what if Darwin's theory of evolution was rejected by the general scientific community?
evolution rejected
- Thread starter backwardscompatibility
- Start date
Snake Featherston
Banned
Science doesn't work that way. Darwin's theory was superior to the already-prevalent Lamarckian theory. Even if Darwin's particular version were somehow rejected (which in real-life 99% of the man's ideas that were actually ahead of their time were any way) Lamarck's would keep on trucking until someone *else* discovers the concept of natural selection.
Not possible, because in the 19th century the scientific community had already learned that religion has no place in a scientific discussion.
This started with the Great Lisbon Earthquakewith destroyed most of the city (but kept of the old part of Lisboa with its brothels intact). This event started a development that could not be stopped.
If you really want a TL in which the scientific community favors "Intelligent Design" over Evolution than you have to use a PoD that butterflies away the quake which destroyed Lisboa on the 1st of November 1755 (and mankind's faith in God). And no James Hutton who in OTL proved that Earth has to be much older that scholars extrapolated from the Bible. And no Jean-François Champollion who in OTL managed to decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs and could prove that the Deluge never happened at the time every one believed because the list of Pharaohs started long before that time (although is discovery was published after his death).
But that would clearly be ASB.
If by right behind you mean so close behind he was pushing Darwin forward. It would be interesting if Darwin hadn't heard about what Wallace was up to and Wallace had gotten the drop on him.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Ironically one can make a case that the Big Bang favors Intelligent Design if one ignores the many problems inherent in such a claim and doesn't look too closely at the requirements of the argument. One could even use evolution for it if one were inclined to shoehorn a hippotamus's head onto a cow. But you're right that schence never happens.
Exaggeration. It was at least the beginning of the end of religion interfering with scientific research.
And nearly a century of scientific research in most scientific fields.
=> A scientific rejection of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not possible and thus completely ASB, if the PoD is after November 1st, 1755.
I think that perhaps that the science community would not be so hard pressed in school, and the school might teach another creation thing of how humans came into being. Also, I don;t think that there would be such a big divide between Christians and the Evolutionist, because they wouldn't exist
It probably wouldn't be too hard to have the Catholic Church under Pius IX come out and officially reject evolution. This is turn may have the truly ironic affect of garnering more support for evolution within the Protestant churches. If rejection of evolution is seeing as papist then it is likely that many American churches will make use of it as a way to further differentiate themselves from the Church of Rome. This would make Santorum's extreme conservative views be the present "mainstream" Catholic policy. A direct result of this may be a Catholic split between liberal Catholics in western Europe / America and traditional Catholics, but more likely is that it gives most Catholics just one more thing to ignore about their church.
Benjamin
Benjamin
The premise is pretty much impossible, as others have pointed out... All of Darwin's data that points to evolution by natural selection (not to mention the facts underpinning evolution) is observable and repeatable by other scientists. Even if Darwin's book doesn't gain notoriety, someone else will figure it out and it will eventually be accepted by the scientific community.
For evolution to be denied, you need an intellectually dishonest scientific community - i.e. one that is still firmly under the thumb of religious institutions (and even that doesn't guarantee anything, as Galileo's observation did a pretty good job of persisting despite religious opposition). One way this could take place is if religious institutions aren't on the same shaky ground they were at the same time in OTL. As Barbarossa Rotbart already pointed out, the Lisbon Earthquake did a great deal to shake religious faith, and the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs had demonstrated several fallacies in the Bible (meaning it could not be the inerrant word of a god), namely biblical events once thought to be historical such as the Flood and the Exodus. If you butterfly the earthquake and the decipherment, religious institutions might have better footing to suppress scientific advancement.
For evolution to be denied, you need an intellectually dishonest scientific community - i.e. one that is still firmly under the thumb of religious institutions (and even that doesn't guarantee anything, as Galileo's observation did a pretty good job of persisting despite religious opposition). One way this could take place is if religious institutions aren't on the same shaky ground they were at the same time in OTL. As Barbarossa Rotbart already pointed out, the Lisbon Earthquake did a great deal to shake religious faith, and the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs had demonstrated several fallacies in the Bible (meaning it could not be the inerrant word of a god), namely biblical events once thought to be historical such as the Flood and the Exodus. If you butterfly the earthquake and the decipherment, religious institutions might have better footing to suppress scientific advancement.
Snake Featherston
Banned
It's easier to butterfly hieroglyphics being deciphered than it is the other. Their decipherment IOTL IIRC was a bit of a fluke due to a chance Archaeological discovery.
"Intelligent Design" as it is preach by all those stupid fools, who still believe that tales written down after centuries of oral tradition by persons have to be the absolute truth, is utter non-sense. Any one with at least a lttle bit of intelligence will know that plants need sun light, but "Intelligent Design" place the creation of plants before the creation of the sun.
Some years ago I saw a very good documentary about "Intelligent Design" of german TV, which also stated why this is not a scientific theory and school not replace the Theory of Evolution in schools. (Well, there is a good reason to teach "Intelligent Design" in schools: it is a good example to teach how you do not research.)
Sorry, but if some one rejects Darwin (and even if it is only for an ATL) he supports those fools.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Note that the post included this phrase after the one you reference: if one ignores the many problems inherent in such a claim and doesn't look too closely at the requirements of the argument. Creationism in all its forms is conspiracy theory garbage anyhow, so attempting to argue with its proponents is as useless as convincing people that Roswell was no more a government coverup than the phantom airships that preceded UFOs were a glory days of supervillainy.
Emperor-of-New-Zealand
Kicked
You can't really prove it, it's still about what people believe (evidence to suggest is not the same as proving). Scienice is pretty much entirely based on theory and hypothesis, with evidence to back up theories and hypotheses.
That said, as others have pointed out, the 19th Century scientific community does not work that way. Nothing is rejected, everything is considered.
Alex Richards
Donor
Mendel's peas are just around the corner. Sooner or later someone's going to link that with Lamarckism and come to pretty much the same conclusions.