I just saw an obvious Creationist statement saying: Darwin doubted his own theory?

Point well taken. I find some Creationist afraid to test their faith so as to shut themselves in their Church grasping the Bible. Remember, Jesus himself doubted his faith.

I agree. The "Darwin's doubts" argument is the most baffling of Creationist arguments.

1. It does not impact the validity of the theory of evolution in any way whatsoever.

2. If anything it removes Darwin as a bogeyman.

3. It is FALSE. So it is baffling that so-called "religious" people would betray the principles of faith and use falshoods.

4. It is EASILY shown to be false. So it undermines any credibility for anything else they may say.

In other words, even if true it would not help their cause ... but its very FALSITY makes it a liability.

It is the most tactically inept argument I can imagine. I don't know why they repeat it.

Darwin made the rather obvious statement that he could find very little fossil evidence for intermediate species- this WAS in 1859, and there is a huge amount more fossil data around now than there was then- if Darwin had access to these, plus the mitochondrial DNA evidence, and the cladistic analysis or inter related species, I don't presume he would have had ANY doubts about his theory.

The mentality is that if there was ever the slightest doubt about any part of evolutionary theory, even from only one scientist, that this is a "foot in the door" that means that the entire theory could be totally false. And once they have swept the whole thing out the door, of course the only possible alternative is that god did it.

It doesn't really make any difference to anti-evolutionists that evolutionary theory is utterly true—and most of them know this. What matters is whether they can make people doubt it. So therefore it's okay to make up lies about Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and whoever else they feel like might support their notion. If doubt leads to conversions, it's worth it to lie.

This would be a cool thought if Darwin had doubted, however, it is just another debunked creationist claim. Not only that, but it is a particularly deceitful one at that. This is not because it is false, which it is, but because the intention is to get people to think that the theory is dependent on its creator's or other peoples' beliefs about it. This is not how science works.

Sorry, but even by YOUR OWN QUOTES, Darwin in no way called his own theory "blindness and presumption." He said he was blind and presumptuous, but about what, we do not know, as you did not include the rest of the letter. I highly suspect you did that on purpose though, so as to mislead. As for DNA evidence - it does not prove Darwin wrong, but rather quite right. Don't know where you got the idea that DNA worked against his studies in any way.

Well, if Darwin had any doubts, such doubts have since been laid to rest. Subsequent research has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the hypothesis Darwin developed was fundamentally correct. Of course we now know that biological evolution is a far more complex natural process than Darwin could have realized. Which is true in any area of science. The seed must be planted before the tree of knowledge can grow.

Darwin is now practically irrelevant because the evidence accumulated since his death is formidable. His discoveries have been added to and the theory improved. Darwin is just one scientist amongst many who continue to discover facts.

Darwin wasn't necessarily wrong, he just never got a chance to answer the questions he had of his own theory. That is why it is still just a theory.

Creationists should question their theory, but that would mean they would have to step out of their own box...like Darwin did.

I don't view that statement by itself as meaning anything. Could you just post the link or something so we can see it in context?