Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Education|Mon, Feb. 09 2009 09:16 AM EST

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy

By Associated Press Writer|Gregory Katz

LONDON – It's well known that Charles Darwin's groundbreaking theory of evolution made many people furious because it contradicted the Biblical view of creation. But few know that it also created problems for Darwin at home with his deeply religious wife, Emma.

  • Bob Bloomfield
    (Photo: AP Images / Akira Suemori)
    Director Bob Bloomfield poses for a portrait by the statue of British naturalist Charles Darwin ahead of an interview with the Associated Press at the Natural History Museum in London, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009.

Darwin held back the book to avoid offending his wife, said Ruth Padel, the naturalist's great-great-granddaughter. "She said he seemed to be putting God further and further off," Padel said in her north London home. "But they talked it through, and she said, "Don't change any of your ideas for fear of hurting me.'"

The 1859 publication of "On the Origin of Species" changed scientific thought forever — and generated opposition that continues to this day. It is this elegant explanation of how species evolve through natural selection that makes Darwin's 200th birthday on Feb. 12 such a major event.

More than 300 birthday celebrations are planned in Britain alone, where Darwin's face graces the 10-pound bill along with that of Queen Elizabeth II. Shrewsbury, the central England town where Darwin was born and raised, is holding a monthlong festival for its most famous son. And a permanent exhibition re-creating some of his most famous experiments is opening at Down House, his former home near London.

Many more events are planned worldwide, including the Second World Summit on evolution in the Galapagos islands in August. In Australia, the Perth Mint is putting out a special commemorative silver coin.

Even Darwin's ideological adversaries concede that he was a towering figure.

"He was clearly extremely important, his thinking changed the world," said Paul Taylor, a spokesman for Answers in Genesis, a prominent group that rejects Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of the Bible. "We disagree with his conclusions, with the way he made extrapolations, but he was a very careful observer and we've got a lot to be grateful for."

Bob Bloomfield, special projects director at London's Museum of Natural History, said Darwin was cautious not only because he didn't want to offend his wife, but also because he understood that the concept of man's evolution from other animals was controversial. He didn't want to present it simply as a hypothesis, but as an explanation buttressed by many observations and facts.

"He knew he had to make an absolutely iron-cast case for his theory," Bloomfield said. "He was one of the earliest true scientists where everything he was prepared to write about had to be based on evidence."

Darwin's small, handwritten diaries are on display at a major exhibit at the Museum of Natural History, as well as thousands of specimens he collected. Some came from his fabled five-year trip to South America aboard the Beagle, when he visited the remote Galapagos Islands and saw how some species had adapted to its strange, demanding environment.

The diaries offer insights into Darwin's meticulous, analytical approach. He even lists the pros and cons of getting married.

The advantages? A wife would be a constant companion, a friend in old age, and fill the house with music and feminine chitchat. The cons? Losing the freedom to come and go as he pleased and to read as much as he wanted at night. Visiting relatives. And he would have to spend money on children, not books.

After much deliberation, Darwin renounced the single life: "One cannot live this solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless & cold, & childless staring one in ones face, already beginning to wrinkle," he concluded. Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Like I said, all tests to create or destroy matter or energy have failed, thus they exist despite no causation. There is no 'something for nothing' when it comes to energy or matter, the 2 can be transformed from one state to another, but they can't be created ex nihilo."
    And again I say And you think that my belief in an eternal God who has no beginning absurd. Wow. "It always existed..." hmmm...interesting. Can that be proven?

    I mean it's a nice theory and all...nice and neat...ties up all the loose ends...but it still cannot be proven. And to think that matter/energy has "always been there"? C'mon. You really think that believing in a God that has always been there is any more of a stretch?

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "And you think that my belief in an eternal God who has no beginning absurd."

    How can we demonstrate this? Any objective test? the whole 'eternal thing' isn't what I find in itself absurd, rather it's the overwhelming collective of that, and all the other things which is absurd.

    "It always existed..." hmmm...interesting. Can that be proven?"

    Did you bother to read it, or do you prefer rhetoric questions?

    Like I said, all tests to create or destroy matter or energy have failed, thus they exist despite no causation. There is no 'something for nothing' when it comes to energy or matter, the 2 can be transformed from one state to another, but they can't be created ex nihilo.

    contrary evolutionary evidence...?

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    And you think that my belief in an eternal God who has no beginning absurd. Wow. "It always existed..." hmmm...interesting. Can that be proven?

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "What I want to know is where all the matter for our universe came from."

    Go read a science book, turn the the section on 'thermodynamics' and review the 1st Law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

    It implies that matter & energy as states simply exist & flow from one state to another, they exist outside the need for creation or causation.

    There's not been any tests demonstrating that matter or energy can be created out of nothing, they can only be transferred from one state to another, there is always an equal balance. As such there is nothing implying the matter from the universe requires existence in the first place, it's eternal.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "The Bible doesn't support evolution. "

    Woopie-doo, it also doesn't support other sciences. But that's not the question, the question to you was what are your evidence based arguments as to why a population of organisms can't overtime change. Like the movie, still waiting...

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What I want to know is where all the matter for our universe came from.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Bible doesn't support evolution.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, good. anyhow, I'll wait for you to (finally) mention your evidence based objections to evolution. As in, what processes can't or don't work for the model to be accepted, so far I haven't heard you list any.

  • Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    orange,
    Bob and I already went over that. Since you are not a Christian, you wouldn't understand the point I'm making. Even from a logical view.

  • Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Unless he created the life to evolve. Dee, dee, dee.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But not any more limited than your view. If God wanted to take a ball of dust and mush it like play-do than that's what He did. But that still flies in the face of evolution that says that man evolved. If God created man, then he could not have evolved.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    prophet - I thought we were having a more honest discussion than that. I did not say he was anything less than all powerful, and you would have to have been ignoring everything I've been saying for days to say I was. Give me a break.

    I was in fact saying exactly the opposite. I don't think god is limited to using dust like play-do. I think he can do whatever he feels like, and I said so. My subtle point was actually that the conception you were putting forward seemed to have a limited view of what He can do.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I'm not sure god literally picked up dust and squished it around like play-do to make us."

    Yeah, I see your point. God isn't all powerful.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I don't know. I'm not God or privy to his perspective. I think it is possible that this is figurative. I'm not sure god literally picked up dust and squished it around like play-do to make us. Forming us out of component atoms/material/whatever like he did all creation seems possibly consistent with this verse also. Again, I don't think this has any bearing on evolution or no.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    We can both be counted guilty in making things up. But you never answered my last question.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    conversely, your alternate view of the time periods is ABSOLUTELY EQUAL in being a matter of opinion as well. You realize we both have to interpret the text the way that makes sense to us on that. The text is not clear how long those periods were, unless you just start making stuff up.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And it still wouldn't explain how God took dirt from the ground and formed Adam and breathed into him the breath of life, and how He took a rib from his side and created a woman.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, that's simply a matter of opinion. We could use that argument throughout the Old Testament.

  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    yom can mean "indefinite period of time." It is not just day/eon. I don't think we have to assume each yom of creation was of the exact same length. God is clearly not even bound by time.

    (time a characteristic of our physical universe. Most scientists would consider it a dimension, like length or width. "Time" is even variable. Time is even measurably experienced differentially depending on gravity. (Two locations can experience measurably different passage of time if they are experiencing different gravities (even measurable on top of a mountain vs its base, and time is also, when you move faster, closer to the speed light, time itself passes slower).

    If God is bound by time, then he is bound by his own creation, which is logically impossible. It is quite possible (but speculative), that from God's perspective, the entire history of our universe is almost like a painting on a wall. He "knows the future" like we can see everything in a painting from an all seeing perspective. or know how long the side of a table is - it does not start or end to us experientially, it is just there in front of us. We can experience and move back and forth in spatial dimensions, God probably exists entirely outside of time. Us trying to say that time even had sequential meaning to God at the time of creation like we experience time is not only illogical, it is a failure of being able to imagine the truly infinite sovereignty of God.

  • Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bob,

    Okay. So if evolution by divine design is true, then the "days" in Genesis would actually be considered eons, since we know that all of evolution did not occure in just six days.
    And if they were, in fact, eons...then when God rested on the seventh "eon", He is still resting and is not doing anything in the world, Jesus did not come to this earth, and the rest of the Bible is a fable.
    If God did truly rest one literal day, then that means that the universe was created in six literal days.

  • Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm comfortable with the fact god made gray. In this instance, in His word, the word used by the hands he lead is "yom." This word is variable in its meaning, even if looked at only in the Bible. Here are some examples found in very little time looking for what I had seen and read before relating to this subject (including again recently - iron sharpens iron even if we all go in circles and end with us agreeing to disagree civilly).

    Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)

    from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger

    An example:
    In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.

    An example from Genesis:
    Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime.

    Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.
    1. Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
    2. Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
    3. Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.

    We should not create language rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the Author's intended meaning. There is no grammatical basis for the claim that only 24 hr periods could have applied here. This is trying to wag the God.

    As for your last question, I think it is obvious I do not think the two ideas conflict. God created the universe, our earth, and us. God used evolution to accomplish one part of that task, as is evidenced by his creation itself in noncontradiction with its creator and His word.

  • Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bob,

    Are you a politician by any chance? You have an uncanny way of circumventing a question. We aren't telling God how He made the universe. He's telling us.
    If you believe in evolution, you cannot believe that the word "day" means a literal day.
    If you believe in creationism, you will believe that the word "day" means a literal day.
    Do you believe in evolution, or creationism?

  • Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I don't think it is entirely clear what that word translates as. There are many, many places that the exact same Hebrew word is used to mean an indefinite amount of time. There is the issue of its use with framing words, but again, there are other clear exceptions to this loose rule in the bible and other early Jewish writings. I think that to declare with certainty that God only could have meant 24 hours is actually a bit disrespectful to the text and its Author. Seriously, it seems a bit backwards for us to be telling God how he did it, extending the story beyond the bare facts, especially when his creation seems to contradict these man-made theological arguments based more on an interpreter's logic than on what is really there.

    And when people start making up crazy stuff like those vapor barrier stories (although I am aware that many people who hear them are not aware of the science that makes them so... funny I guess, except that there are many who should know better among those making them up out of thin (or intellectually vapid) air.

  • Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bob,

    So you're saying that these days weren't literal days? You agree with those who say that the word "day" in Genesis one is actually translated "eon"?

  • Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "But the problem is this. Evolution takes billions of years. And according to evolution, man did not show up until billions of years after the earth was formed. But God created man on the sixth day. How does that jive?"

    An extremely good question.
    If these days are indefinite periods of time (as I literally interpret them to be - there is equal textual basis for this view in a literal reading of the Hebrew), then man coming late in the long story of creation would fit just fine. Genetic evidence as well as basic evolutionary theory points to us all tracing back to a single mitochondrial Eve, who we can assume had an Adam counterpart, even before we turn to the Bible to learn their specific story.
    If they were literal 24 hr days from the start, or became so after the planets and sun and everything were in place, I'm not sure how it would work, unless you take a fossils already in the ground at creation sort of view.

    Note the "fossils already in the ground" and earth already mature and eroded and appearing to be much older than it really is etc. by 24 hr day six is the only YEC theory that is logically consistent. I have full respect for this theory as a scientist, even if it seems unlikely, and isn't very popular. It is consistent with what we can observe directly contemporarily in God's own creation.

    The fossils laid down by the flood, or vapor barrier stuff, or dinosaurs on the ark - this stuff is testable and false. If you believe it, you believe a lie, or God has made his entire creation a lie, one of the two.

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bob,

    Never mind. I saw where you answered it. But then brings up another question.

    You said "
    boundaries does not tell us how "long" they were. how does the sun even rise to create the dawn before the sun and the earth are there? Your guess is as good as mine."

    If you were to read the Scriptures, you'd see that God created light, and night and day on the first day. Where that light came from? Not sure.

    But the problem is this. Evoulution takes billions of years. And according to evolution, man did not show up until billions of years after the earth was formed. But God created man on the sixth day. How does that jive?

  • Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    prophet,
    what question? I may have missed it. If it was the question I found pertaining to the 6 days issue, we have been discussing that precise issue quite a bit here.

  • Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer,
    I think ifeelfine has an incredibly important point there. The bashing you seem to subject those who disagree with you to (at times, you have been more civil in some of this conversation lately) doesn't seem productive, or very Christ-like. The hurled judgments (maybe you are realizing the language you use is part of this) seem not only harsh, but often out of place on "vegetables vs meat" types of questions.

  • Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Bob,
    You never answered my question.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, repenting does not always involve sin, to repent means a change of heart and mind which may lead to a change in behavior and if it involves sin then it would lead to a change in behavior.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, perhaps rather than use the word repent I should say change their mind.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer: You're not making sense then. Because if you need to "repent" (your word) of belief in evolution then clearly you believe it is a sin to believe in evolution (you certainly don't repent of non sins). And if that is the case then someone who is in a constant state of sin and cannot be a Christian (I've seen you write that). How am I doing so far?

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, I'm not saying a person is not a Christian because they believe in evolution only that I believe they are wrong in their belief in evolution, I've always said that.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer: At one time you said there was no litmus test for Christianity regarding evolution - when did you change your mind on that?

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If the reviewers are going to look at and submit themselves to the evidence then it does not matter if they are Christian or not. I have not forgotten you are in favor of creation and evolution being taught in class, even though only one has been through the peer review process.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20, not at all considering these peer review boards are made up of Christians and non-Christians alike and only look at data from a scientific perspective, my point is if there is "science" that contradicts, violates, and/or supersedes God's Word than a Christian who truly believes the Bible in its original autographs is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God has no choice but to reject that data or view as false! Once again please remember I'm the one who is in favor of allowing both evolution and creation to be discussed in science classes and I also believe that there is no true science that will ever be opposed to God or His Word.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So peer review is indeed irrelevant as far as you are concerned and all your comments on it are just red herrings hiding what you truly think?.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20, if what you beleive from science violates, contradicts, and/or supersedes God's Word then yes one needs to repent of that and believe and trust God's Word!

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bobtx, as far as a direct line to God, every true born-again believer has that access through the Holy Spirit, but in this case all one has to do is read God's Word and believe it!

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bobtx, Bible-believing Christians have no fear of or problem with true science! But when it comes to a choice between God's Word and man's word, we choose God's Word!

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And that's what it comes down do is it not believer, believe the right thing concerning a scientific issue or you have sinned and need forgiveness from God(that's why peer review is so irrelevant to you despite all the protest) . Last year I had to write a report on the orbits of exo planets if certain parameters are changed. Some things I wrote where plain wrong, some where my own opinion and though my tutor did not agree, wrote that my method was sound. No where though did she write that if I was wrong I needed forgiveness from God for coming to the wrong conclusion.(in fact no tutor ever has) I desire to be a teacher and am studying hard that I may be worthy of such a high calling, but never will I, should I become one, tell a child that because they are wrong in their belief they should repent, I would be ashamed of such a thing to my very core.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine72
    I'm glad I can help you out there. Christians need not fear science, and it is sad so many do. God and his creation are not in contradiction.

    believer,
    I would reserve such certainty and judgment of others for actual things worth fighting for. (However, I would still say you might want to leave the judgment to God, like he says to - I am amazed at the direct-line-to-god attitude so frequently taken here, I didn't know so many people still had access to special revelation).

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, you are totally correct that being a Christian who believes in evolution is very difficult since evolution is so contrary to the Word of God. But once you take that bold step and repent of that belief God will not only forgive you but give you the faith to accept His Word as truth when it comes to the literal six day creation!

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Thanks for being here BobTX. It's difficult being a Christian who has no issues accepting evolution. It gets frustrating and I am not as eloquent or as knowledgeable on the science as you are - just enough to be dangerous :)

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72,

    You can actually re-read our entire conversation last night and see what we were discussing. By the way, our conversation began when I was talking to Bob . . . but I did specifically leave you a post that answered your question . . . you did not respond.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine,

    Again, I was addressing his statement . . . not his question. Bob is capable of speaking for himself . . . thanks.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online: And you may want to read more than one post back

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bob,

    Point taken; you stated, (Im just saying that we don't know from what He has told us) . . . I dont know . . . the mention of the evening and morning and our seven day week cycle seems to indicate that it is 24hr literal days. . . I guess we will have to agree to disagree agreeably. I too thank you for explaining your field of work and your thoughts . . . it has been informative . . . chat with you a bit later.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    the bullfrogs split from the rabbits a long time ago when the common ancestors of lissamphibia and amniotes went their separate ways. I agree no frogs will be going backwards than forwards to become rabbits.

  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I think you don't realize that you are extending layers of logic on top of each other to make your case, just as I have with mine. Your view that it is 7 24hour days is actually more of a subjective conjecture than someone who says it is not clear how long those periods of time were. I am not asserting any knowledge of how long they were. I'm just saying that we don't know from what He has told us. A do appreciate you explaining your views though. I hope you look at mine as A: worth considering, B: intellectually honest positions that do not make someone "less of a believer" as some seem to throw around (screen names like prophet, believer, etc. who seem to claim an exceptionally extra-biblical direct line to God around here as they proclaim people to be hell bound for points of disagreement with their views).

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links