Did Darwin really denounce Evolution on his sickbed?

wow, something that we can agree on. i don't believe he recanted and i'm a creationist... however, i have read the origin of species and there are times that he sounds doubtful of the whole process... darwin was credited with the theory, but worshiping nature as the creator is far older. a belief in evolution pre dates the Bible... the book of Romans speaks on people worshiping the creation and giving God's glory to the animals, saying we came from them and not God...

I think you are stretching the verse out of context, in Romans, it refers to the image of God being made into four-footed beasts, obviously this is a reference to many polytheistic religions that worship animals. To say this is the same as any of the concepts of evolution would be wrong. ;-)

Sorry, I just realized that I misinterpreted something you said. I put "creationist" and "ridiculous story" together, and quickly assumed you were referring to IC and/or ID. I took it entirely out of context.

When an evolutionist uses the theory of monkeys banging on typewriters, with the complete works of Shakespeare as their purpose, it is suggested that natural law eliminates the monkeys which show no cognitive capabilities, and rewards those which do. Sorry, I meant to say "example," not "theory."

Don't take it personally, but I'm about to correct you a lot. :P 1. the fossil record is part of the evidence for evolution, and I said: "evolution (as well as many other science fields) contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis." So, there wasn't any contradiction there. 2. The origin of life has absolutely nothing to do with evolution--this is a common misconception started by creationists. That's abiogenesis, another field altogether. 3. You apparently have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the terms "theory" and "law" mean in science. Neither is 'better' or 'worse' than the other--the two have different 'jobs'. www.notjustatheory.com puts it succinctly: "A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory...Laws describe, and theories explain." 4. It's true what I said about evolution and gravity being on par, and the scientific community agrees--one of the reasons evolution is such a strong theory is because it has been refined and tempered through 150 years of a literal ONSLAUGHT of challenges by very contentious people who wanted more than anything to prove it wrong (but they were also honest, so unlike your average present-day creationist, they were willing to acknowledge their inability to find a stronger theory for the development of life). Any theory that can survive that is strong indeed. By the way, I was talking about the 'fact of gravity,' (our level of certainty that it exists, in other words) not particular laws related to it (in the same way that evolution is both a fact (it happens) and a theory (which explains how and why it happens)). Both gravity and evolution have debates within them about particular details, but as for the EXISTENCE of the two, the scientific community is about equally sure of both. If I wasn't clear enough what I meant there, I apologize. 5. Intelligent design is nonsense (it's especially not science) because its core is a logical fallacy--the argument from incredulity. Invariably, intelligent design arguments hinge on irreducible complexity, an expression of that fallacy. It always boils down to assuming design as a result of personal (or not so personal) ignorance of how something could have evolved.