Is it true that Darwin abandoned his theory before his death? Darwin's persecution Did Darwin abandon his theory of evolution
Clickable.
Now let's take a closer look at what the opponents of Darwin's theory say:
The man who put forward the theory of evolution is the English amateur naturalist Charles Robert Darwin.
Darwin never really studied biology, but only had an amateur interest in nature and animals. And as a result of this interest, in 1832 he volunteered to travel from England on the state research vessel "Beagle" and for five years sailed to different parts of the world. During the trip, young Darwin was impressed by the species of animals he saw, especially the various types of finches that lived on the Galapagos Islands. He thought that the difference in the beaks of these birds depends on the environment. Based on this assumption, he concluded for himself: living organisms were not created by God separately, but originated from a single ancestor and then changed depending on the conditions of nature.
This hypothesis of Darwin was not based on any scientific explanation or experiment. Only thanks to the support of the then famous materialistic biologists, over time, this hypothesis of Darwin was established as a theory. According to this theory, living organisms come from one ancestor, but over a long time they undergo small changes and begin to differ from each other. Species that have more successfully adapted to natural conditions pass on their characteristics to the next generation. Thus, these beneficial changes over time turn the individual into a living organism, completely different from its ancestor. What was meant by "beneficial changes" remained unknown. According to Darwin, man was the most developed product of this mechanism. Reviving this mechanism in his imagination, Darwin called it "evolution by natural selection." From now on, he thought he had found the roots of the "origin of species": the basis of one species is another species. He revealed these ideas in 1859 in his book On the Origin of Species.
However, Darwin realized that there was much unresolved in his theory. He acknowledges this in Difficulties of Theory. These difficulties were in the complex organs of living organisms that could not have appeared by chance (for example, the eyes), as well as fossil remains, animal instincts. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome in the process of new discoveries, but for some of them he gave incomplete explanations.
In contrast to the purely naturalistic theory of evolution, two alternatives are put forward. One is purely religious in nature: this is the so-called "creationism", a literal perception of the biblical legend about how the Almighty created the universe and life in all its diversity. Creationism is professed only by religious fundamentalists, this doctrine has a narrow base, it is on the periphery of scientific thought. Therefore, for lack of space, we confine ourselves to mentioning its existence.
But another alternative has made a very serious bid for a place under the scientific sun. The theory of “intelligent design” (intelligent design), among whose supporters there are many serious scientists, recognizing evolution as a mechanism for intraspecific adaptation to changing environmental conditions (microevolution), categorically rejects its claims to be the key to the mystery of the origin of species (macroevolution), not to mention about the origin of life itself.
Life is so complex and diverse that it is absurd to think about the possibility of its spontaneous origin and development: it must inevitably be based on intelligent design, advocates of this theory say. What kind of mind it is is not important. Intelligent design theorists are more agnostic than religious, and are not particularly interested in theology. They are only concerned with punching gaping holes in the theory of evolution, and they have succeeded in riddling it so much that the dogma prevailing in biology now resembles not so much a granite monolith as Swiss cheese.
Throughout the history of Western civilization, it has been considered an axiom that life is created by a higher power. Even Aristotle expressed the conviction that the incredible complexity, elegant harmony and harmony of life and the universe cannot be a random product of spontaneous processes. The most famous teleological argument for the existence of a rational principle was formulated by the English religious thinker William Paley in his book Natural Theology, published in 1802.
Paley reasoned as follows: if, while walking in the forest, I stumble on a stone, I will not have any doubts about its natural origin. But if I see a clock lying on the ground, I will voluntarily or involuntarily have to assume that they could not have arisen by themselves, someone had to collect them. And if a watch (a relatively small and simple device) has a reasonable organizer - a watchmaker, then the Universe itself (a large device) and the biological objects that fill it (more complex devices than a clock) must have a great organizer - the Creator.
But then Charles Darwin showed up, and everything changed. In 1859, he published a seminal work entitled "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Survival of Favored Breeds in the Struggle for Life", which was destined to make a real revolution in scientific and social thought. Based on the achievements of breeders (“artificial selection”) and on his own observations of birds (finches) in the Galapagos Islands, Darwin concluded that organisms can undergo small changes, adapting to changing environmental conditions through “natural selection”.
He further concluded that, given a sufficiently long time, the sum of such small changes gives rise to larger changes and, in particular, leads to the appearance of new species. According to Darwin, new traits that reduce the organism's chances of survival are mercilessly rejected by nature, and traits that give an advantage in the struggle for life, gradually accumulating, over time allow their carriers to take over less adapted competitors and force them out of contested ecological niches.
This purely naturalistic mechanism, completely devoid of any purpose or design, from the point of view of Darwin exhaustively explained how life developed and why all living beings are so ideally adapted to the conditions of their environment. The theory of evolution implies a continuous progression of gradually changing living beings in a row from the most primitive forms to higher organisms, the crown of which is man.
The problem, however, is that Darwin's theory was purely speculative, because in those years, paleontological evidence did not provide any basis for his conclusions. Throughout the world, scientists have dug up many fossil remains of extinct organisms of past geological epochs, but they all fit within the clear boundaries of the same unchanged taxonomy. Not a single intermediate species appeared in the fossil record, not a single creature with morphological features that would confirm the correctness of a theory formulated on the basis of abstract conclusions without relying on facts.
Darwin clearly saw the weakness of his theory. No wonder he did not dare to publish it for more than two decades and sent his capital work to print only when he learned that another English naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, was preparing to come up with his own theory, strikingly similar to Darwin's.
It is curious to note that both opponents behaved like true gentlemen. Darwin wrote a courteous letter to Wallace outlining the evidence of his superiority, who responded with a no less polite message proposing that a joint report be presented at the Royal Society. After that, Wallace publicly acknowledged Darwin's priority and, until the end of his days, never once complained about his bitter fate. That's how it was in the Victorian era. Talk about progress after that.
The theory of evolution was like a building erected on grass so that later, when the necessary materials were brought up, a foundation would be laid under it. Its author relied on the progress of paleontology, which, he was convinced, would make it possible in the future to find transitional life forms and confirm the validity of his theoretical calculations.
But the collections of paleontologists grew and grew, and there was no evidence of Darwin's theory. Scientists found similar species, but could not find a single bridge thrown from one species to another. But it follows from the theory of evolution that such bridges not only existed, but that there must have been a great many of them, because the paleontological record must reflect all the countless stages of the long history of evolution and, in fact, consist entirely of transitional links.
Some followers of Darwin, like himself, believe that you just need to be patient - they say, we simply have not yet found intermediate forms, but we will certainly find them in the future. Alas, their hopes are unlikely to come true, because the existence of such transitional links would be in conflict with one of the fundamental postulates of the very theory of evolution.
Imagine, for example, that the front legs of dinosaurs gradually evolved into bird wings. But this means that during the long transitional period these limbs were neither paws nor wings, and their functional uselessness doomed the owners of such useless stumps to a deliberate defeat in the fierce struggle for life. According to Darwin's teaching, nature had to ruthlessly uproot such intermediate species and, therefore, nip the process of speciation in the bud.
But it is generally accepted that birds are descended from lizards. The dispute is not about that. Opponents of the Darwinian doctrine fully admit that the front paw of a dinosaur could indeed be the prototype of a bird's wing. They argue only that whatever perturbations may occur in living nature, they could not proceed according to the mechanism of natural selection. Some other principle should have been in effect - for example, the use of universal prototype templates by the carrier of a reasonable beginning.
The paleontological record stubbornly testifies to the failure of evolutionism. During the first three-plus billion years of the existence of life, only the simplest single-celled organisms lived on our planet. But about 570 million years ago, the Cambrian period began, and over the course of several million years (by geological standards, a fleeting moment), as if by magic, almost all the diversity of life arose from scratch in its current form and without any intermediate links. According to Darwin's theory, this "Cambrian explosion", as it is called, simply could not happen.
Another example: during the so-called Permian-Triassic extinction 250 million years ago, life on earth almost stopped: 90% of all marine organisms and 70% of terrestrial species disappeared. Nevertheless, the basic taxonomy of the fauna has not undergone any significant changes - the main types of living creatures that lived on our planet before the “great extinction” were completely preserved after the catastrophe. But if we proceed from the Darwinian concept of natural selection, during this period of heightened competition for filling vacant ecological niches, numerous transitional species would certainly have arisen. However, this did not happen, which again implies that the theory is wrong.
Darwinists are desperately looking for transitional life forms, but all their efforts have so far been unsuccessful. The most they can find are the similarities between different species, but signs of genuine intermediate beings are still only a dream of evolutionists. Periodically, sensations flare up: a transitional link has been found! But in reality, it invariably turns out that the alarm is false, that the organism found is nothing more than a manifestation of ordinary intraspecific variability. And even just a falsification like the notorious Piltdown man.
It is impossible to describe the joy of evolutionists when, in 1908, a human-type fossil skull with an ape lower jaw was found in England. Here it is, the real proof of the correctness of Charles Darwin! The jubilant scientists had no incentive to take a closer look at the cherished find, otherwise they could not help but notice the obvious absurdities in its structure and realize that the “fossil” is a fake, and a very crude one at that. And it took a whole 40 years before the scientific world was forced to officially admit that he had been played. It turned out that some hitherto unknown prankster had simply glued the lower jaw of a by no means fossil orangutan with a skull from an equally fresh Homo sapiens dead man.
By the way, Darwin's personal discovery - the microevolution of Galapagos finches under environmental pressure - also did not stand the test of time. A few decades later, the climatic conditions on these Pacific islands changed again, and the length of the beak of birds returned to its former norm. No speciation occurred, just the same species of birds temporarily adapted to the changed environmental conditions - the most trivial intraspecific variability.
Some Darwinists are aware that their theory has reached a dead end and are frantically maneuvering. For example, the late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould proposed the hypothesis of "punctuated equilibrium" or "dotted evolution." This is a kind of hybrid of Darwinism with Cuvier's "catastrophism", which postulated the intermittent development of life through a series of catastrophes. According to Gould, evolution took place in leaps and bounds, and each leap followed some universal natural disaster with such speed that it did not have time to leave any trace in the fossil record.
Although Gould considered himself an evolutionist, his theory undermines the basic premise of Darwin's theory of speciation through the gradual accumulation of favorable features. However, “dotted evolution” is just as speculative and just as devoid of empirical evidence as classical Darwinism.
Thus, the paleontological evidence strongly refutes the concept of macroevolution. But this is far from the only evidence of its failure. The development of genetics has completely destroyed the belief that environmental pressure can cause morphological changes. Countless mice have been cut off by researchers in the hope that their offspring will inherit a new trait. Alas, tailed offspring were stubbornly born from tailless parents. The laws of genetics are inexorable: all the features of the organism are encrypted in the parental genes and are directly transmitted from them to the descendants.
Evolutionists, following the principles of their teaching, had to adapt to new conditions. “Neo-Darwinism” appeared, in which the place of the classical “adaptation” was taken by the mutational mechanism. According to neo-Darwinists, by no means excluded that random gene mutations could give rise to a sufficiently high degree of variability, which again could contribute to the survival of the species and, being inherited by offspring, could to gain a foothold and give their carriers a decisive advantage in the struggle for an ecological niche.
However, the deciphering of the genetic code dealt a crushing blow to this theory. Mutations are rare and in the vast majority of cases are unfavorable, so that the likelihood that a “new favorable trait” will be fixed in any population for a long enough time to give it an advantage in the fight against competitors is practically nil.
In addition, natural selection destroys genetic information as it culls out traits that are not conducive to survival, and leaves only "selected" traits. But they can by no means be considered “favorable” mutations, because these genetic traits in all cases were originally inherent in the population and were only waiting in the wings to manifest themselves when environmental pressure “cleaned up” unnecessary or harmful garbage.
The progress of molecular biology in recent decades has finally driven evolutionists into a corner. In 1996, Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behey published the sensational book Darwin's Black Box, where he showed that there are biochemical systems of incredible complexity in the body that cannot be explained from Darwinian positions. The author described a number of intracellular molecular machines and biological processes characterized by "irreducible complexity".
By this term, Michael Bahey designated systems consisting of many components, each of which is of critical importance. That is, the mechanism can only work if all its components are present; as soon as at least one of them fails, the whole system goes wrong. From this, the conclusion inevitably follows: in order for the mechanism to fulfill its functional purpose, all its components had to be born and “turn on” at the same time - contrary to the main postulate of the theory of evolution.
The book also describes cascade phenomena, such as the mechanism of blood clotting, which involves a dozen and a half specialized proteins plus intermediate forms that are formed during the process. When cut in the blood, a multi-stage reaction is launched in which proteins activate each other in a chain. In the absence of any of these proteins, the reaction is automatically interrupted. At the same time, the cascade proteins are highly specialized, none of them perform any other function than the formation of a blood clot. In other words, “they certainly had to arise immediately in the form of a single complex,” Behey writes.
Cascading is the antagonist of evolution. It is inconceivable that the blind, chaotic process of natural selection would provide for the future storage of many useless elements that remain in a latent state until the last of them finally appears in the world of God and allows the system to immediately turn on and earn on full power. Such an idea fundamentally contradicts the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution, which Charles Darwin himself was well aware of.
“If the possibility of the existence of any complex organ, which could in no way be the result of numerous successive small changes, is proved, my theory will shatter into dust,” Darwin frankly admitted. In particular, he was extremely concerned about the problem of the eye: how to explain the evolution of this most complex organ, which acquires functional significance only at the very last moment, when all its constituent parts are already in place? After all, if you follow the logic of his teaching, any attempt of the body to start a multi-stage process of creating a vision mechanism would be ruthlessly suppressed by natural selection. And where, for no reason at all, did the developed organs of vision appear in trilobites - the first living creatures on earth?
After the publication of Darwin's Black Box, its author was subjected to a hail of violent attacks and threats (mostly on the Internet). Moreover, the vast majority of advocates of the theory of evolution expressed confidence that "the Darwinian model of the origin of irreducibly complex biochemical systems is presented in hundreds of thousands of scientific publications." However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Anticipating the storm his book would cause while working on it, Michael Bahey delved into the scientific literature to get an idea of how evolutionists explain the origin of complex biochemical systems. And… found absolutely nothing. It turned out that there is not a single hypothesis of the evolutionary path of formation of such systems. Official science arranged a conspiracy of silence around an uncomfortable topic: not a single scientific report, not a single scientific monograph, not a single scientific symposium was devoted to it.
Since then, several attempts have been made to develop an evolutionary model for the formation of systems of this kind, but all of them invariably failed. Many scientists of the naturalistic school clearly understand the impasse in which their favorite theory has ended up. “We refuse on principle to replace intelligent design with a dialogue between chance and necessity,” writes biochemist Franklin Harold. “But at the same time, we must admit that, apart from fruitless speculation, to this day no one has been able to offer a detailed Darwinian mechanism for the evolution of any biochemical system.”
Like this: we refuse on principle, and that's it! Just like Martin Luther: "Here I stand and I can't help it!" But the leader of the Reformation at least justified his position with 95 theses, and here there is only one bare principle, dictated by blind worship of the dominant dogma, and nothing more. I believe, Lord!
Even more problematic is the neo-Darwinian theory of the spontaneous generation of life. To Darwin's credit, he did not touch on this topic at all. His book is about the origin of species, not life. But the followers of the founder went a step further and offered an evolutionary explanation for the very phenomenon of life. According to the naturalistic model, the barrier between inanimate nature and life was overcome spontaneously due to a combination of favorable environmental conditions.
However, the concept of spontaneous generation of life is built on sand, because it is in flagrant contradiction with one of the most fundamental laws of nature - the second law of thermodynamics. It says that in a closed system (in the absence of a purposeful supply of energy from the outside), entropy inevitably increases, i.e. the level of organization or degree of complexity of such a system is inexorably reduced. And the reverse process is impossible.
The great English astrophysicist Stephen Hawking in his book “A Brief History of Time” writes: “According to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of an isolated system always and in all cases increases, and when two systems merge, the entropy of the combined system is higher than the sum of the entropies of the individual systems included in it” . Hawking adds: “In any closed system, the level of disorganization, i.e. entropy inevitably increases with time.
But if entropic decay is the fate of any system, then the possibility of spontaneous generation of life is absolutely excluded; spontaneous increase in the level of organization of the system when a biological barrier is broken. The spontaneous generation of life under any circumstances must be accompanied by an increase in the degree of complexity of the system at the molecular level, and entropy prevents this. Chaos cannot by itself give rise to order, this is forbidden by the law of nature.
Another blow was dealt to the concept of spontaneous generation of life by information theory. In Darwin's time, science believed that the cell was just a primitive container filled with protoplasm. However, with the development of molecular biology, it became clear that a living cell is a mechanism of incredible complexity, carrying an incomprehensible amount of information. But information itself does not arise out of nothing. According to the law of conservation of information, its amount in a closed system never and under no circumstances increases. External pressure may cause a “shuffling” of information already available in the system, but its total volume will remain at the same level or decrease due to an increase in entropy.
In short, as the world-famous English physicist, astronomer and science fiction writer Sir Fred Hoyle writes: “There is not a shred of objective evidence in favor of the hypothesis that life spontaneously originated in the organic soup on our earth.” Hoyle's co-author, astrobiologist Chandra Wykramasingh, put it more eloquently: "The chance of spontaneous generation of life is as slim as the chance of a hurricane wind sweeping over a junkyard to pick up a serviceable airliner from the trash in one rush."
Many other proofs can be cited that refute attempts to present evolution as a universal mechanism for the origin and development of life in all its diversity. But even the facts presented, I think, are sufficient to show the predicament in which the teachings of Darwin found themselves.
And how do the champions of evolution react to all this? Some of them, in particular, Francis Crick (who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA with James Watson), became disillusioned with Darwinism and believed that life on earth was brought from space. This idea was first put forward more than a century ago by another Nobel laureate, the outstanding Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, who proposed the “panspermia” hypothesis.
However, supporters of the theory of seeding the earth with life germs from outer space do not notice or prefer not to notice that such an approach only pushes the problem one step further, but by no means solves it. Let's assume that life is really brought from space, but then the question arises: where did it come from - did it spontaneously arise or was it created?
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasingh, who share this view, found a gracefully ironic way out. Having given in their book Evolution from Space a lot of arguments in favor of the hypothesis that life was brought to our planet from outside, Sir Fred and his co-author ask: how did life originate there, outside the earth? And they answer: it is known how - it was created by the Almighty. In other words, the authors make it clear that they have set themselves a narrow task and are not going to go beyond it, it is too tough for them.
However, the majority of evolutionists categorically reject any attempts to cast a shadow on their teaching. The intelligent design hypothesis, like a red rag with which they tease a bull, causes them paroxysms of unbridled (it is tempting to say - animal) rage. The evolutionary biologist Richard von Sternberg, who did not share the concept of intelligent design, nevertheless allowed a scientific article to be published in his journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in support of this hypothesis. After that, such a flurry of abuse, curses and threats hit the editor that he was forced to turn to the FBI for protection.
The position of the evolutionists was eloquently summed up by one of the most vociferous Darwinists, the English zoologist Richard Dawkins: don't want to believe it). This phrase alone is enough to lose all respect for Dawkins. Like orthodox Marxists waging war on revisionism, Darwinists do not argue with opponents, but denounce them; do not debate with them, but anathematize them.
This is the classic mainstream reaction to a challenge from a dangerous heresy. Such a comparison is quite appropriate. Like Marxism, Darwinism has long since degenerated, petrified and turned into an inert pseudo-religious dogma. Yes, by the way, that's what they called it - Marxism in biology. Karl Max himself enthusiastically welcomed Darwin's theory as "the natural-scientific basis of the class struggle in history."
And the more gaps are found in the dilapidated teaching, the more violent the resistance of its adherents. Their material well-being and spiritual comfort are under threat, their entire universe is collapsing, and there is no anger more unrestrained than the wrath of the faithful, whose faith is crumbling under the blows of inexorable reality. They will cling to their beliefs with teeth and nails and stand to the last. For when an idea dies, it is reborn into an ideology, and an ideology is absolutely intolerant of competition.
The original article is on the website InfoGlaz.rf Link to the article from which this copy is made -
0 972
First of all, I would like to emphasize that this often mentioned myth has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute between creationists and evolutionists. Darwin did not give up his beliefs. Nor was he an atheist. In his youth he was an orthodox, however, rather sluggish, in adulthood he switched to unorthodox theism, and in his old age he became an agnostic. Rumors about Darwin's conversion were circulated in some evangelical circles. However, neither Darwin's biographers nor other sources confirm this information. Indeed, a study of the letters written by Charles Darwin shortly before his death, during the period of his alleged conversion, clearly shows that there were no changes in his heart and thoughts. Apparently, Darwin until the last day of his life remained an evolutionist and agnostic.
Another common misconception about Darwin is that his main work was primarily an attempt to put the idea of evolution on a solid scientific foundation. If there was such a task, then it was secondary. Darwin's scientific evidence in support of evolution was not particularly impressive. Darwin, who did not receive a systematic education in the natural sciences, believed in the theory, already debunked by science, that organisms allegedly inherit acquired characteristics. And although Darwin made great contributions to many natural sciences such as zoology, botany, geology, and paleontology, his most significant and lasting achievements are not in the natural sciences, but in philosophy.
"He who does not Look, Like a Savage, at the Phenomena of Nature as Something Incoherent, Can No Longer Think That Man Is the Fruit of a Separate Act of Creation."
Charles Darwin.
On the birthday of the greatest naturalist Charles Darwin, I publish several inaccuracies, misconceptions and unreliable information about him, which I encountered on the Internet and in some television programs.
Perhaps this publication will help shed light or remember who the great British naturalist was and who he was not.
1 Charles Darwin is the author of the statement: "Man descended from the Monkey." Darwin made no such statements, and you will not find such statements in his writings.
This myth about Darwin was most likely born in a clerical environment in which his activities, to put it mildly, did not arouse sympathy. Charles was only trying to substantiate the idea that modern apes and humans had a common ancestor, although Darwin was not the first to claim that apes and humans are related.
2 Darwin was the first to say that humans and apes have a common ancestor. This is not so, because the first person to put forward this idea was Buffon, a French naturalist, in his work "Natural History", at the end of the 18th century. And Carl Linnaeus in the same century placed man in his taxonomy in the order of primates (where man, as a species, quite rightly remains to this day.
Darwin later, on the basis of comparative anatomical and embryological data, substantiated the statement about the common origin of man and modern anthropoid apes from an ancient original ancestor. In the 20th century, this theory was reliably confirmed by the data of molecular biology and numerous paleontological finds.
3 Darwin was the author of the first theory of evolution. It depends what is considered a theory ... it is believed that the author of the first more or less internally consistent theory of evolution, namely the concept of how and due to what this process occurs, was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829, however, the basic provisions of his theory (inheritance acquired traits and the "Striving for Perfection" inherent in all living things) were not further confirmed, at least in the form in which Lamarck expressed them. Darwin, in his theory, abandoned the second fundamental component of his predecessor - from the "Craving for Perfection ", and introduced another creative force into the theory of evolution - natural selection, which remains, perhaps, the main engine of evolution in biology to this day.
4 Charles Darwin at the end of his life "Repudiated His Theory". This story is not supported by any facts. The story of "Darwin's Renunciation" and that on his deathbed he supposedly believed in God first appeared many years after the scientist's death, in 1915. This story was published in an American Baptist publication by the preacher Elizabeth Hope, who, by the way, never met Darwin. Where does she get this information from? It seems like a revelation from above descended .... However, neither in Darwin's autobiography, which he wrote shortly before his death, nor in the memoirs of his relatives, are there any hints that the great naturalist at the end of his life had any doubts about his views.
5 Darwin was a believer. Every now and then in the statements of apparently insufficiently informed individuals, such statements emerge. However, not only about Darwin, but also about Einstein and Pavlov fall into such delusions.
Here is a curious quote on this subject from a certain priest Alexander Shumsky:
“Darwin himself considered his theory of evolution to be just a hypothesis. He was a believer and did not stop repeating that the evolutionary chain originates at the throne of God. He unequivocally recognized God as the creator of the world, all living things ... he was a deeply religious person, and he himself was horrified whatever his theory has been turned into. I don't doubt that at all."
And you should doubt it, father Alexander. Only if you read his autobiography would you know that for some time Darwin believed in God and was going to become a priest, but over time this Faith passed like a cold on the lip, although not so quickly. Darwin turned into an agnostic rather.
Here are a couple of quotes from Darwin himself that dispel the myth of his deep faith:
"There is nothing more remarkable than the spread of religious disbelief, or rationalism, during the second half of my life." (Ch. Darwin recollections of the development of my mind and character. Autobiography. "While Sailing on the Beagle, I was quite orthodox; I remember how some officers (although they themselves were orthodox) laughed heartily at me when, on some question of morality, I referred to the Bible as an indisputable authority. I think they were amused by the novelty of my argument. However, during this period t i.e. from October 1836 to January 1839 I gradually came to the realization that the Old Testament, with its apparently false history of the world, with its Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign of the covenant, etc., etc., and with his attribution to the god of the feelings of a vengeful tyrant is no more credible than the sacred books of the Hindus or the beliefs of some savage. The question is: if God wished now to send down a revelation to the Hindus, would he really allow it to be associated with belief in Vishnu, Siva, etc., just as Christianity is associated with belief in the Old Testament? It seemed absolutely incredible to me. "(Ibid.).
6 Darwin lost his faith in God after the death of his daughter.
There is no direct documentary evidence for this claim. Neither Darwin himself nor his contemporaries wrote about it. This hypothesis was formulated by biographer James Moore. However, Darwin describes his own loss of faith in his autobiography, and gives many other reasons that have nothing to do with the death of Annie, his daughter.
7 Darwin falsified his theory and it was created under the auspices of the secret Masonic societies. Adherents of this point of view often refer to the fact that the father and grandfather of Charles Darwin were Freemasons. For lovers of dubious conspiracy theories, Masonic societies are such secret organizations that almost worship the devil himself and are, again, according to these conspiracy theorists, the main evil for humanity.
Still, the sources of information are not clear either that Darwin's relatives had some kind of secret interest in the work of the scientist, or that he himself was somehow connected with secret societies. Only if Darwin's theory had been falsified by him would this be revealed rather quickly. Walles would not have come to the same conclusions independently of Darwin about the role of natural selection in evolution. There would be no further confirmation of the theory of evolution. Although the Masons may have had a hand in this, it is not clear why, in this case, Darwin was so slow to publish his work (about 20 years. Probably he was waiting for an order to publish from the reptilians ... oh, that is, from secret societies. In fact, myths and dubious information around There is more to Darwin, so when you discover some unconfirmed information, not only about Darwin, but any other great person, it is important to doubt the reliability of the information and ask yourself: what source is behind this?
Refutation of Darwin's theory. 3. Why doesn't official science refute Darwin's theory?
But, despite the increasing number of inconsistencies with the true state of things, official science is in no hurry to refute Darwin's "theory". To recognize the inconsistency of this theory means to recognize the incompetence of scientists who have relied on this theory all their lives as a dogma. But it is on them that the official refutation of Darwinism depends. And what to do with candidate and doctoral dissertations, which were based on the theory of evolution. Therefore, it is necessary to deprive the scientific degrees of many respected figures of science. Scientists need to have a certain courage to admit that they themselves have been in error all their lives, and teach this to others.
There is a certain opinion that the so-called discovery of Darwin was prepared and planned in advance. It is no coincidence that this "theory" was born in England. The fact is that England in the nineteenth century actively participated in the colonization of the peoples of Asia and Africa. But to fully disperse the flywheel of the enslavement of other peoples, moral and ethical principles, which have always been based on religion, did not give. The religious commandments “do not steal” and “do not covet anything that belongs to others”, to put it mildly, did not really fit into the actions of the colonialists, who were difficult to stop. It was necessary to urgently change the authorities of religious scriptures, to more suitable, so-called "scientific" discoveries. The deed was done. Religious views have gone far into the background. And the fact that man originated from an animal, which means the principle of natural selection “survival of the fittest”, from the animal world, can (and most importantly, it is necessary!) be transferred to the world of people. Is it a coincidence that after Darwin's "discovery" and its recognition as official science, in the next hundred years, such theories as fascism and other ... isms were born, which resulted in the most bloody wars, and revolutions, with the largest number of victims, of known throughout history. There is such a thing as "natural selection". But few people realize that this law of survival also works among human societies. Read about it in the article on the site The Meaning of Religion” (see the site menu).
Life and works of Ch. Darwin. Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in the family of a doctor. While studying at the Universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge, Darwin gained a thorough knowledge of zoology, botany and geology, skills and a taste for field research. An important role in shaping his scientific outlook was played by the book of the outstanding English geologist Charles Lyell "Principles of Geology". Lyell argued that the modern appearance of the Earth was gradually formed under the influence of the same natural forces that are active at the present time. Darwin was familiar with the evolutionary ideas of Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck and other early evolutionists, but they did not seem convincing to him.
The decisive turn in his fate was the round-the-world trip on the Beagle ship (1832-1837). According to Darwin himself, during this trip he was most impressed: “1) the discovery of giant fossil animals that were covered with a shell similar to that of modern armadillos; 2) the fact that, as one moves along the mainland of South America, closely related species of animals replace one another; 3) the fact that closely related species of various islands of the Galapagos archipelago differ slightly from each other. It was obvious that such facts, as well as many others, could only be explained on the basis of the assumption that the species gradually changed, and this problem began to haunt me.
Upon returning from his voyage, Darwin begins to ponder the problem of the origin of species. He considers various ideas, including the idea of Lamarck, and rejects them, since none of them gives an explanation for the facts of the amazing adaptability of animals and plants to their living conditions. What seemed to the early evolutionists as a given and self-explanatory, appears to Darwin as the most important question. He collects data on the variability of animals and plants in nature and under conditions of domestication. Many years later, recalling how his theory arose, Darwin would write: “Soon I realized that the cornerstone of man's success in creating useful races of animals and plants was selection. However, for some time it remained a mystery to me how selection could be applied to organisms living in natural conditions. Just at that time in England, the ideas of the English scientist T. Malthus about the increase in the number of populations exponentially were vigorously discussed. “In October, 1838, I read Malthus’ book On Population,” continues Darwin, “and as, thanks to my long observation of the way of life of animals and plants, I was well prepared to appreciate the significance of the struggle for existence going on everywhere, I was immediately struck by the idea that under such conditions favorable changes should tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this should be the formation of new species.
Darwin's theory of evolution Fundamentals. 3. The main provisions of the evolutionary teachings of Ch. Darwin
Darwin's evolutionary theory is a holistic doctrine of the historical development of the organic world. It covers a wide range of problems, the most important of which are evidence of evolution, identification of the driving forces of evolution, determination of the paths and patterns of the evolutionary process, etc.
The essence of evolutionary teaching lies in the following basic provisions:
1. All kinds of living beings inhabiting the Earth have never been created by someone.
2. Having arisen naturally, organic forms were slowly and gradually transformed and improved in accordance with environmental conditions.
3. The transformation of species in nature is based on such properties of organisms as variability and heredity, as well as natural selection constantly occurring in nature. Natural selection is carried out through the complex interaction of organisms with each other and with factors of inanimate nature; this relationship Darwin called the struggle for existence.
4. The result of evolution is the adaptability of organisms to the conditions of their habitat and the diversity of species in nature.
4. Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to Darwin
Darwin's theory of evolution is the concept that all organisms descend from a common ancestor. It emphasizes the naturalistic origin of life with change. Complex creatures evolve from simpler ones, it takes time. Random mutations occur in the genetic code of an organism, useful ones are preserved, helping to survive. Over time, they accumulate, and the result is a different kind, not just a variation of the original, but a completely new creature.
The main provisions of Darwin's theory
Darwin's theory of the origin of man is included in the general theory of the evolutionary development of living nature. Darwin believed that Homo Sapiens descended from an inferior life form and shared a common ancestor with the ape. The same laws led to its appearance, thanks to which other organisms appeared. The evolutionary concept is based on the following principles:
- Overproduction. Species populations remain stable because a small proportion of the offspring survive and reproduce.
- Fight for survival. Children of every generation must compete to survive.
- Adaptation. Adaptation is an inherited trait that increases the likelihood of surviving and reproducing in a particular environment.
- Natural selection. The environment "chooses" living organisms with more suitable traits. The offspring inherit the best, and the species is improved for a particular habitat.
- Speciation. Over generations, beneficial mutations gradually increase, while the bad ones disappear. Over time, the accumulated changes become so great that the result is a new species.
Origin of species. Description
The publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 marked a dramatic turning point in scientific thought. Darwin worked on the book for twenty years, partly because he was well aware of the hurricane of controversy that would unfold around his hypothesis. In fact, the first day of sales
The Origin of Species revolutionized science, philosophy and theology.
Darwin's reasoned, documented arguments developed in detail an elaborate theory of natural selection, stating that species were not created overnight by a divine hand, but were formed from several simple forms that mutated and adapted to the environment over time.
His profound ideas remain controversial even to this day, which makes this book not only attractive, but also the most influential book of natural science ever written; an important milestone not only of its time, but also in the history of mankind.
©MrsGonzo for LibreBook
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" - the work of the English naturalist Charles Darwin, published November 24, 1859, which is one of the most famous works in the history of science and fundamental in the field of evolutionary doctrine.
Darwin's theory of evolution briefly. Darwin's theory of evolution
Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the main theories of the development of the organic world. According to Darwin, the driving forces of evolution are natural selection, variability, and heredity. New signs arise in the functions and structure of organisms in connection with variability. The latter is either definite or indefinite. A certain (directional) variability occurs when environmental conditions have the same effect on all or most individuals of a particular species. It is not hereditary in the next generations. In some individuals, indefinite (non-directional) changes may occur, which are random and hereditary. Uncertain variability is of two types - combinative and mutational. In the first case, during meiosis, during the formation of offspring, new combinations of paternal and maternal chromosomes appear, which sometimes exchange parts, and with each generation the combination of genes increases. In the second case, the genetic structure of the organism changes: the number of chromosomes, their structure or the structure of genes.
Darwin's theory of evolution and its representatives believe that changes in organisms occur under the influence of the environment. As a result of natural selection, the offspring of carriers of useful traits that have arisen as a result of recombination or mutation of genes survive. Selection is the main factor of evolution, which determines the speciation of organisms. It can be expressed in three forms: driving, stabilizing and disruptive. The first leads to the emergence of new adaptations. The greatest probability of leaving offspring is in individuals that have changed in some way compared to the average value. In the second form, the formed adaptations are preserved in unchanged environmental conditions. In this case, individuals with an average value of traits remain in the population. In the third form, under the influence of multidirectional changes in the environment, polymorphism occurs. That is, the selection occurs according to two or more types of deviation.
Darwin's theory of evolution proved that the main driving force of evolution is natural selection. Now, as a result of interspecific crossing, new types of populations are being produced. The theory was used in various branches of knowledge, including history (Karl Marx) and psychology (Sigmund Freud).
The modern theory of evolution has undergone significant changes. Unlike the original Darwinian theory, it clearly identifies the elementary structure (population) from which evolution began. The modern theory is more reasoned, it reasonably and clearly interprets the driving forces and factors, highlighting the main and non-main ones. An elementary manifestation of the process is a stable change in the genotype of populations. The main task of modern teaching is to study the mechanism of evolutionary processes, the possibility of predicting transformations.
Darwin's theory of evolution is closely related to the theory of biochemical evolution, which is that the first organic substances in the formation of the planet were hydrocarbons formed from simple compounds in the ocean. As a result of further hydrocarbon compounds with a number of chemical elements, complex organic substances were formed. These processes developed under the influence of intense solar radiation and lightning electrical discharges, which emitted the required amount of ultraviolet radiation. Organic matter accumulating in the ocean has created strong molecular bonds that are resistant to the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. After a long evolution of carbon compounds, life arose. The theory of biochemical evolution was developed by Alexei Oparin, Stanley Miller, John Haldane and others.
The future naturalist and traveler was born into a fairly wealthy family on February 12, 1809 in the city of Shrewsbury, Great Britain. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was an eminent scientist and physician, as well as a naturalist who contributed greatly to scientific ideas about evolution. His son followed in his footsteps - Robert Darwin, father of Charles - he also practiced medicine, simultaneously doing business (in modern terms) - he bought several houses in Shrewsbury and rented them out, receiving good money in addition to the basic salary of a doctor. Charles's mother, Susan Wedgwood, also came from a wealthy family - her father was an artist and before his death left her a large inheritance, on which the young family built their house and called it "Mount". Charles was born there.
When the boy was 8 years old, he was sent to a school in his hometown. In the same period - in 1817 - Susan Darwin died. The father continues to raise children alone. Little Charles had difficulty studying - he considered the school curriculum boring, especially in literature and learning foreign languages. However, from the very first days at school, young Darwin joined the natural sciences. Later, as an adult, Charles began to study chemistry in more detail. During these years, he begins to collect the first collection in his life - shells, butterflies, various stones and minerals. By that time, the father did little to educate the offspring, and the teachers, seeing the complete lack of diligence on the part of the child, left him alone and issued a certificate in due time.
After graduating from school, the question of where and for whom to enter did not stand - Charles decided not to violate traditions and become a doctor, like his father and grandfather. In 1825 he entered the University of Edinburgh at the Faculty of Medicine. His father had pleasant memories of him - after all, he was taught there by the great chemist Joseph Black, who discovered magnesium, carbon dioxide. Of course, before such a serious study, it was necessary to practice a little, to "fill your hand" - and Charles began working as an assistant to his father.
However, after studying for two years, Darwin realized that he was not at all interested in being a doctor. He found dissection of human bodies disgusting, presence during surgical operations terrified, and visits to hospital wards saddened. Moreover, attending lectures bored him. However, there was a topic that interested the young Englishman - zoology. But the father did not meet his son halfway - at his insistence, Charles was transferred to the University of Cambridge at the Faculty of Arts.
In early 1828, shortly before his twentieth birthday, Charles Darwin entered Cambridge. After three years, he received a bachelor's degree with grades. He spent most of his time hunting, dining, drinking and playing cards, all of which he enjoyed from the bottom of his heart. During his stay at Cambridge, Darwin continued to pursue his scientific interests, in particular botany and zoology: his greatest interest was in collecting various types of beetles.
As you know, the right acquaintances play a huge role in a person’s career. The same thing happened with Darwin. At Cambridge he met and became friends with Professor John Henslow, who introduced the young naturalist to his fellow naturalists and friends. In 1831 he completed his studies. Henslow understood that Darwin needed to put his knowledge into practice. It was during this period that the ship "Beagle" set off from Plymouth on a round-the-world voyage (with a stop in South America). Henslow recommended young Charles to the captain. The father was sharply opposed, but nevertheless, after much persuasion, he let his son go. So Charles Darwin set off. During the 6 years that the ship traveled the seas and oceans, Charles studied animals and plants, collected a large collection of specimens, including marine invertebrates.
driving forces of evolution. Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to H. Darwin
In Darwin's evolutionary theory, the prerequisite for evolution is hereditary variability, and the driving forces of evolution are the struggle for existence and natural selection. When creating an evolutionary theory, Ch. Darwin repeatedly refers to the results of breeding practice. He tries to find out the origin of breeds of domestic animals and varieties of plants, to uncover the causes of the diversity of breeds and varieties, and to reveal the methods by which they were obtained. Darwin proceeded from the fact that cultivated plants and domestic animals are similar in a number of ways to certain wild species, and this cannot be explained from the standpoint of the theory of creation. This led to the hypothesis that cultural forms originated from wild species. On the other hand, plants introduced into culture and tamed animals did not remain unchanged: a person not only chose the species of interest to him from the wild flora and fauna, but also significantly changed them in the right direction, while creating a large number of plant varieties and breeds from a few wild species. animals. Darwin showed that the basis of the diversity of varieties and breeds is variability - the process of the emergence of differences in descendants compared to ancestors, which determine the diversity of individuals within a variety, breed. Darwin believes that the causes of variability are the impact on organisms of environmental factors (direct and indirect, through the "reproductive system"), as well as the nature of the organisms themselves (since each of them reacts specifically to the impact of the external environment). Having determined for himself the attitude to the question of the causes of variability, Darwin analyzes the forms of variability and singles out three among them: definite, indefinite and correlative.
Did Darwin believe in God.
50 Nobel laureates and other great scientists - believed in God.
In 1873 Darwin said: “It is extremely difficult to imagine that this immense and
the wonderful universe, like man, arose by chance; it seems to me the most important
argument for the existence of God. (Darwin, cited in Bowden 1998, 273).
His main scientific work, On the Origin of Species (1872, 6th edition), Charles
Darwin concludes with these words:
“There is greatness in this view, according to which life with its various manifestations
The Creator originally breathed into one or a limited number of forms; and while our
the planet continues to rotate according to the immutable laws of gravity, from such a simple
began to develop and continues to develop an infinite number of the most beautiful and most
marvelous forms. (Darwin, "On the Origin of Species").
Etc.
You can check everything yourself! The creator of the theory of evolution does not reject the existence of God, but rather recognizes it!
So are other great scientists: Einstein, Newton, Galileo, etc.
What do you think about this?
=========
By the way: They mention that it is difficult to believe in the absence of God (or the Creator), looking at all these creations. This is exactly what the Bible says:
- The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all wickedness and unrighteousness of people who unrighteously suppress the truth, because everything that can be known about God is open to them, since God has revealed it to them. His invisible qualities: eternal power and divine essence are clearly visible from the creation of the world, because they are recognized through what is created, so that there is no excuse for them, (Romans 1:18-20)
Through what is created, i.e., through Creations (See also Job 12:7-8). And those who vseravno rejects its existence - there is no excuse!
PS (everything that can be known about God is open to them, because God has revealed it to them) - he is far from incomprehensible. This is one of the latest false claims about God. (See magazine: "Five False Claims About God")
It really doesn't matter if he has already renounced or has not renounced his Theory (only in the understanding of his personality and in relation to himself). Darwin did everything so that people could use his opinion to justify themselves. The theory does not provide any masses of scientists and the basics of biology (do not confuse genetic changes within a species (a rabbit into a fluffy rabbit, a hunting terrier into a Yorkshire terrier) with the transformation of a monkey into a person, no such evidence has been found, nothing like this has been created). And regarding the origin of man, everything is simple: either God created and then you can talk about Love for each other, that it’s bad to lie, to mock a person, a pussy, a dog, a fish - it’s not acceptable that it’s not good to have sex with anyone ( and not only because of syphilis and gonorrhea), everything else is morally meaningless, because. Fyodor Mikhailovich has already written: "If there is no God, everything is permitted." I see no other reason for such a greedy attraction to this issue.
Love for the world and for each other is the natural state of man. Therefore, it is contained in all religions (the initial attempts of prehistoric people to understand the world around them). The evolutionary theory does not raise doubts among people related to the scientific worldview. Man did not come from a monkey, but from a common progenitor with it. This process took millions of years.
There are no other serious explanations for the origin of man!
Reply
So much time has passed since the opening of this dispute, I already forgot about it ... Speaking of a common ancestor, one source is meant ... As far as I am aware of the discoveries, there is no single chain, and everything that we were taught at school- these are just versions, all archeology is somehow based on speculation. And if we talk about scientists: they are also different and not everyone understands the issue of Faith, genetics and history ... what can I say, doctors understand only their narrow qualifications. Theologians are also such scientists, and in none of their books can one find where a person came from and for what. Do you really consider it a reasonable and serious explanation that life originated from a grain of dead dust in the entire vast galaxy on a single planet? Excuse me how? That we have not yet observed humanoids from the collider.
"Love for the world and each other is the natural state of man" - this is once again sorry for the harshness Brad with a capital letter, nonsense of pure water, Soviet brainwashing. Love is a completely unnatural state not only of man, but of all creatures on earth , starting with small children who bite, beat each other and rejoice at being at the top of their narrow society, and only thanks to education, free will and God's participation, a person can come to an understanding of what and who is Love (Love is a sacrificial arrangement of the soul. When rejecting myself and my own benefit, I am ready to give my time, integrity, life for the good of my neighbor. How can this be natural?!). Love for the world, flowers, streams, monkeys, a sofa and meatballs is rubbish and death for the soul, there’s nothing to say about it. Everything will rot and nothing will remain, that’s the whole serious explanation.
On February 12, 1809, the famous English scientist, naturalist and traveler was born. Charles Darwin. His theory of evolution and the origin of species is studied in school biology lessons. Nevertheless, many misconceptions, inaccuracies and myths are associated with the name of Darwin, which AiF.ru talks about on the scientist's birthday.
Myth 1. Darwin came up with the theory of evolution
In fact, the first scientific theory of evolution was developed at the beginning of the 19th century Jean Baptiste Lamarck. He owns the assumption that acquired characteristics are inherited. For example, if an animal feeds on leaves from tall trees, its neck will stretch, and each successive generation will have a slightly longer neck than its ancestors. So, according to Lamarck, giraffes appeared.
Charles Darwin improved this theory and introduced the concept of "natural selection" into it. According to the theory, individuals with those features and qualities that are most conducive to survival are more likely to continue the genus.
Myth 2. Darwin claimed that man descended from a monkey
The scientist never said such a thing. Charles Darwin suggested that apes and humans may have shared an ape-like ancestor. Based on comparative anatomical and embryological studies, he was able to show that the anatomical, physiological and ontogenetic characteristics of humans and representatives of the primate order are very similar. This is how the simial (monkey) theory of anthropogenesis was born.
Myth 3. Before Darwin, scientists did not correlate humans with primates.
In fact, the similarity between humans and monkeys was noticed by scientists at the end of the 18th century. The French naturalist Bufon suggested that people are the descendants of monkeys, and the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus classified humans as primates, where we, in modern science, coexist as a species with monkeys.
Charles Darwin at the age of seven (1816), a year before his mother's untimely death. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org / Ellen Sharples
Myth 4. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, the fittest survive
This myth comes from a misunderstanding of the term "natural selection". According to Darwin, it is not the strongest who survive, but the fittest. Often the simplest organisms are the most "tenacious". This explains why strong dinosaurs died out, while single-celled organisms survived both the meteorite explosion and the ice age that followed.
Myth 5. Darwin at the end of his life renounced his theory
This is nothing more than an urban legend. 33 years after the scientist's death, in 1915, a story was published in a Baptist publication about how Darwin retracted his theory just before his death. There is no reliable evidence of this fact.
Myth 6. Darwin's theory of evolution is a Masonic conspiracy
Fans of conspiracy theories claim that Darwin and his relatives were Freemasons. Freemasons are members of a secret religious society that arose in the 18th century in Europe. Noble people became members of the Masonic lodges, they are often credited with the invisible leadership of the whole world.
Historians do not confirm the fact that Darwin or any of his relatives were members of any secret societies. The scientist, on the contrary, was in no hurry to publish his theory, which had been worked on for 20 years. In addition, many of the facts discovered by Darwin were confirmed by further researchers.
