ardipithecus
March 15th 2003, 11:27 PM
Quotes by Famous Evolutionists (http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html) quotes Charles Darwin as saying:
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."
(Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
Evolutionism's "Flaws" and "Holes" (http://www.creationequation.com/Printable/Print_EvolutionismsFlawsandHoles.htm) tells us:
Charles Darwin characterized his idea as a “rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” He worried that “I…have devoted my life to a phantasy.” Valid reasons exist for concern.
Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution: Bias Towards Evolution (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm) tells us:
Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." ([23], p.59)
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution (http://www.giftofeternallife.org/books_articles/books/facts_fallicies/02.shtml) tells us:
In the fifth place, even the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, had serious doubts about his own theory. Shortly after Darwin published his infamous book on the origin of species, he wrote in a letter to Charles Lyell: “I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy.”13 In another statement in the same letter Darwin wrote: “I am the most miserable, bemuddled, stupid dog in all England, and am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption.”14 If the father of evolutionary thought stated that his own theory was formulated by “blindness and presumption,” how could anyone argue that he employed good scientific means in arriving at his conclusions. He did not even believe it himself!
The "phantasy"/"fantasy" quote can be found in many other creationists sites:
Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1171.asp)
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THE COLLAPSE OF A MYTH (http://www.christianity.gr/ef_ag/1999/0399/evolu.htm)
Search for the "Missing Link" (http://www.lifeandpeace.com/life/search_for_the.htm)
Search for the "Missing Link" (http://www.fool4him.com/articles/thompson-stan/MissingLink2.doc) (Word)
CHARLES DARWIN'S IDEAS, THEIR INFLUENCE & THE SOCIAL BACKGROUND (http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/misc/darwin.htm)
The letter which the "phantasy" comment appeared came from The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin edited by edited by Francis Darwin after the death of Charles. It is availiable online and shows an extreme misquote:
Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire,
November 23 [1859].
My dear Lyell,
You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there
could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite
side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of
modification in your new edition;† nothing, I am convinced, could be
more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have
maintained in the position of a master, one
[Page 25]
side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up,
is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a
parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so
many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a
cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may
not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally
impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be
wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms,
which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been
thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the
admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your
works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the
virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who
adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful
bigots.
I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of the
multiple origin of dogs. The only difference is, that in the case of
single origins, all difference of the races has originated since man
domesticated the species. In the case of multiple origins part of the
difference was produced under natural conditions. I should infinitely
prefer the theory of single origin in all cases, if facts would permit
its reception. But there seems to me some à priori improbability
(seeing how fond savages are of taming animals), that throughout all
times, and throughout all the world, that man should have domesticated
one single species alone, of the widely distributed genus Canis.
Besides this, the close resemblance of at least three kinds of
American domestic dogs to wild species still inhabiting the countries
where they are now domesticated, seem to almost compel admission that
more than one wild Canis has been domesticated by man.
[Page 26]
I thank you cordially for all the generous zeal and interest you have
shown about my book, and I remain, my dear Lyell,
Your affectionate friend and disciple,
CHARLES DARWIN.
Sir J. Herschel, to whom I sent a copy, is going to read my book. He
says he leans to the side opposed to me. If you should meet him after
he has read me, pray find out what he thinks, for, of course, he will
not write; and I should excessively like to hear whether I produce any
effect on such a mind.
[Ed. note]
†It appears from Sir Charles Lyell's published letters that he
intended to admit the doctrine of evolution in a new edition of the
'Manual,' but this was not published till 1865. He was, however, at
work on the 'Antiquity of Man' in 1860, and had already determined to
discuss the 'Origin' at the end of the book.
Source (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters2_01.html)
Now that you read the whole letter you know that Charles Darwin meant the exact opposite of what the creationist quoters want us to think he did. Also notice that the "vexation at my blindness and presumption" statement does not appear in this letter contrary to one of the creationists above wrote. Also note that the first creationist site got the citation wrong.
The "vexation" comment comes from another letter:
C. DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
July 14th [1857?].
...I write now to supplicate most earnestly a favour, viz., the loan of Boreau, Flore du centre de la France, either 1st or 2nd edition, last best; also "Flora Ratisbonensis," by Dr. Fürnrohr, in 'Naturhist. Topographie von Regensburg, 1839.' If you can possibly spare them, will you send them at once to the enclosed address. If you have not them, will you send one line by return of post: as I must try whether Kippist* can anyhow find them, which I fear will be nearly impossible in the Linnean Library, in which I know they are.
I have been making some calculations about varieties, etc., and talking yesterday with Lubbock, he has pointed out to me the grossest blunder which I have made in principle, and which entails two or three weeks' lost work; and I am at a dead-lock till I have these books to go over again, and see what the result of calculation on the right principle is. I am the most miserable, bemuddled, stupid dog in all England, and am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption.
Ever yours, most miserably,
C. DARWIN.
*The late Mr. Kippist was at this time in charge of the Linnean Society's Library.]
Source (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_12.html)
Who has not been in Darwin's shoes? Another clear misquote.
This post is made possible due to the work done for the t.o. Quote Mine project in the talk.origins newsgroup.
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."
(Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
Evolutionism's "Flaws" and "Holes" (http://www.creationequation.com/Printable/Print_EvolutionismsFlawsandHoles.htm) tells us:
Charles Darwin characterized his idea as a “rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” He worried that “I…have devoted my life to a phantasy.” Valid reasons exist for concern.
Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution: Bias Towards Evolution (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm) tells us:
Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." ([23], p.59)
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution (http://www.giftofeternallife.org/books_articles/books/facts_fallicies/02.shtml) tells us:
In the fifth place, even the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, had serious doubts about his own theory. Shortly after Darwin published his infamous book on the origin of species, he wrote in a letter to Charles Lyell: “I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy.”13 In another statement in the same letter Darwin wrote: “I am the most miserable, bemuddled, stupid dog in all England, and am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption.”14 If the father of evolutionary thought stated that his own theory was formulated by “blindness and presumption,” how could anyone argue that he employed good scientific means in arriving at his conclusions. He did not even believe it himself!
The "phantasy"/"fantasy" quote can be found in many other creationists sites:
Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1171.asp)
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THE COLLAPSE OF A MYTH (http://www.christianity.gr/ef_ag/1999/0399/evolu.htm)
Search for the "Missing Link" (http://www.lifeandpeace.com/life/search_for_the.htm)
Search for the "Missing Link" (http://www.fool4him.com/articles/thompson-stan/MissingLink2.doc) (Word)
CHARLES DARWIN'S IDEAS, THEIR INFLUENCE & THE SOCIAL BACKGROUND (http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/misc/darwin.htm)
The letter which the "phantasy" comment appeared came from The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin edited by edited by Francis Darwin after the death of Charles. It is availiable online and shows an extreme misquote:
Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire,
November 23 [1859].
My dear Lyell,
You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there
could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite
side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of
modification in your new edition;† nothing, I am convinced, could be
more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have
maintained in the position of a master, one
[Page 25]
side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up,
is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a
parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so
many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a
cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may
not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally
impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be
wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms,
which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been
thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the
admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your
works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the
virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who
adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful
bigots.
I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of the
multiple origin of dogs. The only difference is, that in the case of
single origins, all difference of the races has originated since man
domesticated the species. In the case of multiple origins part of the
difference was produced under natural conditions. I should infinitely
prefer the theory of single origin in all cases, if facts would permit
its reception. But there seems to me some à priori improbability
(seeing how fond savages are of taming animals), that throughout all
times, and throughout all the world, that man should have domesticated
one single species alone, of the widely distributed genus Canis.
Besides this, the close resemblance of at least three kinds of
American domestic dogs to wild species still inhabiting the countries
where they are now domesticated, seem to almost compel admission that
more than one wild Canis has been domesticated by man.
[Page 26]
I thank you cordially for all the generous zeal and interest you have
shown about my book, and I remain, my dear Lyell,
Your affectionate friend and disciple,
CHARLES DARWIN.
Sir J. Herschel, to whom I sent a copy, is going to read my book. He
says he leans to the side opposed to me. If you should meet him after
he has read me, pray find out what he thinks, for, of course, he will
not write; and I should excessively like to hear whether I produce any
effect on such a mind.
[Ed. note]
†It appears from Sir Charles Lyell's published letters that he
intended to admit the doctrine of evolution in a new edition of the
'Manual,' but this was not published till 1865. He was, however, at
work on the 'Antiquity of Man' in 1860, and had already determined to
discuss the 'Origin' at the end of the book.
Source (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters2_01.html)
Now that you read the whole letter you know that Charles Darwin meant the exact opposite of what the creationist quoters want us to think he did. Also notice that the "vexation at my blindness and presumption" statement does not appear in this letter contrary to one of the creationists above wrote. Also note that the first creationist site got the citation wrong.
The "vexation" comment comes from another letter:
C. DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
July 14th [1857?].
...I write now to supplicate most earnestly a favour, viz., the loan of Boreau, Flore du centre de la France, either 1st or 2nd edition, last best; also "Flora Ratisbonensis," by Dr. Fürnrohr, in 'Naturhist. Topographie von Regensburg, 1839.' If you can possibly spare them, will you send them at once to the enclosed address. If you have not them, will you send one line by return of post: as I must try whether Kippist* can anyhow find them, which I fear will be nearly impossible in the Linnean Library, in which I know they are.
I have been making some calculations about varieties, etc., and talking yesterday with Lubbock, he has pointed out to me the grossest blunder which I have made in principle, and which entails two or three weeks' lost work; and I am at a dead-lock till I have these books to go over again, and see what the result of calculation on the right principle is. I am the most miserable, bemuddled, stupid dog in all England, and am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption.
Ever yours, most miserably,
C. DARWIN.
*The late Mr. Kippist was at this time in charge of the Linnean Society's Library.]
Source (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_12.html)
Who has not been in Darwin's shoes? Another clear misquote.
This post is made possible due to the work done for the t.o. Quote Mine project in the talk.origins newsgroup.