[RobbyS]

Part of the problem is the clinging to natural selection eve if it does not in fact provide an adequate interpretation of the evidence. What Darwin and his contemporaries did was the persuade us that the ancient idea of a chain of being had to be modified by the notion of common descent, that higher forms did somehow emerge from earlier forms. Maybe we still don't know the how. Could it not be that Darwin doesn't serve much better than Lamarck? Why not wait for a better theory. Somewhere out there they may be someone with a new insight.

In any case, they also polled people on religious and/philosophical opinions that have no necessary connection with the evidence. No wonder people are confused.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Could it not be that Darwin doesn't serve much better than Lamarck?"

No, because Lamarck didn't accept universal common descent, and the evidence says that it is correct.

[js1138]

Could it not be that Darwin doesn't serve much better than Lamarck?

Lamarckian evolution is scientific in the sense that it suggests specific research and testing. Unfortunately for the Lamarckian hypothesis, every time it has been tested, it has been falsified.

[Physicist]

What Darwin and his contemporaries did was the persuade us that the ancient idea of a chain of being had to be modified by the notion of common descent, that higher forms did somehow emerge from earlier forms. Maybe we still don't know the how.

Common descent didn't originate with Darwin. Darwin was all about the "how": variation plus natural (or sexual) selection.

Could it not be that Darwin doesn't serve much better than Lamarck?

No, it couldn't, because we can test this in the lab. Even the most strident creationists accept that what they call "microevolution" occurs, and that Darwinism explains the changes we see better than Lamarckism.

[Coyoteman]

Could it not be that Darwin doesn't serve much better than Lamarck? Why not wait for a better theory. Somewhere out there they may be someone with a new insight.

Why not wait for a better theory, you ask?

Well, just how do we get from here to that better theory? Do we just sit on our hands and wait for it to be revealed to us, or do we go out and bust our buns doing research?

Science would pick the latter approach.

Heinlein said it well:

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].