So many blanket statements in this article it's hard to keep track. I love how the author makes it sound like everyone was completely stupid centuries before us:
> In 1859, Charles Darwin, in his “Origin of Species,” put forth a theory suggesting that human beings might be descended not from Adam and Eve but from lower animals, things with fur. Not surprisingly, such ideas encountered vigorous opposition. Many scientists and scholars redoubled their efforts to find evidence of the truth of the Bible.
Fundamentalists opposed Darwin but there was no position from the Church (officially) until 1950 or so. On top of that other scientists largely supported Darwin's central theme but debated the mechanisms of his theory. Yeah, not really what the author describes at all.
> In 1859, Charles Darwin, in his “Origin of Species,” put forth a theory suggesting that human beings might be descended not from Adam and Eve but from lower animals, things with fur. Not surprisingly, such ideas encountered vigorous opposition. Many scientists and scholars redoubled their efforts to find evidence of the truth of the Bible.
Fundamentalists opposed Darwin but there was no position from the Church (officially) until 1950 or so. On top of that other scientists largely supported Darwin's central theme but debated the mechanisms of his theory. Yeah, not really what the author describes at all.