To elaborate, theories of evolution existed prior to Darwin - there was wide scientific acceptance of the principle that organisms evolved into new species. Prior to Darwin, the actual mechanism was uncertain. Darwin's breakthrough was natural selection, whereby organisms change by optimising to their environments. They do this either in response to change, or to exploit untapped environmental resources - think of the camel's adaptation to low rainfall/desert environments. Objectors to the theory of evolution claim that evolution is just a theory. They are correct. Objectors are wrong to suggest that, being a theory, evolution is not factual.
A theory is a statement of confidence, where a law (in science) is a numerically-provable fact, such as Newton's Law of Gravity. The absence of a mathematically-elegant formula (such as Newton's Law) does not reduce the validity and predictive usefulness of a theory.
Evolution is confidently demonstrated every day by the emergence of new antibiotic-resistant bacteria and by calici-virus-resistant rabbits. Challenging these organisms has killed off all but the few which are naturally resistant. Over time, the resistant strains become the main part of the population.
First of all, much of the entire science of Biology is soundly based on Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Our understanding of life processes owes much to the work of Charles Darwin.
Now that people can see how species evolved, they have less need for superstition and myth to explain where we came from and why we are here. Modern religions have adapted, removing elements of superstitious belief and accepting the realities of science. And some people, no longer needing to believe in a creator god, have abandoned religion all together.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
The theory of evolution has made possible the notion that life is meaningless and that living things, no matter how wonderfully complex, are the result of an implausible string of accidents. This notion may undermine our morals, ethics and conscience. Belief in evolution has led many people to jettison thousands of years of worldwide traditions such as belief in an afterlife and a higher Power. See also:
Is there evidence for Creation?
There is no proven theory of evolution only the physical evidence of what Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
how has Charles Darwin influenced people about modern views of evolution
The church opposed his views. The church said that god created everything as they are now. Darwin believed in evolution. Evolution, by the way, is the scientific theory that everything adapts to fit its environment.
A resource for students and teachers interested in Darwin and Evolution. Find out about Darwin's work, his theories and impact, and modern views of evolutionary biology.
That is a very vague question but I would say Darwin who proposed the theory of evolution which conflicted with religious views that God created humans.
Many Muslims and Orthodox Jews do not " believe " in evolution. Of course the truth does not need you belief to be true and something can be true whether you believe it or not. I should re-word this question. Is there an atheist that doesn't agree with evolution? There may be an atheist that does not agree with evolutionary theory, but what difference would that make? If there was someone out there I would like to hear his views on evolution.
Utilitarian Theory
Hey paul
The term 'Theistic Evolution' was used by Eugenie Scott to refer to the theological view that God creates through evolution. Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution could relate to religious belief and interpretation.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Undoubtedly there would be atheists and agnostics who criticise the Theory of Evolution. Atheism and agnosticism are views on the non-existence of God(s), while evolution is concerned with biology, a branch of science. So, there is no necessary correlation between a person's understanding of the supernatural and his or her understanding of science.
Go Kentucky Fried tickle YOURSELF
Konrad Cramer has written: 'Nicht-reine synthetische Urteile a priori' -- subject(s): Knowledge, Theory of, Theory of Knowledge, Transcendentalism, Views on theory of knowledge, Views on transcendentalism