- Charles Darwin Proposed a Theory, and Listed What Evidence was Necessary to Prove it
- The Evidence Darwin Says is Necessary to Prove the Theory is Does not Exist
- Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:
- Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist
- Darwin Admitted that Events like The Cambrian Explosion would be Fatal to the Theory:
- Darwin Admitted what Necessary Evidence is Missing, so There is no Proof for the Theory
Charles Darwin Proposed a Theory, and Listed What Evidence was Necessary to Prove it
In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote this book:
The Origin Of Species
by Charles Darwin
Are you surprised that I am giving a link to this book? Actually, you might be surprised to know that there is nothing in this book that is any threat to somebody’s faith in God as creator.
Darwin proposed a theory, but he has two entire chapters that state the evidence his theory required that was missing. He assumed the evidence would be there some time in the future.
The entire book can be read online for free here: The Origin of Species. Here are links to the two chapters I am quoting from so you can read the quotes in context:
Chapter 6 – Difficulties on Theory
The Evidence Darwin Says is Necessary to Prove the Theory is Does not Exist
At this writing, it is 2010, over one hundred and fifty years later. If the evidence to support Charles Darwin’s theory was going to be found, it would have been found by now. Evolutionists are always looking for evidence to support their faith in evolution.
Some even go so far as to make fraudulent proof for evolution. See my website page: Evolution Frauds. As I say on that page, if there was real evidence, fraudulent evidence would not be needed.
This book is promoted as the bible for evolution but it actually has evidence against evolution, in my opinion. I’ll quote a few excerpts from Chapter Six: “Difficulties on the Theory” and Chapter Nine: “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”.
Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:
“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.”
Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist
Here is what I consider the most important excerpt of the book:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
He expected to see certain evidence in the fossil record if his theory is true, but it is not there.
In chapters Six and Nine, he was honest about which evidence was lacking. Included excerpts from those chapters, typed up from the yellow highlighted parts of my own copy of Origin of Species, are included in this post:
Darwin Admitted that Events like The Cambrian Explosion would be Fatal to the Theory:
Darwin says himself the lack of these fossils would be fatal to the theory:
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.
The fact is, many species, in fact many major groups of animals, appear in the lowest part of the fossil record. This phenomena is called The Cambrian Explosion.
Please see information about The Cambrian Explosion on The Fossil Record: Evidence of the world wide flood of the Bible page of this website.
“I concluded that this great group had been suddenly developed at the commencement of the tertiary series This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species. ”
“The case most frequently insisted on by paleontologists of the apparently sudden appearance of a whole group of species, is that of the teleostean fishes, low down in the Chalk period.”
“On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossilferous strata: There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”
Darwin Admitted what Necessary Evidence is Missing, so There is no Proof for the Theory
Darwin was concerned that the lack of transitional fossils disproved the theory. He hoped that in the years to come there would be more fossil finds that would prove the theory as he stated it.
It has been about 150 years since he wrote that book, and countless more fossils have been found as people search for missing links, but the innumerable transitional forms have not been found.
18 responses to “Charles Darwin Doubts about His Theory”
Pingback: Evolution is called Change over Time but, each minor change is erroneously called a new species | Reasons Why I Believe in God
Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Introduction and Summary of X-Evolutionist.com | Reasons Why I Believe in God
Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of my website X-Evolutionist.com | Life in Our Backyard
Pingback: Evolution is called Change over Time but, each minor change is erroneously called a new species « X-Evolutionist.com's Creation Blog
Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of X-Evolutionist.com | Life in Our Backyard
Pingback: I am always prepared to give the reason for the hope that I have « Life in Our Backyard
Pingback: I am always prepared to give the reason for the hope that I have | X-Evolutionist.com: Reasons Why I Believe in God
You said that “Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection” then you give a quote from this book. The rest of the quote is as follows “Reason tells me, that if numerous graduations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to it’s possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited [note we have since found how it’s called genetics], as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, the the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory”. Now my question to you is did you read the Origin before quote mining it and are therefore deliberately lying for Jesus or are you just coping what some other liar is has said?
You said “Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist”. Darwin was wrong to believe that we would find innumerable amount of fossils but as you have said “It has been about 150 years since he wrote that book” and we have found a huge amount of fossils. Each one could be call a transitional form but even a huge amount of what you would consider transitional fossils. The fossils from the Whale linage has been amazing. In Darwin’s day there were only a few hominid (our direct ancestors) fossils. Not even enough to cover a pool table. Now you would need a pool to hold all of them. I could list them here but I’m sure I would run out of space.
Matt, sure there are many more fossils found today then 150 years ago but NOT specifically those that Darwin had himself required be found in order to explain away the Cambrian explosion in light of his Theory. Yet, here we are 150 years later teaching nothing but Darwin in our schools which is ridiculous! There is just as much “proof” if not more pointing to intelligent design but it is not even mentioned…
You said “Actually, you might be surprised to know that there is nothing in this book that is any threat to somebody’s faith in God as creator.” and on this you are absolutely correct. My father believe in god as a creator but also he believed in Evolution. In fact the vast majority of true Christians do the same as my father. They do this by not taking the Bible to literally. It’s a real pity that you have forced yourself into lying in order to defend your disbelief in Evolution when you really don’t need to.
The Bible doesn’t teach anything about evolution. It isn’t a question about disbelieving evolution- rather, it is a question of taking God at His Word. Exodus 11:20 says “…For in six days God created the heaven and the earth, and all that in them is…”. God Himself wrote this in stone for Moses to give to the people– it is incorporated into the Ten Commandments. So if you don’t believe that, aren’t you calling God a liar? Genesis chapters 1 and 6 both talk about the animals created ‘after their kind’. Where do you find evolution in that? I view theistic evolution as compromise, trying to fit man’s ideas into God’s Word. That may not necessarily be a salvation issue, but it is a measure of how seriously you take the Bible. Jesus said, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him.” John 14:23
from an anonymous review of Origin and it can be read at Amazon.com
“I started reading this book expecting to find offensive, disrespectful, and vicious material throughout it. What I came to realize instead, was that people have criticized this book based on offensive, disrespectful and vicious accusations. I can’t identify how people have linked this work to God and blasphemy. It has nothing to do with religion, faith, or creation. This is a work of observation, logic, and adaptability. It makes perfect sense, and trust me, it is in no way offensive.
To think that for a century people have been debating, fighting, and cursing Charles Darwin over this work seems comical once you read his book. The book is written in easy to understand common language, allowing the not so biologically or anthropologically astute to understand it as well. Even if you are not convinced by Darwin’s observations, you will be convinced that there is no threat to anyone’s beliefs from this book.
I found this work to be very convincing and highly compatible with my faith in God. It does not threaten God, and it certainly does not require me to abandon any beliefs even though I fully understand and agree with Mr. Darwin.
Read this book, it is worthy of consideration and it is only fair to hold judgment until after you have read it.
(October 1, 1998) ”
I hope that people that read X-Evolutionist’s review take the time to look at that one and maybe even pick up a copy of the book themselves. It’s free to download from Amazon and may other places.
So maybe it’s a slow day at Starbucks, but seems like you’ve invested an awful lot of time rebutting to make the point that there’s no real controversy in idealogy here. Hopefully there is, or you just wasted a whole bunch of valuable time and energy. Or maybe not?
Darwin never set out to prove that God didn’t exist, he really set out to question the process of the origin of things. And science actually has not come any closer to proving his theory, they really continue to prove the Law of Adaptation. Darwin’s theory does support this law, and it IS compatible with a faith-based world view.
If to create, for example a house, requires an ‘intelligent designer’, surely something far far more complex like, for example our brain, DNA, a bird, a flower etc, also requires an ‘intelligent designer’…..Hebrews 3:4…..If we use our brain the answer is quite simple.
Rafael, you’re so right….. Darwin’s prime example of evolution are the Galapagos finches. Yet they’re a great example of adaptation, not evolution at all, as those finches are still finches. Not another species, not even a different kind of bird…. still finches.
Where is it proven micro leads to macro evolution. Ironically the finches are still finches and NEVER evolved to a higher order species. They adapted which God built into DNA but they NEVER evolved by macro to another higher order species now have they? The moths are still moths so WHERE is the BEEF as the old commercial used to say.