Someone who declares that something is a historical fact when in fact it rests on a vague unsupported assertion by someone who had every interest in making such stories up. Someone who keeps changing his story. Someone who repeatedly misrepresents links that he posts, purporting that they say the opposite of what they conclude. Someone who claims to have presented numerous links to substantiations rather than the just one that he has actually linked to (and even that one was at best ambivalent about the story). Behaviour like that is considered lying in honest circles. Maybe not where you come from though.
Lady Hope could have visited Darwin and not have been remembered by his family for the time or times she was there. So TheBrotherhood raising this possibility does not make him a liar no matter how many some of the nutballs on your side scream it out, and no matter how many atheist evo web sites they link up too.
What about the numerous Christian websites, including the arch-creationist site AiG, which also say that the story is almost certainly false?
Also Darwin could well have made his recantation to Lady hope and only to Lady Hope.
Yeah, right. He knew that his wife, who he loved deeply, was desparate for him to recant, but he just told some evangelical stranger, and no-one else, 6 months before he died, when he wasn't even yet ill. If you believe that I've got a Swiss bank account that you can send all your money to. I'll *guarantee* in return that you get to heaven, and send you London Bridge by return of post.
Nope. Her story has him really on his deathbed. He's not healthy and strolling through the parks in London or whatever. It really doesn't work.