Darwin disproved his theory before his death. USA: Darwin was ready to abandon his theory

ALL PHOTOS

The evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin does not contradict Christian doctrine, the Vatican recognized on the eve of the 200th anniversary of the birth of the great scientist. The foundations of evolutionism can be traced to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, said the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi.

Thus, rumors that Pope Benedict XVI supports the doctrine of creationism were dispelled, InoPressa reports, citing the British newspaper The Times.

Ravasi noted that Darwin's theory was never officially condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. “I argue that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian theology,” agreed Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, a professor of theology at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce in Rome.

In March, under the auspices of the Holy See, a landmark conference will be held to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Initially, the question of excluding discussion of the doctrine of creationism from the agenda was even raised. As a result, it will be considered only as a “cultural phenomenon” at one of the non-plenary meetings.

Earlier, the Anglican Church informally apologized to Darwin for the “wrong reaction” to his evolutionary theory, Nezavisimaya Gazeta recalls. On the eve of the anniversary, a new page dedicated to the scientist appeared on the official website of the Anglican Church. The head of the church's public relations department, Malcolm Brown, noted in his article that there is nothing in Darwin's theory that contradicts Christian teaching.

“He observed nature, developed a theory to explain what he saw, and began the long and painful process of gathering evidence,” Brown writes. “As a result, our understanding of the world expanded. Jesus himself encouraged people to observe and reflect on the world around them.” The church leadership noted that Brown's article reflects its position, but an official statement has not yet been made.

The book “On the Origin of Species,” which changed views on nature and the origin of man, was published in 1859. Darwin himself was well aware that the publication of his theory would cause discontent among many believers, but he was not going to remain silent: “I think there is not a person who would not like to announce the results of work that absorbed all his strength and abilities. I find no harm in my book: if it happens wrong views, they will soon be completely refuted by other scientists. I am sure that the truth can be known only by overcoming all the vicissitudes of fate."

Darwin's father: "You will be a disgrace to our entire family"

Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in the small English town of Shrewsbury. His father and grandfather were doctors. When the boy was eight years old, his mother died, and his older sister and father raised the child, says Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

Young Charles showed no aptitude for schooling and had no interest in it. At the age of eight he was sent to an elementary school. But he lagged significantly behind his sister in success, and a year later his father transferred him to a gymnasium. There, for seven years, he studied conscientiously, but without much zeal.

“You are not interested in anything but shooting, dogs and hunting cockroaches, you will become a disgrace not only to yourself, but to our entire family!” - Charles's angry father once said. Subsequently, the young man went to the University of Edinburgh to prepare for a medical career. Darwin was never able to bring himself to attend the operations, but, being fascinated by small animals and insects, he made several reports at the natural history club.

Then his father advised him to enter the theological faculty at Cambridge in order to devote himself to a spiritual career. In 1831, Charles Darwin received his bachelor's degree in theology. However, Darwin's passion for natural history allowed him to make interesting contacts. His friend, botany professor John Henslow, helped Charles get a job as a naturalist on a government scientific expedition on the Beagle.

On October 2, 1836, the 27-year-old naturalist returned from the expedition. The question of a theological career died on its own - Darwin turned out to be the owner of enormous scientific material that needed processing. His scientist friends encouraged him to do the same. Processing as a result took 20 years.

Throughout his life, Darwin suffered from an incomprehensible illness that turned him into a recluse. From the age of 16, he experienced abdominal pain in important situations; later he complained of heart pain, headache, trembling, weakness and other painful symptoms. As one of Darwin's sons wrote, "he did not know a single day of health typical of an ordinary person."

In 1837, Darwin's health began to deteriorate; in September the symptoms of the previous illness reappeared. Darwin refused the post of secretary of the Geological Society, all kinds of meetings and conversations, but nevertheless worked hard and productively. In 1839 he married Emma Wedgwood. Meanwhile, his health was deteriorating. Darwin said he felt “equally bad, sometimes a little worse, sometimes a little better.”

In addition, Darwin suffered from incredible timidity and was unable to speak in front of an audience. The scientist could not afford to communicate with friends or receive guests, as he suffered from overexcitement, and “the consequences of this were fits of severe trembling and vomiting.” Subsequently, Darwin did not leave the house without his wife.

The illness determined the entire structure of his life. A strict routine was established in the house, which all family members followed. The slightest deviation from it caused an exacerbation of the disease. The disease cut him off from the whole world. Darwin led a calm, monotonous, secluded and at the same time active life.

Contemporary physicians viewed Charles Darwin as a lifelong, undiagnosable invalid; he was supposed to have “dyspepsia in an aggravating personality,” and “catarrhal dyspepsia,” and “hidden gout,” and many considered him a hypochondriac. Modern doctors are increasingly inclined to believe that all the symptoms of his illness are neuropsychic phenomena.

Experts note that Darwin’s paternal grandfather had “quirks” that sometimes resembled insanity; the uncle committed suicide in a state of psychosis, the father suffered from a severe stutter; two aunts on my mother’s side were very eccentric, and my uncle suffered from severe depression. The scientist’s four sons suffered from manic-depressive disorders, and two daughters were characterized as “peculiar personalities.”

“He who does not Look, like a Savage, upon 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 am publishing several inaccuracies, misconceptions and unreliable information about him that I encountered on the Internet and some on television.

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 came from the Ape.” Darwin did not claim anything like this and you will not find such statements in his works.
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 justify the idea that modern apes and humans had a common ancestor, although Darwin was not the first to argue that apes and humans are related.

2 Darwin was the first to suggest 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 in the same century, Carl Linnaeus placed man in his taxonomy in the order of primates (where man, as a species, quite rightly remains to this day.

Darwin subsequently, on the basis of comparative anatomical and embryological data, substantiated the statement about the common origin of humans and modern apes from an ancient original ancestor. In the 20th century, this theory was also reliably confirmed by molecular biology data and numerous paleontological finds.

3 Darwin was the author of the first theory of evolution. It depends on 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 characteristics and the “Striving for Perfection” inherent in all living things) were not subsequently confirmed, at least in the form in which Lamarck expressed them. Darwin, in his theory, abandoned the second fundamental component of his predecessor - the “Striving 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 “Renounced His Theory.” This story is not supported by any facts. The story of “Darwin’s Abdication” and the fact that on his deathbed he allegedly believed in God first appeared many years after the scientist’s death, in 1915. This story was published in an American Baptist publication by preacher Elizabeth Hope, who, by the way, never met Darwin. Where did she get this information from? Apparently a revelation came down from above... However, neither in Darwin's autobiography, written by him shortly before his death, nor in the memoirs of his loved ones, there is any hint that the great naturalist at the end of his life experienced any doubts about his views.

5 Darwin was a believer. Every now and then, in the statements of apparently insufficiently informed individuals, similar statements emerge. However, people fall into such misconceptions not only about Darwin, but also about Einstein and Pavlov.
Here is an interesting 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 never ceased to repeat that the evolutionary chain originates from the throne of God. He clearly recognized God as the creator of the world, of all living things... he was a deeply religious man, and he himself was horrified would depend on what his theory was turned into. I have no doubt about it."
But one 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 went away like a cold on the lip, although not so quickly. Darwin rather became an agnostic.
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 unbelief, or rationalism, during the second half of my life.” (C. Darwin, memoirs of the development of my mind and character. Autobiography. “During the Voyage of the Beagle I was quite orthodox; I remember , how some officers (though they themselves were orthodox men) laughed heartily at me when, on some question of morality, I referred to the Bible as an indisputable authority. I believe that they were amused by the novelty of my argument. However, during this period, That is, from October 1836 to January 1839, I gradually came to the realization that the Old Testament with its obviously false history of the world, with its Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign of the covenant, etc., etc., etc. his attribution to God of the feelings of a vengeful tyrant is no more trustworthy than the sacred books of the Hindus or the beliefs of some savage.At that time, one question kept arising in my mind, from which I could not get rid of: if God would now send down a revelation to the Hindus, would he really allow it to be connected with faith in Vishnu, Siwa, etc., just as Christianity is connected with faith in the Old Testament? This seemed completely 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 this. 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 secret Masonic societies. Proponents of this point of view often refer to the fact that Charles Darwin's father and grandfather 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 scientist’s work, or that he himself was somehow connected with secret societies. Only if Darwin's theory had been falsified by him would this have been revealed rather quickly. There would not have been Wallace, who, independently of Darwin, came to the same conclusions about the role of natural selection in evolution. There would be no further confirmation of the theory of evolution. Although the Freemasons may have had a hand here, it is not clear why, in this case, Darwin was so slow in publishing his work (about 20 years. Probably he was waiting for an order for publication from the reptilians... oh, that is, from secret societies. In fact, there are myths and dubious information around There are more Darwins out there, so when you discover some unconfirmed information, not just about Darwin but about any other great man, it is important to question the veracity of the information and ask yourself: what is the source behind it?

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 affairs, official science is in no hurry to refute Darwin’s “theory”. To admit the inconsistency of this theory means to admit the incompetence of scientists who have relied on this theory as a dogma all their lives. But the official refutation of Darwinism depends on them. But what to do with candidate and doctoral dissertations that were based on the theory of evolution. Therefore, it is necessary to deprive many respected scientists of their academic degrees. Scientists need to have a certain courage to admit that they themselves have been in error all their lives, and teach others this.

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 the flywheel of enslavement of other peoples was not fully accelerated by moral and ethical principles, which were always based on religion. The religious commandments “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt 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 urgently necessary to change the authorities of religious scriptures to more suitable, so-called “scientific” discoveries. The job was done. Religious views have faded into the background. And the fact that man descended from an animal, and therefore the principle of natural selection “survival of the fittest”, from the animal world, can (and most importantly must!) be transferred to the human world. Is it a coincidence that after Darwin’s “discovery” and its recognition by official science, in the next hundred years such theories as fascism and other ...isms arose, which resulted in the bloodiest wars and revolutions, with the largest number of victims, from famous 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 this in the website article “The Meaning of Religion” (see in the website menu).

Life and works of Charles 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 deep knowledge of zoology, botany and geology, and a skill and taste for field research. The book of the outstanding English geologist Charles Lyell, “Principles of Geology,” played a major role in the formation of his scientific worldview. Lyell argued that the modern appearance of the Earth took shape gradually under the influence of the same natural forces that operate at the present time. Darwin was familiar with the evolutionary ideas of Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck and other early evolutionists, but he did not find them convincing.

The decisive turn in his fate was his trip around the world on the Beagle ship (1832-1837). According to Darwin himself, during this journey he was most impressed by: “1) the discovery of giant fossil animals that were covered with a shell similar to the shell of modern armadillos; 2) the fact that as we move across the continent of South America, closely related animal species 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 this kind of facts, as well as many others, could only be explained on the basis of the assumption that species were gradually changing, 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 Lamarck's idea, and rejects them, since none of them explains the facts of the amazing adaptability of animals and plants to their living conditions. What the early evolutionists thought was a given and self-explanatory seems to be the most important question for Darwin. It collects data on the variability of animals and plants in nature and under domestication. Many years later, recalling how his theory arose, Darwin would write: “I soon 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 under natural conditions." Just at that time, the ideas of the English scientist T. Malthus about increasing the number of populations in geometric progression were vigorously discussed in England. “In October 1838 I read Malthus’s book On Population,” continues Darwin, “and since, thanks to long observations of the mode of life of animals and plants, I was well prepared to appreciate the significance of the universal struggle for existence, I was immediately struck by the thought that under such conditions favorable changes should tend to persist, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this should be the formation of new species.”

Darwin's theory of evolution Basic principles. 3. The main provisions of the evolutionary teachings of Part 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, identifying the driving forces of evolution, determining the paths and patterns of the evolutionary process, etc.

The essence of evolutionary teaching lies in the following basic principles:

1. All types of living beings inhabiting the Earth were never created by anyone.

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 that constantly occurs in nature. Natural selection occurs through the complex interaction of organisms with each other and with factors of inanimate nature; Darwin called this relationship the struggle for existence.

4. The result of evolution is the adaptability of organisms to their living conditions 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 are descended from a common ancestor. She emphasizes the naturalistic origin of life with change. Complex creatures evolve from simpler ones, this takes time. Random mutations occur in the genetic code of the body; beneficial mutations are retained, helping to survive. Over time they accumulate, and the result is a different species, not just a variation of the original, but a completely new creature.

Basic principles of Darwin's theory

Darwin's theory about the origin of man is included in the general theory about the evolutionary development of living nature. Darwin believed that Homo Sapiens evolved from an inferior form of life and shared a common ancestor with the ape. The same laws that gave rise to other organisms led to its appearance. 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.
Device. Adaptation is an inherited trait that increases the likelihood of surviving and reproducing in a particular environment.
Natural selection. The environment "selects" living organisms with more suitable traits. The offspring inherits the best, and the species is improved for a specific habitat.
Speciation. Over generations, beneficial mutations gradually increase, and bad ones disappear. Over time, the accumulated changes become so great that a new species results.

Origin of species. Description

The publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 marked a dramatic change in scientific thought. Darwin worked on the book for twenty years, partly because he was well aware of the hurricane of controversy that would erupt around his hypothesis. In fact, the very first day of sales

The Origin of Species revolutionized science, philosophy, and theology.

Darwin's well-reasoned, documented arguments developed in detail the elaborate theory of natural selection, which asserted that species were not created overnight by a divine hand, but were formed from several simple forms that mutated and adapted to their environment over time.

His profound ideas remain controversial even today, making this book not only compelling, but also the most influential natural science book 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 - 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 teaching.

Darwin's theory of evolution in brief. 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 characteristics arise in the functions and structure of organisms due to variability. The latter can be definite and indefinite. Specific (directional) variability occurs when environmental conditions have the same effect on all or most individuals of a particular species. It is not fixed hereditarily in subsequent generations. Individuals may experience indeterminate (non-directional) changes that 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 arise as a result of recombination or mutation of genes survive. Selection is the main factor in evolution that 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 found in individuals who have changed in some characteristic compared to the average value. In the second form, formed adaptations are preserved under unchanged environmental conditions. In this case, individuals with an average value of traits are retained in the population. In the third form, under the influence of multidirectional changes in the environment, polymorphism occurs. That is, 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 sustainable change in the genotype of populations. The main task of modern teaching is to study the mechanism of evolutionary processes and 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 combinations of hydrocarbons 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 released the required amount of ultraviolet radiation. Organic substances accumulating in the ocean have 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, Robert Darwin, Charles's father, followed in his footsteps - he also practiced medicine, while also doing business (in modern terms) - he bought several houses in Shrewsbury and rented them out, receiving good money in addition to the doctor's basic salary. 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, with which the young family built their house and called it "The Mount". Charles was born there.

When the boy turned 8 years old, he was sent to school in his hometown. During the same period - in 1817 - Susan Darwin dies. The father continues to raise his children alone. Little Charles had difficulty learning - he found the school curriculum boring, especially in literature and the study of foreign languages. However, from the first days at school, young Darwin became familiar with natural science. Later, as he grew older, 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 raise his son, and the teachers, seeing a 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 who to enroll was not raised - Charles decided not to break traditions and become a doctor, like his father and grandfather. In 1825 he entered the University of Edinburgh to study medicine. His father had fond memories of him - after all, he was taught there by the great chemist Joseph Black, who discovered magnesium and carbon dioxide. Of course, before such serious study it was necessary to practice a little, to “get better” - 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 dissecting human bodies disgusting, being present during surgical operations horrifying, and visiting hospital wards saddening. Moreover, he became bored with attending lectures. However, there was a topic that interested the young Englishman - zoology. But the father did not meet his son halfway - at his insistence, Charles transferred to the Faculty of Arts at Cambridge University.

In early 1828, shortly before his twentieth birthday, Charles Darwin entered Cambridge. After three years, he received his bachelor's degree with grades. He spent most of his time hunting, dining, drinking and playing cards - all of which he enjoyed heartily. During his time at Cambridge, Darwin continued to pursue his scientific interests, particularly botany and zoology: he took the greatest interest in collecting various species of beetles.

As you know, the right contacts play a huge role in a person’s career. The same thing happened to Darwin. In Cambridge, he met and became friends with Professor John Henslowe, who introduced the young naturalist to his colleagues and naturalist friends. In 1831 he completed his studies. Henslowe understood that Darwin needed to put his knowledge into practice. It was during this period that the Beagle ship set off from Plymouth on a voyage around the world (with a stop in South America). Henslowe recommended young Charles to the captain. The father was strongly against it, but still, after much persuasion, he let his son go. So Charles Darwin set off on his journey. During the 6 years that the ship traveled across the seas and oceans, Charles studied animals and plants and collected a large collection of specimens, including marine invertebrates.

Driving forces of evolution. Prerequisites and driving forces of evolution according to 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, Charles Darwin repeatedly turned to the results of breeding practice. He tries to find out the origin of breeds of domestic animals and varieties of plants, to reveal the reasons for the diversity of breeds and varieties and to identify the methods by which they were obtained. Darwin proceeded from the fact that cultivated plants and domestic animals are similar in a number of characteristics to certain wild species, and this cannot be explained from the perspective of the theory of creation. This led to the hypothesis that cultivated forms originated from wild species. On the other hand, plants and domesticated animals introduced into culture did not remain unchanged: man not only chose the species of interest to him from the wild flora and fauna, but also significantly changed them in the right direction, creating a large number of plant varieties and breeds from a few wild species animals. Darwin showed that the basis for the diversity of varieties and breeds is variability - the process of the emergence of differences in descendants in comparison with ancestors, which determine the diversity of individuals within a variety or breed. Darwin believes that the causes of variability are the influence of environmental factors on organisms (direct and indirect, through the “reproductive system”), as well as the nature of the organisms themselves (since each of them specifically reacts to the influence of the external environment). Having determined his attitude to the question of the causes of variability, Darwin analyzes the forms of variability and distinguishes 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; this seems to me the main thing
argument for the existence of God." (Darwin, quoted 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 meanwhile ours
the planet continues to rotate according to the unchanging laws of gravity, from such a simple
began to develop and continues to develop an infinite number of the most beautiful and most
amazing 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 acknowledges it!
So do 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 the wickedness and unrighteousness of men who unrighteously suppress the truth, because everything that can be known about God is revealed 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, that is, through the Creation (See also Job 12:7-8). And there is no excuse for those who still reject its existence!
PS (everything that can be known about God is revealed to them because God has revealed it to them) - he is far from incomprehensible. This is one of the latest false statements about God. (See magazine: "Five False Claims About God")

The theory of evolution is studied in schools and universities, but there are still many myths and misconceptions about it. Let's look at the main ones.

Lots of fakes

Critics of the theory of evolution like to claim that evolutionists base many bogus findings as evidence. In fact, there really is a fake, one is the famous Piltdown skull, but this falsification was debunked more than half a century ago, back in 1953. Since that time, no anthropologist or paleontologist has used the Piltdown skull to substantiate anything. Evolutionists have enough other, undeniable factual material.

Evolutionists consider isolated finds as evidence

The oldest and most famous austrolopithecus is Lucy, whose skeleton was found in 1974 in the Awash River valley in Ethiopia. Lucy is still a bone of contention in disputes with evolutionists. Critics like to “show off” the fact that Lucy is the only austrolopithecus found, and therefore it is not serious to talk seriously about these representatives of hominids.
In fact, Lucy is simply one of the first and most famous finds. In addition, scientists operate with data from hundreds of excavations of Austrolopithecines of different species.

Eugene Dubois admitted that he found a giant gibbon

One of the most common myths about the theory of evolution is the story that Eugene Dubois (famous for excavating Pithecanthropus) confessed before his death that he had actually found a giant gibbon. As proof of this misconception, an article in the journal Nature from 1935 is cited on the Internet. In fact, there is no recognition of Dubois in this journal, and after Dubois’s discovery, the remains of more than 250 individuals of Pithecanthropus were found in southern Europe, Java, Asia and Africa, which had nothing to do with the mythical “giant gibbons.”

Darwin stated: "Man descended from the ape"

Aristotle drew attention to the similarities between humans and apes. In the 4th century BC. e. he wrote: “Some animals have the properties of humans and quadrupeds, such as pifikos, kebos and kinocephalos...”.

Let us explain: Pifikos, or pithekos, is a tailless monkey, kebos is a monkey, kinokephalos is a dog-headed monkey - possibly a baboon.

The idea that the ancestor of man is an ancient ape was expressed half a century before Darwin by Jean Baptiste Lamarck, the author of the first complete theory of evolution in his book “Philosophy of Zoology,” published in 1809.
Darwin was extremely correct. Therefore, I spoke about evolution using the examples of pigeons, finches, turtles, bears, bees and flowering plants.

Ancient people lived simultaneously and did not descend from one another

As an argument for this assertion, critics like to cite, for example, the fact that various finds of the remains of Homo habilis date back to between 2.3 million and 1.5 million years ago, and the species Homo ergaster, which is believed to have descended from Homo habilis, appeared 1.8 million years ago. Thus, the lifetime of these species partially overlaps.

Familiar words, aren't they?! How often do you hear such a rather strange, in my opinion, argument against the scientific picture of the world. Honestly, this argument is suitable for a discussion on religious views, personal preferences, kitchen philosophy. You can recall the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, according to which this man simply cannot make mistakes, and all his words are the absolute, undeniable truth. But science has its own rules, and any words of even the most outstanding figure are not worth a penny if there is no solid foundation of evidence behind them.

And therefore, it does not matter at all whether Charles Darwin abandoned his theory or not: it does not lose its evidential power. By the way, I note that the story of his abdication was fabricated by a certain Lady Hope, naturally very pious, and the children of Charles Darwin completely deny this fact. Well, there is no other evidence for this fairy tale.

Darwin's theory, Ohm's law, Boyle-Marriott's law, Van der Waals equation, Markov chain, etc. - all these are not opinions or speculations of respected and all-knowing men, whose words we take for granted because of respect, past merits or regalia.

Mentioning the name of a specific person is a tribute to those who were the first to understand, formulate, collect the necessary evidence and present their theory to the general public. When we talk about Darwin's theory, we mean a scientifically based view of the problem of the origin of species, and not an appeal to the authority of a specific individual. If Alfred Wallace had started his work a little earlier, perhaps we would have talked about Wallace’s theory, which does not change its essence (Wallace Alfred Russell is an English naturalist who, simultaneously and independently of Charles Darwin, came to the idea of natural selection and its role in evolution).

Accustomed to believing all-knowing and powerful authorities, creationists are trying to impose this logical trick on us. An argument to authority is a common mistake, the essence of which comes down to the fact that we consider someone’s opinion correct and not subject to doubt solely because this person has already earned our respect, for example, with his knowledge.

There are many cases in the history of science when the authoritative opinion of eminent scientists is not a sufficient basis for recognizing their ideas as correct. Linus Pauling, an outstanding chemist and crystallographer, winner of two Nobel Prizes, is a prime example of this. He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry "for his investigation of the nature of chemical bonding and its application to the determination of the structure of compounds" by proposing and demonstrating that the chains of amino acids in protein are twisted into a helix.

In the middle of the 20th century, scientists tried to understand how the structure of DNA works: so Linus Pauling wrote an article in which he argued that DNA has the form of a triple helix, but here the scientific community hesitated, hesitated, and did not agree. The only reason is that this outstanding chemist did not have the necessary evidence for his assumption.

But Watson and Crick found them: DNA, as we know, turned out to be a double helix. And again, their theory was not accepted by their colleagues out of nowhere: established knowledge, the latest discoveries on similar topics (for example, about the helical structure of proteins), the achievements of predecessors (research by Chargaff, Wilkins and Franklin), an x-ray of the DNA molecule of Rosalyn Franklin, whose data They compared the ratio of nucleotides in DNA with the results of chemical studies (Chargaff's rules) - and voila, a brilliant scientific discovery was ready. And then a model was built from balls, cardboard and wire - and not at all for beauty: it was necessary for a visual representation of the structure of DNA and the processes occurring with it (for example, replication).

We must remember that people make mistakes, even scientists, even Nobel laureates. Another thing is that people of science are always looking for proof of their words, theoretical and experimental. And then all these arguments are tested for strength in the scientific community. And there should be no secrets, top-secret technologies, unique experiments - if the discoverer has a result, then it should be possible to thoroughly study all the details of the work done, and this result should also be obtained by those who decided to repeat the experiment. If this is not possible, then something is wrong here. (Hereinafter, the text is highlighted by me, Wild_Katze, as very important information) Magicians can have secrets, science should be transparent.

For example, Miller’s experiment to recreate the conditions of the Ancient Earth was repeated many times, and as a result, it was always possible to obtain amino acids from inorganic matter, which demonstrates the possibility of abiogenesis. But the experiment conducted by a group led by Séralini, which showed that mice fed GM corn were susceptible to developing tumors, kidney and liver failure, was considered to be of poor quality. Numerous independent examinations have shown that everything in the work is wrong: the experimental design, analysis of the results and conclusions. The scientific community did not recognize the hysteria about the dangers of GMOs as justified, but unsubstantiated statements were enough for ordinary people to begin to fear the terrible food.

In our crazy world, where there are so many scientific-like but baseless ideas that people like to speculate on, you need to be able to work with information, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Opinions differ: it’s one thing to simply make an assumption based on conjectures, conjectures, and prejudices; it is another to have a well-founded, evidence-supported point of view on any issue; their importance cannot be equated. It doesn't matter who built the theory; what matters is what foundation it has.