Then I ask why Darwin's theory of Pangenesis was rejected by science if he's a religious figure. I haven't received an answer yet.
A sarcastic case could be made that the later scientists wanted to get some of the credit for their *own* pet theories, too; and not just from an all-consuming disinterested passion for the TRUTHTM. IN other words, everyone since Darwin has said, "No fair! *I* want to be the high priest!"
Or in a non-sarcastic vein:
Scientists remain very committed to their individual reputation and intellectual prowess, as well as the reputation of their field.
Consider (as examples of such) how Lister was excoriated for advocating cleanliness during surgery and between patients; and why the late Nobel laureate Dick Feynman left the National Academy of Sciences.
Incidentally, you might find the following quip by Leon Lederman (Physics Nobel, former head of Fermilab) interesting:
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a lot easier time raising money."
Cheers!
That’s a strawman. The premise is not that Darwin is a religious figure, but that the ToE is advocated for religious reasons.
That said, consider this scenario: A friend and I both attend a Baptist church. He tells me that he feels it’s essential to Christian belief that you believe Jesus’ sandals never wore out. I get out my Bible and correct him, and he accepts it. Since we both believe the basic tenets of Christianity, we both continue to be Christians.
If one believes in materialism, Darwin being wrong about one aspect of his theory means nothing. It doesn’t do anything to make you less of a materialist.