What are the possibilities that Darwin’s theory of evolution could still be wrong?
What do you actually mean by the question?
If you mean something like:
Is it possible that the general thrust of Darwin’s idea that differential survival of variants in different contexts can lead over time to populations being sufficiently different that when they get back together they are effectively new species that do not interbreed? Then that mechanism has been proven beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, both by practical observation and by theoretical modeling.
There is no doubt about that.
Darwin did not understand how genetics worked. He knew nothing of RNA and DNA. He knew nothing of games theory or quantum mechanics or computational theory more generally.
So someone like myself, who has been interested in molecular genetics for over 50 years, and the theory of systems surrounding that, has an understanding of the processes of evolution that is very different from Darwin, but the key theme above still holds true.
The conjecture, that all life on earth is the result of this process starting from relatively simple molecular systems on an earth that was very different from the earth we know today, some 4 billion years ago, seems to me to be very likely indeed, and by definition, there was no one there to record it so it must forever remain conjecture.
And if you put a few thousand hours into examining the many different levels of indirect evidence available from many different sets of disciplines, then it seems far more probable than any of the alternative sets of conjectures involving creative acts by a god or gods. But getting to a place where the evidence from science seems more probable than the patterns from cultural history takes a fair amount of time and effort; and if people generally are not encouraged to challenge culturally accepted structures, and are not given the time and resources to do so, then such cultural constructs will continue to have the influence that they do. The mathematics of the systems involved is very clear.
If we want people to be able to change the patterns that they use, then we must create contexts in which such outcomes have reasonable probabilities.
That cannot happen generally in a competitive market context. It demands a cooperative context where the genuine needs of all individuals for reasonable degrees of security and freedom are met; and it demands from all individuals responsible action in social and ecological contexts.
Neither market capitalism nor communism are capable of delivering those outcomes (the mathematics of that are beyond any reasonable doubt).
We need systems that are based in universal cooperation, and simultaneously in respect for individual life and individual liberty.
In an age prior to fully automated systems, markets were a useful approximation to such a system, but market based systems fail in the presence of the sorts of universal abundance that advanced automation can deliver, and we need that abundance to be able to effectively deal with a range of already well described existential level threats.
Thus the logic is clear, we must have abundance for all, and thus markets must fall to a secondary role underneath systems that are universally cooperative. And that is a very complex set of systems, and it demands a lot of work from a lot of people.
So a long and complex answer to what might have seemed a simple question; but Darwin’s ideas are alive and well at levels well beyond anything he ever hinted at in his writings.
It is now clear, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that the evolution of complex systems like ourselves is much more accurately described as a story about the emergence of new levels of cooperation than it is about levels of competition. And both are always and necessarily present in real systems.