evolution rejected

[SunilTanna]

what if Darwin's theory of evolution was rejected by the general scientific community?

Actually it was rejected for a while.

Evolution was widely accepted even before Darwin, and there were other evolutionary theories floating around at the same time, just not by natural selection (except Wallace).

Darwin's contribution was three fold: (1) presenting a huge amount of evidence for evolution, and (2) proposing natural selection as the mechanism, (3) getting a lot of public attention on the issues.

So Darwin comes along, makes a huge impact.

But then there's a big problem, and the problem actually grows for the next few decades: The problem was for a time, they didn't really understand genetics - it was thought genetics was more like mixing buckets of paint from both parents (Darwin himself even had some weird theory of genetics), so the offspring would tend to be an average, which would act as a brake on evolution by natural selection.

So people start looking for other driving forces for evolution - like some kind of external pre-existing racial tendency that lasts over generations, or some kind of species level selection, or variants of Lamark's ideas, and so on. And natural selection is only one of several competing theories of evolution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism

You still hear echoes of these kind of rejected theories from time to time in old books, and conversation. For example, the Irish Elk (with its gigantic antlers) or dinosaurs, were thought to have evolved into some kind of racial senility which eventually caused them to become extinct -- this is untrue in fact, and contrary to the predictions of natural selection, but the idea still floats around in various books and popular thought.,

Anyway, Mendelian genetics (dominant and recessive genes all that stuff) was rediscovered in the early 20th century, but it was unclear if that was enough to overcome the bucket mixing problem.

Eventually Darwin+Mendel wins out, during the period from about 1936-1947, and that's where we get the basic modern theory of evolution, known as the "new synthesis" - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

And that's basically where we are now, evolution + natural selection. But we've also discovered other drivers to evolution than just natural selection, for example, genetic drift, gene flow from one species to another by viruses, and so on - some of these ideas would have been alien to Darwin - and there's still a lot of debate about these kind of issues.

 

[Somes J]

Offhand, I can see two possible ways for this to happen:

1) A dictatorship that surpresses any discussion of evolution for ideological or political reasons.

2) A very different fossil record that does not apparently support evolution. I could see this happening on, say, a terraformed planet where the colonists are just coming out of dark age and don't remember their origins clearly - when they dig they would find a record of an ancient barren world, then very recently in geologic time a sudden environmental shift and the seemingly spontaneous appearance of advanced life from nothing. Difficult to see how this would happen here though.

I don't think it's likely to happen without a very different context than OTL.

 

[Polish Eagle]

"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.

You're confusing 'Intelligent Design' with biblical creationism. They're related, but different ideas. Biblical creationism, as per Genesis Chapter 1, does indeed have the plants before the sun.

'Intelligent Design,' OTOH, is less literal. The idea behind it is that the most indisputable points of science (4.6 Billion Year Old Earth, the Fossil Record) are true, but the mechanism behind them is not random, but guided. The implication is that God is guiding it in a divine game of Spore, but its proponents often defend themselves by saying that it could also be aliens with a lot of time on their hands.

EDIT: And, as others have said, it is not possible for an actually science-based scientific community to reject the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It's possible to have evidence-less philosophies and religions take different courses in ATLs, but the whole point of science is to develop the best theory to explain the natural world. A parallel can be drawn to engineering--there is only one design that has maximum efficiency for a given job, and that is the best design. Likewise in science, there is only one theory that best explains the evidence. This theory can be thrown out and replaced as evidence changes, but given the evidence present on Earth, there is no way for evolution to fail to catch on--it would be like retaining geocentrism.

 

[Kvasir]

The fact Darwin writes On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural selection limits the POD substancially unless we apply a none existant butterfly which I think we all can agree is perposterous.

So let's say there is a bigger back lash from the churches and the more religous establishment of the scientific community such that the current views aren't acceptable. The question is how long could this go on for? We can't say all scientists will reject it because that is impossible outside ASB.

We can have a suppression of the data, and a powerful campaign to discredit Darwin and anyone who brought it up. We could certainly envision a timeline where Europe is as in denial as America through a more religous continent. It certainly delays Biology and in particular medicine without adequate understanding of bacterial mutation.

In the end, Biologists will accept evolution and in an authoritarian enough society would lie about it and the average person outside it would be kept in the dark and convinced it is a lie. Not a particularly nice future.

 

[Rex Mundi]

You can have the scientific community be unwilling to accept Darwin's theory of evolution for some time, maybe even decades, but for the "scientific" community in 2012 to still dismiss it would require a catastrophic POD that sets scientific knowledge back several hundred years. Or in other words, set science back to a time when "science" as such did not yet exist in a form we would recognize as anything like modern science.

So ASB, unless you can come up with a plausible scenario that involves the widescale destruction of human lives and infrastructure. And post-apocalypse, people are going to have more to worry about than the origins of various species.

Realistically, you can delay the acceptance of Darwinism for a couple decades, and our knowledge biology would be somewhat less advanced than in OTL. But it's going to come about in some way sooner or later. Darwin's natural selection wasn't the only model of evolution, it merely happened to be the most accurate among a number of piss-poor models. If Darwin dies at age 12, somebody else will come up with the idea. The general public might still struggle with that idea, maybe even more than IOTL, but the scientific community cannot without ceasing to be scientific.

 

[Citizen Admiral Theisman]

Ummmmm good luck with that. You might see it get delayed. Hell with an early enough POD you might get a delay of centuries or even a more established "Inelligen Design" philosophy. But permantly rejected?? I doubt that's possible.

 

[Bee]

It's either right or wrong, and widespread acceptance or rejection doesn't affect that.

It's not an easy theory to test, in that it takes too long for a new species to emerge that we haven't documented one yet. We have seen natural selection in action where a formerly dominant species declined and a formerly subordinate one flourished because of changes in the environment, and evolution did explain the Galapagos finches convincingly.

You can make an argument for intelligent design -- some things in nature are so perfect for their function that intuitively it doesn't seem that they could have arisen randomly -- but unfortunately rationality has been driven out of that debate by the biblical fundamentalists and those on the right who are pandering to them. I think the real problem there is bad theology and bad politics rather than bad science.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

You can make an argument for intelligent design -- some things in nature are so perfect for their function that intuitively it doesn't seem that they could have arisen randomly --

The documentary I saw said that according to those fools who propagate "Intelligent Design" the human eye is the proof that ID is right because according to them it is perfect. But they are completely wrong. The eye is far from perfect. And they say that the human body is also perfect and they are wrong again.
ID is research done wrong, because they start with a conclusion (loosely based on personal believe or a religious text) and ignore all facts that speak against it.

-- but unfortunately rationality has been driven out of that debate by the biblical fundamentalists and those on the right who are pandering to them. I think the real problem there is bad theology and bad politics rather than bad science.

The problem is that religion was always very important in the US. So things like the Butler Act and the Scopes Trial could happen.

It would have been much better if the scientist propagating evolution had been a Roman Catholic priest (like the scientist who introduced the theory of the Big Bang).

 

[kellineil]

It's not an easy theory to test, in that it takes too long for a new species to emerge that we haven't documented one yet. We have seen natural selection in action where a formerly dominant species declined and a formerly subordinate one flourished because of changes in the environment, and evolution did explain the Galapagos finches convincingly.

An example of a speciation event since the 19th Centruy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhagoletis_pomonella

As has been said, for the Theory of Evolution not to be accepted would require a radically different 19th Century without a scientific community that we would recognise as such today. At the latest you would require a mid 17th Century POD.

It would be possible to have the Theory of Evolution credited to someone other than Darwin, but that isn't what the OP had in mind

 

[Coalition]

'Intelligent Design,' OTOH, is less literal. The idea behind it is that the most indisputable points of science (4.6 Billion Year Old Earth, the Fossil Record) are true, but the mechanism behind them is not random, but guided. The implication is that God is guiding it in a divine game of Spore, but its proponents often defend themselves by saying that it could also be aliens with a lot of time on their hands.

The fun part is that if it was aliens that did it, you have to go back farther, asking what created the aliens. You eventually reach the first aliens, who were either created or evolved.

To me, Intelligent Design is just a way to slide in a creator without calling it creationism.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

To me, Intelligent Design is just a way to slide in a creator without calling it creationism.

A very cheap trick. And it does not work.
And here are some quotes made by judges in the US regarding ID and/or creationism:

We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents.

...cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.

And BTW:

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

 

[The Ubbergeek]

The fun part is that if it was aliens that did it, you have to go back farther, asking what created the aliens. You eventually reach the first aliens, who were either created or evolved.

To me, Intelligent Design is just a way to slide in a creator without calling it creationism.

It was maybe made deliberatly to keep God along without sounding religious.

Conspirationist? maybe, but...

 

[baldipaul]

Unfortunately the church I attend (pentecostal)(due to my wife ) supports creationism . My view is that creation started with the Big Bang, then natural selection takes over from there (Catholic view - but I was raised High Church Anglican (Catholicism without the Pope)).

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Unfortunately the church I attend (pentecostal)(due to my wife ) supports creationism . My view is that creation started with the Big Bang, then natural selection takes over from there (Catholic view - but I was raised High Church Anglican (Catholicism without the Pope)).

That's Theist Evolution.
BTW the Bing Bang theory was developed by a roman-catholic priest (Monsignor Georges Lemaître).

 

[King Midas]

...(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.

While I take some issue with your "Everybody who doesn't share my opinion is a fool" attitude, you are absolutely correct in the line I quoted above.

Many times I've seen the tired quote "Religion doesn't belong in the classroom!"

I disagree: Creationism and ID, Teedism, (I'm drawing a blank on the name of the official Soviet biology - not Lamarkism, but something similar) all belong in the classroom - specifically the methodology 101 class. "Here are examples of how research doesn't work."

Broader re this thread, DISPEL RELIGIOUS DISTRACTION!

The OP was a more general question: it wasn't "What if scientists paid more attention to Bible Thumpers?" It was "What if the scientific community rejected Darwin?"

Anybody who believes that politics doesn't play a part in the scientific community is (IMNSHO) either naive or delusional.

Two possibilities:

1) Suppose some highly esteemed professor takes a personal dislike to Darwin: "I disagree with Darwinism. Anyone who writes a paper espousing Darwin will receive a failing grade."

(And yes, I actually had similar conversations with my college professors - Papers with a big red ZERO available upon request )

You'll have an entire school (literally) with a "Don't talk to me about Darwin!" attitude. D "My professor said it. I believe it. That settles it." )

2) Suppose that the 18th century equivalent to Big Grant Money said: "We like this Lamarck guy. If you want that new lab, we shouldn't have to tell you how to direct your research, right?"

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

There is just one little problem. There will always be someone who will take a disregarded theory and prove that it fits reality much better than the theory the majority of scientists adhere to.

 

[Pachac]

Can we please stop with the myth that religion somehow stopped scientific discourse during that period? Galileo's imprisonment had absolutely fuckall to do with his views.

Though thinking that religion is an entity which can be referred to confidently is retarded.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Can we please stop with the myth that religion somehow stopped scientific discourse during that period? Galileo's imprisonment had absolutely fuckall to do with his views.

Though thinking that religion is an entity which can be referred to confidently is retarded.

Religious fundamentalism is the problem and religious fundamentalism will always hinder scientific research.

 

[Pachac]

Religious fundamentalism is the problem and religious fundamentalism will always hinder scientific research.

Religious fundamentalism is not only difficult to accurately define, but the group that you're like looking for appeared in the south of the United States a decade or so after Darwin, and would not have had any significant influence in the scientific community.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Religious fundamentalism is not only difficult to accurately define, but the group that you're like looking for appeared in the south of the United States a decade or so after Darwin, and would not have had any significant influence in the scientific community.

Religious fanatism is not new, ya know...