So? If that anecdote is true, he was wrong on that point. We’re not On the Origin of Species-literalists here. We don’t take everything Darwin said as The Undeniable Truth. Scientific knowledge is allowed to change, given new evidence.
Well, there’s the fact that it has been proven… You provide no context, if this is true. Do you mean that he lamented it was unprovable, or that the science of his time could not or had not proved it, or what? Evolution is not contingent on Darwin being right about everything.
In a sense, nothing can even be “proven” scientifically, though things can be disproven by evidence against. Theories can only be confirmed by evidence which matches the theory. However, in the time since Darwin was on his death bed, whole areas of science have come into existence confirming Darwin’s theory, including cytogenetics which confirms Darwin in ways that he could not have dreamed of, since Darwin knew nothing about genes and chromosomes, let alone DNA.
How fortunate for the writers of glurge that Darwin said so many things on his deathbed, and that there were so many disinterested observers to transcribe his statements.
Seriously, who cares what he said on his deathbed ?
double whoosh!! 
Rosebud!
Darwin’s theory was “Natural Selection”; it deals with how species developed. Evolution is supported by hard cold facts using chemistry, physics, geology, and biology.
On a slightly related note, I find it interesting that many Christians consider Jesus to be the son of God, when Jesus himself reportedly said in his final moments, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Is this a variation on this thoroughly debunked myth?
I’ve never understood the purpose of these types of stories, since they have nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution.
Actually, on his deathbed, Darwin said “I have discovered a truly marvelous recipe for the absolute perfect hot fudge sundae, but this margin is too narrow to contain it” - sadly, he took the secret of the ultimate dessert to his grave.
And if you can’t prove me wrong about this, I must be right.
So (Ice cream)[sup]n[/sup] + (Fudge)[sup]n[/sup] = Yum[sup]n[/sup] has a solution for large values of n.
Answers In Genesis (the group that the big names in creation science work for) says:
In addition to all the other comments, you did notice that Darwin died well over a century ago, and that science has made a bit of progress since then?
Darwin new a mechanism of passing characteristics to offspring was required, and proposed in in the Origin. It was totally wrong. It seems he had Mendel’s paper in his library, but never read it. The power of evolution, and the unimportance of Darwin’s word as holy writ, is shown by the fact that genetics works much better for evolution than Darwin’s guess.
A few others have commented on this, but I want to add something nobody has specifically mentioned yet.
Per JohnClay’s quote, I find it very interesting that this kind of anecdotal argument reveals a deep misconception in nonscientific people about how science actually works. Generally, in the religious mindset, truth is revealed by individuals. You have a prophet or whatever, and they come down from the mountain and report some piece of knowledge or a new behavioral requirement or whatever. God is eternal, but without the prophet, the knowledge would not have arrived on Earth. And further, the prophet’s word as a speaker for God is supposed to be accepted without question. Only this or another prophet can retract or contradict the received knowledge.
Science, by contrast, is completely independent of the individual. Sure, some people may be able to make bigger creative and intellectual leaps than others, but it seems to me that if Newton hadn’t come along when he did, pretty much everything he came up with would have been figured out sooner or later. Perhaps it wouldn’t have been as elegant or self-contained, and it might have been a herky-jerky journey to get to the meat of the matter whereas Newton just plopped his Principia in front of the public in one go; but the ideas themselves have nothing to do with whether or not Newton changed his mind later. (And given his preoccupations with alchemy and astrology, this is definitely a good thing.)
I find it interesting that this fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry is almost invariably completely misunderstood by those attacking its discoveries from the outside.
roflcopter… I love a good debate but none of you have proven your thing correct , and i never said i was a creationist that was a good guess though because Iam if you would go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html all his arguments will save me the time of convincing 73 repliers…
Could you try giving us a clue what you think is insufficient here?
Just, have you read the page you linked to? It’s less than complimentary to Mr. Hovind.
It doesn’t even sound like you’ve read much of the page, since the definition of evolution Kent Hovind has made up doesn’t approach the real thing.
One through four have nothing to do with evolution, and five is just disingenuous.
Am I reading this correctly and you are just confessing to trolling to see what trouble you can start? Or are you seriously trying to get a debate going – if the latter, consider participating, indicating what sort of evidence you think would be appropriate, for example. If the former, well, a moderator will be along to discuss the matter further with you, or I miss my guess.
When was the last time we ever had a substantive discussion about evolution? As far as I can tell, most creationists simply gave up argument and decided to go after school boards.