Croft is welcome to his opinion, of course, but so far, everything I have read about his book suggests that he's stringing together maybe's and might-have-beens. That's hardly encouraging anyone to read the book.

Still, to be fair, here's a simple question:: so far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence t hat Lady Hope ever visited Down House, let alone met Darwin. So what new evidence does Croft bring to the table to challenge that point? What evidence does he bring to the discussion to contradict the eyewitnesses and Darwin's own writings?

You see, I HAVE read many of the primary sources, and none of them support Lady Hope's story. Some of them directly contradict it. If there's nothing new, then Croft's book, frankly sounds like a waste of my time. Moreover, other academics, such as Dr Moore have also read the primary documents in exhaustive detail - and come to the conclusion that Lady Hope never in fact visited Darwin's house.

Croft's problem is not that other's haven't read the primary sources, and it is disingenuous, verging on outright dishonest, to pretend that that's the case. No, his problem is that the primary sources don't mention Lady Hope's visit in any way, shape or form - even those from people like James Fegan, who was an acquaintance of Lady Hope and a neighbour and friend of the Darwins - and in some cases contradict her account.

How else can his recant of his theory of evolution be explained? I know a question for a question!

Has anyone on RG actually read this book?

Richard Carter has a log post about the book at the blog The Friends of Charles Darwin. So I assume he has read it. http://friendsofdarwin.com/books/croft-hope/

Thanks for the link to Richard Carter's log post. RC made the good point that Croft had failed to disclose a possible creationist or evangelical background, but when I checked, the book in question, How Life Began, was listed between two books on apiculture on p ii. RC does not allow creationists to post on his site. Hardly a good advertisement for scientific method. And Joachim feels free to criticise a book he hasn't read. Three-nil for the creationists/evangelicals so far, I'm afraid, and already some yellow cards.

The question is completely pointless anyway: Darwin didn't "revert to Christianity" because as far as we know he never left Christianity. There's nothing inherently unchristian in understanding evolution and the solid experimental evidence underpinning it. It's only a subset of evangelical Christians - themselves a minority sect among Christians - who have a problem with evolution, and that's more political than religious or scientific.

According to "Religious Views of C Darwin" on Wikipedia, he stopped going to church in 1849; described himself as agnostic; had religious disagreements with his wife, a practising christian; said he did not believe in the Bible, and had gradually come to disbelieve in Christianity.

The point of the question was not to explore the details of CD's religious views, but to query the scholarship, or lack of it, in vilifying Lady Hope.

Yes, it's clear that Darwin had stopped adhering to the Church of England and that he viewed organized religion with suspicion. However, though he did not attend services at his local church, we know that he did remain engaged with the church itself, and maintained close relationships with many clergy. It's also clear from his own writings (and the writings of some of his contemporaries) that he remained ambivalent about organised Christianity. Agnostic is probably a reasonable description, but he also is on record stating that he could not deny the existence of god. This kind of Theism is not that unusual: it's the same position taken by Thomas Jefferson, for example, but I would hesitate to say that Jefferson was not a Christian.

However, there's no evidence whatsoever that Darwin wavered on the factual accuracy of evolution, which is why I commented that the whole question about Darwin's religiosity starts from a false premise.

Anyway, be that as it may, it seems that the evidence is on the side of those who vilify Lady Hope. Let's look at the actual evidence.

Darwin died in April 1882, after a short illness. This is well-documented. Lady Hope was not present when he died, though several family members and servants were. This also is not disputed. She claims she visited him in autumn - but he was not ill in autumn, and certainly not on his deathbed. He was, as his diary and letters attest, up and about and working on his correspondence. She claims he was in bed during her visit, in a room overlooking the garden - his family and his own writing attest that he used a sofa during his last illness. She claims that he was bedridden: his own diaries and correspondence and the correspondence of family members prove that he was not. She claims he referred to a summerhouse in the garden, where the villagers could gather - family and servants attest that there never had been a summerhouse in the garden. This is supported by Darwin's own letters, in which he writes extensively about the garden, including details of bed, planting and construction - but no mention of a summerhouse is ever made.

So virtually everything in her account is at odds with what can be proved to true. If one was charitable, one could say that these were just errors of memory - after all, she gave her story for the first time more than 30 years after Darwin's death. But that raises another question: why did she wait more than 30 years to make this claim?

Well, let's look at the supporting evidence. She was apparently in the area of Darwin's house the year before his illness. So it is possible that she could have visited him. And that's it.

It's possible that she could have visited, but there is absolutely no evidence apart from her own claim that she ever did. And that's pretty odd all by itself. None of the family remember meeting her, not even Darwin's religiously-inclined wife. None of the servants could recall her ever visiting, though the visit of a titled lady would have been a significant event. Darwin kept a detailed diary in which she is never mentioned. Nor does she feature anywhere in any of his letters, though he wrote at length about visitors to the house. It's even odder since in later claims, she said she had visited on multiple occasions - and yet in house filled with people, nobody else seems to have ever noticed or heard of these visits.

To accept her account, you have to accept that she apparently just "popped in" - in an era where visiting without sending a card and requesting a meeting was considered extremely rude - had an illuminating meeting with one of the most famous men of the day, and then slipped out again, without any of the family or servants noticing. She then kept this amazing meeting secret for decades.

It's all a bit improbable, don't you think?

My question was based on these premises;

1. Belief in evolution is totally compatible with belief in God, a point clearly established by CD's grandfather. As a favour to those with religious beliefs that they thought were contradictory to evolution, I published Erasmus' opinion in Neurology.

2. It had nothing to do with whether CD, myself or anyone else believed in evolution.

3. Scientific ethics are important, particularly so when scientists wish to take the high moral ground when arguing with creationists or religionists.

In my opinion, the worst form of scientific misconduct is reliance on secondary sources, especially when they confirm one's beliefs or prejudices. In his book, Croft has consulted primary sources and deals with most of the detailed points above. I can find no evidence that anyone commenting here on this question has actually read Croft's book, which is exactly the type of lazy and inaccurate scholarship that Croft has highlighted. I have not looked at the evidence in detail myself, so cannot judge if Croft is correct, but he has certainly made out a prima facie case in defence of Lady Hope, and earned the right to have his book read and the points in it addressed, and refuted if appropriate.

How do you know what is new in Croft's book if you have not read it?

Croft is welcome to his opinion, of course, but so far, everything I have read about his book suggests that he's stringing together maybe's and might-have-beens. That's hardly encouraging anyone to read the book.

Still, to be fair, here's a simple question:: so far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence t hat Lady Hope ever visited Down House, let alone met Darwin. So what new evidence does Croft bring to the table to challenge that point? What evidence does he bring to the discussion to contradict the eyewitnesses and Darwin's own writings?

You see, I HAVE read many of the primary sources, and none of them support Lady Hope's story. Some of them directly contradict it. If there's nothing new, then Croft's book, frankly sounds like a waste of my time. Moreover, other academics, such as Dr Moore have also read the primary documents in exhaustive detail - and come to the conclusion that Lady Hope never in fact visited Darwin's house.

Croft's problem is not that other's haven't read the primary sources, and it is disingenuous, verging on outright dishonest, to pretend that that's the case. No, his problem is that the primary sources don't mention Lady Hope's visit in any way, shape or form - even those from people like James Fegan, who was an acquaintance of Lady Hope and a neighbour and friend of the Darwins - and in some cases contradict her account.

I do not see it as my role to summarise or plug Croft's book. I have not checked the primary sources, and my opinion is at best third hand. Nevetheless, since no one has apparently read the book, I will note some of the points he documents in his book.

1. Moore accepted that LH visited CD in autumn 1881.

2. CD was "almost bedridden for some months".

3. The summerhouse was described by Raverat and others.

4. LH did not claim to visit CD on his deathbed.

5. The Fegan letters are unreliable.

6. There is independent support for LH's version of events.

1. I think you should perhaps check sources before continuing to post on this. As I commented before I've read Moore's book and have it here on my desk right now, so that I could check it. Far from accepting that Lady Hope visited in autumn 1881, he merely suggests that she could plausibly have visited then and suggests a date when Darwin's children were absent as a way of explaining why they claimed to never have met her. Moore is clearly sympathetic to the idea that Lady Hope visited Darwin. But he also concludes that nothing concrete supports Lady's hope's story and calls it a "holy fabrication", so he's not exactly what you could call supportive. Citing someone who states that the Lady Hope story is clearly made up hardly supports the idea that she is being unfairly accused of being untruthful, does it? I’m guessing you have not read his book, which is the definitive study on the question so far.

2. Actually, Charles Darwin was NOT bedridden for months. As late as Febuary 4th 1882, in an letter to Antony Rich, in which he describes his health, he was not bedridden. His obituary states "He was taken ill on the night of Tuesday last, when he had an attack of pain in the chest with faintness and nausea. The latter lasted with more or less intermission during Wednesday and culminated in his death, which took place at about 4 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon". Darwin had been ill on and off ever since his voyage on the Beagle and at least two generations of doctors have enjoyed speculating what he might have picked up on the trip. However that illness did not stop him working, travelling, taking daily walks, etc.His own letters paint him as a bit of a hypochondriac, forever rabbiting on about his health, so we have a detailed picture of it and can be pretty certain that he was not bedridden "for months". One of the reasons Moore rejects Lady Hope's story is that we know from multiple sources that Darwin wasn't ill in the only period when she could plausibly have visited.

3. That's not actually true. Gwen Ravenat (nee Darwin) actually wrote a book (Period Piece) which included a description of her visits to Down House. Here's what she actually wrote:

"You went right to the furthest end of the kitchen garden, and then through a wooden door in the high hedge, which quite cut you off from human society. Here a fenced path ran along between two great lonely meadows, till you came to the wood. The path ran straight down the outside of the wood--the Light Side--till it came to a summer-house at the far end; it was very lonely there; to this day you cannot see a single building anywhere, only woods and valleys." She also commented that it always seemed "very far from the house" - which it is really - it's about a 15-20 minute brisk walk (about half a mile, or nearly a kilometer: though these days one of the meadows further from the house has been replaced by the cricket club grounds). Not only could you not hear singing there in the house, honestly, I doubt you'd hear it if they let a shotgun off there. That also ignores the fact that in no way does it match the supposed summerhouse of Lady Hope's account, not only is in not in the garden (or even close to the garden), far from being a place where 30 people could gather to sing, it's a small shelter with two benches. You'd be hard pressed to fit 6 people in there. It’s a pretty safe bet that Darwin actually knew all this, given that he visited the place almost daily for about 20 years.

4. Actually the phrase "deathbed conversion" has been tossed around concerning her account for decades. You use it yourself in your very first post.

5. Really? Can you provide some evidence to support this? Certainly, none of Fegan's and Lady Hope's common acquaintances seemed to doubt the letters’ authenticity. The tone of the letters also match Fegan's own on-the-record statement in 1925 about the story that he "had no hesitation in pronouncing it to be fabrication on the part of poor Lady Hope".

6. Really? What are they? I'm unaware of any, as are Darwin scholars, or indeed, apparently Mr. Croft himself. If you visit his website (http://www.darwinandladyhope.co.uk/#/conclusion/4567220811) his only claim of "independant support" was that one A.H. Nicholls had heard that Darwin had converted. Alas, he fails to mention that that story first appears in the Bromley and Kentish Times, November 1958 in which - 76 years after Darwin's death - the extremely elderly Mr. Nicholls says that a woman whose name he can't remember had told him that Darwin had asked her to read to him from the New Testament, while she nursed him. That does not exactly support Lady Hope’s story. Those details are also in Moore's book, along with the fact that nobody associated with the household can recall a woman nursing him (We know from letters written at the time that Darwin was in fact attended by his family and several doctors during his last illness).

Honestly, this is a rather odd conversation. You’re accusing others of not having read a book you admit you haven’t read yourself, and you’re making claims about an incident richly documented with contemporary sources – claims at odds with those sources, but you admit you haven’t read them, either. You apparently disagree with Dr Moore’s conclusion that Lady Hope fabricated her story, yet at the same time you don’t even seem to have read his book. So what, exactly, is the point of this? That you agree that people should read a book you haven’t read and that you disagree with other books on the topic that you also haven’t read?

I should have made it clearer that I have indeed read Croft's book, which I found while looking through the new books shelf, both before I posed my question, and again before my last post.

I am not making claims, I am reporting Croft's claims since no one else apparently intends to read his book.

I have read Moore's book some while ago, and have more recently attended lectures by him. But he is a secondary source.

Croft's main point is that LH was a well respected person of great integrity and is a priori very unlikely to have been guilty of fabrication. Florence Nightingale was greatly impressed by LH's book Our Coffee Room and she commended it in a letter published in The Times.

I agree it is rather pointless having a discussion between myself, a third hand source, and anyone who has not read Croft's book and hence addressed the points he makes.

Ah, OK - sorry for misunderstanding with regards to your having read the book.

I must admit, though, that nothing I have read so far, suggests there's any meat in Croft's book. An argument based on the fact that the author thinks Lady Hope was a person of high integrity, doesn't really carry any weight. Some people praised her actions or integrity, this is true. But the same was true of Bernie Madoff, for decades. He was feted as a philanthropist, a man of his word, a respectable businessman of impeachable integrity, a loving family man... and then we found out that he was a monstrous swindler who was having an affair with one of his employees, and stealing money from his friends as well as his clients.

I'm not suggesting that Lady Hope was in the same class as Bernie Madoff, just using him as an extreme example, to show that testimonials are cheap and in the final analysis, meaningless. It is after all, worth pointing that back in the early 20th century, people who had actually known her apparently had no problem with the idea that she might fabricate a story. Indeed, the fact that she used the title Lady Hope the rest of her life after her marriage, though she was not entitled to it, either legally or by common practice, indicates pretty strongly that she wasn't averse to bending the truth when it suited her.

She married Admiral Sir James Hope, so why does that not make her Lady Hope? The DNB recognises her as Lady Hope, and as a reliable witness, as her biography is its principal source for its entry for her father, General Sir Arthur Cotton.

See also her Wikipedia entry (Elizabeth Cotton).

Our article published in peer-reviewed Journal "Communicative & Integrative Biology". A few major points discussed in the paper:

(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.

(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.

(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.

(4) Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft).

(5) The material origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138