The Instigator
Leo.Messi
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Factual_Intelligence
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Did Darwin ever doubt his own theory?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Leo.Messi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,168 times Debate No: 67088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Leo.Messi

Pro

Did Darwin doubt his own theory?

Please keep this debate civilized and clean.

Thanks!

(I will present my actual arguments in the latter rounds.)
Factual_Intelligence

Con

No.

This is one of the most persistent of LIES spread by Creationists. They will repeat this like a mantra but they will never be able to point to *anything* Darwin wrote that backs up this claim.

The LIE is based on two things:

1. Deliberately *misquoted* passages from Darwin's works. The most common tactic you will find in *MANY* Creationist sources is to quote from Chapter 6, where Darwin anticipates objections or "difficulties" of the theory, Darwin's method is to (A) describe the "difficulty", and then immediately (B) provide a response to it. But the Creationist quotes will give (A) but leave out (B), making it sound like Darwin was "admitting doubts" about his own theory. This is incredibly dishonest, and quite easy to expose (just by checking the original text, since Darwin's works are all searchable online) ... which makes this tactic especially baffling as it does nothing but make the Creationists look like dishonest liars.

This tactic of carefully finding selective partial quotes, and just providing enough to make it sound like the author was saying the *opposite* of what he actually said, is so common among Creationists that the tactic has been given a name ... "quote mining." (Google it for lots of examples.)

2. The infamous "Lady Hope" story. Lady Hope was an evangelist who claims to have visited Darwin on his deathbed and "converted" him. Not one other person (including Darwin's very religious wife, no a single person from Darwin's family) confirms that Lady Hope was anywhere *near* Darwin on his deathbed, much less her story about this deathbed conversion. But the story is inflated by Creationists even beyond what Lady Hope described ... and is now described as Darwin "recanting" his scientific theory on his deathbed. The Creationists will announce this with great authority despite *ZERO* evidence, and despite the fact that it contradicts everything Darwin ever wrote, said, jotted in a letter to closest friends, family, or colleagues, or scribbled on a napkin. All of Darwin's life work means nothing to them compared to a complete exaggeration of an uncorroborated story that is most likely false.

I have read Darwin's book and in 3 chapters Darwin explains the possibility of a higher power creating humanity as if Darwin was following in his wife's religious footsteps. This was never fortified it was just held as an idea based on religious groups, Darwin always believed his theory of evolution, many stories are created nowadays by religious groups trying to deny evolution and fortifying the possibility of a higher power (quote mining), which is false based on Darwin's theory of evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Leo.Messi

Pro

First off sir, I'm not "spreading lies". I am trying to have a civilized debate. So please, keep your comments about me to a minimum and about the debate to the maximum. Thank you. Also, please don't copy off yahoo (not a credible source).
But of you must, please cite the sources on the web page.

So, with that in mind, let us begin.
"Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional content to his doubts when he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick. " Of course, anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies of the human eye and other living structures immediately realizes the problem Darwin sensed. How could an organ of such an intricate magnificence ever have a originated via random chance?"

What we are talking about is the irreducibly complex molecules that make up the human eye.
If just one part where missing, the eye would render useless. Darwin doubted this because it is impossible to develop a human eye using different intermediate stages (evolution), because the human eye (as I said) must have all of the parts it currently has now to work. It could not have evolved.
And that is why Darwin expressed some doubt about his theory.

Thanks!
I look forward to the next round.

-Phillip E. Johnson
-Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box)
Factual_Intelligence

Con

"This is one of the most persistent of LIES spread by Creationists. They will repeat this like a mantra but they will never be able to point to *anything* Darwin wrote that backs up this claim."

"The LIE is based on two things"

This was said at the beginning of my debate, you claim this is about you but if you actually read what I said I mentioned that the "lies" are created by creationists. Now unless you are one of the creationists altering the story, I don't understand your issue with my phrasing?

Your argument about the eye is not relevant because it is stated by Darwin's theory of evolution that the whole of the human body is characterized by multicellular aspects of evolution derived from ancestorial beings also formed by evolution, therefore creating a more advanced varied form of human anatomy.

Once again, Darwin never doubted his theory of evolution. He merely took into account the possibility of a higher being creating the human body. Darwin's wife was religious and from marriage Darwin took into account the "possibility" of said theory. The whole of Darwin's story of human evolution is globalized through his theory of evolution and his taking into account the "possibility" (I can not stress possibility enough) of a higher being creating us which was used for quote mining by creationists.
Debate Round No. 2
Leo.Messi

Pro

You completly ignored by previous argument!

"Your argument about the eye is not relevant because it is stated by Darwin's theory of evolution that the whole of the human body is characterized by multicellular aspects of evolution derived from ancestorial beings also formed by evolution, therefore creating a more advanced varied form of human anatomy."--you

Do you not understand? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to have a human eye slowly evolve over time from chemicals because the eye MUST have all of its parts in order to work. EVERY single one. Or it is useless.
AND THAT is why Darwin doubted his theory, that's why he mentioned the human eye ." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." like so.
If only the complexity of life could be understood. Darwin understood this, and he began to doubt.

You said "Once again, Darwin never doubted his theory of evolution. He merely took into account the possibility of a higher being creating the human body. " If he is even considering a higher being, he is doubting his theory! He would NOT have EVEN considered a higher being if he had been 100% sure. He is obviously not 100% sure about this, and he started doubting...

I am NOT at all saying that he converted. All i am saying is that he may have had a small doubt in the back of his mind.
But small doubt is still doubt.

Again, this is NOT a HUGE doubt. This is not a faith-shaking doubt. Its a small doubt, however still doubt.
We can infer this from the evidence i have presented so far.

Thanks for the debate!
Good luck to ya!
Factual_Intelligence

Con

As I said in past arguments, Darwin took into account the "possibility" of a higher being, that does not mean doubt in any form it means "as described in his novel" being married to a religious woman he took into "consideration" the "possibility" of a higher being creating us. As if two theories are created, one doesn't need to doubt one to believe in another. For even with a higher power, we must evolute through time thus creating a fortified future for later generations. Darwin has said the "possibility" of a higher being to make point that one is not foolish if one's mind believes in other possibilities for life's mysteries, however, the theory has never changed course from being 100% stuck towards evolution.

An eye is not formed by chemical but mere genetics formulated by ancestorial beings evolutionized through time as life surmounts the theory of higher beings, evolution becomes the dominant theory. Back when Darwin wrote his book, he was the foundation of the dominant theory as his theory was never doubted but altered by "quote mining" creationists. The only safe way to scavenge information is reading Darwin's novel which I have successfully memorized and have jotted down the truth behind this ongoing issue caused by creationists. In his novel he never doubted his theory. He merely did not deem said opposing theory foolish.

I want to thank you for this debate, it was a lot of fun to discuss this matter with you, and I hope the voters cast an appropriate and educated vote, thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
Of course he did.
Posted by Factual_Intelligence 2 years ago
Factual_Intelligence
Although my argument seems redundant I was just fortifying the facts because pro was either taking it as an insult or changing the meaning by the text. At the end of his statement he said and I quote...

"I am NOT at all saying that he converted. All i am saying is that he may have had a small doubt in the back of his mind.
But small doubt is still doubt.?

"Again, this is NOT a HUGE doubt. This is not a faith-shaking doubt. Its a small doubt, however still doubt.
We can infer this from the evidence i have presented so far."

Basically this means he agrees with my explanations but tries to change the topic by making it seem as a tiny doubt in the back of his mind, and as I said through every round, it was a thought not a doubt.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
RFD:
Conduct: Con started off with a rant about creationists lying. This unnecessary rant, largely directed against Pro, it seemed, was unnecessary. Other issues will be shown in the Arguments sector.

Spelling: Not important.

Arguments: Pro starts off his round with a quote from Darwin, himself. I don't know if the quotes real, but Con did nothing to challenge it... Con ignored the whole case and continued this rant of his, and kept mistranslated what Pro said and often argued against claims Pro had nothing to do with. It felt as though Con never read thoroughly through what Pro said. He seemed to argue as though Pro's argument was that the eye was too complicated, when that wasn't Pro's argument. Con ignored much of what Pro said, and kept arguing about the two arguments Con mentioned in R1, arguments Pro didn't make.

Sources: None were used.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Also-please cite your sources.
Thank you. Please no more yahoo.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
I was only wanting another debate...
Posted by Factual_Intelligence 2 years ago
Factual_Intelligence
Actually, there is very minor unspecific proof behind this argument, you are right it should be in an opinion poll but none the less my statements are non debatable considering I have just demolished the debate after round one with proof that I am right.

This is a very difficult topic to debate considering the many "quote mining" which has been stated in my argument. The evidence is difficult to find but as a person who has actually read Darwin's book of theories behind human evolution, I have the very few minor intricate details memorized and therefore have this debate in the bag.
Posted by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
I agree with Benjamin. If anyone accepts, he/she would be arguing against truth.
Posted by Benjamin_Manus 2 years ago
Benjamin_Manus
This should be moved to the Opinions or Polls section of this website. There aren't any hard facts supporting one side or the other
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
MettaWorldPeace
Leo.MessiFactual_IntelligenceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro overreacted to creationist lies-an accurate portayal I give arguments to Con because they already dealt with pro's arguments before he gave them and all pro offered was a worn-out cliche about the eye sources go to pro because he is the only one who offered any (even if they were as Con predicted misinterpreted)
Vote Placed by Eli01 2 years ago
Eli01
Leo.MessiFactual_IntelligenceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to PRO because CON did not keep this debate clean. He started off by calling creationists liars, which was obviously directed towards PRO was very rude. Spelling to CON because PRO made a few spelling mistakes. Arguments to PRO, for the reason that in his very first argument, he stated a quote by Darwin expressing his own doubt in his theory. I looked the quote up and it was in fact true. it shows up in the book, "Darwin's Doubts." Well Done PRO!
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Leo.MessiFactual_IntelligenceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.