2007-01-28 06:49:33 · 23 answers · asked by FAUUFDDaa 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nothing, it is absolutely irrelevant what Charles Darwin thought. The theory of evolution is not accepted because Darwin said so, but because of the evidence for it. We also know that not everything in "The Origin of Species" is correct, it is not the final version of the theory of evolution. It is not a holy book and Darwin is not a prophet. Many scientists have worked on the theory of evolution. Science is not based on faith in persons, but only on evidence.
2007-01-28 07:11:40 · answer #1 · answered by Elly 5 · 9⤊ 0⤋
Nothing-take Darwin and his theory of natural selection out of the equation and evolution of species is still an indisputable fact. We would just have to find a new biological mechanism for bringing about evolutionary adaptation. That's why the creationist fixation with Darwin is so absurd. Evolution doesn't stand or fall on the words of Darwin and I regret to say that a lot of those supporting evolution are ignorant of that fact also.
Edit-Steve B. Species evolution is a fact-speciation has been observed in laboratories and the fossil record proves that it occurs, however the mechanisms involved are theoretical. We need to get away from this "just a theory" notion.
2007-01-28 06:53:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
In order to disprove a theory, you must have more evidence against that theory than there is supporting the idea, right? if there is more evidence found against evolution, than that original theory would be discarded. Fist of all, I have a question. Nowhere Man and Raoul Duke say that evolution is fact in their comments, but Steve B says that it is not a fact, so where does atheism not disprove itself. also, imagine that you are in Africa surrounded by children who have not had a meal in days and do not know when their last day will come. which idea would you rather tell them? a. you are the result of a cosmic explosion and you are from the same place that cows come from or b. you were created with purpose and meaning and that a never failing God loves them and will give them feasts for all of eternity with no war or poverty, but living forever with the creator of the universe if they choose to follow him.
2014-12-09 11:12:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither ever "recanted" something. And neither proposed "the medical thought or evolution." Evolution became then (and is now) an pronounced actuality -- that organic and organic organisms replaced over the years. What the two proposed became an evidence for a manner that pronounced actuality works, organic determination. There had already been various proposed reasons, none of which had helping information or properly defined the pronounced actuality. organic determination did have helping information, and does properly (and lots extra) clarify the pronounced actuality. by utilising the way, Darwin gave finished credit to Wallace, even arranging to have the two his and Wallace's papers on organic determination examine on an identical assembly of the Royal Society. Peace.
2016-11-01 12:42:33 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He didn't,and he couldn't - he was right and it has been scientifically verified and validated ever since. There is no question and no gray area. Evolution is as real as the lesser theories of gravity and electricity.
At the time, everyone knew he was right (there were no great protests). Also, he was rushing to publish 'Origins' because others were about to do it at the same time - so it would have made no difference, what so ever. The truth is the truth no matter what people believe.
2007-01-28 06:56:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Grrr...
Scientifically literate people do not accept arguments from authority.
We don't 'believe' in evolution because one man talked about it. Its bigger than him. Reality is objective... do you see what I'm getting at?
He couldn't have disproved it - he could have renounced it (he didn't) but so what? Einstein didn't believe quantum mechanics explained reality but it did. He said God didn't play dice with the universe but if you read about quantum mechanics it wont be long before you read about objects spreading out in clouds of probability!
Scientists don't accept 'authorities' at most, there are experts. Their hypotheses stand or fall on their own merit.
What about Alfred Wallace? Theists can complain about Darwin until they're blue in the face. If he hadn't published his works on evolution when he did someone else would have shortly afterwards.
2007-01-28 06:54:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, if it had been disproven, the theory would have been discarded.
However, I suspect that after the rediscovery of Mendel's work in the early 20th century, there would have bene renewed interest in the work of Darwin and somebody would have taken his theory and tried to rework it.
2007-01-28 06:55:20 · answer #7 · answered by mullah robertson 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one would report it and it would be kept under raps. I did hear that he accepted Christ on his deathbed, never could confirm or disprove that though.
2007-01-28 09:17:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Andy and KC I would like to point out that evolution is theory not established fact. However if Darwin did just that, he would still of left behind those who refuse the notion of creation and they would on and do carry on his thought.
2007-01-28 07:02:04 · answer #9 · answered by steve b 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Hard to disprove fact, but nonetheless...
He would have wasted his entire life. We would likely be creationists, unless Lamarckian or Theistic evolution were true.
2007-01-28 06:54:33 · answer #10 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋