There are two very common misconceptions about Charles Darwin. This re-canting is only one of these misconceptions. The other is that Mr. Darwin was an atheist; he was not. Darwin was a Deist, not a Theist, but most definitely not an Atheist. It was those that followed him who turned his theory into an anti-spiritual Atheist view, not Darwin himself. These misconceptions can be shown false with Darwin’s own words. And frankly there is no better way to prove it.

Sixth Edition Revisions

It is highly probable that part of the reason for this re-canting misconception may be due to his extensive revisions in the sixth and final edition, with additions and corrections “The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection”, in 1872, which he always felt remained incomplete.

Much Misrepresented

On page 421 of the sixth edition Darwin stated, “… I have now recapitulated the facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species have been modified, during a long course of descent. This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous successive, slight, favorable variations; aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts; and in an unimportant manner, that is in relation to adaptive structures, whether past or present, by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously.

It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection. But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position-namely, at the close of the Introduction-the following words:

“I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.” This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.”

New Misrepresentations do Long Endure

Unfortunately, Darwin was wrong about that last statement, for misrepresentation, it appears, does long endure, since he remains misrepresented until this day. Ironically, he is not misrepresented in the same way as he was while still alive. The chief way he was misunderstood then did not embody a debate between creation vs. evolution, but rather between two competing ideas about the means of evolution, “Natural Selection” vs. “Spontaneous Mutations”.

As he points out in the above quote, he accepted that both of these effects are at play, but that he viewed natural selection as the primary means of evolution. His admissions that he formerly underrated the frequency and value of what he called “these latter forms of variation”, which were spontaneous mutations, has perhaps led some to believe he revised his theory. However, this revision is in no way a re-canting.

No Good Reason “Natural Selection” Should Shock the Religious

But please indulge me one more rather lengthy quote, to further clarify the atheist misconception. This passage begins later after the above quote from page 421, and runs onto page 422 of the sixth edition, “… It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. Who can explain what is the essence of the attraction of gravity? No one now objects to following out the results consequent on this unknown element of attraction; notwithstanding that Leibnitz formerly accused Newton of introducing “occult qualities and miracles into philosophy.”

I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, “as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.”

A celebrated author and divine has written to me that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.”

Why, it may be asked, until recently did nearly all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists disbelieve in the mutability of species? It cannot be asserted that organic beings in a state of nature are subject to no variation; it cannot be proved that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited quantity; no clear distinction has been, or can be, drawn between species and well-marked varieties. It cannot be maintained that species when inter crossed are invariably sterile, and varieties invariably fertile; or that sterility is a special endowment and sign of creation.

The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation.”

Mutability Vs. Immutability Not Creation Vs. Evolution

Now from this, we can see that Darwin’s primary concern was about how species change over long periods of time. His debate was between the idea of species being mutable vs. immutable, again not between creation vs. evolution. Since Mr. Darwin saw no good reason for his work to shock the religious feelings of anyone, he was in no way challenging the existence of God.

As a Deist, Charles Darwin believed that God set in motion the physical laws of the universe, which he proposed included laws of “natural selection” and the mutability of the species.

Clearly, Charles Darwin was not an Atheist, and those among the “conservative” Theist who misrepresent him as such, do him great disservice. Since he never was an Atheist, he had nothing to recant, when his life drew near its end.