Simply not true. Lord Kelvin published an estimate of the age of the sun, based on thermodynamics, in 1862. Remarkably, he was the first to challenge Darwin on sound (at the time) scientific principles.
‘What are we to think then of such geological estimates as 300,000,000 years for the “denudation of the Weald?” Whether it is more probable that the sun’s matter differ 1,000 times more than dynamics compels us to suppose they differ from those of matter in our laboratories; or that a stormy sea… should encroach on a chalk cliff 1,000 times more rapidly than Mr Darwin’s estimate of one inch per century?’Kelvin was a great scientist, but he turned out to be wrong.Kelvin, Age of the sun’s heat (1862)
I would believe in mutation, for I had seen mules.
Mules have nothing to do with mutation, and I'm pretty sure that biologists in Darwin's day would have agreed. The sterile hybrid phenomenon has been observed for millenia.
If I found any fossils at all, there would be no way for me to tell whether they were hominids or not.
I think you underrate the state of science in Darwin's time. Biology and geology were both established on sound footings before Darwin began his voyage.
These things happen, js! :^) Lots of scientists turn out to be "wrong" in the course of time. But only partly wrong in a certain sense. For generally science is limited by the tools it currently has, but often the key insights evidence true genius, and are just as good as they can be, given the tools constraint. Generally what happens is that new scientific insights rest on what has been discovered in the past -- we do stand on the shoulders of giants. For instance, Ptolemy's theory of epicycles -- though crude compared to current theories of planetary motion -- did explain pretty well what could be "seen" in his time, and had good predictive value.
Analogously, it is just remotely possible that Darwin got a few things wrong, too. I don't think you would disagree with that statement. What he got "right" will be "preserved"; the rest will get chucked in due course.
Thank you for pointing out my error here, which I see clearly in retrospect. Sorry! I'm getting a little tired, js -- been "arguing with folks" all day long. I've been known to make ghastly mistakes when I'm tired.... So I'm very glad you corrected the record. Thanks for taking the time to converse with me today.
JS: I think you underrate the state of science in Darwin's time. Biology and geology were both established on sound footings before Darwin began his voyage.
Leonardo da Vinci weighed in on fossilized shellfish back around 1500 when he disputed the idea of a Biblical Flood.