• Question: What are your opinions on the subject of Darwin's theories, bearing in mind some of the criticism his theories has recieved over the years?

    Asked by ashleigh93 to Ed, Katie, Sam, Steve, Vera on 19 Jun 2011. This question was also asked by chelss, lc22, rachenelson, clodagh.
    • Photo: Ed Morrison

      Ed Morrison answered on 17 Jun 2011:

      Darwin’s theories are some of the most successful science has ever produced. I think he was a genius for being able to come up with ideas that have been shown to be pretty much correct time and time again.

      Much of the criticism of Darwinism is nonsense to be honest. Although scientists do debate the finer points, they all agree that evolution and natural selection are correct.

    • Photo: Sam Tazzyman

      Sam Tazzyman answered on 17 Jun 2011:

      I agree with Ed, Darwin’s theories are incredibly accurate. This is especially the case when you consider that he knew nothing about DNA or genetics, the evidence from which supports his theories perfectly.

    • Photo: Steven Daly

      Steven Daly answered on 18 Jun 2011:

      As already has been said, Darwin’s theories are essentially correct, and nobody in science seriously disputes evolution. There is discussion on exactly how it operates and which factors are important, but such debate doesn’t take away from evolution being a successful theory.

      I think a lot of the criticism comes from people who either do not understand the theory, or do not want to understand it. This is why something like this website is great, because we get to answer peoples questions and help people to understand what can be a tricky subject.

    • Photo: Vera Weisbecker

      Vera Weisbecker answered on 18 Jun 2011:

      I agree with the others. It drives me up the wall when people who just don’t like Evolution try to sell a normal scientific debate for disagreement with the process itself. Just because there are gaps in our knowlege, and just because scientists disagree on the details of various evolutionary processes, doesn’t mean that the existence of evolution in itself is debated.

    • Photo: Katie Marriott

      Katie Marriott answered on 19 Jun 2011:

      I agree with the others. Darwin’s Theory is fantastic considering he didn’t know a lot of what we know today. Like Vera said it is very annoying when people try and use evidence like gaps in our knowledge. There is a lot we don’t know about this Earth and the Universe. There is a lot we still have to discover – a good thing or we wouldn’t have jobs!!

Comments

  • Photo: awood

    awood commented on :

    Darwin was one of the world’s greatest scientists, yet there is a very common misconception of his work. He is one of the first liberal scientists, one of the first to not be funded and commissioned by the Church, but not actually the only one scientist to discover evolution. He was one of the most confused scientists ever to have lived. Trained in Theology from Cambridge University, he went into Natural Science, in particular to Geology. On his travels in South America he looks at the fossil evidence, from the Mastadon, from the geological evidence in the mountains he passes through. But he thinks as a theologian. His notes from his travels “Voyage of the Beagle” are written in a scientific manner, recording what he saw, yet with a theological outlook. It is only once he returns, reviews, communicates with others that he starts to realise what he has dug up. The infamous Galapagos finches, the very basis and supposed seed of evolution were never purposeful; they were shot by the servants of Captain Fitzroy and Darwin, never by the scientist himself. On return they were sent to John Gould, a friend of Darwin, a fellow member of the Royal Geographic Society, and an ornithological expert. He set aside paying work, and devised that the birds were not a series of “backbirds, gross-beaks and finches”, but were a series of ground feeding finches, and each were one of a kind. The only reason he published his work only five years after the Voyage, is that others were about to publish. Alfred Russel Wallace, another great scientist, contacted Darwin about the matter, which he had found not through mammals and birds, but through insects, mainly beetles. Both Darwin’s and Wallace’s papers to the Royal Society were read at the same time and meeting, yet it is Darwin that is usually accredited the theory.

    The criticisms themselves are, in the main, from those who devout to religion. Darwin and Wallaces’ greatest problems were that the majority of the public were religious. They were bombarded with criticisms, yet accepted by most. Evolution has become part of life, with, today, even the Church in its main accepting the concept. The thrust of the argument is accepted, and will probably endure for centuries or more, if with a few fine tweaks. What I find greatest is that such a confused person, whom spends a large proportion of his life, with many great tragedies, can defy those that criticise him, and produce many more papers and the like on his works, with his theory at the centre, and used as a basis for modern Biology, as a basis, in a way, for modern science, and for the Descent of modern Man.

    Awood