Tags
evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, misconceptions about evolution, only a theory, science
Arm Yourself with Knowledge
Evolution is one of the best supported, most elegant, and most powerful theories in all of science. As it stands, it is the best explanation that we have for the diversity of life on Earth. Understanding evolution, as a scientifically literate society, is then a primary goal for anyone who was ever at least curious about the various forms of life we encounter. However, because evolutionary facts are thought to step on the toes of modern religious interpretations of life’s diversity (that all humans came from the interbreeding of a family generated from a rib bone, for example), there are many misconceptions that have been thrown in the way to act as obstacles to true understanding.
All of the following misconceptions and responses are via Understanding Evolution, a project to bring a true understanding of evolutionary theory to the public by the University of California at Berkeley. You can also find this post for later reference at the top of every SBL page under the drop-down menu for “RESOURCES”.
Many of these arguments come primarily from creationists, and would be remedied easily with the proper understanding of the theory itself, which seems to be chronically lacking.
The Misconceptions and Their Responses
Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
Response:
Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
This is not to say that science does not have theories about how life could have originated. There are many current theories that are gaining traction in the scientific community. Panspermia, the idea that life could have been seeded on Earth from the bacteria-filled ejecta of other planets, is one of these theories.
Misconception: “Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better.”
Response:
It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, “good enough” is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.
Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal — but that doesn’t mean they got “better.” After all, climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and what was “better” a million years ago, may not be “better” today. What works “better” in one location might not work so well in another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress.
Misconception: “Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance.'”
Response:
Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce. Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying the same traits) in the next generation. That’s non-random selection. To say that evolution happens “by chance” ignores half of the picture.
Misconception: “Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to adapt.”
Response:
Natural selection leads to adaptation, but the process doesn’t involve “trying.” Natural selection involves genetic variation and selection among variants present in a population. Either an individual has genes that are good enough to survive and reproduce, or it does not — but it can’t get the right genes by “trying.”
Misconception: “Natural selection gives organisms what they ‘need.'”
Response:
Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species “needs.” If a population happens to have the genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a particular challenge better than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and the population will evolve. If that genetic variation is not in the population, the population may still survive (but not evolve much) or it may die out. But it will not be granted what it “needs” by natural selection.
Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”
Response:
Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory — a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.
Evolution is a fact as well-proven as any other in science and has withstood nearly 200 years worth of disproof. To put it into perspective: gravity is also “just the theory.”
Misconception: “Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.”
Response:
Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated. Anti-evolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.
Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.”
Response:
The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don’t fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.
Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.
Misconception: “Evolutionary theory is incomplete and is currently unable to give a total explanation of life.”
Response:
Evolutionary science is a work in progress. New discoveries are made and explanations adjusted when necessary. And in this respect, evolution is just like all other sciences. Research continues to add to our knowledge. While we don’t know everything about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life’s diversity.
To learn more about the nature of science go here.
Misconception: “The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won’t admit it.”
Response:
Scientists have examined the supposed “flaws” that creationists claim exist in evolutionary theory and have found no support for these claims. These “flaws” are based on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory or misrepresentations of evidence. Scientists continue to refine the theory of evolution, but that doesn’t mean it is “flawed.” Science is a very competitive endeavor and if “flaws” were discovered, scientists would be more than glad to point them out.
Misconception: “Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.”
Response:
Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.
For instance, the genetic evolution of fruit flies under specific conditions can be seen in as little as a few weeks. Some other aspects of evolution can even be directly observed.
Misconception: “Most biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism’ (i.e., no longer really agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace).”
Response:
Darwin’s idea that evolution generally proceeds at a slow, deliberate pace has been modified to include the idea that evolution can proceed at a relatively rapid pace under some circumstances. In this sense, “Darwinism” is continually being modified. Modification of theories to make them more representative of how things work is the role of scientists and of science itself.
Thus far, however, there have been no credible challenges to the basic Darwinian principles that evolution proceeds primarily by the mechanism of natural selection acting upon variation in populations and that different species share common ancestors. Scientists have not rejected Darwin’s natural selection, but have improved and expanded it as more information has become available. For example, we now know (although Darwin did not) that genetic mutations are the source of variation acted on by natural selection, but we haven’t rejected Darwin’s idea of natural selection — we’ve just added to it.
Misconception: “Evolution leads to immoral behavior. If children are taught that they are animals, they will behave like animals.”
Response:
Humans are members of the animal kingdom. We share anatomical and biochemical traits with other animals, and there are many behaviors that we share — we care for our young, we form cooperative groups, etc. There are other behaviors that are specific to particular animals. In this sense, humans act like humans, slugs act like slugs, and squirrels act like squirrels. It is unlikely that children, upon learning that they are related to all other animals, will start to behave like jellyfish or raccoons.
Evolution does not make ethical statements about right and wrong. It simply helps us understand how life has changed and continues to change over time. It is up to us, as societies and individuals, to decide what constitutes ethical and moral behavior.
This misconception is made even more ridiculous by the fact that our sense of morality is an evolutionary trait itself.
Misconception: “Evolution supports the idea that ‘might makes right’ and rationalizes the oppression of some people by others.”
Response:
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a philosophy called “Social Darwinism” arose from a misguided effort to apply lessons from biological evolution to society. According to this view, society should allow the weak and less fit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy, but morally right. Supposedly, evolution by natural selection provided support for these ideas. Pre-existing prejudices were rationalized by the notion that colonized nations, poor people, or disadvantaged minorities must have deserved their situations because they were “less fit” than those who were better off. This misapplication of science was used to promote social and political agendas.
The “science” of Social Darwinism was refuted and dismissed. Biological evolution has stood the test of time, but Social Darwinism has not. Darwin himself refuted such a distorted view of his theory many times in his own writings.
Misconception: “Evolution and religion are incompatible.”
Response:
Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.
However, when a religion makes claims that are within the testable boundaries of science in general and evolution specifically, incompatibility is a possibility. For example, the ideas that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that all species alive today have persisted in their present forms for all time, are incompatible with a scientific view of the universe.
Misconception: “Teachers should teach ‘both sides’ and let students decide for themselves.”
Response:
Given the wide variety of religious views about creation, there are not simply “two sides” to be compared — and, in any case, these views are not science and do not belong in a science classroom. In science class, students should have opportunities to discuss the merits of arguments within the scope of science. For example, students might debate exactly where birds branched off of the tree of life: before dinosaurs or from within the dinosaur clade. In contrast, a debate pitting a scientific concept against a religious belief has no place in a science class and misleadingly suggests that a “choice” between the two must be made. The “fairness” argument has been used by groups attempting to insinuate their religious beliefs into science curricula.
Misconception: “Evolution is itself ‘religious,’ so requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the First Amendment.”
Response:
Evolution is science. The study of evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions clearly differentiate science from religion and do not permit the advocacy of religious doctrine in science (or other public school) classes. Other decisions specifically uphold a school district’s right to require the teaching of evolution.
Sources:
- You can find more misconceptions people have about evolution and their responses here.
- Understanding Evolution. 2011. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 22 August 2008 <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/>.
This post was reproduced with the full permission of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California at Berkeley.
Science-Based Life 
The ames test or other directed evolution techniques are examples of evolution happening on an observable timeline.
We are constantly having to develop new antibiotics as evolution happens in our timeline, with “superbugs” developing resistance to the existing ones.
Thanks Kyle!
http://cms.mooreworks.net/cms/she-walks-in-beauty.aspx
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all
There is a good article that refutes the superbug idea here.
This is a thoroughly unscientific treatment of a problem from a institution that clearly is religious in nature.
Doug, thanks for providing such a hilarious link that precisely demonstrates the misconceptions of evolutions that Kyle blogged about.
For example, Lungs do not suddenly de novo in the evolutionary record. They are an evolution from gills which themselves evolved from standard skin cells. Feather cells are just a variation of scale cells which themselves are another variation of skin cells.
Wieland also seems to think that horizontal gene transfer between bacteria disproves evolution, it doesn’t even come close. The whole of evolution is driven by the frequency of alleles (gene variations) in the gene pool and the relative ‘fitness’ of these alleles. He is totally wrong when he states that the variation must already exist in the gene pool as the DNA copying process is not 100% accurate and so mutations & duplications are introduced during each generation which can provide positive, negative, or neutral fitness. Addition information can be added to the DNA by copy errors which introduce duplication of sections of the DNA which can then diverge.
If superbugs really could only survive in hospital environments then doctors would just discharge the patients so that they could recover at home.
But what about the human eye? If evolution were true then it would be like a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747…. Ok, I lie, I just wanted to put random creationist arguments at the start. See, thing is – I’m religious. I’m an avowed Christian with strong belief in God and the Bible as his vehicle of communication. However, the Bible is not a science book. It does not tell us HOW the world was created, just that God was the one who was ultimately responsible. Some hardcore Christians can’t get beyond that, and some hardcore non-Christians can’t see how any Christian can see as I see. But I am not ashamed to call myself an Evolutionist and a Christian. Best wishes,
I am glad that you can still practice your faith in light of the findings of science. No scientist has the goal to prove otherwise (as long as religion does not make testable claims).
But to address your random creationist argument, it is true that it would be almost impossible to create a 747 by blowing around random pieces, but this is a false analogy.
Evolution indeed creates some pretty statistically unlikely and complex organisms, but this is not through random chance. The only thing random about evolution are the mutations born into each new generation due to the inaccuracy of DNA copying. If evolution worked by cobbling together all of these random mutations, your argument might be valid, but this is not what evolutionary theory says. Remember that it is evolution through natural selection that is creating these complexities. Evolution works by taking small improbabilities (mutations) and building upon them by selecting what works from what does not (natural selection). In the end what you have is something very unlikely, but not because of randomness.
If you were to blow a hurricane through a junkyard (with all of the right parts), hundreds of thousands of times (an analogy to various generations), each time keeping the pieces that fit and discarding the pieces that did not, creating a 747 becomes a much more realistic task. This is a better analogy to evolution, and should make more sense.
KCH
There are several problems with your junkyard/747 analogy as follows:
1) If there is no end-use design objective in the scenario, then there will never be a 747. The objective of a 747, of course, is to safely transport hundreds of people from one place to another.
2) Since a 747 is only one part of a complex system of transportation, there would have to be multiple hurricanes blowing through multiple junkyards creating the rest of the transportation system; airports and runways; taxi cabs to transport passengers; the very atmosphere the 747 would fly through; the very life of the passengers; the air-traffic control systems; petroleum to fuel the 747; petroleum refining and transportation systems to fuel the 747; the food required to feed the passengers onboard; the creation of the food itself, both animal and plant based; navigational systems to guide the 747; water for the passengers as well as the 747 itself; and I could go on and on, but this should be sufficient to make the point.
You see, we can’t isolate the creation/evolution of life to the level of single species or organisms. Life exists in an environment I call “Massively Complex Synchronicity” as I describe in my essay: http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/the-origins-of-the-universe-simple-or-complex-part-2-the-problem-of-massively-complex-synchronicity/
Best regards,
Don Johnson
I’m not glad that you can still practice your faith despite believing in Evolution, but I am glad that you manage to believe in Evolution despite being a person of faith. And you are right–I can’t see as you see.
I wonder if lists like this ever do any good. Like this one, lists of misconceptions are normally quite boring and repetitive and simply full of misconceptions that simply make no sense and really leave no room for an interesting response.
Half the responses are simplify restating what evolution is, but that is understandable since most of the misconceptions really have nothing to do with evolution so it does not really have any responses for them.
I think that it will be effective for people that have these misconceptions. Remember, most of the misconceptions about evolution are from misunderstanding what the theory says.
If you have any problems with my misconceptions or responses, please let me know.
I found it useful. Like all branches of science, the continuing process of investigation and refinement results in highly complex theory and explanation. This becomes a barrier to understanding among the non-specialist, and it is this that some try to exploit for ulterior motives. I am sure this list may be of little value to an insider who has the technical background, but i susect this is not the audience being targeted.
I will definitely be signposting this to my daughter who is studying biology at school and is already getting confused by the easy availability of internet based challenges to evolution, especially from the intelligent design lobby. This will not, however, be the endpoint of her investigations but give her a baseline for future study.
Here’s an interesting QA thread with an evolutionary creationist that might be a bit more palatable to religious people looking for information on evolution http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response
Pingback: How Evolution Works - Cloudetal.com » Cloudetal.com
I’m still confused about natural selection.
Give me an example – let’s go with the sharks and dolphin that evolved streamlined bodies. What sort of bodies did they have before they were streamlined? How do we know what bodies they had? Are we able to observe the kind of non-streamlined bodies of a dolphin? How did the genetic variations available to them know that it was the streamlined body that would help them survive? Did the population not try out other variations that might have been available to them? If the population tried out, let’s say, an extra large fin, that actually slowed them down would they not be more susceptible to being killed by predators? How many un-ideal iterations can a species survive before they get instinct because they ‘chose’ the wrong genetic variation?
Please do explain because I am genuinely confused about how natural selection works (in spite of reading through the above responses).
One question regarding the transitional fossils.
Let’s take Origami. Assume I am trying to make a very complex work of origami. I work on it every day for 20 years (I’m a bit slow). I finally get it right – that was 2 years ago and I have continued to make a ‘perfect’ one every day.
If you were to find an example of my miraculously preserved origami work in the local landfill, which would you more likely find – a transitional form or the ‘finished’ article?
Statistically you would be 10 times more likely to find a transitional form.
In regards to evolution, for every fully-formed fossil, if natural selection has been going on for billions of years, shouldn’t we find many more transitional fossils?
I genuinely want to understand.
First, let me give you a rough definition about what natural selection is and is not. Natural selection is the various pressures that act on a population (environmental, sexual selection, predatory selection,etc.), which weed out those in the population that are less adapted to survive these pressures. In each generation, a large number of genetic variations (due to the inaccuracy of DNA copying during child development) occur. These variations (mutations) allow a population to survive slightly better than those with a less beneficial mutation. Over time, this slightly better survival begins to dominate the population, with those surviving passing on their beneficial mutations to their offspring and so on and so on. What you then end up with is a trait or mutation that has been selected for over thousands or millions of years, and such a selection can drastically change an organism in that population (sharper claws, the ability to swim in sea water and fresh water, etc.). This is evolution.
What natural selection is not: it does not have a will, it does not select for higher complexity, it is not a choice by the population. Natural selection only works by pressuring populations with various factors, which leads to the survival of those who are better adapted to handle such pressures, and they survive to pass on their genetic adaptations. Evolution does not suddenly produce a new body part or differently shaped body. It begins will very small changes that are slightly more beneficial than not having them and over time these build upon themselves to become big changes.
Let’s then use your example with these definitions:
It is probable that the bodies of dolphins and sharks were not always as streamlined as they are today. Their ancestors that began (or returned) to the sea had bodies that were adequate enough for the population to survive without becoming extinct. These bodies would not have to be “perfectly adapted” right at the beginning, as we could imagine an animal with a body that was not streamlined at all surviving in the sea (for other reasons like its hunting style, environment, etc.). Over time, as these populations reproduced in the sea, any offspring that were born with slightly more streamlined bodies (a small genetic mutation), would be faster and better at catching food, and therefore would probably pass along their own genes more frequently. Because they are passing on their genes more often than those without a slightly more beneficial streamlined body, these mutations begin to accumulate in the population, with streamlined bodies being constantly selected for (because it helps the animals survive more often than those without the adaptation). Over millions of years of selection, what you end up with is something that seems perfectly streamlined for its environment, but it only got this way because of the long selection process and the accumulation of small mutations.
Why we do not see dolphins without streamlined bodies is a part of this process. Because those with more streamlined bodies would be better at catching food, surviving predators, and passing along their genes, these dolphins would out-compete other dolphin populations without such streamlined bodies. Over time, these less adapted dolphins(within the population) would die out (because they aren’t surviving as long, catching food as often, etc.), and the streamlined bodies would be all that remain. But remember, all dolphins do not look like Flipper. Populations that do not compete with each other, such as sea-going dolphins and river dolphins, can evolve differently and have quite different body shapes. It all depends on the pressures of the environment and what mutations that occur are selected for.
You’re right to think that there may have been other variations that could have been selected for, but they either did not survive or they did not produce the same kind of survival benefit that other variations had. Every time a baby is born, there are a number of mutations that have taken place. Those adaptations that are best suited for the pressures of the world will begin to propagate, and the less suited ones will fade away into history. It may be the case that dolphin populations had mutations that made them look very different in the past (it’s very likely this is the case), but what we see today are those mutations that were the best at preserving survival. We do not see other variations because they did not work (were not selected for) as much as the ones we currently see. And if we go back in the fossil record, we can see these changes and different variations for ourselves.
If a dolphin was born with an extra large fin which slowed it down in comparison to the rest of the population, it is unlikely that this dolphin would survive more often than the rest. We do not see these harmful mutations today because natural selection pressures those mutations that work to become more frequent in the population, and those that do not work (like an extra large and slow fin) die out.
Also, populations never “choose” the wrong genetic variation. Only the variations that allow for a more frequent survival will become more widespread (because it allows more genes to be passed in a lifetime). An offspring that is born with a disability (a “wrong” genetic variation) is not selected for because it does not allow for a better survival, and therefore we do not see populations of “disabled” animals. We only see what has worked best for survival. Those who are less equipped to survive die out, even if they have good traits. Those with better traits will best them and dominate (most of the time). This is why we don’t see neanderthals anymore. They were well adapted to their environment, but not as well as homo sapiens.
On transitional fossils; we have tons of transitional fossils! Take a trip to the local museum and you will see many many cases of transitional fossils. Beyond this, remember that it is lucky that we find any fossils at all. The odds for something to be fossilized are minuscule as it is. They need the right pH, soil, composition, pressure, time, etc. Of the possible fossils that should be laying beneath us if everything was fossilized, we only find a tiny tiny tiny percentage of those. The Earth and its ecosystem is very good at recycling organic material. But the point is that, even with the small percentage of fossils available to us, we find transitional examples all the time.
You can find a further explanation of transitional fossils here.
Thanks for your questions (I want you to understand too!), make sure to come back if anything isn’t clear.
I’d like to add an observation about the origami analogy. Your origami model has a single final correct version, and many many incorrect versions. Once you’ve perfected it, it hasn’t changed.
That’s not the way evolution works though. There is no final perfect version. All life forms are continually evolving. Some, granted, haven’t changed much in a very long time (sharks, alligators), but that’s not to say that if the environment changes that they won’t change more. It has been speculated that ivory hunting has pressured African elephants to shorter tusk size, and that’s only a decades old environmental change.
In your origami model analogy, each version you fold would ‘work’, or resemble something. And each time you fold a new one, you’d change it a bit. And if you particularly liked one outcome, you’d fold more models using that one as a base. And if you really didn’t like one, you’d stop using it as a base for future models. Except that it would really be more probabilistic. You’d use ‘good’ models as the base for more future generations than you would ‘bad’ models. The features in bad models would be less likely to show up generations later, and the features in good models would be more likely to show up in future generations.
“Let’s take Origami. Assume I am trying to make a very complex work of origami. I work on it every day for 20 years (I’m a bit slow). I finally get it right – that was 2 years ago and I have continued to make a ‘perfect’ one every day.
If you were to find an example of my miraculously preserved origami work in the local landfill, which would you more likely find – a transitional form or the ‘finished’ article?
Statistically you would be 10 times more likely to find a transitional form.”
How many square miles of the Earth’s surface have we discovered fossils in thus far? I doubt we’ve even scratched the surface of what there is out there to find. And local geology may have been a factor too; some geographic locations are less conducive for preserving fossil remains.
Eye? harumph. I needed a surgeon with a laser beam and £2500 (yes £s) to correct my faulty eyes.
You, sir, have finally provided the right, short answer, to the “human eye” argument which creationists pull. I can’t imagine how pissed off blind people are after hearing that argument.
One of the ‘arguments’ that gets raised, especially by ID followers, is that carbon dating is inaccurate, especially to try an date dinosaur remains from beyond several million years ago (e.g. Jurassic Period). Does anyone know of any ‘simple to understand’ resources on countering the ‘carbon dating’ misconception?
It is a misconception in itself that dinosaur bones are dated with carbon-14 dating. This method of dating is only useful to about 50,000 years (because of its half-life), and no paleontologist would use it to date dinosaur bones. However, carbon-14 is not the only isotope that scientists use to date things. For instance the half-life of Uranium is 4.5 billion years, and the ratio for decay for this isotope can date back millions or ever billions of years! This is how we are sure that the dinosaurs are as old as they are (and the Earth for that matter). All of the different isotope dating that we use in this time frame all point to the same dates (relatively), and this is how we can be accurate about age.
In short, carbon-14 dating isn’t used for everything. We have many other isotopes that can date back much further, and these are what we use for the oldest of fossils.
Here’s a link showing how the other kinds of radiometric dating work.
Make sure to come back if you have any more questions.
or perhaps some of the problems here http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html
Here is a really good article entitled “Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective” by Dr. Roger C. Wiens who is a geologist and a Christian : http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
Just like this blog entry, it goes into the details of the common creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations.
I personally found this information totally interesting. But I paid no attention in school so lots of scientific ideas flew over my head, so thanks for this article as it gives a layman the foundations to lay on. However I saw no reason to believe in that load of dogmatic, frivolous bullshit shit called religion. Yet I see every reason to embrace evolution as a wondrous and beautifully elegant way to explain the diversity of life!
Thanks so much. I’m glad you can see the power of science and appreciate it.
Evolution is a fact as well-proven as any other in science. To put it into perspective: gravity is also “just the theory.”
Modification of theories to make them more representative of how things work is the role of scientists and of science itself.
# i wasn’t aware facts can be changed or altered to best fit new evidence? #
In science, a fact is something that fits all the known evidence and theory so well that it would take a monumental turn of evidence to prove it misguided. A “fact” is the temporary agreement of all of this evidence, and it is just easier to label it as such, as the chances for such facts to be overturned are minimal.
then may i suggest that ‘best guess’ is more apt than ‘fact’. the theory of evolution has changed throughout the years in light of new findings and yet the goal posts keep moving. can we accept that in 10 years time the theory will of ‘evolved’ into something quite diffrent from darwins theory? if so may i ask just how different it would need to be before it is accepted that enough ‘facts’ have been adjusted to make this ‘fact of evolution wrong?
i don’t mean to be awkward but i fear that using statements such as ‘fact’ can be counter productive into making people ask questions about the world around them.
I do not think that is counter-productive. People are already confused by the meaning of the word “theory”, I would not want to cause more confusion by calling it a guess. And besides, it is not a guess. It is our best explanation supported by much evidence, so much in fact that it requires the temporary agreement of “fact”.
Do not confuse how science works. Scientists fight all the time about how evolution works, but never whether it happened or not. The underlying concepts that Darwin put forth are still there, constantly being refined but never abandoned. This is not “moving the goalpost”. Because the evidence for evolution is so strong, it would take equally strong evidence to overturn it. That is not to say that it could not be overturned (any good theory can be), but almost 200 years worth of trying to overturn it has failed.
Saying that it has moved or evolved is completely ridiculous, you could read the original book on the subject (Origin of Species) and in general it is still correct.
Sure the specifics change all the time, but anything general enough for that the layman would be interested is identical to when it was published.
So it has been refined, yes, but it looks the same today as it did hundreds of years ago and how it will look in hundreds of years (as long as you are not a scientist studying it that is).
didn’t darwin himself edit his book (on the origin of the species) several times. in order to refine his theory? i am not trying to pull apart the theory just concerned that ‘best explanation supported by much evidence’ is the sames as ‘FACT Noun/fakt/ 1. A thing that is indisputably the case.’ not everyone is as open to accept that it MAY yet be overturned one day. my worry is that science has become a new religion. a man in a white coat telling you something is fact and then not challanging it is little better than reading a book about a man in the sky and taking that as fact.
oh and jonathon yes there has been some huge changes to the theory. just to poke some fun i’ll give an edit made by darwin himself to the orignal book. darwin himself refined his original by adding ”by the creator” to the closing paragraph, an acknowledgement of a higher power. ;-)
What you are describing, “the best explanation supported by much evidence” is precisely what a scientific fact is. Not everyone may be open to the idea of science changing its mind, but it does.
Do not start the whole science is a religion discussion. Science changes in accordance with evidence and theory, religion does not. Science for this reason has never been a religion nor ever will (if we continue to do it right). A man in white coat telling you something is a fact, and he can show you why and what it is founded on, is absolutely better than reading a book about a man in the sky.
Besides, that edit you mention, Darwin included in order to pander to the religious people he was presenting to, not because he himself believed it.
I think your definition of what huge is and mine are different.
But yes I believe he did edit his book several times, but never did he change any of the basic tenants of evolution.
I believe most if not all of the edits were simply to pander to religious groups criticisms.
i don’t wanna open up any science is religion argument as i would hope we’d both sing the same hymn on that one. i did not mean science and bible stories are the same i meant that it scares me how people quote from things they’ve read in a magazine clip and then take out of context without bothering to dig a little deeper. in this way they have replaced a priest with a scientist. but i did not mean to blame science for this, just encourage people to ask those why and how questions. which i hope as a man of science you’d approve of.
on the note of pandering to religious groups that is surely just an opinion, darwin called himself an agnostic and as such could quite easily mention a creator as a highier power maybe not as the christian god but too acknowledge an unkwown possibility.
I agree with you about not taking things at face value and digging deeper, even if the information is from a scientist. Those principles are even part of my “Skeptical Ten Commandments“. I also agree that we must foster critical thinking and not just blind acceptance. The problem is that in religion blind acceptance is a virtue.
i don’t think that rule just applies to religion. in my opinion (and i do mean only my opinion) we all seek to have everyone follow or believe in the same things we do. we enjoy the discussion and we enjoy the sharing of ideas but we dont feel truly happy unless we are all pulling in the same direction. myself and others will look for and grasp onto ideas, facts and evidence to proove our bias whilst you will seek to counter it. you may argue against ID as you see it as an ignorance (or refusal) to facts, in turn i argue back as i see evolution as an unfinished master piece. remember 200 years is a lot of time for a theory to stand up but religion has survived for thousands of years. mankind needs religion. we need something to seek guidence and protection from. real or not we seem to need it.but i guess thats way off topic for here.
i applaud your quest to challange misconceptions but to come back to my original point (which i now understand your meaning of, thanks also to mirik) be careful about misleading quotes even when non intentional, especially when science jargon words differ from the true meaning. might i suggest that the phrasing ”gravity is also “just the theory.” is good enough to drive the point home
Remember that although we all try to seek the truth, not all “facts” are created equal. Some are supported and based in reality, some are not.
Furthermore, careful not to make the argument from antiquity logical fallacy. Just because religion has been around for a long time does not mean that it knows more, is right about anything, or that we need it. A similar argument could be made that since slavery has been around for the majority of human history, that we should consider it among moral discussions. We can see the obvious problem with that kind of argument. Who is to say that we can’t find guidance and protection from science? I would find it hard for you to make an argument against such a possibility.
I know this may sound nitpicky, but it is hard to get the feel of your responses with so many grammatical and spelling errors.
my argument would simply be that science is restricted (for good reason) to logic. it can explain and test morality/emotion but it cannot share them with me. e.g if i lost someone close to me it cannot comfort me with promises of an after life. i know this sounds a little abstract but science would tell a child there is no father christmas, it has no time for belief. in my opinion life is better with these fantasies. we seem to need these fantasies so much that we make up new superstitions all the time.
i was not saying that religion must have value because it has been round for thousands of years. i was just pointing out that perhaps 200 hundred years of standing up to testing may not be a sucessful point to make against ID.
oh and sorry for my spelling and gramma. i hope that it hasn’t made my posts sound abusive or aggressive. i am an argumentive chap who enjoys challanging people to consider both sides. and i’ll forgive you for sounding nitpicky as you’re a scientist… it’s your calling.
I disagree, there is much wonder and meaning to be found in a scientific view of life. We don’t need to persist in delusion and fantasy to be happy. I’ll quote Carl Sagan:
I could not agree more.
My point about evolution withstanding so many years of disproof is to show the veracity of the theory. ID hasn’t withstood one week of scientific criticism, and should be viewed as such.
You have been fine, thanks for all the feedback.
‘Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.’
Carl Sagan
we are born with a taste for delusion. religion is an outlet for this. it seeks to answer questions we have no power to attempt. science is full of wonder yes but i would be surprised if it could compare to a childs view of the universe.
Again I disagree. A tendency for delusion is no excuse to encourage it. And we certainly can and do attempt life’s biggest questions with science.
Delusion may satisfy, but it will get us nowhere.
delusion allows us to distance ourselves from the truth around us. it lets us imagine what could be. we are free to attempt things (good or bad) that should given all probability fail. it wasn’t too many years ago that it was a fact that man couldn’t fly. and yet a few delusioned inderviduals persisted in trying anyway untill evenually it was managed. delusions breed aspirations surely that is to be encouraged?
Delusion is believing in something for which there is no evidence. The Wright brothers surely did their homework, understood rudimentary aerodynamics, etc. this was not a delusion.
Creativity and imagination are to be encouraged, but based in reality.
i doubt the wright brothers were the first to consider flight and alot of their homework would of been based on the trials and tribulations of those that came before them. of which i would assume the seed of that idea didn’t base itself in flight mechanics.
delusion is ‘An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality’
“Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them.” albert einstein. sounds deluded to me.
The last thing I needed when I lost my parents was people trying to convince me my parents lived on in some fantasy land and that talking to an imaginary friend would make things better. But then I don’t feel the primitive need for delusions. I outgrew those when I left childhood.
A child’s view of the universe may seem more wonderful to those who haven’t looked through a telescope, but doesn’t compare to the awesomeness of the real thing.
Fantasy and delusions are fine for primitive cultures and young children, but should not be used to explain the world in this day and age.
firstly i agree that trying to convince people into a belief they don’t want is all kinds of wrong. that is a fault in the actions taken by a person not a fault of the belief. i do not blame evolution for the actions of the nazi’s for example.
i would like to ask why claim beliefs and delusions are primative and childlike? careful not to think that one opinion is better than another it is just different. my point about the need for superstitions and beliefs is based on pretty much every culture on earth having them despite mostly knowing they are seemingly ridiculous. i would be surprised if everyone doesn’t have some primitive delusions, perhaps a lucky pen/coin or maybe you think twice about walking under ladders? wouldn’t it be better to ask why we have them than to think ourselves above them?
“Evolution and religion are incompatible.”
I for one strongly object to label above as ‘misconception’. All religions make testable claims such as existence of god, immortality, reincarnation, prayer efficacy etc., as emphasized by Victor Stenger. The fact that these claims are borderline case for unfalsifibility does not take them to closer to truth. Russel’s tea pot has all characteristics but for the lack of mass-belief. Should you not be ‘as skeptical’ to it than the religious absurdities.
Jerry Coyne has more to add, if it helps: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm
Very true, I would not go so far as to say all religions but the vast majority at least.
And in particular Christians, the only Christians not bothered by the fact of evolution are Christians that are wishy-washy in their belief in Christianity in their first place and willing to bend their beliefs to fit into any space left.
And for example, I have been told that Muslims do not believe that salt water mixes with fresh water (on some Richard Dawkins show on faith schools). It is absolutely ridiculous to say that science is not absolutely against religion.
Sure theoretically religion could exist alongside of science if it only stuck to philosophizing about morality, but i do not believe that any such religion exists (and is that really even a religion?).
And yes science can exists beside any religion that is willing to bend and reseed behind the tide of scientific knowledge, but the end result of living in the gaps of science is that no gaps will exist and you will be left with a religion with nothing to have faith in.
It is not true that “evolutionary facts are thought to step on the toes of modern religious interpretations of life’s diversity”. It steps on the toes of the American fundamentalist but not on 95% of the world’s Christians who do believe in evolution.
I find it difficult to understand how a Christian can believe in evolution and also in the account of Adam & Eve in Genesis. If Adam & Eve is not literally true then there is no original sin which forms the whole foundation of the Old Testament and Jesus’s raison d’etre.
If 95% of Christians beleive in evolution how do they resolve this paradox?
I think the best answer comes from looking at the great Christian forefathers such as St Augustine. American fundamentalism is a relatively new idea, created in the late 19th century, largely as a reaction to German liberalism. The early forefathers were not influenced by the theory of evolution nor were they bound by the great divide in literalism, and could examine the scripture without preconceptions.
I suggest you read Wikipedia’s article on an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, which gives a fair and balanced view and agrees with me that the ‘rest of the world’ does not take a literal view of Genesis.
Whilst most Christians in the UK believe in evolution, it is likely that a small number are literalists but we consider it completely unimportant and it is rarely a subject for discussion.
I agree that in the UK it may be fine, but in the US almost half of the population feels this way. And while a group of fundamentalists may be small, they are highly vocal and misinformed, and therefore should be actively refuted (I think).
@Tangent. You seem to be a bit confused about St Augustine. St Augustine believed that the ’24 hours’ mentioned in Genesis were incorrect but did believe that God created the Universe in an instant.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with St Augustine’s own words from his from his work entitled The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim):
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]”
None of the quotes on that page actually address the fact that Adam & Eve are mythical. The problem is that evolution proves that Adam & Eve did not exist and to assert that they did is opening the religion up to scorn as indicated by Augustine.
@hexkid Nothing you say contradicts my post. I do not wish to continue this discussion because I have said all I need. If you wanted to understand how Christians can believe in evolution then that is a different matter but I see you only want to preach at me. I prefer to concentrate on God’s saving grace through his Son, which is an altogether more profitable subject.
@tangent I can’t see any part of my post that was preaching at you, I just quoted back to you the words of the Christian founder that you explicitly named to show that he does not support your assertion of an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.
I can’t see how you can consider the one of the foundations stones of your religion (i.e. the source of Original Sin) to be “completely unimportant and it is rarely a subject for discussion”.
@hexkid You said that, “I find it difficult to understand how a Christian can believe in evolution and also in the account of Adam & Eve in Genesis.” I was explaining how a Christian can believe in evolution, I was not arguing that it gives reasonable grounds for such as belief.
You may have been trying to draw me into a discussion of the relative merits of the two ideas. I will avoid such a discussion with every ounce of my soul and with every dying breath because (a) it is pointless, and (b) the creation debate is responsible for turning hundreds of thousands of young people in the UK away from Christ. We do not waste our time in the UK on such matters, the living Lord Jesus is a much more important topic. Only three times has evolution been mentioned in my church in the past forty years and creationism not once. I urge you to drop this very damaging subject which is completely distorting the atheist’s view of the church.
@Tangent – It’s really a very simple concept and is far from pointless. Its not about the relative merits of the 2 ideas, I am just interested how you can simultaneously accept 2 conflicting concepts. The theory of evolution & genetics mean that the Adam & Eve cannot have existed which means that the whole story of The Fall is allegorical at best.
I can understand why this issue is so damaging to the church and why your church doesn’t discuss this issue. The level of cognitive dissonance that is required to simultaneously accept evolution and the account of Genesis is simply astounding and its effects can be clearly seen in your comments.
St Augustine totally nailed it when he stated: “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?”
then let us consider the issue of sexual coupling in order to reproduce. if the main drivers for evolution are survivability and reproduction what possible reason would asexual organisms have to develop into paired breeding organisms? ontop of this perhaps we should consider sexual maturity occuring at different ages within a close linked evolutionary branch. surely having offspring as early as possible would be advantages specifically in egg laying or non guided parenting species? and lets not even bother looking at natural suiccidal behaviours or pre determined aging.
i am not against the theory of evolution, but i whole heartedly am against mans tendency to announce himself/herself as the all knowing master of the world around him/her. the only ‘FACT’ in any of these theories is that at some point the rug will be pulled out from under them.
in closing i applaud any all misconceptions no matter how silly, as at least you dared to challange the accepted truth.
There are many drawbacks to asexual reproduction. The most major of these is that each offspring is an almost exact clone of its parent and so is more susceptible to the spread of disease (see for example the spread of the blight responsible for the Irish Potato Famine).
Sexual production combines genes from 2 individuals which actually produces a much greater variation in allele combinations in subsequent generations. This greater variety produces a wider range of ‘fitness’ which allows the evolution of the species as a whole to proceed at a faster rate.
There are also benefits of protection and guidance provided by species that actively parent their offspring and quite often these outweigh the cost compared to rapid/early reproduction.
Pingback: Understanding Evolution: 17 Misconceptions and Their Responses | The Atheist
Pingback: Link bomb #11 | Main Street Plaza
One of the misconceptions was; “Most biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism’ (i.e., no longer really agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace).”
Your response included the following statement; “Thus far, however, there have been no credible challenges to the basic Darwinian principles that evolution proceeds primarily by the mechanism of natural selection acting upon variation in populations and that different species share common ancestors.”
That’s an incorrect statement. The primary mechanism of evolution, by overall frequency, is random genetic drift. That’s a very credible challenge.
If you go to the Berkeley website you won’t find the statement that you posted. Instead you find a correct statement; “These advances — ones that Darwin likely could not have imagined — have expanded evolutionary theory and made it much more powerful; however, they have not overturned the basic principles of evolution by natural selection and common ancestry that Darwin and Wallace laid out, but have simply added to them.”
You might want to post a correction.
That is saying the exact same thing. Your challenge still does not overturn the basic principles of natural selection and mutation, as the response says.
The specific mechanisms are under debate, the general principles are not.
The two statements are NOT equivalent. The one you used says the there’s no “credible challenge” to the idea that natural selection is the PRIMARY mechanism of evolution.
The Berkeley site explains what modern evolutionary theory is all about and they have a good description of random genetic drift. That’s why their response to the “Darwinism” misconception is different than the one you quote.
Modern evolutionary theory is about more than just natural selection. Several of the people who comment here seem to think that “evolution” and “natural selection” are synonyms. The comment right bellow this (by Mirik) implies that modern evolutionary theory is just about natural selection. That’s just plain wrong and the Berkeley website makes this very clear.
It’s important to realize that even the friends of science have a lot of misconceptions about evolution.
I think that we are misunderstanding each other. My point was merely that the underlying principles of evolutionary have not changed, as creationists seek to claim. There is debate about how exactly evolution happened, but not whether or not it happened. Challenges may come, like the role of genetic drift, but this does not change evolution as a whole. The role of genetic drift adds to evolutionary theory (and natural selection), but does away with neither. Natural selection has not been excluded.
I think it’s important for us to openly proclaim that evolutionary theory HAS changed in important ways since 1859. That’s why it’s no longer appropriate for us to describe modern evolutionary theory as “Darwinism.”
BTW, where did you get the material that you posted? Is it from an older version of the Berkeley website?
It’s a selection from Berkely’s website and comes with the full approval of the museum of paleontology.
Again, evolution as a theory, in a teachable and public way, still reliably explains the diversity of life. That’s the point.
Kyle! Wonderful job!
To the “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.” misunderstanding I would add that evolution is observed fact, the theory is “by natural selection” and then explain the difference between scientific theory and daily use of theory. Since natural selection is the model, and evolution is the fact to be explained by the model, it would make sense to point out the confusion between the two first (I think).
Also maybe (sorry to pollute comments with two posts), point out Darwin rejected “Social Darwinism” completely in his works, and it was a concept advocated by Spencer, Malthus and Galton (this last guy was related to Darwin). More accurate name for it, to avoid confusion and negative connotation, therefore is Social Spencerism.
I’m sending your link out to people to understand these common misconceptions evolution!
Thanks for the feedback and thanks for spreading the science!
Thanks Kyle
Your article is very relevant and useful, I request your permission to translate it into Spanish, I’m an activist of science also and I would like to spread it in the Spanish-speaking world as well. I live in Mexico, where the persistence of superstition and misunderstanding is endemic.
Absolutely. Spread the science.
Make sure to take a look at the link to the Berkely website at the bottom of the post for many more misconceptions and responses.
Great! I’ll start with the translation immediately, I will be posting when ready, maybe you find it useful. regards
Thanks for posting this. Very useful and also respectful of beliefs.
One pressure point for anyone is changing your beliefs. I think that one of the things that deeply bothers people, faithful or not, is the idea that what they thought they know as truth is being shown to be not true. In other words, the creation vs. evolution argument is something akin to two kids yelling at each other: You’re wrong! No, I’m not! Yes, you are! Am not. So. Not.
One kid might be right and the other kid wrong but that isn’t going to settle things.
One of my complaints with much of the way science is presented, particularly those areas that are challenging established beliefs, is that it doesn’t take the feeling of being wrong into account. Nobody likes to be wrong. Tact and respect are often lacking. If I say to you “you’re wrong” then the first thing you do is defend your position. Once that’s done, it’s a very hard road to undo that stand.
When arguing for a position, I try to look at it from the opposing viewpoint and see how I might be able to speak in their language. When I do speak, I try to speak with respect for their feelings and existing knowledge.
I’m trying to do just that with my website by presenting a non-mystical path to living that fulfills us our human needs while still keeping to scientific truths. It can be done.
Only one person in the world can change your mind. You.
Kenneth Benjamin,
WisdomWebsite.com
I agree with much of what you said except for the characterization of science that you presented. The great thing about science is that is shows things to be true or false regardless of what anyone believes. It is not the fault of science that people personally cling to ideas and become angry when they are proven wrong. It should be within the rational fortitude of the person to accept that they can be/are objectively wrong about something and move on. Coddling those with falsities is not treating a person with respect. Do you really have to respect an idea if it is objectively wrong? I think it is more respectful to treat a person like a rational adult.
I do not think science communication works well when you are just calling someone stupid, but the best science communicators never do this. They do not seek to ridicule but to understand and correct. Being friendly and approachable has a lot to do with changing someone’s mind and positively conveying good science but this does not have to entail treating their beliefs like you would when you don’t want to tell a child that Santa does not exist.
What is fascinating is that this article tries to debunk the “philosophy called ‘Social Darwinism'” and yet those in the Tea Party & the Republican party who believe in Libertarianism but not in evolution actually believe in “Social Darwinism”
They seem to think that the only facts that are actually true are the ones that confirm what they believe.
Pingback: Intelligence, Evolution and Politics
Pingback: Debating Evolution with the crazies – Hints and Tips at Skeptical Science
The misconception that is my biggest pet peeve is: “Evolution means we came from monkeys”.
I remember during the 2008 prez debates, Mike Huckabee was asked about evolution being taught in schools, and he responded that he believed God created life per Genesis and the bible, etc. Then he said, quite condescendingly, “If you want to believe that you came from a monkey, that’s fine. But I don’t.”
It’s hard for me to not throw things when I hear such statements. It indicates to me that not only does evolution need to be taught in schools, but it needs to be taught BETTER if that’s what guys like Huckabee take away from it.
Pingback: The Evidence for a Historical Jesus/Against Mythicism in 400 Characters or Less | Exploring Our Matrix
100% agree with your article and am very thankful for it – but I wanted to point out one thing:
“Religion and science (evolution) are very different things.”
-Yes, absolutely they are.
“In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.”
-Incredibly false. I am exceptionally grateful for your work in science. As a person of faith and very involved in theology this is a misconception that needs to change. Theology is very this-world concerned, and I don’t mean in a “spiritual” (of the myriad of meanings for the word) way. It is not the case that people of faith need only to learn more of science, but scientists also need to learn more of theology. It will make the now-difficult times where people intersect these ideas far more manageable.
I know that the concern of theology is centered around what happens in this world, but the explanations for such concern are faith-based and supernatural. Any reason to help our world that is based on the idea of a supernatural deity is by definition supernatural.
Science deals with what is observable and testable, religion does not. Are you saying that this is not the case?
Kyle,
Most fields in the humanities have nothing to do with being “observable and testable”, but this does not mean they are at odds with science. All philosophy and literature is based on *something* *beyond* “observable and testable, whether we label this metaphysics, morality, existentialism, or anything else. All of which are “faith-based”, and thus to your definition, “super-natural”.
Pingback: Teoria evoluţiei explicată în 2 minute – update | Marius Cruceru
I certainly appreciate this list. It does make it easier to go through the most common fallacies used by creationists. (I’m not going to even TRY to deal with the really stupid arguments – ex. crocaducks!- ) However, I feel doubtful that this will convince many creationists. They seem to live in a parallel universe where no amount of evidence against them will make them budge an inch.
Frustrating Isn’t it?
Pingback: Understanding Evolution: 17 Misconceptions and Their Responses « The Talented Chimp
is this to say that evolution=science, i bet hell no, if itreally took place as explained by the charles darwin theory, where are the human beings that are still evolving…i mean, there would be current developments of monkeys to human beings that we can see
Humans are still evolving. Remember that it’s a very slow process.
Humans did not evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.
Contact me with any more questions you may have.
“Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils.”
All species are transitional.
Pingback: Science in society | Pearltrees
Pingback: This is What Evolution Is {Image} « Science-Based Life
Like many others, I have been interested in the evolution/creation/IntelligentDesign debate for many years, beginning at my conversion to Christianity in 1981. I had come from an atheistic world view, and evolution was a large obstacle to my new found faith; thus I entered into an intense study of the issue. The following are some articles I have written on the subject, and offer them to the readers of this blog.
Regards,
Don Johnson — New Haven CT
http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/professional-evolutionists-they-are-not-all-that-smart/
http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/the-origins-of-the-universe-simple-or-complex-your-choice-part-1/
http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/the-origins-of-the-universe-simple-or-complex-part-2-the-problem-of-massively-complex-synchronicity/
http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/darwin-and-baseball/
http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-4-universe/
All readers of this blog, religious or not, should read Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” as it carefully explains and refutes nearly all primary misconceptions regarding evolution and all of the poorly constructed arguments like those made by this Don Johnson above.
In searching for things on the Internet, the user is sometimes forced to push through several to many websites before locating the truth. Any religious believer seeking to know more about the world rather than blindly accepting unprovable biblical statements or other religious scripture claims are unfortunately hard pressed to find true information when garbage like what Don Johnson writes is all over the place.
Is math a created thing? Did God create it? No, 2 + 2 always equals 4 in this universe when using whole, unimaginary numbers. Math always existed but must be discovered like any other scientific discovery. Humans have created models, systems, processes and an untold number of complex equations to describe the world around and put it into a perspective more easily understood and usable.
If you, as a religious believer, deny science, evolution, or math, you are denying discovery and refusing to see the benefits of what it has to offer. Modern medicine would be an impossible thing without the curiosity that springs forth from scientific discovery. There will always be more to discover.
You are right to feel threatened in your unwavering beliefs of the “tide of knowledge” that will continue to gain speed and force as time progresses. It cannot be stopped, it can only be slowed. It is imperative, for your own well-being, that you let go of the rigid structure from which you so desperately hold on to for future discoveries will continue to increase this “cognitive dissonance” as hexkid put it so elegantly.
Your beliefs reside, and in fact, rely on the existence of unknowable things. Religion is based on the mysteries of the world and hides and conceals itself like a virus in your mind in those areas that you do not understand. You are pawns to your own ignorance gleefully going about a life in which you understand so little all the while getting mad at yourself for others around you surpassing your own limited knowledge. Face the truth and you will be able to move on from it and learn about the world.
Science will continue to fill in the gaps that religion hides in until there is almost nothing left which religion has any value in attempting to explain. The purpose for religion is long since exhausted in its attempt to make people aware of what is currently unknowable. We know what we don’t know and believing in human written fabrications (religious texts) with no realistic basis is like believing any other story book that talks of supernatural fantasies.
In attempting to claim that religion gives your life purpose and meaning, you are in fact wasting and giving up your life to something completely unknowable based solely on the mass consensus that it is “chosen” to be believed and true. If five-hundred million people believed in the existence and teachings of the Great Pink Elephant that one guy saw while tripping on acid, the other 6.5 billion people would thing them fools. You are saying, by believing in a God, that it is ok and in fact encouraged to believe in the nonsense that is the Great Pink Elephant.
As Kyle nicely puts it, it is not the duty or desire of scientists or scientific discoveries to be disproving and denying what religious texts and followers say and choose to believe. It is merely a fated coincidence that what you chose to believe was so utterly incorrect that a scientific discovery just happened to dismiss it on grounds of having no evidence whatsoever. The original problem is of course that so many of you defaulted answers to questions you did not understand to be religious in nature when in fact the correct answer was always a scientific one.
Moreover, much of you, like Don Johnson, attempt to twist and contort true scientific discoveries into warped logic to desperately hold on to your beliefs and attempt to justify them. Much like hexkid explained what St. Augustine said, you are just making yourselves look stupider and stupider while further increasing this “cognitive dissonance” within your own minds.
Religious enforces will simply continue making up “evidence” to defend their beliefs against the onslaught of arguable claims against the validity of any God or religion. They will continue to do this until their warped logic becomes so convoluted that they will not be able to bridge the gap. Then one day, religious people may start to truly question what they have been following since it will offer little to no tie to reality.
You think it was not humans who wrote every single religious text?
You think it was not humans who thought of and created the idea of heaven and hell (using primitive imagination)?
You think any question can actually be answered by simply stating that it is unanswerable (that only God knows the answer)?
You think that a God that cared about humans would kill innocents with natural disasters (the bible and other texts clearly state God has this power)?
You think you can subjectively, contextually, or objectively extract only the parts of religious texts that you think are still applicable?
You think you need religion to have purpose in your life?
You think you need religion to be moral in life?
Step up and face these illogical claims. Show that you have the cognitive fortitude to firstly know that you can be wrong and then start walking into the true future with metaphorical feet planted in reality (still use your imagination and creativity and question the world around you for that is how one expands their mind and learns). The day you do this is the day your life starts to have any true purpose.
Would you rather be ignorant of the power and danger of a lightning strike or understand how they work so as to allow you to avoid them?
Knowledge is power.
For those who need a little help getting started:
http://wisdomwebsite.com/
I think you mean Dawkins’s book “The Greatest Show on Earth”?
That or Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True”.
Nope, I have not yet read those books but plan to. I do definitely mean “The God Delusion” which is an altogether more complete explanation including the ideas in those texts as well.
Thanks for your response to my comments. I truly appreciate the chance to engage in this debate.
If you’ll indulge me a short word picture of my view of atheism, having been there myself:
Atheism is much like locking yourself in a cave with no windows, but a door. The type of science that an atheist (miss)uses searches in all of the corners of the cave looking for God (or god if you prefer) and not finding him concludes that there is no such thing since he/it/them can’t be found in the cave. Then one day a brave soul decides to open the door to see what is outside. Outside of the cave he finds God, and then proceeds to seek and discover Him more fully in ways spiritual (i.e. the Bible), and scientific in examining the created things he has discovered outside of the cave.
Since God exists beyond time and space, He will never be discovered or proved using scientific methods. But his presence can be experienced in very personal ways such as that described in this post http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/trees-for-zambia-our-awesome-god/ I invite you to read it, not as a scientific paper, and not as “garbage”, but as a letter from those who personally experienced this amazing series of events.
Dare to open the door and see what lies beyond; you may be amazed at what you find.
Regards,
don
Hello Don.
You do have a fair amount of good points and make a lot of sense.You only miss one important fact, IMHO. Let us assume there are two superimposed realities (for the lack of a better word) where science and supernatural both exist. Now, by definition science cannot directly see the supernatural. But they must exist in the same world, so if the supernatural have any effect, even just indirectly, we would at least be able it measure it in statistics.
Personal experience means nothing, except to that particular person. Show me one unexplained statistic. Show me Christians having a slightly less Cancer, so me frogs raining from the sky. Show me anything that is clearly documented and recorded and supernatural.
Hello Wisnoskij,
Thanks for your kind comment, and thanks for your question and challenge, which I will attempt to address.
Science is, of course, a long established and reliable source of truth, and I in no way deny its validity in seeking truths in the realm in which it is well equipped to explore.
However, there are other truths that science is not well equipped to explore; questions as to the existence of God for example.
I would ask you to consider this question:
If God exists, then what means might he choose to reveal himself to us thinking and feeling humans?
I suggest to you several answers to that question:
o Nature itself, and the incredible diversity contained therein, both large and small. Science is well equipped to explore this realm.
o Revelation in the form of a written and readable document. Here science is somewhat limited in its reach.
o Revelation in the form of God taking on the form of humans and actually interacting with his own creation.
I would like to dwell only on the second bullet above, revelation; and I would ask you to consider the question as to what kind of document God (or a god if you prefer) would produce that would be a compelling and credible source of truth as to the nature of God, and his existence? After all, there are numerous religious texts extant in the world, and you or I could sit down today and write a book claiming to be from God. Such a document claiming to be from God must be unique among such books, one whose authorship is revealed not only by the words and thoughts contained therein, but also by the very nature and structure of the document itself. If you are a fan of John Steinbeck, for example, it is not difficult to detect his unique style in his writings.
Likewise, a document claiming to be “written” by God should contain, if you will, an authentic and unique signature; an authentic style and form, which clearly mark its authorship.
So what might such a document look like?
o Would it have a single writer or multiple writers?
The Bible was written by some 40 different authors.
o Would these writers be contemporaries and have lived at the same time, or would they have lived across a large time span?
The 66 books of the Bible was written over a period of about 1600 years.
o Would they have the same religious worldview?
They all write about a single God, but some from a time prior to Judaism, some from within Judaism, and some were Jesus followers.
o Would such a document have a major theme from beginning to end?
The theme is common through out; a God created universe and earth, man created in the image of God, the entry of sin into the creation, God’s plan of redemption (from sin).
Pretty compelling thus far, wouldn’t you agree? But there’s more.
What if such a document was filled with predictions about future times and events? And what if it can be demonstrated that such predictions (prophesies) have actually been fulfilled? That is the case of the prophecies written of in the bible, the most compelling being the complete history of the nation Israel and the Jewish people.
This prophetic history of Israel was first written of by Moses in the early books of the Torah; complete to and including the re-establishment of Israel in 1948.
There are other prophecies written about other nations and cities extant at the time of the writings that have been verified both historically and architecturally.
I could go on, but hopefully this is enough to whet your curiosity and encourage you to dig deeper for yourself. An excellent source is Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demand a Verdict.” Click here for his web site http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidence.html
So you see, there is evidence outside the realm of science that you should consider, and without having to abandon the beauty of science.
Regards,
don
I am actually more interested in the first item on the list, Nature. How would a god design nature.
Assuming he is all powerful, all knowing, and all wise.
It would likely be complex (check), and all very unique.
He would not need to copy and paste anything, he can create a completely new animal as easily as he could create a slight variation on an already existing one. And if there is no evolution than all animals would be fully formed an have no residual traits.
But in real like we see that everything borrows features from other animals. Be it DNA markers in very different animals or a small remnants of tails on human beings.
So what might such a document look like?
o Would it have a single writer or multiple writers? I would say one, but there is no way evidence either way.
o Would they have the same religious worldview? Talking about a single God is not really a worldview.
o Would such a document have a major theme from beginning to end?
“The theme is common through out; a God created universe and earth, man created in the image of God, the entry of sin into the creation, God’s plan of redemption (from sin).” That is more of a synopsis of the story, not a theme.
Everything you described simply sounds like a shared universe literature series. Like Dragon Lance or Forgotten Realms.
As for prophecies, well even the daily newspaper has those, as well as many many historical ones. And they all “come true” according to the believers.
Try reading McDowells book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” and then get back to me on Biblical prophecies vs. newspaper prophecies.
Pingback: Statistically Significant Posts « Science-Based Life
Evolution doesn’t explain our origins…so then how did we get here?
One of the great mysteries. But, we do have a number of interesting theories. More research is needed and I’m sure the answer will be as incredible as our evolution.
You are quite right that evolution cannot spontaneously create the very first lifeforms.
What is needed for them is the right environment and time.
I like to think of it as a more general form of evolution, or more specifically that evolution is more specific offshoot of a bigger theory of life.
Given enough life in this chemical reaction fill universe, and the possibility no matter how small, self replicating chemical reactions will “win” over their simpler and self destroying cousins (non self-replicating reactions).
A basic form of life is bound to be created in a reasonable amount of time based on all of our current understanding of this process and our planet’s early environment. From there life will naturally become better at self replication.
I recently shared this article with some ID clowns, and then read it again. I clicked on the Berkley Understanding Evolution link – great site thanks for the reference.
That Berkley site is fantastic, I’d recommend it to anyone.
I am a christian and believe in God and creation. But, I found your article excellent and every point you made seems correct. I personally think that God built evolution in to the universe to both challenge us to strive, but also to keep us on our toes. Please forgive me if I refer to some theories inaccurately. I think the big problem is that almost all Christians don’t understand the theory of evolution as you’ve explained it.
But… I also think that most people who believe evolution don’t understand the theory as you have explained it.
Thank you again for your article.