Why did darwin never use the word "evolution"?
97376
He did. \nQuote from Chapter 15 - Recapitulation and Conclusion (The Origin of species, 1872 edition):\n"I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and never once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable that some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent, or expressed themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy to understand their meaning. Now things are wholly changed, and almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution. "\n\n--------\nHey, that's a simultaneous answer if ever there was one! :-)\n-------------\nUpdate: Who cares, I liked your question-within-the-answer better anyway ;-)\n-----------\nNotice: as the above user has been suspended from Y!Answers (regrettably, in my opinion), please consider this when voting.
1083318
As an "evolutionist" I side with science and logic that evolution is the method of speciation in organisms.\n\nMy personal opinion on why Creationists find fault with evolution is two-fold. First, a strict interpretation of the often-translated Bible. It is viewed as the ultimate authority and a "first-hand" account of what happened throughout history. \n\nThere are several problems with this, most importantly the translation of words from the original text, into English, which may change the true meaning of words, or more often their isn't a word in English that fits the original word. A good example of this is in Genesis, the main accounting of creation for theists. The word translated into "day" from the original text may have different meanings, it could literally mean a day, or it could mean periods of time. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this throughout the bible, but the problem is clear, logically, you cannot maintain a strict interpretation if your reading a interpretation. Also the first hand account isn't really a first hand account, many of the scriptures are oral traditions that were written down long after the events transpired, many were written a few hundred years after the people in the passed away. We've all played whisper-down-the-lane. \n\nSecondly, the scientific account of life, and it's origins (which isn't considered part of the Theory of Evolution by the way) doesn't mention, and doesn't require a god to exist for it to happen. Unable to separate scientific thought, from religious ones, some Creationists find evolution has to be incorrect because it makes no mention of a Creator. Really, ANY kind of science can never make mention of any kind of God, it is a fundamentally unprovable idea. Nevertheless, because of this, Evolution cannot and will not be accepted by many believers.\n\nPersonally, there is no reason that both ideas cannot be. While the account of Genesis cannot be true, if a God does exist he has created everything else through natural means, it would only make sense that he would do the same in creating life. The difference is, only one can be taught as a science, the other is philosophy.
875133
I think the most important thing to do is to get rid of the word, 'belief', when it comes to evolution.  It is a tactic used by creationists to marginalize evolution and it bring it to the same level as theology.  It's very important to take out the word, 'belief', when it comes to scientific systems because we're not talking about belief.
362839
Darwin's theory does hold true. First of all let me state that Darwin NEVER said that man evolved from apes. He stated that in order for a species to survive it would have to change. Survival of the fitest. If species weren't able to adapt to changes then the species would fail.
1014228
Sometimes the line between evolution and christianity is blurred. Evolution is not just the theory that we came from apes. Evolution is just the theory that all creatures can evolve over time its like is a bear is mainly living in one environment and then moves to another that is evolution. The theory that man came from apes should not be taught nor the theory that man was made by God. That way nobody is offended. But Evolution should be taught.
459342
Because it is scientific fact. But, i still think god set off evolution. Adam, as we call him, was the first reliogus human.
82819
For those who said Darwin or Russell, sorry. Both fail. Not only did Lamarck's theory of evolution predate both in modern times but the first theory of evolution was proposed around 2500 years earlier than any of them.\n\nThe first theory of evolution that I know of was proposed by Empedocles around 450BC. \n\nFollow the second link for a full verbatim quote of the theory as it was originally written down.\n\n\nCaveat. I don't claim this is the first theory of evolution. It is just the earliest that I am aware of. It is certainly much earlier than Darwin or Wallace.
1089495
Darwin's "Origin of Species" barely mentions humans - he knew it was a sensitive subject. Actually all he said was "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history." He never intended to publish on the evolution of humankind but he got into in his 1871 work "The Descent of Man"  You can read it online:\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/\n\nIn summary he says, "species are the modified descendants of other species."
707081
wasn't it Darwin... hmmm
8362
Simply because Darwin used well developed (by humans, but well developed nonetheless), well proven, scientific methodolgy instead of relying on the dogmas of a belief system to base his observations on.\n\nKeep in mind that, in science, there are very few  laws any longer.  Everything is a theory because, especially after relativity, scientists discovered that our universe doesn't stay consistent as you move into and out of certain states (like the speed of light).  However, this does not eliminate the theory as quackery or false.  It means that the theory can only be applied in certain circumstances (it's relative to certain states) so it cannot be a "law" as laws are immutable.\n\nThat being said, science only has observable evidence as it's foundation (or provable evidence through mathematics).  Darwin observed the various species on the Galapagos islands and drew conclusions as to the nature of their adaptations (long beaks, short beaks, etc.).  He also observed that various birds with nearly identical characteristics had slight variations in their adaptations.  This caused him to draw other conclusions.  In short, he used a scientific process to develop early versions of his theory of evolution.  It has been scrutinized since, and the only ones "disproving" it have been those who belive religious texts are God's absolute word.\n\nI am a believer in Christ, yet I see no issue with believing there is truth to Darwin's theories.  Did God ultimately create all things?  Of course He did.  However, is the Bible absolute in it's description in the origins of life?  Probably not.  Even Christ, according to the biblical record, spoke in stories (parables) most of the time so people would understand his message and have examples to work from.  He rarely spoke in absolutes, and when he did it was usually only with the apostles.\n\nI belive that Genesis is a parable describing God's creation of all that is, in an understandable way since it is unlikely that we will ever completely understand how He did it.  However, even I admit it is only a belief, and may be wrong, like Darwin may be wrong, or literal interpretations of Genesis may be wrong.
203026
The more I learn about evolution, the more it doesn't make sense. I am a very new Christian. If you told me a year ago that creation makes more sense than evolution, I would tell you that you were crazy. No transition fossils for any animals "evolving" into another animal have ever been found. I don't deny there is a lot of changes occurring in living things over the generations–it's called variation (also called micro-evolution). For example, there are chihuahuas and there are St. Bernards.  They all have a common ancestor–-and surprise–-it's a dog.  This is what Darwin observed.  The idea of survival of the fittest does not come to a logical conclusion when the animal turns into a different animal.  \n\nThe span of time since the earth “began” keeps getting longer and longer by evolutionists' measure.  Fifty years ago, it was in the millions of years.  Now it's billions.  This keeps growing to make it fit evolution.  Since no living person has ever seen evolution take place, and evolution has never left a record to prove it exists, it needs to have happened so SLOWLY that many generations of people (since recorded history began thousands of years ago) have never witnessed it.  The more evolutionists learn, the more they have to change their estimates... because evolution is not possible with their older estimates.  \n\nThe same amount of faith is needed to believe in evolution as creation.  However, evolutionist have an advantage because it is REQUIRED to be taught in school.  The alternative theory is not even allowed to be mentioned in school.  Schools are even getting in trouble these days by pointing out that evolution is a theory and not fact.  People call evolution science, but science needs to be able to be observed and/or replicated.  Evolution can do neither of these things.  What other scientific experiment do you know that has no proof, no conclusive evidence, so many missing pieces, consistently proving itself wrong, but instead of ruling that it must be false, they change the input to make it work. If scientist did this with any other experiment, they would be laughed out of their jobs. There have been many evolution hoaxes created throughout the years so that there could be some “proof” of evolution.  Some of these were found out to be hoaxes decades ago, but are still found in science textbooks today.\n\nYes, creation has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in the Bible.  But evolution also has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in a textbook. Your choice (that is what free will is about), but I would just recommend that everyone FULLY examines both sides before concluding one is right.
530069
It did not take into account evolutionary history.
415046
According to Darwin, it's due to the accumulation of random point mutations in the genetic code of a primitive ancestor, one that's related to all the great apes. As these mutations accumulated, some individuals were removed from the gene pool (by the death or non-reproductive status of the mutant organism), others showed no change and therefore didn't compete for resources in any improved manner, and lastly, some showed mutations that were beneficial and allowed that individual to reproduce more efficiently (either by more efficient energy usage or mating habits, etc., whatever would give that individual and advantage over it's peers).\n\nThere are other more esoteric theories on evolution/development that may or may not contribute to this process, but Darwin's Theory is the universally accepted one.
1000708
we don't even need fossils to prove evolution, we already have proof that things evolve. like the flu.  if the flu wasn't evolving then there would be only one vaccine for the flu. because it is evolving every year there is a flu shot (for those at risk) to the new strain.  people only object to evolution for religous reasons.  \n\n//\nin response to mr. onyxfire:  the reasons nominated for dissproving evolution seems to say that evolution should eliminate diversity.  and that simply isn't true. when there are alot of the same species in an area they compete for the same resources.  if a mutation came along that was different from that species it would actually be at an advantage because it might not be competing for the same resources.  and that is at the heart of diversity.  having diversity means that some animals will develope certain attributes more keenly for example people hunting for fruit during the day value eyesight more for finding their quarry where as at night bats looking for fruit can't rely on eyesight and so they develope a different specialized set of organs.  i hope that helps you understand why i think your points are incorrect\n&#92;&#92;\nno scientific theory which attempts to understand our world has by necessity precluded the concept of god.  none the less religous theories feel compelled to preclude any acceptance of science so it's my belief that they are quite the dumbasses (not all religious but certainly alot of the policy makers). we all know how well that galileo thing panned out for them.
418415
evolution is just mans way of trying to understand how life got here and is how it is. Its a theory and not a proven fact. People just refuse to believe a higher power created them.\nI believe in breeding and that's it. God created basic life on the planet and then through breeding of those animals we got several different species in one classification of such.
218904
As jorganos said correctly, evolution is the only theory capable of explaining the enormous amount of facts that we know about all forms of life (from plants to ourselves), at all times (from fossils to today's species), and at all scales (from DNA to ecosystems).\nThe evolution theory is accepted by any qualified scientist, and questioned only outside the scientific community, mainly for religious or political purposes.
1138218
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!