Darwin's theory of natural selection has become one of the most controversial and scandalous "pages" in the history of natural science. It has never been recognized by many scientists and is denied by most people far from science. This was the case during Darwin's lifetime, and little has changed over the past century and a half.
The Lord is the engine of progress
Charles Darwin's opponents are not only serious pundits who point directly to facts that frankly do not fit into the theory of natural selection. Also opposed are those who cannot combine Darwinism with a religious idea of the origin of the world, as well as people who are sickened by the very idea of kinship with primates and, in general, with any living creature.
A survey of people not burdened by scientific knowledge in biology, conducted by the Gallup Institute, showed: 45% of respondents in America firmly believe in the divine origin of man; 37% admit evolution, but believe that it was “launched” by the Lord; and only 12% are ready to agree that man is a biological species that has arisen as a result of natural selection. In Europe, the theory of evolution is more tolerant. For example, 46% of German residents believe that God has nothing to do with the emergence of homo sapiens. 41% of Austrians and 33% of Swiss agree with the Germans.
Weapons against Christianity
The initiative in the fight against the scientific theory, according to which man descended from ape, was taken by the Americans. In 2001, a group of scientists from the Discovery Institute in Seattle turned to the world scientific community, proposing to abandon the generally accepted dogmas of the development of evolution, and began collecting signatures against Darwinism. And already more than 600 prominent specialists in the field of biology, and at the same time chemists, physicists, and mathematicians from the USA and other countries, including Russia, have signed their autographs under this appeal.
Promotional video:
This way of solving a scientific problem looks strange to say the least, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone. Why? The fact is that in the theory of evolution based on natural selection, many see a weapon directed against Christianity. This circumstance was greatly facilitated by the fathers of Marxism. Friedrich Engels, discussing the role of Darwinism in the development of natural science, in a letter to Karl Marx stated: "In this area theology has not yet been destroyed, but now it has been done." And the author of Capital himself even wanted to devote his work to Darwin. But the latter refused this dubious honor. And the sent copy of Capital - with Marx's dedication - remained standing with uncut pages in the Darwin's library.
Most people know about Darwin's ideas and about him only from school textbooks, in which both the theory of evolution and its author are presented in a very distorted form. Simplification, suppression of facts and a shift in emphasis led to the fact that Darwin was made the main atheist of planet Earth. But this is not the case! And the work of a naturalist itself can in no way be interpreted solely as "the theory of the transformation of a monkey into a man" …
Evolution of the theologian
Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in the English city of Shrewsbury in the family of a doctor. His father was rich, had a reputation as a man with the gift of reading the minds of his patients, which, against the general background of medical practice, created an extensive clientele for him. In addition to all this, he was also an atheist and a Freemason.
Darwin Jr. admired his talented and successful father and, hoping to follow in his footsteps, entered the University of Edinburgh at the Faculty of Medicine. But suddenly it turned out that Charles cannot stand the sight of blood. Repeated bouts of lightheadedness, which turned into a persistent aversion to medicine, canceled the professional continuity in the Darwin family.
And then the atheist father unexpectedly suggested that his son choose a career as a priest. Darwin transferred to the theological faculty in Cambridge, where he received a bachelor's degree in theology in 1831.
Biographers often portray the young Darwin as a frivolous man, fond of hunting, sports, horses and revelry. Probably, all this took place in his life, since the path of a clergyman did not captivate a graduate of the theological faculty. But it was unlikely that everything was so simple - otherwise Charles would never have been taken as a naturalist on the ship "Beagle".
The circumstances surrounding Darwin's invitation to this journey are rather intricate. It is difficult to say why the Cambridge teacher botanist John Gensloh chose and recommended him from his many former students for this role. In a letter to Darwin dated August 24, 1831, the professor explained his decision as follows: “I… consider you… the most suitable for this purpose. I say this not because I see you as a complete naturalist, but for the reason that you are highly specialized in collecting …”.
By referring to collecting, the professor implied Darwin's addiction to collecting bugs and butterflies. And although it was just an innocent hobby, devoid of any scientific meaning, it was it that played a decisive role in transforming the failed physician and theologian into the creator of the theory of the evolution of species.
Unscientific expedition
Many people have the deceptive impression that the Beagle's voyage around the world was devoted exclusively to biological research. However, this is not at all the case.
Having lost the North American colonies, England turned her gaze to South America. And therefore, the main goal of the expedition was to reconnoitre on the ground and make accurate maps of this continent. Of the five years of her circumnavigation of the world, the Beagle remained three and a half years - from February 28, 1832 to September 7, 1835 - off the eastern and western shores of South America! Besides "Beagle" - in the past the ship of the coast guard - was a small, but well-armed military vessel: eight cannons "adorned" the side.
The participation of a naturalist in swimming was not initially envisaged at all. But the ship's captain Robert Fitz-Roy rightly judged that the presence of a scientist on board could serve as a convenient explanation for the landing of scouts ashore. The Admiralty did not object, but did not want to take another person for state allowance. So Darwin himself paid for his travel, and along with the necessary equipment, scientific equipment, hunting weapons and expenses for overland excursions.
In other words, the British government did not want to take on any concern for the scientist, considering his presence far from obligatory. But it was this naturalist, uninteresting to Britain, who immortalized both the name of the small ship "Beagle", and the journey itself, which he set off on by a strange whim of fate.
Naturalist who did not become an atheist
Going on a journey, Darwin, who received a theological education, did not experience any doubts about the correctness of the biblical dogma about the immutability of the species of animals and plants created by God. Without setting specific tasks for himself, he simply collected information and collections, and did not rush to conclusions.
While not a specialist, Darwin was not biased. He was not dominated by scientific dogmas, he was not worried about how the scientific world would react to his work. All this became that fertile soil that gave freedom to the flight of thought. Noticing the difference between the same species of animals living in different conditions, the naturalist made the only logical conclusion: these differences appeared due to the influence of the environment!
On October 2, 1836, Darwin returned from sailing. He was 27 years old. And if once a beginner amateur naturalist stepped onto the deck of the Beagle, then five years later an already established scientist came ashore, whose works, published after the trip, blew up the world.
Strange affliction
Together with dubious fame, an incomprehensible and serious illness broke into the life of the young Darwin. Neither thorough examinations, nor consultations with the involvement of renowned doctors - nothing helped. In fact, not even a diagnosis was made, so the proposed methods of treatment did not give results. Darwin was tormented by rapid fatigue, weakness, headaches, insomnia, nightmares, fainting, agoraphobia - fear of open space. He could not afford to communicate with friends, as "the consequence was seizures of trembling and vomiting." The disease did not leave him for the next forty years of his life. However, this seriously ill man still tried to attend church services, made friends with the local bishop, took an active part in the life of his parish, and did charity work. So, in principle, there can be no talk of any Darwinian atheism.
Legends to debunk
The naturalist, who became the banner of the revolution in natural science, did not express anything particularly revolutionary in his works: he only developed the ideas of other scientists.
The very term "evolution" was proposed by Jean Baptiste de Molay, better known as Lamarck. It was he who first put forward the theory according to which evolutionary changes occur due to the adaptation of the external organs of animals and plants to environmental conditions. Darwin only developed and deepened Lamarck's thoughts.
The assertion that Darwin was the first to "related" man and ape is also not true. This was actually done by his friend and student Thomas Huxley. It was he who first declared that man descended from a monkey.
What did Darwin actually do for science and how did he attract the attention of society?
In 1859, his work "The Origin of Species" was published, where Darwin showed that species of plants and animals are not constant, but changeable, that they arose naturally, taking their origin from species that existed earlier.
In 1868, Darwin published his second major work - "Changing domestic animals and cultivated plants" (in 2 volumes). This book, in addition to information about the breeding of animals and plants useful to humans through artificial selection, includes a lot of factual evidence of the evolution of organic forms.
In 1871, Darwin's third major work on the theory of evolution, "The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection," was published, where the author considered numerous evidences of the animal origin of homo sapiens. A supplement was the book "Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals", published a year later.
Amazingly, in essence, these works did not accomplish any incredible scientific revolution. The shock caused by them, in fact, was almost not associated with science. The public was outraged by something completely different: according to Darwin, it turned out that the main driving force in nature is the struggle for existence! And this conclusion undermined the moral and Christian dogmas of society.
But, as you know, even bad advertising is still advertising. Immediately philosophizing amateurs and revolutionaries of all stripes began to wave the banners of Darwin, and atheists saw in his writings scientific support for their worldview. But since many scientists regarded Darwin's work as a serious scientific work (which they were), all this taken together and marked the beginning of the era of Darwinism, which "walked" the planet without the participation of Darwin himself.
Right to exist
Does Darwin's theory have the right to exist from a scientific point of view?
Darwinists cite very convincing facts to support the evolutionary origin of species. For example, such a phenomenon as atavism is strong evidence of evolutionary theory. Recall that atavism is the appearance in an organism of signs that were absent in its relatives and closest ancestors, but were present in distant predecessors. In humans, it can manifest itself in the overgrowth of the entire body and face with hair, in the appearance of a caudal appendage and additional mammary glands, etc. Where do these "remnants of the past" suddenly come from? It's simple. In every organism, including the human, the genes responsible for any trait are preserved, but their action is blocked by other genes that have appeared in the process of evolution. And the "unblocking" of a gene leads to the appearance of a trait that has been lost in a number of generations.
The main argument convincing opponents of Darwinism in the correctness is the absence of "missing links." According to Darwin's theory, each species must be preceded by an almost identical parent species. But since most of them died out long ago, only paleontological findings could prove the theory's correctness. However, they talk about something completely different: all species replaced each other abruptly, almost without changing in the process of existence!
In his Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: "If we can prove that even one complex organ did not arise as a result of numerous successive minor changes, then my theory will fail completely." Considering that thousands of such organs have already been found, it sounds like a sentence …
To this day, the controversy surrounding the Darwinian "struggle for existence" does not subside. Meanwhile, such a "struggle" to the detriment of all moral foundations ("the law of the jungle") exists in the wild, and, alas, in relations between people and even countries. "Man to man is a wolf", "life is a struggle" are just common phrases, but their truth is sometimes confirmed by real life.
However, mutual assistance in the animal kingdom is presented no less than the notorious struggle. And we, people, are hardly ready to agree that there is a beast in each of us, ready to tear a neighbor with teeth and claws for a place in the sun.
Darwin himself was hardly going to offend humanity with his conclusions. A true scientist exists outside politics and ethics, and becomes a part of them only after his achievements fall into the hands of interested …
The humble role of the great Darwin
If we rely on natural-scientific methods, then today it is still impossible to determine to whom to give the palm: evolutionists or creationists (creationism - the doctrine of the creation of the world by God - ed.). So far, one can only argue: what to believe and what not to believe. But from this standpoint, the evolutionists have already lost the argument. The Bible is believed by millions, and evolutionary teaching has been thoroughly discredited.
Darwin's theory was and still is hotly debated. But controversy is a normal part of scientific research. Moreover, from works created a century and a half ago, one should not expect an exact correspondence to the modern level of knowledge. Over 150 years, several dozen other theories have already appeared, one way or another related to the idea of the development of life on Earth. Some of them were frankly fantastic, others resembled Darwinian's, and still others contradicted it. However, over time, it became clear that these latter fit into the traditional ideas about evolutionary development. In short, whatever one may say, at the moment it is Darwin's theory of evolution that is the most scientific of all existing ones and at the same time does not in any way contradict the Divine principle in the origin of life on Earth.
Of course, one cannot do without a serious correction of the theory of evolution, since its complex processes are not limited to natural selection.
In the meantime, the trial and the case, we have no choice but to agree with Charles Darwin himself, who at the end of his life admitted: "The mystery of the beginning of all beginnings is insoluble for us, and I, for my part, must confine myself to the humble role of an agnostic (ignorant)." …
By the way:
In the mid-1990s, the so-called Darwin Prize was created. Her task was to search for persons who "by their death or loss of the opportunity to have offspring improve the gene pool of mankind, confirming the theory of Charles Darwin." It is possible to become the winner of this competition not in the event of some accidental or comical death, but in death due to the stunning stupidity and absurdity of actions (mentally ill people and minors are not taken into account in this case). One of the winners of the 2008 Darwin Prize was 18-year-old Charles Keggin. His life ended on 24 August last year, when he, standing in the pool, decided out of curiosity to dig into the dashboard with a bunch of colorful wires that powered the Jacuzzi.
Physicist, psychologist Irina Tsareva