Creation

You have some faulty ideas that your presented that I feel the need to refute. (1. ) "Also, didn't Darwin admit on his death bed that he was wrong about evolution? " Early Reports What is the basis for this story? As often as it is repeated, there must be credible evidence that these events actually took place, right? Surely, the tale would not have continued though the years if it were a lie? Sadly, when evidence is sought, there is little to support this story. Charles Darwin died in April 1882 and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Within days of his death, reports of a conversion experience began to circulate. The first report supposedly came in a sermon preached in South Wales by a gentleman identified as "Mr. Huntingdon. " Some weeks later there surfaced a report about a letter sent to John Eadie, a divinity professor in Glasgow, in which Darwin indicated, "He can with confidence look to Calvary. "1 Curiously, when examined, Darwin"s existing correspondence (which totals over 14,000 letters) contains no communication between these two men.2 Lady Hope The most often cited evidence for the alleged conversion of Darwin comes from a woman known as Lady Hope. She was born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in December 1842 and was the daughter of General Sir Arthur Cotton. She and her father were active evangelists in Kent, very near Charles Darwin"s home. In 1877, she married Admiral Sir James Hope and thus became Lady Hope, a title she continued to use even after remarrying subsequent to Sir James"s death a few years later.3 While traveling in America in 1915 she attended a conference in East Northfield, Massachusetts. While there she apparently told the story of a visit she had with Darwin before the scientist"s death. She recounted this tale during a devotional service and was later persuaded to write an account of this visit, which was then published in the Watchman-Examiner, a national Baptist magazine, on August 19, 1915.4 Here, Lady Hope claimed to have visited Darwin on an autumn afternoon. She noted that Darwin had been bedridden for several months before his death, and at the time of her visit she found him sitting up in bed. Lady Hope indicated that Darwin was at the time reading the Bible, which she claimed he was always studying. When asked what he was reading he replied, "Hebrews . . . the Royal Book. " Darwin also supposedly commented, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. " Lady Hope further claimed that before her departure she was asked by Darwin to return and speak to his servants in his summerhouse. When asked about the subject on which she should speak, Darwin was said to have replied "Christ Jesus! " What Really Happened? WHEN THE FULL TEXT OF THE REPORT IS EXAMINED, THERE ARE MANY INCONSISTENCIES THAT MAKE THE STORY UNTENABLE. Unfortunately, when the full text of the report is examined, there are many inconsistencies that make the story untenable. While it is possible that Lady Hope did visit Darwin"s home in late 1881, this was almost seven months before his death.5 He was certainly not bedridden for six months before his death. Further, there was nothing to indicate that he was always studying the Bible. On the Down House property, there was a small summerhouse, but it was too small to accommodate 30 people. There is nothing in his writings to indicate that Darwin ever asked anyone to speak about "Christ Jesus. " Further, it is fascinating what Lady Hope"s story does not say. It does not say that Darwin renounced evolution. It merely says that Darwin speculated over the outcome of his ideas. He never backed away from evolution. Nor does the Lady Hope story say that Darwin actually became a Christian. The story, even if true, merely claims the Darwin was reading the Bible and made a statement about Christ. Nowhere is there a claim of a saving relationship with the Savior. As soon as this story became public, the denials from Darwin"s family began (as they did after every supposed "conversion story" became known). In a letter to James Howe, Darwin"s son Francis wrote in 1915: "He [Darwin] could not have become openly and enthusiastically Christian without the knowledge of his family, and no such change occurred. " In a letter dated May 28, 1918, Francis again writes: "Lady Hope"s account of my father"s views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but I have not seen any reply. " Darwin"s daughter Henrietta wrote in 1922: "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. . . . He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. " (2. ) Why not have it taught at a private institution rather than at a state ran school. Doesn't the Bible state that God alone created the earth and every thing in it? My Response: And? So what? Plenty of people can choose to say that's not true. What if someone wrote the same thing and said "Doesn't Greek Mythology say that our current world was brought about through Kronos slaying Ouranos? Then the following war between the Titans and Gods? " what makes your claim anymore credible then theirs? What makes that claim anymore credible then the thousands of other Creation stories? Also, Creationism is taught at private institutions. (3. ) "What does Darwin say about the eye? To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. It is here, that Darwin contradicts himself on natural selection. " Really? It's true that Darwin did say this. However, He was limited by the science of his time. Here's an explanation: When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years? If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye? Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities. Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design. Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through. Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye. In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. So, in conclusion. Your arguments are really simple, and frankly easy to break down. I chose to play Devil's Advocate for this argument merely to see how you would do. Let it be known that I am a Christian, however I don't see Evolution as being incompatible with the Bible. (I'm not an Evolutionist either, I do see problems with the model. However, I am always open to new ideas. Regardless, evolution and faith are reconcilable. ) Creationism should focus more on critiquing the Evolutionary Model, which is already done in High Schools everywhere. It wouldn't really bring anything new to the table, however good job.