Why was Darwin not a scientist?

Question

In his theory of evolution, Darwing descended to the level of a fairy tale teller. Can anybody articulate Darwin's fundamental error?

If you are a rabid polemicist, please proceed to the next question. If you are rabid creationist, please proceed to the next question. If you are halfway logical and remotely curious, please play my game.

Notice, I did not say, if you are a creationist, but if you are a rabid creationist. If you give me a sixty page diatribe about creationism, then you are a rabid creationist.

Props to Ovid. That isn't entirely the answer I have in mind, but I really like how succintly and directly you made your point.

For bonus points, tell me who Darwing was. OOPS! HAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

All scientists try to tell us what goes on in the world.

Democritus did this. His hypothesis was perfectly in form with the scientific method. All hypotheses involve deduction or induction. He only had to leave the testing to future generations.

Darwin told us nothing about the world around us. All he did was make up a grand story about eons past.

If I take two bulldogs and mate them, I get two bulldogs. If two elk mate, I get an elk. If two pigeons mate I get pigeons. If two humans mate I get a little human baby.

This is what we observe. Gregor Mendel observed this and tested it. Darwin ignored this.

Darwin was not a scientist because he did not allow his observations to limit his postulations.

Employing mechanisms to lend credence to a story is not science.

When a young trout dies because of whirling disease that is natural selection. I don't see any relevance to evolution.

Just using a paintbrush, doesn't make you a great artist.

(See next)

Not only is evolution not fact or even a good theory, there is actually no such thing as evolution. Even in the mind.

Each ecological niche is like a hole into which fits a certain kind of peg.

A square peg 2 x 2 inches, will always fit into a square hole just barely larger.

The only thing that separates men from animals is consciousness, not some kind of biological superiority, and the same is true for all other species.

How can you say a bacteria evolved into an ape, when bacteria is the best thing to survive in a bacteria environment.

Also, a Whale is not a higher life form than a tree. It is only a different life form, with a more involved set of functionalities. A deer is not more evolved than a lizard. A deer would make a horrible lizard.

There is no biological progression. There is only different biological functionality.

There is no evolution, because this fundamentally implies a false taxonomy.

I could say a book' worth, but not in this venue.

Answer 1

evolution, has no factual basis. it is just a theory. evolution, like creation, is a religion, and based only on faith... it's just a matter of what you believe in.

Answer 2

inductive & deductive reasoning are not the same as using the scientific method. But then, In Darwin's time, there were very few ways to set up experiments that would require hundreds of thousands of years to come to fruition.

On the other hand, men like Democritus (coiner of the term "atom") and Eratosthones (calculated the circumferance of the earth in 225bc) used inductive and deductive reason, as well as just plain intuition, to come to conclusions that wouldn't be "scientifically" justified for thousands of years.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. This was known long before Darwin. The only question was, what was the mechanism of evolution. We can prove it scientifically. We can watch it take place in a laboratory involving short lived species that go through many generations in a day. However, whether natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, and whether or not we are the results of natural selection still reside in the arena of educated speculations.

Answer 3

"Evolutionist" isn't a truly time period. It is a counter-time period to make "creationist" sound extra reputable. Yes they even play phrase video games. Same with calling evolution supporters "Darwinists" or scientists "materialists." As if studying approximately the usual global had been a foul factor. I am very sorry that evolutionist has it appears made it into the dictionary as a brand new time period. Darwin lived close to a hundred and fifty years in the past. His perspectives on evolution don't seem to be the identical because the area of evolutionary biology at present - he simply learned the important thing points of the way it labored. The conception has been up-to-date and multiplied with new proof. If you'll no longer atone for over a century of innovation (adding the invention of DNA) how are you able to anticipate me to support you? Does it make you marvel approximately bias while your hyperlink's area is referred to as "worldministries?" The Discovery Institute is a sham. Many on the "institute" consider that persons and dinosaurs co-existed and that the earth is not up to 6,000 years historical. So I determine one step at a time. The resistance to evolution is mental, no longer empirical. Why does studying approximately a bodily approach intrude together with your private religion? If scientists say that gravity is dependable for the formation of galaxies does that imply that you simply could mechanically reject the speculation of gravity? If scientists say that sicknesses are prompted through viruses and microbes and no longer demons or sin does that imply you could reject germ conception? Somehow I doubt you could give up seeing a medical professional schooled in germ conception. So what do you lose through information evolution? Perhaps that you simply cannot interpret Adam & Eve actually? It can nonetheless be an ethical parable when you desire. Is this difference this sort of obstacle? I imply, does your complete religion leisure on pronouncing "Adam and Eve existed precisely as I declare in a tiny lawn and if that is no longer an distinct reality then there's no method to consider in a deity." I'm no longer devout and I do have a difficult time information why a few devout interpretations are so rigid - I imply so the universe is extra difficult than we initially notion. We can study approximately the way it works via bodily research. Is that a unhealthy factor?

Answer 4

I have a couple of issues with your assertions: Because you disagree with his methodology you reduce his life's work to that of a "fairy tale teller?" Scientists quite often give supporting evidence for their theories. In fact, that is something of the rule in the methodology. This is why Creation Scientists are not the latter; they devise a theory, untestable, while attempting to tear down another, leaving theirs as the only possible alternative. Of course this is not so, but it is their thinking. Darwin did voice doubts about his data and conclusions repeatedly in his books and throughout his life and encouraged others to test his findings. What he knew and understood however, was that natural selection was the mechanism from which changes within species over time came about. Given the paucity of the fossil record at the time, one should forgive him his doubts and errors.
Ask a creationist or ID'er to test their theory as proposed in the bible and you'll find out who is not a scientist.

There are many, many christian scientists (I'm not talking about the Mary Eddy sect) who contribute to our understanding of biology, geology, cosmology, anthropology, etc., who hold their faith dear to them while understanding the realm and methods of science differ. They are quite able to seperate the two while living with both. Religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive, you just have to realize that faith is faith; the belief in something unseen (and unprovable).

You further divide those who don't agree with you as "rabid polemicist" or a "rabid creationist" and ask them to move on so you don't have to defend your position from either. This is cowardice under the guise of an unstated, and misplaced, intellecual supremacy. However, you do open your "game" to the "halfway logical", which from reading your question, describes you quite well.

Since I took issue with your premise and your methods I suppose that I will be regarded as a "rabid" something. I'll just move on.

Answer 5

Did you READ the "origin of species"?
If you did you would realize that 90% of the books is composed of FACTS that Darwin has collected over they years, complete with diagrams, drawings, and surveys. His theory really takes up only a small % of the book and is based on all the facts that he has presented.
If this is not science what is?

Answer 6

I do not know if it was a fundamental error, since he got his point across, is credited with the theory of evolution, and did not get killed by religious conservatives who found his theory threatening (like Socrates and others), so maybe not acting like a scientist was not all that bad for him.

Answer 7

is it because al his work was based on theory. and in order for it to have been science he whould have needed proof? like some sorts of science projects to back his theorys up? hehehe. you sound as if you already know this question. i just want 2 points.

Answer 8

Darwin was a scientist far ahead of his time.

No errors have been found in his theory.

Answer 9

he hypothecized a theory and then tried to prove it rather than disprove it. that is unscientific.

Answer 10

No. If it aint been done out there, it aint gona be done in here.