• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why did evolutionary theory not become mainstream until Darwin?

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin. Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place. Of course, we could not confirm evolution with the degree of certainty that we have today until we could actually examine DNA but nevertheless, overall, it is a fairly simple concept and quite evident that life forms are a product of evolution. I realize that there were some evolutionists pre-Darwin, but they were few and far between. It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?
Basically, until Darwin, there was never really a sufficient explanation for the mechanism of change. The notion of survival of the fittest seems almost intuitive to us now, but try imagining living in a world where that thought had yet to occur to anyone - much the same way that the force of gravity never occurred to anyone prior to Newton. It's genuinely difficult to imagine intuiting that notion in a world where it was just taken as a given that organisms fit their environment because they were "designed" that way (or the organism arose specifically "out of" that environment, ala spontaneous generation). It simply never occurred to anyone to look at it the other way around and see life developing to fit the pressures of the environment, with nature being the selector.
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin.
I think you’re looking at this from too much of a modern perspective. I don’t believe evolution is obvious and we have only come to know it because we’ve been taught and have access to massive amounts of long-developed information about it. In Darwin’s time, the “mainstream science” you mention was still just a handful of men in a couple of European capitals. The vast, vast majority of people neither knew nor cared about anything to do with evolution and I doubt many people came to any kind of conclusion about it just based on their own observations (which for most would be limited to the area they were born in).

It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?
Maths is much easier to pin down than biology (metaphorically and literally :) ). The principles and application of calculus exist literally everywhere, which is why people in various parts of the world at various early periods in human history, could reach useful conclusions about it. The eureka moments for evolution required long and difficult travel around the world and a combination of evidence from different species in different places. Nobody stuck in one region was likely to reach that kind of realisation, it took the development of efficient world travel for that.
 
Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place... Any ideas as to what took so long?

Clearly your reasoning is flawed, hindsight bias is a powerful cognitive force though.

It took so long because it wasn't something any reasonably intelligent human could see. World travel was difficult meaning people had a narrower perspective on flora/fauna. The conceptual frameworks that facilitate understanding only developed gradually.

The growing influence of empiricism in the sciences (ironically largely due to Christian influences on natural philosophy) along with the development of universities were only a product of the late Middle Ages/Renaissance.

Basically, it required knowledge and a way of thinking that was not widespread throughout human history. Thinking of the pre-modern mindset as being basically the same as ours is erroneous.

(besides religious bias)?

If it was so obvious to any reasonably intelligent human, religious bias would also be totally irrelevant due to the diversity of world religions.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin. Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place. Of course, we could not confirm evolution with the degree of certainty that we have today until we could actually examine DNA but nevertheless, overall, it is a fairly simple concept and quite evident that life forms are a product of evolution. I realize that there were some evolutionists pre-Darwin, but they were few and far between. It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?


Various theories each saying essentially similar things have been around since 600bc (ish). Religion has always put them down until science was advanced enough to test the theory
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Various theories each saying essentially similar things have been around since 600bc (ish). Religion has always put them down until science was advanced enough to test the theory
To be fair, it took considerable effort to obtain the proper evidence, and it is not reasonable to expect many to simply accept evolution without any such evidence.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
To be fair, it took considerable effort to obtain the proper evidence, and it is not reasonable to expect many to simply accept evolution without any such evidence.

With religion imposing it's will science as unable to advance to any degree and people simply accepted the religious line.
 

SinSaber

Member
If you knew anything, you would know that evolutionary theory was simply and adaption of an adaption of a previous theory
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Others have already said what is worth saying in this thread, I think. I'll confess I find the question to be a strange one, because I find the assumptions behind it to be equally strange.

I can remember the science education I received in my own life, for example. Biological evolution was in no way obvious to me, and is never something I would have simply guessed without being introduced to the idea by others. If I had been introduced to the idea before having the needed prior knowledge for biological evolution to make sense, I probably would have rejected it out of hand as well. It's not at all intuitive. Many of the nuances of biological evolution are very counterintuitive, actually. The number of misconceptions I see floating around about the theory is abundant evidence of that.

Learning is built upon prior knowledge. So is invention and innovation - things like new scientific theories. It's not particularly remarkable that it took a long time for biological evolution to arise as an idea. It's demanding in terms of prior knowledge, and that knowledge was absent for most of human history.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
If you look at the intellectual history of Darwin's discovery you will find that several bits of knowledge go into the making of it, and that these bits of knowledge were not all of them discovered until more or less shortly before Darwin pulled them all together, along with new knowledge, to create the Theory of Evolution. For instance, up until a few years before Darwin's discovery, it was thought the earth was very young (largely owing to the biblical story of creation). But for evolution to make sense, the earth had to be much, much older. That the earth was indeed old was not figured out until just a few decades before Darwin's discovery.

Good point about the age of the earth. It's true that evolution on a macro scale makes no sense if one pre-supposes the earth is only thousands of years old.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
I always forget his name, but I believe there was a contemporary of Darwin who was also finding similar things at the same time? He may have worked with birds or flowers. Also don't remember. Evolution is definitely scientific.

I guess it's taken this long because of scriptural literalism.
Alfred Russell Wallace
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin. Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place. Of course, we could not confirm evolution with the degree of certainty that we have today until we could actually examine DNA but nevertheless, overall, it is a fairly simple concept and quite evident that life forms are a product of evolution. I realize that there were some evolutionists pre-Darwin, but they were few and far between. It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?

Some of the reasons have already been discussed. But even something as simple as the classification of organisms was a fairly late development. Remember that Linnaeus published his work in 1735.

The relevant geology wasn't even started until the late 18th century. Hutton published his work in 1785. But uniformitarianism and catastrophism fought it out for quite a while thereafter. Cuvier did his work in 1813 and proposed many different catastrophes (of which the Noadic flood was supposed to be the last) with new creation of species after each. There was even a great debate in 1830 between Cuvier and proponents of Lamarck's ideas.

As for the calculus and physics, both are fairly simple compared to biology. And calculus was invented less than 200 years before Darwin's work (not several hundred years).

So while religious bias probably played some role, there were real scientific discoveries that needed to be made and debated before evolution could become mainstream.

Several different ideas concerning evolution *were* discussed prior to Darwin (and Wallace), but Darwin gave the mechanism for such changes in a way that could be tested. Don't forget that Lamarck did his stuff in the late 18th century. So the idea was 'in the air'.
 

Infernum

New Member
I saw an anti-evolution video the other day, and they were showing a picture of a human next to a chimpanzee. They were saying there is no way we could come from that! The irony was if you look at the two it would not be strange to think they are somehow related. I mean, its obvious. And I have seen humans that look less alike than the guy in the picture and the chimpanzee. We are not all oil paintings.

Our species is emerging from the dark of the mystic past into the light of truth, but its a gradual process.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I always forget his name, but I believe there was a contemporary of Darwin who was also finding similar things at the same time? He may have worked with birds or flowers. Also don't remember. Evolution is definitely scientific.

I guess it's taken this long because of scriptural literalism.
Alfred Russel Wallace
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Alfred Russell Wallace
So not this Wallace?

Mel%20Gibson%20as%20William%20Wallace%20in%20the%20film%20Braveheart.jpg
 
Top