It is no surprise that in the book of Mormon, when confronted with a demand for evidence by the outspoken, agnostic/atheist Korihor, Alma turned to creation to prove the existence of God. He said, "…yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator" (Alma 30:44).
Because the creation of Man and this earth are the most obvious and abundant testimony to the existence of God, Satan, in every age has sought to eradicate this knowledge from the mind of Mankind. For this very reason the questions surrounding the creation and age of the earth and the validity of organic evolution have been one of the most hotly debated ongoing topics in the church. The purpose of this book is to bring about long awaited answers concerning Darwinian evolution and the age of the earth, by testing these philosophies against the scriptures, and revealing the truth as given in the Word of God. Christ himself gave one of the most foolproof tests of men and doctrine we have in the scriptures. He said simply, "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20). Moroni elaborated upon this idea by explaining
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night. 16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. 17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. (Moro. 7:15-17)
Thus we are given a simple and foolproof test for deciphering whether a man or doctrine is leading us to or away from salvation; if it leads us to do good and believe in Christ, it is of God. But if it leads us to cease good works and abandon our faith in Christ, we may know with surety that it is not of God. Before getting to the doctrinal side of evolution and the age of the earth, let us first put Christ's words in use by looking at the fruits these philosophies manifested in the lives of those who "invented" them. To begin with, let us investigate the life of the so-called "father of evolution", Charles Darwin. Many people are under the mistaken notion that Darwin was a Christian throughout his life, the truth is that Charles Darwin's thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject the evidence for God in nature and ultimately to renounce the Bible, God, and the Christian faith. John M. Brentnall and Russell M. Grigg in their article Was Darwin a Christian detail the evolution of Darwin's religious beliefs which resulted from his acceptance of naturalistic philosophies.
Darwin's Early Religious Influences and Thoughts
Darwin did not lack religious influences in his youth. Baptized an Anglican and steeped in his mother's Unitarianism, young Charles was brought up to pray. He used to run the mile or so from home to school, concerning which he wrote,
"I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marveled how generally I was aided." 1.
He had dropped out of medical studies after two years at Edinburgh, and his father suggested to him the calling of an Anglican clergyman. Charles wasn't sure whether he could accept everything in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. However, he later wrote,
""I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care 'Pearson on the Creed' and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted." 2.
During his three years of theological studies at Christ's College, Cambridge, he was greatly impressed by Paley's Evidences of Christianity and his Natural Theology (which argues for the existence of God from design). He recalled,
"I could have written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley," and, "I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's 'Natural Theology.' I could almost formerly have said it by heart."
In a letter of condolence to a bereaved friend at that time, he wrote of "so pure and holy a comfort as the Bible affords," compared with "how useless the sympathy of all friends must appear."
His intention to enter the ministry, he wrote, was never "formally given up, but died a natural death" when, on leaving Cambridge, he joined HMS Beagle as an unpaid naturalist. However, the religious influences in his life did not abate. His official position was that of gentleman companion to the captain, and for the next five years Darwin heard the Bible read and expounded on a regular basis.
Captain Robert FitzRoy was a deeply religious man who believed every word in the Bible and personally conducted divine service every Sunday, at which attendance by all on board was compulsory. Darwin later recalled his own doctrinal orthodoxy when, in discussion with some of the officers, much to their amusement he quoted the Bible as "an unanswerable authority on some point of morality." And at Buenos Aires, he and another officer requested a chaplain to administer the Lord's Supper to them before they ventured into the wilds of Tierra del Fuego.
The Progress of His Belief
Despite all of the above religious influences in his life, the decline of Darwin's faith began when he first started to doubt the truth of the first chapters of Genesis. This unwillingness to accept the Bible as meaning what it said probably started with and certainly was greatly influenced by his shipboard reading matter--the newly published first volume of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (the second volume, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo). This was a revolutionary book for that time. It subtly ridiculed belief in recent creation in favour of an old earth, and denied that Noah's Flood was world-wide; this, of course, was also a denial of divine judgment.
Based on James Hutton's dictum that all natural processes have continued as they were from the beginning (2 Peter 3:4), or 'uniformitarianism', Lyell's book presented Darwin with the time frame of vast geological ages needed to make his theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution 'work'. One of Darwin's biographers calls Charles's reading of this book his 'point of departure from orthodoxy'. And when Lyell died in 1875, Darwin said, "I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works."
Inevitably, the more Darwin convinced himself that species had originated by chance and developed by a long course of gradual modification, the less he could accept not only the Genesis account of creation, but also the rest of the Old Testament as the divinely inspired Word of God. In his Autobiography, Darwin wrote,
"I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian."
When Darwin came to write up the notes from his scientific investigations he faced a choice. He could interpret what he had seen either as evidence for the Genesis account of supernatural creation, or else as evidence for naturalism, consistent with Lyell's theory of long ages. In the event, he chose the latter -- that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness rather than as the result of divinely guided, meaningful intention, and, after several years, in 1859 his Origin of Species was the result.
On the way, in 1844, he wrote to his friend, Joseph Hooker, "I am almost convinced... that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable." Concerning this, Ian Taylor writes, "Many commentators have pointed out that the 'murder' he spoke of was in effect the murder of God."
Having abandoned the Old Testament, Darwin then renounced the Gospels. This loss of belief was based on several factors, including his rejection of miracles: "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become"; his rejection of the credibility of the Gospel writers: "the men of that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us"; his rejection of the Gospel chronology: "the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events"; and his rejection of the Gospel events: "they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses."
Summing up the above, he wrote, "by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."
On another occasion he wrote, "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age." He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, "... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually."
One immediate effect of Darwin's rejection of the Bible was his loss of all comfort from it. The hopeless grief of his later letters to the bereaved, contrasts sharply with the earlier letter of condolence quoted above. In 1851, his dearly loved daughter Annie, aged 10, died from what the attending physician called a "Bilious Fever with typhoid character." Charles was devastated, and wrote, "Our only consolation is that she passed a short, though joyous life." Two years later, to a friend who had lost a child, Darwin's only appeal was to "time," which "softens and deadens... one's feelings and regrets"
Darwin's Descent into Darkness
The descent into darkness did not stop there. In 1876, in his Autobiography, Darwin wrote,
"Formerly I was led... to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind."
In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, $ therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."
Try the doctrines
Just as Christ and Moroni gave us sure ways to judge the doctrines of the world, likewise John the Beloved echoed the same method of testing the Hellenistic philosophies of his day.
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1 Jn. 4:1-3).
After reviewing the effect that a lifelong study of organic evolution had upon the faith of its number one proponent, one must ask themselves "why did it cause him, and so many others to apostatize"? The reason is quite frankly, because the theory is incompatible with scripture. A notion which Darwin was able enough to understand, but many Christians have yet to grasp. Evolution is firmly founded upon uniformitarianism and a fossil record which spans back millions of years. They are entirely interdependent. ONE CANNOT BELIEVE IN ONE WITHOUT BELIEVING IN THE OTHER. Thus if the fossil record truly does span back millions of years, as Darwin's inspiration, the "father of geology", Sir Charles Lyell pointed out then we cannot believe in a literal fall (note). And if Adam's fall did not bring death and sin into the world, then there is no need for a Christ to literally redeem mankind from a fall that never literally occurred. As the scripture says "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (2 Cor. 15:??).
The scriptural and doctrinal evidence against the fossil record being millions of years old is extensive, elaborate, and specific as should soon become apparent to the reader. Yet the faithless tendency of man is in every age, is ever constant and predictable. The learned men rise up with their swelling words and verbose philosophies. And as Christians we, like sheep, first deny, then ignore, and then embrace. When we are young, impressionable, and ambitious we study and become indoctrinated in the "popular and accepted" theories of our day. We then, neglecting to comb through the scriptures to "try the spirit", allow it to slowly replace the scriptures as the foundation of our ideologies. Then before we know it, one generation's neglect to take the scriptures literally, turns into a next generation's scriptural neglect, which leads to a third generation's apostasy.
Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind that was unwilling to make the scriptures his intellectual foundation. He first rejected the revelation of God in Genesis and the Bible, in leau of a theory that denies the fall of Adam and past catastrophes spoken of in scripture. It was his acceptance of the theory of uniformitarianism that led him to become the worlds leading proponent to a theory that suggests nature and creation are not proof that there is a God, that the scriptures are not divine revelations, and that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. It was to Darwin and all others who reject the scriptures that Moroni wrote
7 And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God... 8 Behold I say unto you he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them... 11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles...and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. 12 Behold he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ... (Morm. 9:7-12)
This scripture emphasizes the importance of belief in the fall of Adam. It is the foundation of the doctrine of the Atonement and resurrection.
Once one concludes (by reason of "scientific" impossibility) that the fall of Adam was not literal, then by virtue of the same the logic the next step is always to begin denying belief in a literal resurrection. For if the fall was not literal, how can there be a literal resurrection or restoration of the flesh? The two doctrines are interdependent. The "learned" among the LDS church are far from making this jump, but Christianity in general made it long ago. Likewise this was the argument of the Greeks...
(note) Put the references to both books and explain. Lyell sought to "free the science [geology] from Moses". He saw what he Mosaic geology as a threat to truth, because as millions since him, he did not see how the geologic record could possibly be so young.
He therefore argued against the prevalent view of his day that the scriptures were indeed true and literal, and should be the foundation of scientific discover and thought.
Back to by their fruits ye shall know them… James Purlof in his book, The Case Against Darwin answers the question "why should we even care about the Darwinian theory" and shows just a few of the "fruits" of this philosophy
"One reason Darwinism is important to know about is its unique social consequences. Until the nineteenth century, the view almost universally accepted in the West was that God had created the world and man. Society, in turn, was largely structured on values laid out in the Bible. Darwin's theory said something dramatically different: that man was not created by God, but evolved from ape-like ancestors, and that life itself was not created by God, but happened because the right chemicals came together by chance in the ancient ocean. After publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Darwinian ideas began replacing religious ideas until evolution itself became the prevailing view. Now it is certainly true that some people tried to make their religious beliefs compatible with evolution-they would say something like, "Well, maybe God created life through chance and evolution." However, for many, Darwin's theory put God out of the picture- he was irrelevant, or didn't exist. Julian Huxley, one of evolution's foremost spokesmen in the twentieth century, stated that "Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion."' And that's how many people saw it. In fact, evolution has produced a lot of atheists- including some famous ones.
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin murdered millions. In 1940, a book was published in Moscow entitled Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. It states:
At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates:
"I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said: "'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'
"I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. "How call you say such things, Soso? I exclaimed.
" 'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
"'What book is that?' I enquired.
"'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me." (2)
Karl Marx said: "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." (3) Marx even sent Darwin proof-sheets of Das Kapital, and offered to dedicate it to him, but the naturalist politely declined, noting it might embarrass some members of his family.
Now Marxists may object to picking on them, so let's switch to arch-capitalism for a moment. Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, was once said to be America's richest man. Though raised a Christian, he became an atheist. There is a story that Carnegie returned to his native Scotland and was boasting to a crowd of poor folks about his great wealth. "Name one thing for me," he said, "that God could have given me that I haven't been able to get for myself!" An old man near the back of the crowd answered: "Well, I'll tell you one thing he could have given you, Mr. Carnegie-a sense of humility." How did Carnegie become an atheist? He wrote in his autobiography:
When I, along with three or four of my boon companions, was in this stage of doubt about theology, including the supernatural element, and indeed the whole scheme of salvation through vicarious atonement and all the fabric built upon it, I came fortunately upon Darwin's and Spencer's works.... I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. (4)
One person almost universally denounced is Adolf Hitler. While Marx saw the "struggle for existence" as between classes, Hitler saw it as between races, and sought to develop a "master race." But did he invent the idea? The subtitle of The Origin of Species was The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Although Darwin penned that in an animal context, extending it to human races was a small leap of logic. In his demented way, Hitler was fulfilling this prediction Darwin made in The Descent of Man:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla. (5)
Racism was very prevalent among leading early evolutionists, many of whom believed the races had evolved separately. Britain's Thomas Huxley, whose fierce advocacy of evolution won him the nickname "Darwin's bulldog," wrote:
It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in, a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places within the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins . . . (6)
Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man that "the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.... excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (7) Darwin's son Leonard became president of Britain's Eugenics Education Society-eugenics, of course, was the campaign to transform humanity through selective breeding. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who advanced the idea of the "superman" and master race, called Darwin one of the three greatest men of his century. Zoologist Ernst Haeckel, probably Darwinism's greatest popularizer in Germany, wrote in 1904:
The mental life of savages rises little above that of the higher mammals, especially the apes, with which they are genealogically connected.... Their intelligence moves within the narrowest bounds, and one can no more (or no less) speak of their reason than of that of the more intelligent animals.... These lower races (such as the Veddahs or Australian Negroes) are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives. (8)
Thus Hitler did not invent his deadly racism- these ideas were simmering in Germany during his youth, and easily trace to Darwinian roots. As German philosopher Erich Fromm observed: "If Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was in the laws of evolution which justified and sanctified his actions and especially his cruelties." (9) Sir Arthur Keith, president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, wrote in the 1940s: "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." (10) This is not to in any way imply that today's evolutionists are racists; and certainly, Hitler's atrocities would have revolted Charles Darwin. But it is to say Darwinism has had relevant social impact. If people are only animals, then for Stalin and Hitler it made sense to treat them like animals, herding them like cattle into boxcars bound for gulags and concentration camps.
Now some may say: "Ah, well, Stalin, Marx, Carnegie, Hitler-those are just a bunch of old dead guys. What's that got to do with anything today?" It is true that we haven't had any Stalins or Hitlers running America. The U.S. Constitution decentralizes power, making it very difficult to form that kind of dictatorship.
But it is probably reasonable to at least say that we have experienced a moral decline in America over the last few decades. Not everyone would agree with that. Some people don't think morality can be defined. And certainly we have had recent improvements in this country- in, say, technology and some civil rights. But if we look at statistics such as drug use, teen suicide, and divorce, we see indications that the USA is declining. What happened at Columbine High School would have been unthinkable in the 1950s, when nobody dreamed that weapons detectors would ever be needed at school entrances.
So what's caused America's moral decline? Many would say, "Well, we've lost our respect for traditional values." OK, where did "traditional values" come from? They came mostly from the Bible, which for centuries was Western culture's central guiding document.
So we might more accurately ask: Why have we lost respect for the Bible? It is probably not an exaggeration to say that, above anything else, it was the widespread teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution as "fact." As Huxley said, evolution removed God "from the sphere of rational discussion." Once you make God irrelevant, the Bible becomes irrelevant, and the moral values in the Bible become irrelevant.
Our purpose, in making this point is not to "push the Bible on people," but only to note that religion traditionally played a strong role in American social life, and that evolution tended to negate that role, with powerful effects of its own.
I used to wonder why America had such a big social transformation back in the sixties. One factor: Evolution was not heavily underscored in American public schools before then. But in 1959, the 100th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, the National Science Foundation, a government agency, granted $7 million to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which began producing high school biology textbooks with a strong evolutionary slant. In the meantime, the Supreme Court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional (after having been constitutional for more than a century and a half). From then on, students in public schools heard the evolutionist viewpoint-man is just an animal-almost exclusively.
I wasn't raised religiously myself, but once sold on the "fact" of evolution, faith stood no chance with me- I became a hardcore atheist. And there was a reason why my generation, the baby boomers, accepted evolution so easily. Teenagers usually aren't too hot about morality to begin with. But here was teacher saying the Bible was an old myth. Well, to us that meant the Ten Commandments were a myth. We could make up our own rules! For rebellious teens, the message wasn't hard to take.
Harvard professor E. 0. Wilson writes: "As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian. When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion; I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory." (11) That's a pretty good summary of what happened to the baby boom generation. Will Durant, author of The Story of Civilization, was one of the preeminent historians of our time. Shortly before his death, he said: "By offering evolution in place of God as a cause of history, Darwin removed the theological basis of the moral code of Christendom. And the moral code that has 110 fear of God is very shaky. That's the condition we are in." (12)
I know that not everyone will agree with the conclusion, but I hope we've made a reasonable case that teaching Darwin's theory as a fact has had some serious social consequences.
1. prayed earnestly - Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, p. 29.
2. the Creed - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 39.
3. 'Evidences' - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 41. Charles's best subjects at Cambridge were Paley and Euclid.
4. 'Natural Theology' - ibid, Vol. 2. p. 15. (C. Darwin to John Lubbock, November 15, 1859).
5. comfort - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 153. (C. Darwin to D. Fox, April 23, 1829).
6. natural death - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 39.
7. unanswerable authority ibid, Vol. 1, p. 277.
8. Lord's Supper - ibid, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, p. 54.
9. point of departure - Glass, Bentley, Editor, Forerunners of Darwin. 1745-1859. Chapter by Francis Haber (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), p.259, quoted by Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., New Jersey, 1969, p. 60.
10. I never forget - Ref 1 ,Vol. 2, p. 374. (C. Darwin to Miss Buckley, Sir Charles Lyell's secretary February 23, 1875).
11. any barbarian - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 277. Note: the words 'or the beliefs of any barbarian, in Charles's original Autobiography (written in 1876 for his family) were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, "its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc." (ref. 8, p. 317). The uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles's granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles's irreligious nature, and which 'might embarrass the Darwin name'. (Source: Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, pp. 115 and 449, note 1.)
12. unguided purposelessness - See Carl Wieland, 'Darwin's real message: have you missed it?', Creation magazine, Vol. 14 No. 4, September-November 1992, pp. 1618; also Don Batten, 'Darwin's Contribution', Creation magazine, Vol. 17 No. 4, September November 1995, p. 25
13. Origin of Species - Charles Darwin wrote many other monographs and books, of which the most well known is probably The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which deals inter alia with human evolution, published in 1871.
14. murder of God - Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, p. 126.
15. disbelieve - p. 278. Curiously, Darwin continued, "But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often [sic] inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most staking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress."
16. forty years of age - Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658.
17. withered gradually - James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Michigan, 1994, p. 46.
18. Bilious Fever - Ref. 15, p. 384.
19. consolation - Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 348. (C. Darwin to W. D. Fox, April 29, 1851).
20. Darwin's only appeal - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 355. (C. Darwin to W. D. Fox, August 10, 1853).
21. Erasmus - Although Erasmus died seven years before Charles was born, Charles undoubtedly was familiar with both his liberal views and his writings about evolution. Charles read Erasmus's book Zoonomia twice, once in his youth and "a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years" (Ref. 1. Vol. 1, p. 34).
22. freethinkers - Ref. 8, p. 10
23. religious doubts - Ref. 15, p. 256.
24. damnable doctrine - Ref. 8, pp. 10, 318
25. convictions - Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p.281.
26. Son of God - Ref. 15, pp. 634-35.
27. go away - Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 285 footnote.
28. Joseph Hooker - Ref. 16, p.46.
29. Down graveyard - For an account of Darwin's almost-life-long illness, see Russell Grigg, 'Darwin's Mystery illness', Creation magazine, Vol. 17 No. 4, September-November 1995, pp. 28-30.
30. agnosticism - In 1881, at a meeting with Edward Aveling (Karl Marx's son-in-law) and Ludwig Büchner, Darwin said he preferred to be called an agnostic. Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 286.
31. blackness of darkness - Jude 13.
32. Darwin deathbed conversion stories - James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 1994, pp. 94, 113-114, 117, 144-146, 167. After the death of Admiral Hope in 1881, Lady Hope married T. A. Denny, a 'pork philanthropist', in 1893, but preferred to retain her former name and title (pp. 85; 89-90).
33. Down House retained the spelling of the old name of Darwin's village, which was changed to Downe in the mid-nineteenth century to avoid confusion with County Down in Northern Ireland. Source: Ref. 1, p. 176..
34. Watchman Examiner, Boston, Boston, August 19,1915, p. 1071. Source: Ref. 1, pp. 92-93 and 190. .
35. PURLOFF'S STUFF...