Yea.. I was waiting for someone to say comparing Charles Darwin's work to Isaac Newton's was a bad example.. as Newton's work delved into advanced mathematic calculation and experimentation in order to come up with his laws..
(laws and many very instrumental calculations).

I think the only similarity is that both layed the foundation for future exploration of the field. But Newton had alot more tangible an inquiry to answer to, in all fairness. I don't blame Darwin for his partially factual but highly hypothetical findings, I simply think it shouldnt be construed as the same invariable fact that most of Newton's work is, barring what he couldnt possibly work out accurately.