The man denied evolution. Completely. He believed creationism and even went so far as "creatively" interpreting religious documents to support his own biases.

The man denied evolution. Completely. He believed creationism and even went so far as "creatively" interpreting religious documents to support his own biases. All this in the late 1800s. I'm not usually on this side of the debate but here I think it's safe to say that his non-agreeableness and personal biases led him to the wrong conclusions and that is very relevant to this submission. The more I read about his work the more I reach the conclusion that this was a man that achieved social and academic success but was a failure as a man of science.