In the mid‐1870s, Charles Darwin decided to write an autobiography destined for his family. In 1887 one of his sons, Francis, published three volumes of Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, which contains extensive fragments of the document. At his mother's request, he excluded some statements concerning his father's religious views. The full version of Darwin's Autobiography was published by Nora Barlow (the scientist's granddaughter). Numerous scholars have expressed opinions about Darwin's religious views. For many he was an atheist (Bylica , 262–64; Jodkowski , 59–74; Malec , 67–85) or an agnostic (von Sydow , 150–53; Ruse , 242; Spencer , 120). L. R. Croft claims that Darwin renounced his theory of evolution and died a Christian. For many readers, Croft's views may seem surprising. One may expect that Croft has good arguments to support his thesis, but as this review will show—he does not.

In 1982, New Scientist published Irving Stone's article “The Death of Charles Darwin.” Stone took an interest in the story of “alleged conversion” of Darwin. In Stone's opinion there “was not iota of truth” in the idea that Darwin died a Christian (Stone , 92). Croft writes that he soon began his own research. He emphasizes that Lady Hope is the common denominator of all stories about Darwin's conversion—but, as he also claims, nobody knew who was hiding under this pseudonym. Croft claimed to have determined her identity and wanted to publish his results in Nature. He received a refusal, and decided to publish his results in his almost finished book The Life and Death of Charles Darwin (Croft , 109–20). In the book under review Croft writes: “I believed I had embarked on a search for truth, but in reality I had opened up a can of worms and unleashed the forces of historical distortion” (viii). He continued his research on Darwin's conversion, but he delayed the publication of his next findings for more than 20 years. Here is the final version, called Darwin and Lady Hope: The Untold Story.

The Lady Hope story, ostensibly written by herself, was published in the Boston Baptist journal Watchman‐Examiner (Lady Hope ) as “Darwin and Christianity.” Croft claims that “no one seemed to be able to identify this lady” (vii). However one of Darwin's biographers, Ronald W. Clark, in wrote: “Lady Hope [was] the widow of Admiral of the Fleet Sir James Hope and an evangelist who appears to have preached in Downe during the last years of Darwin's life” (Clark , 199; see also Freeman , 19). Clark's book was published five years before Croft's earlier work. One might suppose that Croft did not know about Clark's book, but in Darwin and Lady Hope he writes that Clark “correctly identifies Lady Hope” (42). Croft devotes two chapters to a biographical sketch of Lady Hope, further identifying her as Elizabeth Reid Cotton.

In the preface Croft states that he believes “that the results of my twenty‐year search for the truth should be published and the facts made known. I hope I have looked at the evidence objectively and so reached the historical truth” (x). The most important chapter is Chapter 9, where Croft presents six arguments with which he wants to convince his readers that Darwin “returned to Christianity” on his deathbed (88):

• 1.

  I believe she was a woman of absolute integrity.

Croft repeatedly emphasizes that Lady Hope was an evangelical Christian and, as he seems to believe, we should not gainsay certain stories which she believed to be true. For example, Croft quotes a story concerning big turtles, which indeed lived in Mauritius. Croft concludes that the truth of this story proved her “complete reliability” (89).

• 2.

  The denial of the Darwin family is unreliable.

Darwin's family denied that Darwin “returned to Christianity” on his deathbed. In Croft's opinion, this objection is irrelevant, as Darwin's children could not have been in Down House at the time of Lady Hope's visit. Even if Croft is right, it does not constitute a proof of the conversion, but only suggests a possibility of a meeting between Lady Hope and Darwin. If the main aim of Croft's book is the proof that Darwin “converted,” then this argument is worthless.

• 3.

  There is a “ring of truth” about Lady Hope's story.

Croft underlines that Lady Hope knew about certain details which she could not have known if she had not visited Darwin. Croft gives six examples: the view from Darwin's bedroom; his clothes; his behavior; the fact that Darwin had a summer‐house; that singing could be heard in Darwin's room; and that Darwin rested at 3 o'clock and could hear this singing. Nevertheless, there are also several mistakes in Lady Hope's account; for example, she wrote that Darwin “was almost bedridden for some months before he died” (Lady Hope, 1071)—which is not true. This again does not require any further comment because this argument, like the previous one, indicates merely some probability that Lady Hope met Darwin.

• 4.

  She stuck to her story for the rest of her life.

In Croft's opinion, this fact is “significant” (100). It is hard to say how this can be convincing of anything. The fact that Lady Hope maintained her story does not prove that Darwin really changed his views on religion. Croft's faith in the words expressed by Lady Hope is unshaken. Evidently, for the author of Darwin and Lady Hope, the best arguments for the truth of Lady Hope's words are the words of Lady Hope.

• 5.

  There is independent support for her story.

This “independent support” is presented as the opinion of Darwin himself, who allegedly declared: “How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done” (106). This supposed statement was published by Leonard Fawkes in a letter to the Bromley and Kentish Times. Fawkes heard about Darwin's words from Alfred Nicholls—who was 97 years old at the time—who in turn had heard a report from “the lady who had nursed Darwin” (105). Croft is not sure who that lady was, but thinks that she may have been Mrs. Evans, a woman who “also had converted.” Croft does not explain whether Mrs. Evans heard these words directly from Darwin or from somebody else. He writes: “I am not an advocate of conspiracy theories” (vii). The reader must judge whether this account is a conspiracy theory or not.

• 6.

  Darwin's conversion is not surprising.

Croft tells how Anthony Flew, a philosopher and an atheist, accepted the existence of God at the end of his life. The author of Darwin and Lady Hope says that, if Flew could change his views, “why should Darwin have been any different?” (109). (Croft also fails to mention that the conception of God ultimately accepted by Flew was not theistic, but deistic.) Unlike Flew, many atheists do not change their views. If so, why should Darwin have been any different?

Aside from all this, Croft's book is a skillfully written story: In his youth Darwin was a Christian; later, when he began to be an evolutionist, he lost his faith, but when he was on his deathbed he returned to Christianity and rejected his theory of evolution. Darwin confided this change only to Lady Hope, and she published his conversion story many years later. Darwin's family denied her statement because they did not know about Darwin's conversion. Croft feels this should suffice. But Croft does not have any good arguments on the basis of which he can support his story. James Moore's The Darwin Legend () contains a great deal of painstakingly collected historical detail about Darwin's personal life. His comprehensive research shows clearly that the story published in the Watchman‐Examiner has not a shred of evidence to support it. Lady Hope might have visited and spoken with Darwin, but their conversation was unlikely to be what she claimed (Moore ). Eighteen years later, Croft's book does not bring anything new. The only thing that Croft can indicate is that there is some probability that Lady Hope could have visited Darwin. This is just another story.