Originally posted by Coletti
Darwin's deathbed conversion is dubious at best, and does little for the argument for creation.
I haven't seen any
arguments for Creationism that have scientific or historical credibility. Nor can I reconcile Creationist notions of biblical evidence with what I know of reading and hermeneutics. But some Creationists (my brother, for example) will throw up these tidbits, which serve to infuriate me.
Their real purpose is to cast doubt on science and scientific methodology because they think they are in a war for cultural authority. In some places, the United States for example, church leaders have immense power over most people (akin to the cultural power of the Church in the Middle Ages). The emergence of secular public education a century ago, and the teaching of science in these schools, offers a threat to their cultural authority.
When I was dabbling with Creationism a couple of decades ago, much of their rhetoric focused of a couple gaffe's by scientists--Piltdown man, for instance. I find it worthwhile to point out how their own history is littered with a series of similar hoaxes, such as the Paluxy River tracks.
Of course I know that several groups of Creationists have recognized that the story of Darwin's recantation lacks credibility, although it is still proclaimed in many churches. Some Creationists even note that such stories, even if true, fail to contribute to their pseudo-scientific claims.