How have society's views about evolution changed over time?

Question

i'm talking about from the moment it was introduced to how it is percieved now.

What do you all think?

If you could provide any links to some good websites that would be great!!!!

....All answers welcome!!!!

Thanx!!!!

Answer 1

Evolution is a Lie it has been form the begging and it is now. Evolution has not changed people believe in it the same reason they first believed  in it and that is to escape from god.

Answer 2

Most people did not accept evolution when it was first proposed, just as ideas that the earth was round.

I do believe the acceptance of evolution happened quicker than acceptance of a flat round earth.

Both of my sources can tell way more than I can. I find the second one particularly interesting.

Answer 3

<<I want to know what the difference is between what people thought of evolution when it was first introduced compared to what people think about it now.>>

In contrast to the "reply" above, none of the following is a cut-and-paste.  It's being written live before the eyes of millions of spectators and without the use of a safety net.

I'm struggling to think of any way I could sensibly attempt to answer that.  It partly depends upon when it "was first introduced" means.  The history of evolutionary thinking goes back to Ancient Greece.  However, I think it safe to assume that's not the "then" you had in mind.  It also depends upon which who.

Evolutionary thinking in biology goes back about as far as serious biology does; into the eighteenth century.  One notorious English exponent was a fairly radical doctor and allround clever clogs who, at one time, nearly became poet laureate.  This was a chap called Erasmus Darwin; the grandfather of a certain Victorian naturalist named Charles.  More influential evolutionary thinkers were in France.  Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is the best known.

At that time, and through the first half of the 1800s, evolutionary thinking was predominently the preserve of political radicals.  It was championed by those who wanted to overhaul or overthrow the prevailing powers that be.  This wasn't popular with those in power.  There was also a major flaw in the proposed explanations for how evolution could work.  Nobody was able to provide a convincing explanation.  Lamarck's was the best available.  Usage could perhaps enhance the powers or shape of particular organs, where as disusage could cause a deminishment.  There's some degree of truth in this.  If, for example, you take up body building, then you can mightily effect the external appearance of your biceps, chest muscles and so on.  The problem is, however, if you then go behind the bike sheds of the gym with the champion body builder of the complimentary s*x in order to make a baby, that kid ain't going to come delivered with its muscles toned up by your efforts.  You get a standard baby.

This obvious flaw allowed more conservative researchers, such as Richard Owen during the 1840s, to jump up and down, stick their tongues out, and convincingly shout: "What a load of old cobblers'!"  The conservative powers that be-ed were jolly happy.  Evolution was tosh.

Charles Darwin, in contrast to his grandpappy, wasn't a political radical.  In the middle of the 1800s, he was a vaguely CofE with liberal leanings, and keen on free enterprise combined with good works.  He didn't want to challenge the political system, and didn't want to overthrow the social applecart.  What he did want to do was explain, convincingly, how evolutionary thinking wasn't a load of old cobblers after all, and preferably without upsetting all too much of the clergy.  (He had at least one cousin who was a country vicar, and was in touch with many more in connection with beetles, butterflies and so on.)

He took some ideas from liberal economics and philosophy; notably some of Adam Smith (free market) mixed in with Thomas Malphus (influential theorist on population dynamics, despite being largely discredited in the meantime).  This enabled him to propose a convincing mechanism, natural selection, that wasn't running against the grain of English liberalism.

Liberals tended to like it and cheer.  )Some went so far as to misappropriate elements and attempt to turn a biological theory into a political movement they termed social Darwinism.  Note, however, that Darwin wasn't a social Darwinist.)  And most conservatives could kind of live with the implications  of his theory.

I wonder if those ramblings help prompt something or other, but must dash now.  I'll leave today's attitudes to you.

Answer 4

your question kind of answered itself.

How has society's views about evolution changed over time?

Exactly! society's views  has changed over time, it evolved!

As new evidents  came to light and as knowledge has increased to that same degree so to has the insight of evolution changed in regards to society's views.

The basic theory holds true and stood the test of time and in itself has not changed much.

Ok here are some links that will help you i am sure!

This is from the first link, man you got me rolling thanks!

I am learning new things here this is an awesome site on Yahoo answers..

Here is a cut and paste of what I got for you as one of the links..The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the specific theory which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."[1] Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[2] Although the defenders of the theory of evolution contend there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, there are many who are against the theory of evolution and state there is a multitude of serious problems with the theory of evolution. For example, an article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."[3] In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support in the United States.[4] The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.[5] In January 2006, the BBC reported the following in respect to Britain:

“  Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.[6]

”  

The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[7][8] Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."[9]

The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the many flaws in the theory of evolution.[10] Even evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford, stated the following: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[11] The fossil record will be discussed in greater detail in regards to why the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is decidedly counter evidence to the evolutionary position.

The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.[12]

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[13] Prior to Charles Darwin publishing his work On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.[14] Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory.[15] The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed.[16] Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of natural selection or "survival of the fittest".

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.[17] Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors and this has been rejected.[18]

Darwin did not first propose in his book Origin of Species that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution incorporated that later in Darwin's book entitled Descent of Man.

In regards to the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is most well known regarding the beginnings of the evolutionary position, evolutionary ideas were taught by the ancient Greeks as early as the 7th century B.C.[19] The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of theistic evolution in that it states God does not guide the posited process of macroevolution.