I fully accept that publication of "Origin of Species" finally broke the stranglehold religion maintained over the freedom of thought necessary for modern science to evolve.
Whenever I point out on YA that Charles Darwin's paper doesn't meet the requirements of modern science I get loads of thumbs down & very angry responses.
Science requires theories to come from the unbiased examination & review of all evidence & to be subject to future modification in the light of evidence. We know that the theory of evolution predated Charles Darwin by at least 2 generations, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin being a famous exponent of the theory. Also in Charles's own days Huxley was a great exponent, but lacked any publishable evidence for the theory for many years after Charles's voyage on the Beagle. Charles himself didn't publish until it became clear Huxley was going to advance a paper, apparently with weaker evidence. Afterwards Huxley became the main populariser of the theory of evolution as "proven", a claim Charles Darwin never made.
So as theory predated evidence it doesn't meet the demands of unbiased scrutiny required of modern science, where theory must be based on evidence & not vice versa.
Also we know now that the variations Darwin observed in Galapagos are within the species, not new species.
No "missing link" required by evolution has ever been found. Today we see loss of species at an unprecedented rate, where evolution would theorise the exact opposite.
Science has advanced to such a degree that we know many, if not most of Darwin's conclusions to be erroneous. Nevertheless it seems that many people refuse even to allow proper scientific questioning & debate of the theory as if it were some sort of Holy Grail without which all science would be lost.
As far as I'm concerned, creationism is similarly untrue.
Pointing out currently known weaknesses in Darwin's paper brings worse than religious wrath from pro-Darwin zealots.
What are they really afraid of?