Darwin and Evolution

[The D.S.]

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?

[ughaibu]

The story appears to be false: Anecdotage.Com - Thousands of true funny stories about famous people. Anecdotes from Gates to Yeats
According to his wife, Darwin's last words were “I am not the least afraid to die.”

[The D.S.]

Wow. Thanks for finding that lil peice of knowledge. I was seriously gonna be if I found out it was true. I'll be sure to spread the word that it is NOT true to all who ask and speak of it.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by The D.S.

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.

[HydrogenBond]

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.

[ughaibu]

Pretty much all fossils are transitional.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by The D.S.

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?

[HydrogenBond]

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.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The point I was making is ...

That's why it is called evolutionary *theory*.

No good scientist is self-deluded enough to believe they are working with a complete data set.