Who Is Banning Books Now?

Hal Lindsey Oracle ^ | 2/2/04 | Hal Lindsey

[AnalogReigns]

Hal may be right on some of this, but on this he's just very ill-informed (from a Creationist source):


Did Darwin recant?
by Russell Grigg

First published in:
Creation 18(1):36–37
December 1995 – February 1996

Charles Darwin died on April 19, 1882, at the age of 73. To some it was deplorable that he should have departed an unbeliever, and in the years that followed several stories surfaced that Darwin had undergone a death-bed conversion and renounced evolution. These stories began to be included in sermons as early as May 1882.1 However, the best known is that attributed to a Lady Hope, who claimed she had visited a bedridden Charles at Down House in the autumn of 1881.2 She alleged that when she arrived he was reading the Book of Hebrews, that he became distressed when she mentioned the Genesis account of creation, and that he asked her to come again the next day to speak on the subject of Jesus Christ to a gathering of servants, tenants and neighbours in the garden summer house which, he said, held about 30 people. This story first appeared in print as a 521-word article in the American Baptist journal, the Watchman Examiner,3 and since then has been reprinted in many books, magazines and tracts.

The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin’s family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on February 8, 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was ‘false and without any kind of foundation’,4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had ‘no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view.’5 Charles’s daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for February 23, 1922, ‘I was present at his deathbed. 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 … The whole story has no foundation whatever’.6 Some have even concluded that there was no Lady Hope.
So what should we think?

Darwin’s biographer, Dr James Moore, lecturer in the history of science and technology at The Open University in the UK, has spent 20 years researching the data over three continents. He produced a 218-page book examining what he calls the ’Darwin legend’.7 He says there was a Lady Hope. Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842, she married a widower, retired Admiral Sir James Hope, in 1877. She engaged in tent evangelism and in visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s, and died of cancer in Sydney, Australia, in 1922, where her tomb may be seen to this day.8

Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, September 28 and Sunday, October 2, 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present.9 He describes Lady Hope as ‘a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality.’10 He points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies — Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favour of a few people’s attending a religious meeting. The alleged recantation/ conversion are embellishments that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ‘holy fabrication’!

It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles’s views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.
References

1.

James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, pp. 113–114. Return to text.
2.

Down House retained the spelling of the old name of Darwin’s village, which was changed to Downe in the mid-nineteenth century to avoid confusion with County Down in Northern Ireland. Source: Ref. 1, p. 176. Return to text.
3.

Watchman Examiner, Boston, August 19,1915, p. 1071. Source: Ref. 1, pp. 92–93 and 190. Return to text.
4.

Ref. 1, pp.117, 144. Return to text.
5.

Ibid., p. 145. Return to text.
6.

Ibid., p. 146. Return to text.
7.

Ibid. Return to text.
8.

After the death of Admiral Hope in 1881, Lady Hope married T. A. Denny, a ‘pork philanthropist’, in 1893, but preferred to retain her former name and title (Ref 1, pp. 85; 89–90). Return to text.
9.

Ref. 1, p. 167. Return to text.
10.

Ibid., p. 94. Return to text

Available online at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp

[DannyTN]

Thanks for the more detailed explaination. It is unfortunate that embellished stories circulate amoung creationists. But I should note that occurs in the evolutionists camp as well.

Both sides want to be right. Both sides are a little too quick to repeat a story that is in their favor.

Hal should have confirmed the story before using it. That he did not, should not distract from the main point of the article that the book is being banned because of it's conclusion instead of because of it's science.

[old-ager]

> "I wish that someone would show me one character by which to place humans and the apes in separate genera. I most assuredly know of none. Had I called humans apes or vice versa I would have fallen under the ban of the Ecclesiastics."

... which would have been the proper thing for the church to do. Parts (most) of the visible Christian church have changed their theology under the attack of evolutionists. Most of the changes about evolution have been I think in the last 50 years. There's a conservative core of the Christian church that has not changed its position. In every era, there has been something calling itself Science or something else that opposes core Christian doctrines. Evolution is no different at all. Its attack is relatively recent (less than 200 years) and the capitulation of most of the church (but not all) is extremely recent (40-50 years as I said). This is a blink of the eye in historical terms, and it'll pass.

[old-ager]

> This is a blink of the eye in historical terms, and it'll pass.

and it coincides historically with rampant socialism and liberalism. It is from the majority, _liberal_ side of the "Christian" house.

[DannyTN]

"I think that in the agriculture industry, there's an active effort to discover mutations that provide resistence to disease, larger crop yields, etc. But we don't do this kind of thing for humans. Maybe some day we will. It has the potential to eliminate a lot of suffering."

Actually we have determined that if we mate you with this woman we will have a much inproved genetic structure.

But there is some ongoing debate about whether total suffering will decrease or increase.

[jennyp]

[Carl Linnaeus:] "I wish that someone would show me one character by which to place humans and the apes in separate genera. I most assuredly know of none. Had I called humans apes or vice versa I would have fallen under the ban of the Ecclesiastics."

[old-ager:] ... which would have been the proper thing for the church to do.

I'm speechless.

[jennyp]

In every era, there has been something calling itself Science or something else that opposes core Christian doctrines. Evolution is no different at all.

You'll enjoy this page (and the website it comes from). If you really mean what you say about Linnaeus, then you should adopt geocentrism too...

The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproved the Bible. And, if the Bible could be wrong about the earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the Virgin Birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art....Everything had to begin forming a new philosophical basis as "science" began to dethrone the Bible with Copernican heliocentricity.

This new mindset was indisputably foundational for the success of Bible-denying Darwinian evolutionism that was the next thing the Devil was to send down the road, attired fetchingly again as "science".

[DannyTN]

"The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproved the Bible. And, if the Bible could be wrong about the earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the Virgin Birth, Heaven...anything! "

Only one problem. The Bible never said that and therefore wasn't wrong. That was the Roman Catholic priesthood that in their arrogance didn't check to make sure that what they were teaching matched the scriptures.

Even Galileo believed and argued that the scriptures were inherently correct, only the interpretation of them was subject to error.

[PatrickHenry]

... only the interpretation of them was subject to error.

[Gasp!] Interpretation? Oh, the horror!

This stuff looks rather straightforward to me:

Ecclesiastes:
1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [Clear, unambiguous description of the sun's orbit around the earth.]

Joshua:
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

1st Chronicles:
16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalms:
93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.

[DannyTN]

"only the interpretation of them was subject to error" were the words of Galileo.

Does the sun does rise and set? Yes. This is not saying that the earth doesn't orbit the sun, anymore than our continued use of the word "sunrise" implies we think the sun goes around the earth. It rises from our perspective and that is the way this was written. It's relative from a point on earth.

Has the earth moved from the orbit that God established it in? No. I.e. we don't have to worry about the earth being knocked out of orbit, or crashing into the sun. God has another plan. He intends to destroy the earth by fire.

The sun standing still in the mist of heaven is clearly relative to a fixed point on earth. Whatever happened on that day, the sun appeared to stand still in the sky so Israel could complete it's battle. Miraculous yes. Haven't a clue how He accomplished that. But no doubt that He did.

Is the world stabelized? Yes. It's distance to the sun hasn't moved significantly in all of recorded history.

You are making the same mistake that the Roman Catholics made. You are reading into this more than it says.

The Bible also says the earth was hung by God, I believe that's in Isaiah. That the heavens were stretched, which matches the current view of the cosmos.

[Virginia-American]

It is unfortunate that embellished stories circulate amoung creationists. But I should note that occurs in the evolutionists camp as well.

Concrete examples, please.

[Virginia-American]

"People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves and not the heavens of the firmament, the Sun and the Moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; the sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, not the Earth." .

Martin Luther, 1539, talking about Copernicus.

It isn't just the Catholics.

[PatrickHenry]

If you can be that loose in your interpretation of the clear wording of the geocentric passages, when the bible says over and over that the earth does not move and it clearly says the sun does move around the earth, then you can also get a bit more realistic about Genesis. Evolution theory has as much factual support as the solar system theory. Scripture can be read to accommodate both theories. There is no reason to be a literalist about creationism and then abandon literalism when it comes to the solar system.

[old-ager]

> you should adopt geocentrism

You know what, I would if I though God's Holy Word required it. But I don't see it. The institutional church can err, and the pope has done and continues to, most grievously. On the other hand, as hard as it is (twisting, prancing, jumping through hoops, sort of like evolution), geocentrism can be made to work.

But most importantly, and completely unlike creation vs evolution: geocentrism versus, say heliocentrism is truly a matter of frame of reference, a relative thing (though again admittedly the geocentric position is to say the least unwieldy). The battle between faith in God and His Word against atheistic and theistic evolution is truly a matter of absolutes, and speaks to the nature of man and God, not just the matter of finding a better and mathematically more natural frame of reference from which to describe planetary and other motions.

But, you know, jennyp, I don't expect anything I say to be able to help you. I anticipate only shrill and venomous insults from you and your friends here. Don't disappoint me!

[old-ager]

> I'm speechless

Really?

[old-ager]

Christians maintain that the Scriptures are always true. They are not always literal. Lots of statements are true but not literal. Lots of lies are literally true in some simplistic sense but in fact are still lies.

It is easy to consider geocentric passages as being actually anthropomorphic. They are phrased to convey a truth to any person of any era. Had they been phrased in terms that only a Copernican could understand, they could not have conveyed their message prior to a general propagation of Copernican belief.

jennyp, you understand, unless you never, ever say something like "that was a nice sunset".

If the geocentric passages are not proven false by their deliberate anthropomorphism, neither would the creation passages be. But if, as some or all of you maintain, Genesis is just a wacky fable and not an anthropomorphic telling of actual truth, then there's no connection between the geocentric passages and the creation passages anyway.

If anybody out there thinks Genesis is an anthropomorphic telling of truths, what truths is it proclaiming?

[jennyp]

But, you know, jennyp, I don't expect anything I say to be able to help you. I anticipate only shrill and venomous insults from you and your friends here. Don't disappoint me!

Forgive me if I don't follow your script, but it takes a LOT of ongoing frustration with an intellectually slippery debate opponent before I intentionally let fly an insult. "Shrill" and "venomous" insults are particularly difficult for me to come up with. Sorry. :-)

I'm just fascinated by the apologetic/dogmatic mindset. Your approach to knowledge takes your premises from your holy Book, and requires that all observations and theories must first pass this censor instead of simply letting the most parsimonious explanations flow from the observations. In fact, the ultimate goal of your approach vs. mine is very different: I want to discover new true & useful facts about the world via new and accurate theories & observations, while you want to defend the faith against these new discoveries & theories.

When you say that the Ecclesiastics would have been right to forcibly ban Linnaeus from publishing that humans are apes, that is perfectly consistent with the dogmatic mindset. Somehow I can't work up a mere insult against that: All I can do is stand by in horrified amazement, and be happy the Enlightenment won out over your orientation.

[DannyTN]

It's "relative" and from Earth's perspective, those scriptures were not supposed to be a scientific treatese on how God made the Sun rise in the morning and set in the evening. Only that He did.

From Earth's perspective the Sun does make a circle around us, even if it is due to the earth's spinning and not from the sun orbiting the earth. It's in the east, then overhead, then in the west and then behind the planet.

The point of those scriptures is that God did those things, not how he did them. Reading into those scriptures "how" is error.

Can you make the sun come up in the morning, move across the sky, set in the evening, and come back up in the morning? No.

Can you hang a planet in a stable orbit? No.

Can you make a planet? No.

Can you tilt a planet? No.

Can you promise that day and night, and summer and winter will remain as long as the planet remains? No.

God can and did. That's the point of those scriptures, not how He accomplishes that.

I don't buy that evolution theory has as much factual support as the solar system theory. Is it possible we are being too literal when we assume a day is a 24 hour time period, or that God couldn't accomplish a billion years of evolution in a 24 hour time period and therefore did create the earth and life in 7 days but still used evolution? It's possible, but I don't believe it, because I think there is scientific evidence that points away from evolution.

[DannyTN]

"Concrete examples, please."

New Guinea man.

The drawings of human embryos that look like different creatures but have been known to be false for a long time, but still get put in school science textbooks. There are a lot of them.

[old-ager]

> Ecclesiastics would have been right to forcibly ban Linnaeus from publishing that humans are apes

I was not thinking in terms of a forcible ban against publishing. I was thinking in terms only of Linnaeus' status within the church. I need to go back and read the quote again.