may to be more, and if we had more, the theory could change since the new data set would need a more inclusive theory.

 

Creationism is not scientific, but it is indirectly useful in that it adds doubt which is needed for progression. It sort of addresses a pitfall of science, which is staying true to only the hard data. If the data is biased than the best possible scientific theory may also be biased. But because it is done by the book, it is called good science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationism is not scientific, but it is indirectly useful in that it adds doubt which is needed for progression.

 

'Indirectly useful'?

Nope.

Science has skepticism. That is all that is needed.

 

It sort of addresses a pitfall of science, which is staying true to only the hard data.

 

Pitfall of science? I would call it the hallmark of Science.

 

If the data is biased than the best possible scientific theory may also be biased.

 

This is always a possibility. This is something that Science would embrace rather than shun. Science is amenable to change.

 

But because it is done by the book, it is called good science.

 

What are you referring to here?

 

I'm not taking the bait, but merely inquiring upon its motives. :hihi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Thanks for finding that lil peice of knowledge. I was seriously gonna be :) if I found out it was true.
I am not sure why you would be shocked, or what particular relevance it would have to anything, other than a mildly interesting footnote to history. Had Darwin rejected his own theory on his deathbed this would merely have meant that he left life being wrong. It would not have invalidated the theory one jot, since the validity of the theory hinges upon the evidence for it and not upon any individual or groups belief in it.

What am I missing in your concern over this story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was making is good science tries to stay within the realm of what can be proven based on the hard data that is available. If the hard data is biased, then science requires one theorize based only this data, since it is the only data that is solid and real. Science is flexible, so as new data appears it will adapt. In the case of evolution, the data is baised and the theory fits that data. The result is the best scientific theory is biased by the data.

 

Let me give another example, which I have already used elsewhere. Someone keeps a journal of a child from birth to 18 years old, making entries each day. This is the complete data stack. If we told someone to randomly pick 20% of the pages and form a solid scientific theory from this limited data set, it may not jive with the theory that would result from the complete data set.

 

If one noticed that the best scientific theory from the partial data set seemed lacking, they may try to speculate. Even if the speculation is true, since the limited data set has no data to support this speculation, it would not be scientific to do so. In this case, reality would be unscientific, due to lack of data, while the biased theory would be considered good science, since it remains true to the protocol of science.

 

Creationism does the same thing. Their data set is limited to only what is in the bible. The conclusions that are reached are also scientific, if this was all the data. In other words, based on only this data set, this is a good theory. Science can see, there is additional data, such as fossil evidence, and can therefore see Creationism is lacking. But science can't seem to see its data set is also lacking since the data is biased with large block animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I merely asked this question because I have spoken to several people who have heard the same thing and I was beginning to get concerned. It wouldn't have changed anything, but if such a thing were true, then it would make me grimace a tad, knowing he refuted something so great and that was his own.

 

If there are people who truly think Darwin refuted his claims at death, they need to know its a hoax so the spread doesn't give others false info, there by giving more fuel to their religious fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydro makes a good point There are assumptions being made. We do have good fossil evidence that backs up origin of the speices, but not so much for the origins of the phyla.

I do disagree however that the creationist view point is keeping the scientific community honest, it is fact very hard to advance scientific theory when there so many wanting to abolish it all together. I believe serious scientist that are trying to revise and advance evolutionary models, are concerned they may set up an avalanche upsetting the whole apple cart. This concern is well found when we have an idiot president and a large population that do not understand this model. If not for the ID movement this threat would not exist, and science could forge ahead without fear, but instead the academic community has to waste its time taking a defensive stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a quick question that many of you may/may not know the answer to. Ive been hearing that Darwin, on his death bed, refuted his own claims of Evolution and claimed Christianity. I have heard this from several public school graduates as well as a private Christian school grad. Is any of that true? Why would teachers be telling there students such claims?
Dear D.S.----this is the Lady Hope story of 1916...it was renounced in public by the family of Darwin at the time. Even the Institute for Creation Research does not recognize the Lady Hope claim as being factual--see here:Did Darwin Renounce Evolution on His Deathbed? There are many types of Fundamental Creationism--the teachers you speak of belong to one of the young-earth groups, they reject all aspects of macroevolution. Such teachers must be identified and called to task by parents for presenting their religious beliefs in a science classroom of a public school. Here is a test, ask one of these teachers to allow you to speak at their next church service about the evidence in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution as opposed to Genesis--see how quickly claims of teaching the controversy will disappear (ps, if anyone succeeds in such a task, please do report on the result).

 

Lady hope was a friend of Mrs. Darwin--perhaps she wanted to find a way for her friend Mr. Darwin to be saved--after the fact of death. You must understand, Darwin was torn for many years--he knew well the relationship between his theory of natural selection and Christianity--the Pandora box that would be opened. From my reading it is not clear that Darwin ever renounced his Christian faith, and for sure he never renounced natural selection as the prime mechanism for evolutionary change. There are today many, many evolutionary biologists that also are Christians, they do not see the two concepts as being opposed, but united--that is, you can have your cake (be an evolutionary scientist that rejects Genesis) and eat it too (go to heaven), if that is your philosophic bent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the gist of evolution in that simpler things evolve into more and more complex things over time. But there are auxiliary theories to evolution that are more based on the biased data. For example, since the data represents large volume species, with little missing link data, there is a tendency to make genetic mutations leap with the data.

 

Another problem is with selective advantage and evolution. Selective advantage does not have to go in the direction of evolution but can also go in the opposite direction. A good example are comparing dinosaurs to mammals. Mammals are more evolved and appeared during the time of the dinosaurs, yet the dinosaurs dominated and therefore had selective advantage. In this case, the less evolved had the selective advantage.

 

The next point is the influence of the environment. Animals have evolved to maximize themselves within their given environment. The stripes of the tiger allow him/her to blend into the brush. If one considers the number of species and the number of environments, with all theses species optimized to these environments, how do we get so many directed mutations?

 

In other words, the environments are in flux, and if genetic mutations were random, one might expect random optimization and not complete. Let me give an analogy. Say we roll dice and double sixes represents optimization. But since the environment is changing, next year it is double twos. One should expect to see constant deviation from optimization based on the odds of the random mutations coming up properly for all the ecosystems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the gist of evolution in that simpler things evolve into more and more complex things over time.

 

Except, that's NOT the gist of evolution. :shrug:

 

 

I stopped reading there, HB. You tend to start with a false premise and then speculate endlessly with that as your base. This particular false premise is, I'm sorry to say, incredibly blaring.

 

 

It has nothing to do with complexity, it has to do with suitability to one's environment. :cup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, that's NOT the gist of evolution.

 

 

It has nothing to do with complexity, it has to do with suitability to one's environment. :shrug:

 

 

It is not suitability, as much as adaptability and adaptability is dependent on genetic complexity.

alligators and sharks are very suited for there environment they inhabit but they have not evolved much in over 100 million years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not suitability, as much as adaptability and adaptability is dependent on genetic complexity.

 

Again, no. It's not. Complexity has nothing to do with it. An organism (and it's genetic make-up) can be incredibly simple and basic and yet that organism can still be incredibly adapted and successful in it's given environment. Just look at protoctists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...