Why do opponents of evolution focus on Darwin?

Question

Darwin's theory of natural selection only gave us one MECHANISM of evolution. Evolution works by other forces acting on it (and I don't mean God). So then why is he the most picked on by the religious?

Very nice answers so far...For those that use the argument that probability is too small to support evolution, take into consideration that statistically I will not win the lottery in my life...huge odds against me. However, there are people that have won it not only once but twice. Probability gives us an estimate as to how likely something is to happen...not the answer as to how often it will happen or if it can happen.

Answer 1

Because they are astonishingly uneducated on what evolution is and how it works. Everyone knows who Darwin was, but virtually no one in contemporary american culture understands what evolution is. I can guarantee you that less than 5% of the people who oppose evolution have never even heard of punctuated equilibrium, but I'm sure many of them have heard of Stephen Gould, since his comments are so often misquoted to make him appear anti-darwinian evolution. There is a simple reason for this, which is summarized nicely in this picture:
http://www.bestpicever.com/pic-739-Poor-creationists

Answer 2

Because they're simpletons who have to personalize everything. Even if they don't believe that God literally has a beard, they still think he's a male who speaks Hebrew and has human psychology.

Likewise with evolution. Darwin is just the point man because he came out with Origin of Species before Alfred Wallace came out with his competing theory of natural selection. Simpleton creationists don't consider that maybe Darwin was on to a major principal of life, and instead think that Darwin was just some disgruntled guy motivated solely by a dislike of organized religion. (BTW, isn't he buried in Winchester Cathedral or some other church?) By 'proving' that Darwin had a grudge against God, or recanted evolution on his deathbed, they think that it will somehow refute the tons and tons of evidence in support of evolution...

Answer 3

Most opponents of evolution focus on Darwin because they've learned talking points from other opponents without doing their own research into evolution, Darwin, and natural selection.

You see this happen all the time. They'll hear a talking point and endlessly repeat it in the hope that repetition will make it true.

Answer 4

Mostly because of the Lady Hope Myth, a woman who never met him nor corresponded with him but came to America, lying that he had converted on his deathbed. Darwin never recanted his scientific theory.

Darwin also became an agnostic after the death of his beloved daughter. He could not envision a loving god allowing this to happen. It had nothing to do with evolution.

On the contrary, Darwin sat on his findings for years out of fear of hurting society. He was a very caring man whose degree was in theology.

I surmise evolution-fearers attack Darwin since he's dead and can't reply, and because so many liars like Falwell regurgitated the Lady Hope Myth long after it had been put to rest by Darwin's children.

Answer 5

Darwin takes the heat because he is the one who started the theory of evolution. Fundamentalist aren't in disagreement about specific details of the theory, they are against the existence of *any* theory of evolution. So the fact that Darwin's original ideas have been greatly modified and added to is irrelevant to them. Also, most of them are quite ignorant of the details. That's why you sometimes see them making ad hominem arguments against Darwin, as though he were the only one that mattered.

Answer 6

Because they don't distinguish between the inventor and his invention. In other words, they don't understand why an ad hominem attack has been on the list of rhetorical fallacies since Greek times. Knocking Darwin down doesn't change the force of his theory, and finding that he was a religious Christian doesn't do a thing to the implications of evolution.

Answer 7

Because if his theory was right there was still lots of work to do on it to work the kinks out. So it is easier to attack the original and yet undeveloped theory than the actual theory and the 200 years of scientific proof that accompanies it. After all there were errors in his logic, so they can point those up and use them to deny the whole theory. Much harder to do with the revised actual evolution theory.

Answer 8

Darwin was a good scientist and didn't even begin the discussion of evolution, his father had ideas of it as well as several others. He was a man and as a man was imperfect. so it is easy to tear apart one man....That's why they focus on his words and not the continuing discussion on evolution and science in general. If they attack an ongoing scientific discussion, they would have to enter it as participants and prove each step as all others involved in that discussion do. If someone claims anything in that discussion that is not provable or logical, they are dismissed....the people who discount this discussion from the outside have no ground to stand on.

Answer 9

How you would calculate probablities on something that happened billions of years ago is beyond me. Are you using pseudostatistics for that probability like you use pseudobiology with intelligent design? It's ridiculous, whats the chance that a global flood happened and that some guy brought all the animals in one single boat?

I haven't noticed creationist making more dumb claims about Darwin like he racanted on his deathbed, I've noticed creationists make dumb claims about the whole scientific theory of evolution. They can't stop with their retarded claims so there's no reason to suggest that Darwin takes more of the brunt.

Answer 10

many christians are intimidated by the theory of evolution and so they become irrational and miss the point.

there are many inconsistencies with evolutionary theory and many unanswered questions. it is indeed quite improbable that amino acids could somehow form complicated proteins and then those proteins could somehow line up exactly in a primordial soup to accidentally form even the most basic forms of cellular life.

some mathematicians have concluded that it would never happen even on a billion earths saturated in amino acids even after hundreds of billions of years.

and even if that did happen, creating a cell does not infuse it with life. the idea of consciousness and life is still extremely mysterious to scientists. even with a fully formed and functional body, we have no understanding of how to infuse it with life if it is dead or even what the mechanism would be.

granted, it is arguably more improbable that a supernatural entity spoke and the physical universe came into existence.

none of us were there, and the origin of life and the universe is still very much a mystery. evolutionists close their eyes to the fact and cling to their ideas fervently because it supports the notion that they are not accountable to a supernatural force. creationists shut their eyes to scientific possibility and fail to fairly analyze either their own beliefs or evolutionary theory. both sides often drop down to insulting because they are too ignorant and close-minded to listen or think.

you should always keep your eyes and your mind open. otherwise you will never learn anything.