evolution rejected

[Pachac]

Religious fanatism is not new, ya know...

First of all, you misspelled it.

Secondly, yes, that's true, but rarely has it had any bearing on scientific discourse. A much more formidable challenge to any new theory in science in this era was the insatiable attitude of some more conservative scientists. Make them stronger and more structured, as well as more respected, and you can have them rejecting theories and discrediting scientist up the wazoo.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

First of all, you misspelled it.

Secondly, yes, that's true, but rarely has it had any bearing on scientific discourse. A much more formidable challenge to any new theory in science in this era was the insatiable attitude of some more conservative scientists. Make them stronger and more structured, as well as more respected, and you can have them rejecting theories and discrediting scientist up the wazoo.

Francophone here.

It have indirect threats of course.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Secondly, yes, that's true, but rarely has it had any bearing on scientific discourse. A much more formidable challenge to any new theory in science in this era was the insatiable attitude of some more conservative scientists. Make them stronger and more structured, as well as more respected, and you can have them rejecting theories and discrediting scientist up the wazoo.

But even that cannot stop new scientific ideas. They can only hinder this for some decades but sooner or later those rejected theories will resurface especially if they had been correct.

 

[Pachac]

But even that cannot stop new scientific ideas. They can only hinder this for some decades but sooner or later those rejected theories will resurface especially if they had been correct.

Do you really think a theocracy can, then?

 

[Chirios]

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

It wouldn't be.

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.

We've seen numerous examples of speciation both in and out of the lab. It only takes too long for a new species to emerge when we're talking about things with long gestation times. Bacterium on the other hand can speciate fairly quickly.

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."

Which would last as long as people weren't able to provide evidence for it, basically until Mendels study is found and checked.

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?"

True. But the problem is that wouldn't work everywhere, only in one country.

 

[Plumber]

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

Wallace's might be rejected for a few years.

Darwin however is more significant because he had a shitload of evidence that everyone sat up and paid attention.

 

[willbell]

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.

Actually if Mendel came out, Lamarckism would be dead because it is epigenetics. So creationism would make a resurgence until some figure that would probably originally have as much clout as Vincent Van Gogh had during his lifetime (like the original theorist of endosymbiosis before Lynn Margulis), and would probably only gain OTL levels of acceptance 70 years in our future.

 

[King Midas]

I would ask the OP to say whether he means rejected for all time or accepted some years or decades later.

But even that cannot stop new scientific ideas. They can only hinder this for some decades but sooner or later those rejected theories will resurface especially if they had been correct.

Of course. The truth will out. But it will only be after - in my example - the original Anti-Darwin kicks off, and his acolytes retire.

To give an example popular here at AH: For decades it was taught that the South had good and cogent reasons for rebellion, and that there wasn't really much of a moral difference between the two sides. In the last twenty years or so, people have said "Oh really? Wanna back that up?"

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Do you really think a theocracy can, then?

Never, because many Theocracies are interested in scientific research.
BTW the Roman-Catholic Church did not have a problem with Darwin's theory. Their only problem was that some scientists said that the human soul was not created by God in the beginning of time (or that there is not such a thing like a soul).

 

[Falecius]

I can imagine that in world where something Nazi-like establishes totalitarian world-power, actual Darwinism would be suppressed to favor different views of evolution (Mendelian genetics would be nemesis for Nazi racial conceptions). Even worse, a world where Stalinist Communism triumphs, can see Lysekism officially imposed as orthodoxy, with persecution against Darwinists.

 

[Sven]

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. ("My professor said it. I believe it. That settles it.")

It's true that science is heavily influenced by politics; and it was even more true in the 19th century, when science was little more than an intellectual pastime for gentlemen with surplus time on their hands. But, nobody in the scientific community is so highly esteemed that they can singlehandedly prevent or reverse a scientific consensus from forming around a strong theory. Reputations are actually very tenuous: nobody has universal appeal, and nobody can reach far enough to manipulate the entire scientific community.

At the very best, a prominent detractor would be able to force a vitriolic debate where there would otherwise have been a consensus, and be able to suppress his rivals within a certain circle of societies and journals, but his influence on the topic would evaporate immediately upon his death, if it survived the inevitable plummet in his reputation once he was demonstrated to have the inferior position in the debate.

And, this sort of thing did happen in OTL: Richard Owen, for example, was just such a heavy-handed "big man" in scientific circles, and he destroyed the careers of his less-influential rivals while pushing his own ideas on the scientific community. He even vehemently opposed Darwin's ideas of natural selection, and garnered a fairly strong following for it. But, this did literally nothing to keep his ideas on top, even during his own lifetime. In fact, despite being one the biggest names in biology circles of his time, his only enduring contribution to science was the word "dinosaur," which he invented.

Furthermore, the people who take the attitude of "my professor said it, therefore, I believe it" are generally just taking the class for a grade: their motivations and reasoning skills usually end up having no impact at all on the progress of science.

 

[Superwes]

Gosh, reading through this thread makes me feel like a Christian on a hardcore athiest forum.

 

[zoomar]

OK, the original post did not mention religion, so I don't see why this thread has veered into a typical "only cretins and religious fundamentalists don't accept evolution" discussion.

I agree with most others that the chance that Darwinian evolution (natural selection) would be rejected by the scientific community is so far fetched as to be nearly impossible. As modified by Gould and others, Dawinism remains the best explanation for the variety of life on the planet.

However, there are instances of currently widely accepted models being roundly pooh-poohed by the scientific establishment when first proposed, continental drift being a classic example. One reason Wegener's original theory was rejected was that there was little corroberating evidence other than the shape of some continents.

It is plausible to explore an alternate timeline in which Darwin (and Wallace) develop their theories (based almost entirely on the observation of living animals and logic) in a context in which paleontology, geology, and genetics had not progressed far enough yet to provide a wealth of independent support, both for the fact of evolution and the theory of natural selection. Absent both supporting evidence and a specific genetic mechanism to explain how selection worked, Darwinism could have had a much rougher time overcoming more static (religious and scienfific) views of earth's history.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

The great difference between Wegener and Darwin is that he could not prove his theory and he had no idea how the continental drift shoudl work. He only knew that something like this must have happened. Thirty years after his death during an expedition in Greeenland his theory got accepted because it was the only theory that explained several new discoveries. Another of his theories (frost flowers) was proven to be correct nearly ninety years after he published it. So sooner or later every correct theory will be accepted even if they seem to be too fantastic at the time.

 

[zoomar]

The great difference between Wegener and Darwin is that he could not prove his theory and he had no idea how the continental drift shoudl work. He only knew that something like this must have happened. Thirty years after his death during an expedition in Greeenland his theory got accepted because it was the only theory that explained several new discoveries. Another of his theories (frost flowers) was proven to be correct nearly ninety years after he published it. So sooner or later every correct theory will be accepted even if they seem to be too fantastic at the time.

I agree. But I believe one can posit a reasonably plausible TL in which natural selection was not as easily verified by the multimple lines of evidence provided (in our TL) by contemporaneous developments in geology, paleontology, and genetics. Dawrinism really benefitted because it was part of a mutually supportive intellectual climate in which other scholars were demonstrating the age of the earth, discovering vast amout of fossil evidence for change, speculating accurately on the existence of genes, etc. If any of these other lines of evidence were delayed or not pursued at the same time, acceptance of Darwin's theories could have been similar to Wegener's.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Not really possible because for this to happen several other things must not happen:
- the Quake of Lisbon
- the discovery that geological activities are too slow to allow a young Earth
- the deciphering of the Egyptian hieroglyphs
- the discovery of the speed of light
and many, many more

 

[Henriksson]

I agree. But I believe one can posit a reasonably plausible TL in which natural selection was not as easily verified by the multimple lines of evidence provided (in our TL) by contemporaneous developments in geology, paleontology, and genetics. Dawrinism really benefitted because it was part of a mutually supportive intellectual climate in which other scholars were demonstrating the age of the earth, discovering vast amout of fossil evidence for change, speculating accurately on the existence of genes, etc. If any of these other lines of evidence were delayed or not pursued at the same time, acceptance of Darwin's theories could have been similar to Wegener's.

I think it would be interesting to explore a timeline where Carl von Linné putting forward the theory of evolution, being the father of the taxonomical system and all. Granted, considering he took traveler stories about half-man, half-ape hybrids in Africa at face value, it might not be entirely likely. Maybe one of his disciples?

 

[Malta]

Had a guy yelling at college students on campus today that Evolution was wrong and the Bible was right. Kind of looked foolish to me.

 

[Ameise]

Science is based upon the observable and the repeatable. Assuming that evolution and natural selection, as we understand it, is correct (as all the evidence suggests), then it is trivial to surmise that it would have been come up with by someone else in the future. Anything that can be observed will be come up with. If Watson and Crick hadn't discovered the structure of DNA, someone else would have.

We just wouldn't call it Darwinian Evolution. We'd call it Smithian Evolution or somesuch.

Particularly once genetics starts to be understood, natural selection is going to be understood, outside of the purely observational, and proven as it has been today via statistical and mathematical means based upon an understanding of genetics.

The beauty of facts is that facts don't change. Whether or not it is discovered doesn't change the facts behind it; sooner or later it would be.