Darwin before his death. Darwin's Pursuit

Familiar words, aren't they?! How often do you hear such a rather strange, in my opinion, argument against the scientific picture of the world. Honestly, this argument is suitable for a discussion on religious views, personal preferences, kitchen philosophy. You can recall the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, according to which this man simply cannot make mistakes, and all his words are the absolute, undeniable truth. But science has its own rules, and any words of even the most outstanding figure are not worth a penny if there is no solid foundation of evidence behind them.

And therefore, it does not matter at all whether Charles Darwin abandoned his theory or not: it does not lose its evidential power. By the way, I note that the story of his abdication was fabricated by a certain Lady Hope, naturally very pious, and the children of Charles Darwin completely deny this fact. Well, there is no other evidence for this fairy tale.

Darwin's theory, Ohm's law, Boyle-Marriott's law, Van der Waals equation, Markov chain, etc. - all these are not opinions or speculations of respected and all-knowing men, whose words we take for granted because of respect, past merits or regalia.

Mentioning the name of a specific person is a tribute to those who were the first to understand, formulate, collect the necessary evidence and present their theory to the general public. When we talk about Darwin's theory, we mean a scientifically based view of the problem of the origin of species, and not an appeal to the authority of a specific individual. If Alfred Wallace had started his work a little earlier, perhaps we would have talked about Wallace’s theory, which does not change its essence (Wallace Alfred Russell is an English naturalist who, simultaneously and independently of Charles Darwin, came to the idea of natural selection and its role in evolution).

Accustomed to believing all-knowing and powerful authorities, creationists are trying to impose this logical trick on us. An argument to authority is a common mistake, the essence of which comes down to the fact that we consider someone’s opinion correct and not subject to doubt solely because this person has already earned our respect, for example, with his knowledge.

There are many cases in the history of science when the authoritative opinion of eminent scientists is not a sufficient basis for recognizing their ideas as correct. Linus Pauling, an outstanding chemist and crystallographer, winner of two Nobel Prizes, is a prime example of this. He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry "for his investigation of the nature of chemical bonding and its application to the determination of the structure of compounds" by proposing and demonstrating that the chains of amino acids in protein are twisted into a helix.

In the middle of the 20th century, scientists tried to understand how the structure of DNA works: so Linus Pauling wrote an article in which he argued that DNA has the form of a triple helix, but here the scientific community hesitated, hesitated, and did not agree. The only reason is that this outstanding chemist did not have the necessary evidence for his assumption.

But Watson and Crick found them: DNA, as we know, turned out to be a double helix. And again, their theory was not accepted by their colleagues out of nowhere: established knowledge, the latest discoveries on similar topics (for example, about the helical structure of proteins), the achievements of predecessors (research by Chargaff, Wilkins and Franklin), an x-ray of the DNA molecule of Rosalyn Franklin, whose data They compared the ratio of nucleotides in DNA with the results of chemical studies (Chargaff's rules) - and voila, a brilliant scientific discovery was ready. And then a model was built from balls, cardboard and wire - and not at all for beauty: it was necessary for a visual representation of the structure of DNA and the processes occurring with it (for example, replication).

We must remember that people make mistakes, even scientists, even Nobel laureates. Another thing is that people of science are always looking for proof of their words, theoretical and experimental. And then all these arguments are tested for strength in the scientific community. And there should be no secrets, top-secret technologies, unique experiments - if the discoverer has a result, then it should be possible to thoroughly study all the details of the work done, and this result should also be obtained by those who decided to repeat the experiment. If this is not possible, then something is wrong here. (Hereinafter, the text is highlighted by me, Wild_Katze, as very important information) Magicians can have secrets, science should be transparent.

For example, Miller’s experiment to recreate the conditions of the Ancient Earth was repeated many times, and as a result, it was always possible to obtain amino acids from inorganic matter, which demonstrates the possibility of abiogenesis. But the experiment conducted by a group led by Séralini, which showed that mice fed GM corn were susceptible to developing tumors, kidney and liver failure, was considered to be of poor quality. Numerous independent examinations have shown that everything in the work is wrong: the experimental design, analysis of the results and conclusions. The scientific community did not recognize the hysteria about the dangers of GMOs as justified, but unsubstantiated statements were enough for ordinary people to begin to fear the terrible food.

In our crazy world, where there are so many scientific-like but baseless ideas that people like to speculate on, you need to be able to work with information, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Opinions differ: it’s one thing to simply make an assumption based on conjectures, conjectures, and prejudices; it is another to have a well-founded, evidence-supported point of view on any issue; their importance cannot be equated. It doesn't matter who built the theory; what matters is what foundation it has.

ALL PHOTOS

The evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin does not contradict Christian doctrine, the Vatican recognized on the eve of the 200th anniversary of the birth of the great scientist. The foundations of evolutionism can be traced to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, said the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi.

Thus, rumors that Pope Benedict XVI supports the doctrine of creationism were dispelled, InoPressa reports, citing the British newspaper The Times.

Ravasi noted that Darwin's theory was never officially condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. “I argue that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian theology,” agreed Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, a professor of theology at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce in Rome.

In March, under the auspices of the Holy See, a landmark conference will be held to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Initially, the question of excluding discussion of the doctrine of creationism from the agenda was even raised. As a result, it will be considered only as a “cultural phenomenon” at one of the non-plenary meetings.

Earlier, the Anglican Church informally apologized to Darwin for the “wrong reaction” to his evolutionary theory, Nezavisimaya Gazeta recalls. On the eve of the anniversary, a new page dedicated to the scientist appeared on the official website of the Anglican Church. The head of the church's public relations department, Malcolm Brown, noted in his article that there is nothing in Darwin's theory that contradicts Christian teaching.

“He observed nature, developed a theory to explain what he saw, and began the long and painful process of gathering evidence,” Brown writes. “As a result, our understanding of the world expanded. Jesus himself encouraged people to observe and reflect on the world around them.” The church leadership noted that Brown's article reflects its position, but an official statement has not yet been made.

The book “On the Origin of Species,” which changed views on nature and the origin of man, was published in 1859. Darwin himself was well aware that the publication of his theory would cause discontent among many believers, but he was not going to remain silent: “I think there is not a person who would not like to announce the results of work that absorbed all his strength and abilities. I find no harm in my book: if it happens wrong views, they will soon be completely refuted by other scientists. I am sure that the truth can be known only by overcoming all the vicissitudes of fate."

Darwin's father: "You will be a disgrace to our entire family"

Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in the small English town of Shrewsbury. His father and grandfather were doctors. When the boy was eight years old, his mother died, and his older sister and father raised the child, says Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

Young Charles showed no aptitude for schooling and had no interest in it. At the age of eight he was sent to an elementary school. But he lagged significantly behind his sister in success, and a year later his father transferred him to a gymnasium. There, for seven years, he studied conscientiously, but without much zeal.

“You are not interested in anything but shooting, dogs and hunting cockroaches, you will become a disgrace not only to yourself, but to our entire family!” - Charles's angry father once said. Subsequently, the young man went to the University of Edinburgh to prepare for a medical career. Darwin was never able to bring himself to attend the operations, but, being fascinated by small animals and insects, he made several reports at the natural history club.

Then his father advised him to enter the theological faculty at Cambridge in order to devote himself to a spiritual career. In 1831, Charles Darwin received his bachelor's degree in theology. However, Darwin's passion for natural history allowed him to make interesting contacts. His friend, botany professor John Henslow, helped Charles get a job as a naturalist on a government scientific expedition on the Beagle.

On October 2, 1836, the 27-year-old naturalist returned from the expedition. The question of a theological career died on its own - Darwin turned out to be the owner of enormous scientific material that needed processing. His scientist friends encouraged him to do the same. Processing as a result took 20 years.

Throughout his life, Darwin suffered from an incomprehensible illness that turned him into a recluse. From the age of 16, he experienced abdominal pain in important situations; later he complained of heart pain, headache, trembling, weakness and other painful symptoms. As one of Darwin's sons wrote, "he did not know a single day of health typical of an ordinary person."

In 1837, Darwin's health began to deteriorate; in September the symptoms of the previous illness reappeared. Darwin refused the post of secretary of the Geological Society, all kinds of meetings and conversations, but nevertheless worked hard and productively. In 1839 he married Emma Wedgwood. Meanwhile, his health was deteriorating. Darwin said he felt “equally bad, sometimes a little worse, sometimes a little better.”

In addition, Darwin suffered from incredible timidity and was unable to speak in front of an audience. The scientist could not afford to communicate with friends or receive guests, as he suffered from overexcitement, and “the consequences of this were fits of severe trembling and vomiting.” Subsequently, Darwin did not leave the house without his wife.

The illness determined the entire structure of his life. A strict routine was established in the house, which all family members followed. The slightest deviation from it caused an exacerbation of the disease. The disease cut him off from the whole world. Darwin led a calm, monotonous, secluded and at the same time active life.

Contemporary physicians viewed Charles Darwin as a lifelong, undiagnosable invalid; he was supposed to have “dyspepsia in an aggravating personality,” and “catarrhal dyspepsia,” and “hidden gout,” and many considered him a hypochondriac. Modern doctors are increasingly inclined to believe that all the symptoms of his illness are neuropsychic phenomena.

Experts note that Darwin’s paternal grandfather had “quirks” that sometimes resembled insanity; the uncle committed suicide in a state of psychosis, the father suffered from a severe stutter; two aunts on my mother’s side were very eccentric, and my uncle suffered from severe depression. The scientist’s four sons suffered from manic-depressive disorders, and two daughters were characterized as “peculiar personalities.”

Did Charles Darwin renounce his theory of human evolution at the end of his life? Did ancient people find dinosaurs? Is it true that Russia is the cradle of humanity, and who is the yeti - perhaps one of our ancestors, lost through the centuries? Although paleoanthropology - the science of human evolution - is booming, the origins of man are still surrounded by many myths. These are anti-evolutionist theories, and legends generated by mass culture, and pseudo-scientific ideas that exist among educated and well-read people. Do you want to know how everything “really” was? Alexander Sokolov, editor-in-chief of the portal ANTHROPOGENES.RU, collected a whole collection of similar myths and checked how valid they are.

At the last sentence, readers are already having difficulty holding back tears of tenderness... However, this soul-saving story is not confirmed by any facts. Neither in Darwin's autobiography, written by him shortly before his death, nor in the memoirs of his loved ones, there is any hint that the great naturalist at the end of his life experienced any hesitation about his views. Moreover, Charles Darwin's children (son Francis Darwin and daughter Henrietta Lichfield) stated that their father was not seen reading the Bible in the last period of his life, and Lady Hope never met him. In 1922, Henrietta Litchfield wrote: “I was with my father when he lay on his deathbed. Lady Hope did not visit him during his last illness or any other illness... He never renounced any of his scientific views, then or before."

Roger W. Sanders

Darwin was a product of both his time and his own character. Like all of us, he tried to understand the world in which he lived. However, true knowledge of the world begins with trusting God and His Word. Unfortunately, our nature rebels against a loving Creator.

“For this is good and pleasing to God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”- 1 Timothy 2:3–4

“The God-hater Darwin was determined to overturn the entire essence of Christian culture” - this is exactly how many Christians think about Darwin. But let's dig deeper.

In fact, this is very easy to do, since Darwin kept personal notes from an early age until his death. When we try to get to the bottom of the truth, we see not a cruel and scary man, but an intellectual who brought to the surface many of the contradictions and conflicts that dominated Victorian British culture. He was a man like everyone else, a man whom God wanted to save. Even secular biographers unwittingly declare: "God persecuted Darwin."

What motivated Darwin?

Charles grew up in a wealthy middle class family. His mother died when he was eight years old, which left Charles very depressed, and he and his father, a successful doctor, were not emotionally close. However, Charles soon learned how to force the "Doctor" to give him what he wanted. Later, as Charles grew up, he often used this special talent to gain the support of his colleagues and persuade them to his opinion.

Even though he was calm and had good manners, Darwin was still a self-centered person. For example, when he once listed about twenty reasons for and against continuing to court and marry him, all the reasons related to his convenience and safety.

“Now it seems funny to me that I was once going to become a priest. It’s not that I formally abandoned my intention and my father’s desire to become a priest, this desire simply died a natural death after I left Cambridge and found myself as a naturalist in Beagle" - Autobiography of Charles Darwin (1876)

Despite his selfishness, Charles could also be generous. For most of his life he supported the South American mission, which evangelized the local people of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago. He didn't care about their souls at all, he just wanted these "savages" he met during his journey to Beagle, had a better life. Although he did not attend church in the village of Dawn, he became a close friend of the parish priest, and the villagers considered him a kind and generous patron of the parishioners.

Like many in science, Darwin took himself quite seriously. In his early years this was evident when he tried to please his superiors and tutors. As an adult with many responsibilities, he paid more attention to professional, social, political and economic success. As his ideas developed after his voyage to Beagle, he did not know what to do: openly declare his views or harbor them in secret until the favorable time comes, so that the discovery of these ideas does not destroy him and his family.

As a boy, Charles combed the coasts, hills and forests in search of shells and beetles. It was from this time that he developed a love for compiling catalogs of found specimens and recording information. While traveling to Beagle for about five years (1831–36), he brought these skills to perfection in order to enrich the museum's holdings in England and ensure that he was immediately accepted into scientific circles on his return. Later, these same skills turned him into a person who collects, analyzes, describes and theoretically evaluates his collected samples.

Darwin's diary, which he wrote during his voyage called , was an instant success. The thirty-year-old celebrity was enjoying the attention he received from London's intellectual circles until he began to experience severe stomach pain. This was the reason why he secluded himself with his family in the village of Down, and insisted that his colleagues meet with him only face to face.

Darwin traveled the world for about five years on a ship called Beagle(1831–36). Publication of a description of his journey, (1839), brought recognition to the thirty-year-old Darwin. His famous work Origin of species he published about twenty years later (1859).

More was being learned about heredity, and Darwin suspected that his chronic illness was hereditary because his parents were first cousins. Since he married his cousin, he blamed himself for the fact that signs of his illness began to appear in his children. In addition, a lot of stress could have played a role. He was forced to hide his thoughts from the professional world, which would have expelled him if everything became known. In 1844, he finally revealed his theory to a colleague he could trust and admitted that for him it was like “a confession to murder.”

Who influenced Darwin?

Although Darwin associated with evolutionists and anti-religious scientists such as Robert Grant, Thomas Huxley, and his amateur brother Erasmus, some of the people God brought him close to show how God sought to save Darwin. His father, the Doctor, disavowed the atheistic teachings of Darwin's grandfather Erasmus when Darwin's name became more associated with wealth, respectability and political correctness. Instead, he turned his son, Charles, into a formal Anglican education, which was very much steeped in Scripture and Christian orthodoxy.

Years later, Darwin recalled that when he went to Cambridge to study, he “entirely accepted” the Apostles’ Creed, or at least “had no desire to dispute the creed.” Charles became especially close to Christian mentors such as the botanist Reverend John Henslow and the geologist Reverend Adam Sedwick, and friends such as the passionate evangelist Robert Fitzrow, Capt. Beagle. However, the closest ones were the “women of the Wedgwood family” - his mother, sisters, wife and daughters. Even though they were Unitarians, they continued to talk to Darwin about eternity. By the time Charles and Emma married, he was already doubting his personal relationship with God, the inspiration of the Bible, the soul, and eternity.

Fearing that Charles would be cast into the fire like a branch, Emma tried to persuade him through letters in which she implored him to take seriously the words that Jesus spoke during the supper in John 13–17(b). In what Darwin called her “beautiful letter,” she wrote: “You put yourself in great danger when you refuse God's revelation. . . and from what has been done for you and for the whole world. . . . I would be the most miserable person if I knew that we wouldn’t spend eternity together.”

He kept this letter all his life, and in response to her he wrote only a couple of lines: “When I die, know that I have read your letter many times and cried over it.”. Through the power of Holy Scripture, which Emma lovingly shared with him (and despite her own personal doctrinal error), God showed him the way of salvation.

Product of its time

Although God again and again attracted Darwin's attention through his introduction to Scripture, he still resisted. Part of his resistance was the result of the fact that he was the product of a culture that opposed biblical authority even though it bore the name Christian. In particular, most British clergy and church scholars were proponents of natural theology, a view of God that originated in the late 1600s. During Darwin's youth, they argued that we can see God and His attributes only through human thinking, without the help of Scripture. This erroneous approach led to three major concepts in natural theology that undermined the authority of the Bible:

Creation is immutable; otherwise the revelation of God would change and we could not know Him.

Problem: This statement denies the Fall of Adam and the Flood and the consequences of these events.

Creation was given the right to exist on its own in accordance with the immutable laws of nature, which have always acted in the same way as they do today.

Problem: This statement denies that miracles can happen.

Every time the Bible disagrees with science, God adjusts the words in the Bible to the primitive thinking of ancient man, and science must be accepted as the true explanation.

Problem: Science is superior to Scripture.

Based on this erroneous theology, the scientific dogma of Darwin's times was that species cannot change, even though the Bible never states this. On the other hand, people could see that the earth was changing: rivers were flooding, rocks were eroding, volcanoes were erupting, and earthquakes were changing the landscape. Consequently, they came to the conclusion that the earth has changed since creation, but very slowly and through these processes. Because the sedimentary rocks are very thick in many places, most scientific researchers in the early 1800s concluded that these geological changes occurred over millions of years. Almost none of them believed in a literal global Flood and all that it implied, i.e. quick changes.

So when Darwin came on deck Beagle, he was half a "creationist" created by the science of his day. He believed that the earth was millions of years old, that the species of organisms had never changed (even though it was not known when they were created), and that the Bible had nothing significant to say on the matter. He belonged to a financially privileged class and craved recognition from the aristocratic scientific community, and was also distrustful of social radicals and revolutionaries.

One page of his diary contains sketches of Darwin's preliminary thoughts on common descent.

Darwin was taught to think. The problem was that he started with incorrect assumptions without understanding the Scriptures. So as Beagle walked past fossil-filled beds, eroded valleys, unique island fauna and submerged volcanoes, he saw nature in a way that no one in England had ever taught him to see. He saw species as the product of change, but not the change that came after the global Flood. He saw rock strata as the product of processes, but not processes that date back to the biblical catastrophe. He saw the various genera of plants and animals, but could not see the abyss between the various "created genera" that were originally created by God.

But perhaps the most important thing that Darwin could not understand was how a merciful and loving God could allow such things as death and suffering to exist in the natural world and among people. According to natural theology, death and suffering have always been a part of nature since the beginning of creation. If so, then this God was not the God of Christianity or the Bible, but insensitive and distant and only the one who created all the starting points of matter and the laws of nature. Based on all this, Darwin came to the conclusion that all the diversity of life developed gradually, and God had nothing to do with it.

And if Darwin could show that species actually change and propose laws of nature according to which new species are formed, then he could convince his colleagues that evolution is true. For the ruling class and spiritual scientists, who had already compromised and believed in the ancientness of the earth, the last barrier to the acceptance of evolution remained the unbiblical concept of the immutability of the species. Darwin was such a perfect product of his time that, despite all the years of worry and illness, his scientific arguments, set out in the work Origin of species, convinced almost all of his colleagues.

Whenever Scripture said anything about science, most British Christians distrusted it, believing that science had more authority than Scripture. Therefore evolution did not cause any conflict. Scientists have largely accepted evolution as God's way of creation, lasting for a long time, even though it involves severe death and suffering over millions of years. In fact, evolution has become a matter of national pride. For the British elite, Victorian England testified to the heights to which evolution could take human intelligence and power.

Did Darwin realize that his assumptions and ideas reflected a rejection of the authority of Scripture in every area it touched, including science? Undoubtedly yes, but he didn't seem to care much about it; the lack of authority of Scripture was part of the religious upbringing and scientific training he received from his parents, teachers, and colleagues. Therefore, this was not a major problem for him.

Did he understand the philosophical consequences his ideas would have? Certainly - his secret diaries, which he did not dare show even to his close friends, show that he struggled with the fact that evolution could undermine people's faith in God. But he seemed more concerned about the impact that undermining other people's faith would have on him and his social standing, rather than what it would mean for other people.

Although Darwin tried to understand the origin of life forms from a purely scientific standpoint, he was never able to resolve religious questions. Is God involved in all these processes or does he exist at all? Was Jesus' sacrificial death meaningless?

And although God pursued Darwin enough that he knew where to look for answers to his questions, he never turned to the Bible to find those answers. He chose not to look there.

Most frequently asked questions about Darwin

Did Darwin study to be a scientist? Yes and no. In those days no one studied to be a scientist.

Training included fields such as medicine, humanities or theology, and studying science was something of a hobby. Darwin began studying medicine in Edinburgh and completed his studies at Cambridge, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in the hope of becoming a parish priest. While studying at school, he was most given to natural history, which he was personally taught by professors of medicine and theology, known as experienced geologists, zoologists and botanists.

Were Darwin's parents and grandparents evolutionists?

Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, a doctor, was a political freethinker devoted to evolutionary ideas. Josiah Wedgwood's maternal grandfather was a prosperous industrialist and friend of Erasmus, but had Unitarian views and was a little concerned about the matter. His grandfather Robert Darwin strived for decency and did not publicly express his views on the matter.

What does it have to do with Beagle

Huge! On the recommendation of the Reverend John Henslowe, Darwin was invited to travel on a British ship called Beagle, with the aim of exploring the coast of South America. The captain, the aristocratic Robert FitzRoy, wanted a gentleman on board his ship who would conduct research in the field of natural history and with whom he could become friends. Darwin took full advantage of this opportunity to gain recognition as an accomplished geologist and biologist.

What does the work say? Origin of species about the origin of man?

Nothing. In fact, Darwin knew that in 1859 this issue was the most hotly debated issue. He waited until the scientific community accepted the theory of evolution, and then in 1871 he published his work Human Origins.

What do finches and Darwin have in common?

In the Galapagos Islands, Darwin collected a collection of many species of birds. He found the specimens of these birds unclear and realized that they were all varieties of finches after he returned to England and examined them. However, Darwin immediately established that the mockingbird species he discovered on the island belonged to one unstable group, which made him doubt that species cannot change.

Did Darwin repent before his death?

No. This rumor was started by Lady Elizabeth Hope, who, during a missionary trip to the region where Darwin lived, visited him once six months before his death. Her story was published in the publication Baptist Watchman-Examiner in 1915, after she immigrated to the United States, she actively wrote sermon pamphlets for many years. She no doubt embellished her story, which was that Lady Elizabeth Hope saw Darwin reading the Bible (which may well have been true, given his interest in comparing philosophies). She spoke of his admiration for Scripture, but did not say that he repented before dying or renounced evolution.

Why is Darwin buried in Westminster Priory?

His students insisted on this. Darwin was to be buried in the cemetery in the village of Down. However, his cousin Francis Galton and "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley successfully used their influence in scientific and political circles and wrote a petition to Parliament asking for permission to bury Darwin in the most famous Anglican church in London.

Dr. Roger Sanders received his PhD in botany from the University of Texas. Today he is an assistant professor at Bryan College and associate director of the Center for Origins Research.

Darwin before his death. Darwin's Pursuit

What motivated Darwin?

Who influenced Darwin?

Product of its time

Most frequently asked questions about Darwin

Links and notes

Subscribe to our newsletter