You accept it yourself that the theory had impact on evolutionary biology. So there must be something which made science to accept that theory and consider it as one of the most important work in biological sciences. In the beginning it had to face strong opposition from the religious leaders but there is no logical grounds of the religious beliefs except the manipulation of answers according to time and need. There is no such need to rely it on but if you want to go for logic and fact based science, you would automatically believe in this theory rather than any other beliefs.

If you want to be successful in science and enjoy its novel exciting aspects, you must avoid the clash between religious beliefs and scientific theories. The evolutionary theory of Darwin is one of the most widely accepted and excellent brands existing in science although some workers have their reservations about it too. Unless you have some really sensible reasons to NOT rely on Darwin's concepts, which should definitely NOT be religious, you MUST adopt these theories and make further advances in evolutionary biology.

Dear Mr. Singh, thank you very much for answer and enlightening me. Your answer will help me lot in believing and working with the Great theory given by Darwin.

Dear Mr. Sarkar, Thank you for logical answer which will definitely force me to trust on the evolution theory rather than illogical religious dogma.

The evolutionary theory is established and new insights are still coming through present days researches. Check discussion in the link below-

https://www.researchgate.net/post/It_was_said_that_humans_evolved_from_fish_Can_any_one_explain

Also check please

Evolution: A four billion year old metabolism https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol2016139

Thank you Shamima for providing useful links. So understanding and believing on evolution theory really deliver clear and deep perception about biological sciences, whats your opinion?

The issue of belief is misplaced here I think. One can believe anything one wants to, even that the sky is red instead of blue. Science is not about belief, it is about exploration and discovery. When evolution becomes a belief it is no longer science. Its like believing in the law of gravity, the speed of light, or the age of the universe. We may accept these scientific views, but the views themselves are less important than how they were discovered. Same with evolution. As a belief who cares? Not I. As an effective mode of discovery I find the methodology of evolution works better than its competitors, so I chose evolution as my framework of discovery.

But as for Darwin's particular theory of evolution. No. I am a panbiogeographer which involves using a different evolutionary methodology to that of Darwin.

John Grehan

Dear Dr. John, Thank you so much for highly appreciated answer. Yea! although the theory has proved but still spread of confusion over the scientists dividing role on this issue and even most surprising, recently in Turkey, they scrapped the theory from the text book!!!

Denial of reality is a common human behavior that extends into all fields of thought. The ostrich in the head syndrome. In a strange way the act of suppression is also an act of recognition since something must exist in order to be suppressed. So, ironically Turkey acknowledges the existence of evolution (otherwise it would not be a threat to particular beliefs).

One classic example of denial of reality based on belief was Hitler's rejection of relativity theory and its implication for military use because it was 'Jewish science'. We are all probably quite fortunate for that lapse of reality.

Out of Curiosity, are the Turkish opponents of evolution young earth or old earth creationists? (former believe the earth is a few thousand years old and so all of physics is wrong, latter that the earth is old and so the evidence of physics about age and structure of the universe etc is OK, only that geology is wrong about fossils being fossils). I get the impression that Muslim creationists have been heavily influenced by fundamentalist Christian creationism from the US. Quite ironic.

If you are from Turkey I quite understand that you may not wish to comment on the specifics relating to current Turkish doctrine.

It has never served any purpose to see science and religion in the same epistemological sphere. Evolution exists in a inquiry field separate from religious belief. Ignoring the evolution hypothesis retards investigation and theorizing in science, so to do so can only weaken the scientific endeavor. But religious can fool us into seeking the "definite" as we like to avoid uncertainty and science is a continual quest after that which we do not know. Religion already asserts that which we know. An important book that might be read in this area is John Dewey's The Quest for Certainty.

For some scientists science takes the role of religion by giving 'meaning' to existence. Evolution in particular often takes on a religious role in this respect. Scientists can be as much about asserting what we know as religion. The history of science is full of such cases (e.g. that continents do not move). So existential differences between science and religion is not always so straightforward.

I agree, John, that the edges can be much more blurry than my distinction. But if we see "knowing" and "believing" as two aspects of our cognitive desires (needs) [mind and emotion, maybe], then keeping them apart, while it may require some effort, is helpful for both sides. Do we want "knowing" (inquiry and endless hypothesis testing) to enter a zone of "believing"? Do we want "believing" [faith] to require "knowing" [the doubting Thomas story]? Of course, it is important to discriminate in matters of just what it is a person "believes" as beliefs in many instances have consequences. If I am convinced I can't do something and then never try, my belief becomes a convenient self-fulfilling prophesy. In short, how helpful is it for SCIENCE to be the religion of a scientist? Yet as you note, so many slippery categories under the domain of epistemology. Thanks for responding!

Dear Dr. John, thank you so much again for wonderful discussion here. Hitler's rejection of relativity theory...this information is new to me. Thanks for sharing new ideas.

Honorable Emeritus Professor Gordon Pradl, thank you for philosophical answer, awakening a young mind.

Created independently by Darwin and Wallace, the theory of evolution by natural selection (= Darwinism) played a key role in the unification of biology, a historical process that lasted nearly a century (1858-1950). It should be noted that the word ‘evolution’ can express three distinct phenomena: evolution as a fact of nature; phylogenetic trees (= history of the lineages); and the process of change within populations. Some current scientific controversies involve only the last two aspects. For example, while Darwinians emphasize the importance of natural selection within populations, the non-Darwinians (many biologists, including) tend to leave this process aside. Anyway, the theory of evolution is perhaps the most influential of all scientific theories, having influenced almost every field of knowledge (not only biology or science). Yet, as has already been said by other colleagues, scientific theories (as well as hypotheses or models) should not be seen as objects of faith or worship, in which we can believe or not. We’d do better if we look to the scientific theories as if they were tools – tools that often need to be repaired or replaced.

Felipe's comment is quite good in several respects I think, but it overlooks what I consider to be the fundamental point about the nature of evolution (and one to my mind is generally overlooked by everybody) - that is evolution as a science is a methodology. Science is not belief, even if we produce theories or principles in which we believe. But these views, perspectives, beliefs etc are generated by METHOD (have to emphasize that). Even creationists fail to realize that the science of evolution is about method. Without method there is no discovery. Of course the concept of evolution as methodology does not fit in well with the ideological form of evolution as a 'fact' or some other belief system as usually taught in schools (at least in the US). In many ways creationists and evolutionists participate in a mutually reinforcing notion of competing doctrines. So ironic.

Also, when it comes to method, one of the principal methods that just about everyone overlooks is biogeography. Biogeography was the key that opened up the world of evolution for Darwin. Just see the first words of his Origin of Species. The distribution of animals and plants is the empirical result of evolution just as much as their biological form.

John Grehan

I agree with the comment of John. But I would like to add two things. Firstly, it is important to note that the conflict evolutionism vs. creationism is essentially an ideological conflict. In purely scientific terms, the relevant disputes are between different evolutionary schools – e.g. Darwinism, neutralism, punctuated equilibrium, neo-Lamarckism. Secondly, Wallace, co-author of the theory of evolution by natural selection and the author of several books about the geographical distribution of animals, is considered as one of the inventors of biogeography (along with Humboldt and his writings about the geographical distribution of plants). But biogeography is a science of patterns -- a descriptive discipline whose explanations are anchored on phenomena and processes that are typical of other disciplines, such as ecology. Thus, Darwin and Wallace were able to explain the distribution patterns based on a new point of view: the geographical distribution of different life forms (= species) is an expression of the ecology (e.g. local interactions) and history of the lineages.

Felipe,

I would suggest that disputes in evolution are more complex than just about Darwinism, neutralism, punctuated equilibrium, neo-Lamarckism. In some ways all of these can be accommodated within Darwinian theory. But what you did not mention are views on biological form that are outside all of these (e.g. orthogenetic modes such as biased gene conversion, molecular drive etc.). There are also fundamental phylogenetic disputes concerning our nearest living relative (e.g. whether the chimpanzee or orangutan), and others concerning the origin of allopatry.

While Wallacejustifiably gets a lot of attention for his biogeography he was not really in the position of being an inventor of biogeography as there is a considerable body of biogeographic work already in play from the time of Buffon in 1761 and subsequently by others such as Latreille and Candolle. What Wallace did accomplish was a codification of Darwin’s biogeography according to the theory of single centers of origin and chance dispersal.

I would also assert that this is not necessarily true that biogeography is “a descriptive discipline whose explanations are anchored on phenomena and processes that are typical of other disciplines, such as ecology”. It might be true of some practitioners but it is most definitely not of others, including myself. There are approaches to biogeography (e.g. panbiogeography) that focus on pattern analysis that is not subordinate to theories of other disciplines such as ecology.

Thank you for your comment, John.

Reflecting the multiple meaning of the word evolution (fact, phylogenies, process of change), evolutionary biology brings together different scholars, not all of them supporters of the same principles or points of view. For example, paleontologists and systematists are concerned with constructing phylogenetic models. For them, the speciation is a key phenomenon. For its turn, ecologists are trying to identify how and why evolution operates – or, more specifically, how and why natural selection operates. The speciation process has no the same importance. For ecologists, the fundamental phenomenon to be understood is how different forms of life can live in the same community. Or, using the words of G. Evelyn Hutchinson, how works the ‘ecological theather’.

I'm very late to this discussion, of course, but I come at it from the side of an Old Testament academic. The problem between science and the Bible is a false one, created by misunderstanding on both sides. In short, science does not explain "why" because "why" is a value statement; to answer such questions, the discussion must veer into some branch of philosophy, be it moral, religious, or something else. The domain of science is the domain of "how." By comparison, the domain of the Bible is the domain of "why." Why do we exist? The author(s) and (or) redactor(s) of Genesis say we exist because God made humanity, and he did so in his image. Science, in this case, states "how" humanity came into existence. Consequently, there are many Christians who whole-heartedly believe both Genesis 1 and 2, and in the theory of evolution.

So, to answer the OP, it depends on what you mean by "believe." If you are suggesting that you accept what some scientists suggest, that is, pushing evolutionary theory to answer "why," then no, you do not need to believe that. However, if you are going to work within the field, you must accept the fact that as of right now, evolution is the best answer to the question of "how."

Christian Wilder makes some good points here. The 'how' and 'why' questions often get mixed up in science, particularly in biology. When one asks 'why is grass green' one is usually not asking for an existential answer, but a 'how' in terms of a mechanistic answer such as chlorophyll predominating and reflecting more green wavelengths. Science cannot address existential questions, although many scientists, along with religions and philosophers, may engage in existential beliefs or speculations. But these are separate from science which can only be used in the investigation of the world/universe that appears to use through direct experience (including experience of artifacts that pertain to the past). Some evolutionists have claimed that evolution supports 'chance' rather than purpose, but while particular events may appear to be 'chance' in terms of experience, there is no way to know if it is chance in an existential context. Evolution, like any other science, is neutral with respect to chance or design, even though many evolutionists ironically engage in the same kinds of teleological explanations that they criticise in 'intelligent design' and other overtly teleological theories.

I would not call it Darwin's evolution theory since his work is just a fraction of how evolution is currently understood despite a get the point of assigning Darwin to it since it was the first who made the idea widely known, but it is more correct just call it evolution theory and don't rely on the initial, consequently still don't detailed, Darwin's version.