Proof of evolution -at last-

[tas8831]

I believe in the conceptual framework of evolution as described by Darwin. Where I disagree is with the modern biology addenda, connected to randomness and chance; mutations.

Who cares about your "disagreement". Like all creationists, you offer nothing but rhetoric, and scamper off when your many bluffs are called.

 

[setarcos]

Darwin developed his theory of evolution something over 170 years ago, and published it something over 160 years ago. If you want to argue, might I suggest you argue with the theory of evolution as it stands in 2022, not as it stood in 1859?

As you probably know, theories of evolving life didn't originate with Darwin. That being said, I believe Darwin was the first to collect a substantial amount of data and present it as a uniform theory and the theory of naturally evolving life exploded in popularity with Darwin's presentations. That is all I meant.
I hadn't meant that any arguments for or against evolutionary theory that I have came across applied only to Darwin's original conceptions. I realize the theory itself has somewhat "evolved" (lol) as new evidences have been discovered which Darwin's original theory couldn't quite reconcile.

I'm not aware of any examinable evidence to support that idea.

Take any modern convenience and examine it. A car for instance. Simply because a car works to serve a purpose does not prove that the car was or was not designed. That is a separate argument. Barring the fact that our experience tells us the answer.
If you wish to stick with living organisms take the genome editing tool CRISPR. Simply because a gene works the way it was edited by CRISPR to work does not itself prove that gene was designed or that it simply works the way it naturally evolved to work. That is also a separate argument.
The designed gene works, the naturally evolved gene works. Simply because they work doesn't tell us much about how they came to work in the first place....a different argument.

What in scientific terms is your claim?

Not sure what you mean by scientific terms? You mean a rational presentation? Should I be using math? Perhaps you mean something that can be reproduced as a demonstration? A proposal for an experiment?
I guess we could present two different genomes to someone, one edited, the other not but not tell them which was edited then show them that both work to a purpose. Then we could ask them to tell us what the difference is in why they work. That is, by design or by naturally occurring happenstantial probability?
Saying a thing works in nature and saying a thing works in nature because it was naturally evolved to work in nature are two different discussions.

 

[tas8831]

You've helped me to see the light as well. Obviously Durwin could not have been wrong and more than a century and a half of Peering at fossils have upheld 18th century Look and See Science. Alas, poor Yoric, I knew him well.

Is it a comedy or is it a farce?

Not sure - could be both when you willed your broccas area into existence in your midbrain due to survival of the fittest while demonstrating that all speciation is instantaneous or maybe a couple of generations.

 

[tas8831]

The funny thing about creationists accusing evolution of being a religion is that they are admitting religion can be wrong. Since their creationism is actually a religion and actually false they are correct in that implication. They are of course wrong in saying biology is a religion.

Yup... They never seem to think their mike-dropping fantasy arguments through very well.

 

[gnostic]

As I see it here and elsewhere, there are a few problems in getting to a common understanding between evolutionists and creationists or theists or even simply intelligent design advocates.
#1 Everyone seems to be talking past each other. There's no evidence, your an idiot for believing, you don't understand science, there is evidence for, blah blah blah. Insults and innuendos with some references to sources to back up their claims which don't speak to whether or not the person doing the referencing understands the opposing arguments nor even their own.
#2 There is so much information to cover many find it hard to know where to begin, so they begin by being too broad in there discussion.u
#3 I think a lot of times people fail to come to an agreement on the definitions of the terms they are discussing. A whole argument may take place simply because what was thought to be a commonly understood terms meaning was actually being interpreted differently by both parties.
#4 Not very many people on here seemingly actually gives a wallabies butt to try and understand the oppositions reasoning or how they have come to a particular conclusion deeming it easier to simply declare them wrong. Probably from being weary of having the same discussions with the same evidence presented in the same way to no avail. Which results in #1 over and over again.
#5 People are (afraid?), too embarrassed, too prideful, too arrogant, too something to be shown to be wrong no matter what your particular world view. Its a shock to the system on so many levels to have to change it.

The above being said I would like to say that I am an advocate of intelligent design - ask me what that means. I am not totally convinced to the point of stopping thinking on the matter (I have my "dark night of the soul" moments) however that is the way I'm leaning. Ask me why.
Could we possibly actually have a discussion about evolution and the opposing views by taking baby steps. By that I mean, first making sure we agree on the terms we are using and what they mean. Second by narrowing down the field and picking a particular aspect of evolution to discuss concerning disagreeing viewpoints. Like, the fossil record, or DNA evidence, or natural selection or mutation in the genome?
.

setarcos

You want peaceful and civil “discussion” on the subjects between evolution and creationism, between science and religion, yes this forum can foster “discussion”, but you needs to be reminded that topics created here in the “Science and Religion” forum is place for “debate”. Debate forums like this one, “Evolution vs Creation”, “Religious Debates”, “Biblical Debates”, “Quranic Debates”, “Same Faith Debates”, are all forums that allow for debates, arguments, sharing different views, but all within RF rules of keeping civil, no personal attack on staff or on each other.

This thread’s OP is nothing more than @Neuropteron using sarcasms to mock anyone and everyone who agree with Evolution.

You want baby steps, agreeing on general the usages of terminology, plus to focus specifically on the subject on more narrow field.

I would be happy to do all three, but creationists and Intelligent Design adherents (ID “adherents” are creationists too), are the one who never agree with accepted scientific terms, like “scientific theory”, “evidence”, “observation”, “test”, “proof”, etc.

(Note that the last term, “proof”, is not synonymous with “evidence”, like the way creationists think. The words “proof”, related to logically modeling commonly expressed in the form of MATHEMATICAL EQUATION, equations are not “evidence”, which means “proof” isn’t “evidence”.

Creationists, both in the Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design department, refused to learn and understand this. They keep making the same mistakes, over and over again.

Stubborn ignorance is a form of dishonesty, something creationists shouldn’t be proud of.)

It is they who tried to change these terms.

In every sciences of Natural Sciences - physics, chemistry, astronomy, Earth science and life sciences (biology and biology-related fields) - all these sciences have accept and agree with each of these terms that I have listed earlier.

If you are serious about what said agreeing the terms, then know that creationists are the one who dishonestly tried to change the terms.

Second. Evolution followed and passed every essential requirements of what it mean to be “scientific” and science. I am referring to -

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

Intelligent Design failed even the first one (Falsifiability), which means ID don’t even qualify as “hypothesis”.

If Intelligent Design isn’t falsifiable, then it cannot be even tested, so it failed the Scientific Method requirement.

Scientific Method have lots of steps and requirements, but it be summarized into two essential steps:

1. Formulate a falsifiable hypothesis (which include explanatory modeling, predictive modeling and instructions on how one would test, eg where to find evidence or the methodology of performing scientific experiments, ideally you would do both).
2. Test the hypothesis, observations of evidence, obtain information (data, eg properties of the physical phenomena, measurement, etc), analyze the evidence and data, before reaching conclusion.

Intelligent Design failed to do all that.

Even the biochemist Michael Behe, a senior member of Discovery Institute, have admitted that Intelligent Design, have never been tested - no original experiments and data. No works of ID have ever been peer-reviewed, another admission by Behe.

Hence, zero evidence and no peer review, means that not only Intelligent Design failed to be falsifiable and be tested, it is nothing more than a pseudoscience concept; it is failed concept.

 

[F1fan]

Confusing? It doesn't take a genius to deduce that evolution is an attempt at describing the evolution AND origins of life.

False, evolution only describes and explains how existing life changes over time due to the pressures of the environment.

The theory of evolution necessarily includes theorizing about the origins of life.

False, it only focuses on how existing life changes.

I don't know how terribly a lot of creationists have presented the theory of intelligent design but as it involves theories on the origin of life, creationists are merely theorizing the origin of life residing in intelligent design not purely natural phenomena.

Intelligent design isn't a theory. It's not even a hypothesis since a hypothesis needs to be ONLY explained by facts and data, and proposes a way to test what it predicts. ID is a religious belief, not science.

Evolutionists HAVE presented theoretical processes on how life may have developed from "non-living" materials and they HAVE attempted experiments to show the potential process in an attempt to validate a natural evolutionary from non-living matter to living matter and on.

If by "evolutionists" you mean experts in biology, then yes, they have understood for many decades how inorganic molecules can convert to being organic in nature. Organic molecules are the building blocks of life, not life themselves. These molecules can combine in nature and become what is described as living things.

To date none have been demonstrably tenable to my knowledge.

The Urey-Miller experiment is one that has worked. There is ongoing work to create a successful test of more complex molecules. Let's note that abiogenesis is plausible and consistent with how nature works. The magic and divine necessary for ID and creationism isn't known to exist in any way, and not consistent with what we observe of the universe. So abiogenesis is the only plausible explanation.

Creationists might say that the "God hypothesis" predicts that we will never be able to come up with a natural, undirected process that can create life from non-life and so far their predictions have come true.

For their prediction to come true we need to wait until the end of forever, because if creationist are saying we will never know, then we need to wait until scientists have exhausted all approaches. My guess is is creationists are afraid of this work as it closes yet another gap for their God to be shoe horned into.

However comments on the failure of such attempts at validation should not be construed with proofs of intelligent design but data used as evidence that life MAY have been designed.

Of course they need to distinguish design from order. We see energy/matter in the universe behave according to the laws of physics and the result is order. So when animals evolve over time this is how the material behaves according to the laws of nature, and this is called order, and not some design from a divine source. If there is design in the universe, and especially a design where humans are special, I'd like to know what is intelligent about children with birth defects and fatal genetic diseases. Let's have ID and creation proponents explain that.

As far as concerns this creationists would say, look, to date it has been demonstrated that how evolutionists thought life may have started is not tenable and evolutionists have yet to come up with a tenable alternative to what's been proposed so at some point we have to lean towards believing that all crows are black. On the other hand evolutionists might say that simply because we haven't discovered a white crow yet does not indicate that their not out there. Probability. At what point does either give up and say...its more probable than not?

Scientists work with facts and data, not guessing about possibilities. If there are no white crows then white crows are not a fact or data point that is relevant. Can a white crow evolve with some fluke of nature? Well biologists could surely answer that with what they know about crow DNA.

I personally would like to know if the theory that exploded with Darwin correctly presents the processes by which we came about and are governed by. So far from what I've studied I think there are serious flaws that have yet to be reconciled. Even if your a naturalist. Some don't believe in evolution as Darwin theorized.

Why do you think there are serious flaws? I'm curious what sources you are reading. You get basic science language wrong, and you seem to have sympathy for ID, so I'm suspicious you've read poor quality creationist things that distort your attitude towards valid and reputable science. And let's note that what Darwin observed and thought about is vastly different than the high precision of science today. It's come a long way, but creationists like to pick on Darwin as if his views are sacred texts. They aren't.

Why don't you tell us what sources you use.

I know, it gets frustrating. So many on here talk at each other instead of to each other. But evolutionists need to realize as well that having natural processes work the way they work does not mean that an intelligence is not behind the processes which made them able to work in the first place. To simply say that something works because it works does not disprove that it works because it was designed to work that way.

What intelligent force are you referring to? Show us facts that any intelligence exists outside of human imagination. Why is this belief relevant at all? People who understand science know that it can't assume religious beliefs. When you say "evolutionists" you seem to be referring to those who are educated on the science even if they are religious themselves. These religious folks can't intellectually justify overlaying religious belief over science, which is an objective and factual process.

It may be better to attempt to focus on whether a person has a valid argument concerning the theory rather than disregarding the argument simply because it was presented as an attempt at proving something that goes beyond the arguments ability to prove or disprove.

Science deals with facts, period. There is no negotiation to include cultural beliefs and elements, including religion. If there is factual evidence of natural intelligence, then it has NOT been presented yet. The arguments that assume intelligence is we ever see presented, and these are weak at best, and certainly not facts. Science does not owe theists anything. If theists can't explain how their beliefs are based on facts, that is their problem.

Remove the labels and focus on the argument itself. No evolutionists, no creationists, no Atheists or theists, just a discussion of the theories presented.

And that is what science does. Many biologists who work in science are theists. The few creationists that are known in science find their futures in science compromised. Look at what happened with Michael Behe. His career was ruined.

Oh heck, I just realized how impossibly naïve that is. Dang nabbit.

I think what you mean is that science won't allow religious ideas to influence results.

 

[F1fan]

setarcos

You want peaceful and civil “discussion” on the subjects between evolution and creationism, between science and religion, yes this forum can foster “discussion”, but you needs to be reminded that topics created here in the “Science and Religion” forum is place for “debate”. Debate forums like this one, “Evolution vs Creation”, “Religious Debates”, “Biblical Debates”, “Quranic Debates”, “Same Faith Debates”, are all forums that allow for debates, arguments, sharing different views, but all within RF rules of keeping civil, no personal attack on staff or on each other.

This thread’s OP is nothing more than @Neuropteron using sarcasms to mock anyone and everyone who agree with Evolution.

You want baby steps, agreeing on general the usages of terminology, plus to focus specifically on the subject on more narrow field.

I would be happy to do all three, but creationists and Intelligent Design adherents (ID “adherents” are creationists too), are the one who never agree with accepted scientific terms, like “scientific theory”, “evidence”, “observation”, “test”, “proof”, etc.

(Note that the last term, “proof”, is not synonymous with “evidence”, like the way creationists think. The words “proof”, related to logically modeling commonly expressed in the form of MATHEMATICAL EQUATION, equations are not “evidence”, which means “proof” isn’t “evidence”.

Creationists, both in the Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design department, refused to learn and understand this. They keep making the same mistakes, over and over again.

Stubborn ignorance is a form of dishonesty, something creationists shouldn’t be proud of.)

It is they who tried to change these terms.

In every sciences of Natural Sciences - physics, chemistry, astronomy, Earth science and life sciences (biology and biology-related fields) - all these sciences have accept and agree with each of these terms that I have listed earlier.

If you are serious about what said agreeing the terms, then know that creationists are the one who dishonestly tried to change the terms.

Second. Evolution followed and passed every essential requirements of what it mean to be “scientific” and science. I am referring to -

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

Intelligent Design failed even the first one (Falsifiability), which means ID don’t even qualify as “hypothesis”.

If Intelligent Design isn’t falsifiable, then it cannot be even tested, so it failed the Scientific Method requirement.

Scientific Method have lots of steps and requirements, but it be summarized into two essential steps:

1. Formulate a falsifiable hypothesis (which include explanatory modeling, predictive modeling and instructions on how one would test, eg where to find evidence or the methodology of performing scientific experiments, ideally you would do both).
2. Test the hypothesis, observations of evidence, obtain information (data, eg properties of the physical phenomena, measurement, etc), analyze the evidence and data, before reaching conclusion.

Intelligent Design failed to do all that.

Even the biochemist Michael Behe, a senior member of Discovery Institute, have admitted that Intelligent Design, have never been tested - no original experiments and data. No works of ID have ever been peer-reviewed, another admission by Behe.

Hence, zero evidence and no peer review, means that not only Intelligent Design failed to be falsifiable and be tested, it is nothing more than a pseudoscience concept; it is failed concept.

And the basic truth about online debates between science and creationism is one side wins by citing science, and they correct the errors made by creationists. Creationists only win in the science lab with experts in science confirming their ideas are valid. This doesn't happen. So the issue isn't debatable. It's about the educated correcting those who think creationism is true/evolution is false.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I think what you mean is that science won't allow religious ideas to influence results.

That's not true, the ideas just need to be a publicly published thesis in an acknowledged scientific journal. It needs to have a level of falsifiability and testability to be examined by academia's peer review system.

Which isn't unheard of for a theist minded person to achieve, albeit uncommon.

 

[ElishaElijah]

When I look at Scripture that God the Creator is Eternal, He has life in Himself, that He spoke what we see and experience into existence, yet formed mankind from the dirt, breathed life into us, this all makes sense to me. Not only that but I know Him, when I pray He answers, He delivered me and keeps His promises.
On the other hand there are those in the abiogenesis camp who say there were materials that obviously made themselves and from those materials a chemical reaction or some kind of reaction took place and out of these dead lifeless things life happened and then we had evolution from this to get this complex life we have now. This view makes no sense to me at all. This scenario is impossible.
The Scripture says this: It’s about the resurrection, something important about the flesh of animals and humans is mentioned, why is the flesh of animals, reptiles, human beings different? This is not from the work of evolution but The Creator.
“But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come?” You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow — you are not sowing the body that will be, but only a seed, perhaps of wheat or another grain. But God gives it a body as he wants, and to each of the seeds its own body. Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones. There is a splendor of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; in fact, one star differs from another star in splendor. So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:35-44‬ ‭CSB‬‬

 

[F1fan]

That's not true, the ideas just need to be a publicly published thesis in an acknowledged scientific journal. It needs to have a level of falsifiability and testability to be examined by academia's peer review system.

Which isn't unheard of for a theist minded person to achieve, albeit uncommon.

Give us some examples.

 

[F1fan]

When I look at Scripture that God the Creator is Eternal, He has life in Himself, that He spoke what we see and experience into existence, yet formed mankind from the dirt, breathed life into us, this all makes sense to me. Not only that but I know Him, when I pray He answers, He delivered me and keeps His promises.
On the other hand there are those in the abiogenesis camp who say there were materials that obviously made themselves and from those materials a chemical reaction or some kind of reaction took place and out of these dead lifeless things life happened and then we had evolution from this to get this complex life we have now. This view makes no sense to me at all. This scenario is impossible.
The Scripture says this: It’s about the resurrection, something important about the flesh of animals and humans is mentioned, why is the flesh of animals, reptiles, human beings different? This is not from the work of evolution but The Creator.
“But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come?” You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow — you are not sowing the body that will be, but only a seed, perhaps of wheat or another grain. But God gives it a body as he wants, and to each of the seeds its own body. Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones. There is a splendor of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; in fact, one star differs from another star in splendor. So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:35-44‬ ‭CSB‬‬

Completely irrelevant.

 

[setarcos]

It isn't a study or theory of the origins of life. That is abiogenesis.

Strictly speaking you are correct. Consider this from evolution-outreach...

[ Biological evolution and abiogenesis are distinct branches of science, although they are closely related in the context of a holistic evolutionary conceptual framework
.Mar 11, 2010 ]
Note the latter part of that sentence.
However to put it into perspective for you...all the natural evolutionists I have came across include abiogenesis in the broader theory. Why?

Consider this definition from the oxford languages dictionary...

[ the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. ]

"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

and this from biologyonline.com

[ The modern hypothesis of abiogenesis holds that the primitive life on Earth originated from lifeless matter and it took millions of years to transpire. This theory is the widely-accepted premise on the origin of life.Feb 27, 2021 ]

[ The terms abiogenesis and biogenesis were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley 1825–1895. He proposed that the term abiogenesis be used to refer to the process of spontaneous generation whereas the term biogenesis, to the process where life arises from similar life.Feb 27, 2021 ]

Huxley was a proponent of Darwin's natural evolution.

Why consider abiogenesis a part of the broader context of evolutionary theory? Because the natural evolution we are discussing concerns life arising from earlier life all the way down and is a bid for getting rid of intelligent design. Now at some point we must conclude, going backward in time that life arose from what we might reasonably conclude is non-life. So what did this first life evolve from and how? That is a question that concerns all natural evolutionists. Do natural evolutionists simply say nothing? Or it didn't evolve? Is that how they conclude the theory?
Not if they wish to be rid of intelligent design.

The evolution of life is not dependent on a specific origin of life.

Specifically, no it isn’t. The evolution of life after life has somehow become existent and the creation of life before its existence involve different arguments about different processes. However as pointed out above the two are intimately connected in the naturalists bid to get rid of intelligent design.

If it is shown to be by intelligent design/divine creation or natural abiogenesis, evolution would still apply.

Generally speaking the theory of evolution IS about how life first arose and then evolved. Abiogenesis is as much a part of natural evolutionist theory as natural selection is.

Why? Because if life was intelligently created with a purpose of propagating then anything after that creation would not be natural. And no natural evolutionist would like that. And then of course one would also simply be pushing the question further down the line by asking where the intelligence that existed which created life came from itself?
No abiogenesis, no natural evolution.

Evolutionary theory presumes as axiomatic that life arose from non-life in an undirected process.

I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find a proponent of abiogenesis that wasn’t a natural evolutionist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It really doesn't matter. The only links claimed by scientists who believe in the theory are those fossils or...lookalikes that have no definite biologic connection, such as proof of evolving genes. And as much as believers in the theory protest to my wording, no proof of genes morphing into a form that overtakes or changes from the form before.

Everything you just said is flat out wrong and you know it, having been corrected on it umpteen times by now.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Give us some examples.

List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

 

[tas8831]

I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find a proponent of abiogenesis that wasn’t a natural evolutionist.

Great. Still doesn't mean that abiogenesis is 'part of' the ToE. I have seen a creationist argue that even cosmology 'is really' part of evolution, because he had read an essay in which one person wrote that (paraphrasing here) all of nature is evolving, and he specifically mentioned stellar evolution. Therefore, obviously, cosmology is part of 'Darwin's ToE'.

Except that it isn't. Just as abiogenesis is not part of it.

I am also sure that you would be hard pressed to find a proponent of germ theory that wasn’t a natural evolutionist.

I am also sure that you would be hard pressed to find a proponent of cell theory that wasn’t a natural evolutionist.

 

[tas8831]

List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

Were they awarded the Nobel Prize for researching creationism?

 

[setarcos]

Origin of life is a different discipline and not part of evolutionary biology.

Different discipline but equally important to evolutionary biology in my opinion. I'm not only interested in why the processes of evolutionary biology work but how they arose to work that way in the first place for if the processes originated artificially that may clarify how we view the processes to begin with.
That being said and put aside...if you give me some names I might be able to acquire the textbook materials so we can start from an equally agreeable point.
I look forward to this educational journey. Thanks.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Completely irrelevant.

According to you but not to me, do you have an answer to this or just dismissive?

 

[tas8831]

r...lookalikes that have no definite biologic connection, such as proof of evolving genes.

Interesting.

Evolution of the Beta Globin Gene Cluster.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Were they awarded the Nobel Prize for researching creationism?

That was not what you argued, nor what I was correcting you over. If you meant specifically creationism, you shouldn't have shoehorned the entirety of religious thinkers into your insult.

Why would I argue that these laureates had religious ideas that were accepted by peer reviewed journals? Traditionally, most if not all aspects of a religious individual's life is based within the system of belief they prescribe to, including the scientific minded and their desire to unravel the processes of nature which they attribute to their deity/deities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Example: Darwin at first was trying to equate or bridge his idea within his famous 'On the Origin of Species' with the idea of creationism or a first cause. Of course, in the end he learned that if anything all he accomplished was diminishing the logic of believing in the miracle producing personal God of Abrahamic religions. This diminishing caused a rapid change in his beliefs to more of an agnostic. None-the-less it was religious ideas that sparked him to push the boundaries of biology, which allowed the capability of our current understanding of such processes.

How much longer would it have taken us if his idea was refuted by science as easily as science of the day was being refuted by the church? Luckily, we need not worry about that outcome. For in our Universe, we did have a theist named Darwin to push truth above idealisms. Lets not be like the church and "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Which is understating what particular churches do to children.