True or False?
The most unanswered, random, beautiful and wonderful topic on Earth

 

Home

Questions

Theories

Pictures

True or False?

Developer and creator of site

Charles Darwin

Natural Selection

The propositions presented below represent some of the more common misconceptions of evolution. Many others propositions dealing with an array of issues, including the second law of thermodynamics, transitional fossils data, and irreducible complexity, are considered elsewhere in this site in Creationism, God and the Classroom. Most of these additional misconceptions are not mutually exclusive from creationist arguments toward evolutionary theory. For additional discussions of misconceptions of evolution you are encouraged to peruse an engaging list provided by Douglas Futuyma in his 1995 book, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution.

1. Evolution denies the existence of God
2. Evolution is an immoral doctrine
3. Evolution is nonscientific because unobservable
4. Evolution is a theory in crisis due to challenges by biologists
5. Evolution is progressive
6. Natural selection is a process of random chance and cannot explain complexity
7. Natural selection acts for the good of the group


1. Evolution denies the existence of God.

Many creationists have argued that evolutionary theory denies the existence of God. However, this is not necessarily true. Numerous theologians and a variety of other religious persons firmly understand and embrace evolutionary theory. Their acceptance of evolution does not, in any way, compromise their religious beliefs and practices. These individuals are often referred to as theistic evolutionists. They hold the position that God created the universe and initiated the natural laws of physics and subsequently permitted the universe to develop on its own in compliance with the laws of physics.

Evolution, like any other brand of science, attempts to describe and explain nature by invoking natural explanations. Evolution is a scientific endeavor that is limited to formulating and investigating hypotheses about material causes that operate within a certain degree of probability. Scientists do not use supernatural explanations, including the power of God, to interpret patterns and processes of nature. They neither deny nor confirm the existence of God or the possibility that supernatural powers are a reality. Science must remain silent with respect to these issues. Most evolutionists do not dispute the right of people to maintain religious beliefs. However, they are strongly opposed to any attempt to use religious faith and supernatural entities to explain the natural world. For more on the relation between theism and evolution, go to Creationism, God and the Classroom.

 

2. Evolution is the basis for immorality and the general decline of morals and ethics.

Creationists have charged that evolution by natural selection is responsible for the decline of morals and culture in America. This is a serious indictment that can often be linked to a misunderstanding and misapplication of natural selection. Creationists often define natural selection as "the struggle for existence" or "survival of the fittest." With this definition in mind, they suggest that natural selection justifies the immoral imperative "might makes right," and therefore can be used to defend such things as class vs. class struggles and the imperialist atrocities of the past. First, it must be emphasized that creationists present a rather narrow view of natural selection. Natural selection operates by differential survival and reproductive success of certain individuals in the population under a given set of environmental conditions. And while predation and competition provide examples of natural selection, it also operates according to less caustic processes including cooperation among individuals (e.g., insect-plant pollination) and mutualism (e.g., protozoan's in the gut of termites). Thus, it is unfair to present natural selection in the context of a dog-eat-dog world in the narrowest sense and then suggest that it is used to logically justify a specific brand of ideologies. Second, it is important to realize that evolution is silent about issues relating to morality and ethics in the same way that it has nothing to say about supernatural entities. Like every other science, evolution describes how the world is, not how the world ought to be. For example, natural selection, like earthquakes, occur in nature, but whether these phenomena are "good" or ought to be is a question that is inappropriate for science to answer.

 3. Evolution is outside the realm of science because it cannot be observed.

Biological evolution is often defined as change in the gene pool of a population over time. Evolution at the level of the population is well documented and includes such familiar examples as changes in the color of moths in England and resistance of insects to pesticides. Evolutionary biologists contend that selection in combination with other mechanisms of evolution (e.g., genetic drift, reduced gene flow, etc.) can yield genetic changes in populations that eventually lead to the formation of new species. Although creationists accept the idea that evolution can result in genetic differences between populations, they fail to see how it can explain the formation of new species and the diversity of all life on the planet. That is, they do not accept the idea that gradual change on a small time scale can generate substantial changes over much longer periods of time.

Evidence in support of the formation of new species is available both from laboratory and field observations. However, even in the absence of direct observations such as these, it would be incorrect to conclude that there is no support for evolution. Science does not depend solely on direct observation to acquire evidence in order to test hypotheses and formulate theories about the natural world. Science often relies on making predictions that derive logically from hypotheses. For example, hypotheses can be tested based on predications regarding patterns we would expect to see in the fossil record if the process of evolution, as we understand it, indeed occurred. Once science is understood in this context, it is a valid and legitimate historical science that is well supported by evidence. Evolutionary theory is no less supported by evidence and no less accessible to observation than the atomic theory of matter.


4. Many evolutionary biologists have questioned the idea of gradual evolution via natural selection. Darwinian evolution is a theory in crisis and evolution is on the brink of collapse.

It is unfair for creationists to make a statement like this and use it as evidence against evolution without some clarification. Indeed, evolutionary biologists have been known to disagree and engage in debates about the processes that may be responsible for the diversity of organic life on this planet. Despite these differences of opinion, evolutionists all agree that evolution has occurred. For example, Eldredge and Gould argued that not all patterns in the fossil record can be explained by the Darwinian process of gradual change through time. Consequently, these biologists presented the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the rather sudden appearance followed by extended period of stasis for some species. Eldredge and Gould's theory does not, in any way, reject the importance of Darwin' theory of evolution. Rather, it represents a refinement and improvement of our understanding of traditional evolutionary theory. Darwin's general conception of evolution appears to be sound, but the precise mechanisms by which it operates continues to be elucidated. Evolution is far from being on the brink of collapse. It continues to be engaged in a healthy exchange of ideas and debates regarding casual agents of change, and these exchanges will undoubtedly provide us with a more complete understanding of the organic world.

 

5. Evolution is a progressive ascent of life, culminating in the emergence of humans.

There is nothing automatically progressive about evolution. It does not inherently lead to an increase in the complexity or toward intelligent forms of life. And any evidence to the contrary reflects a human-chauvinistic definition of progress. For example, because the various primate lineages, including the one leading to humans, happen to exhibit specialized neurological complexity (e.g., an increase in brain size), we are prone to view progress in terms of an increase in the complexity of the nervous system. This view of evolution would be as absurd as elephant fanciers suggesting that evolution is directed toward elongation of the nose! Also, trends in the fossil record suggesting that viewing evolution is progressive is artifactual. The earliest forms of life on this planet were prokaryotes (e.g. bacteria) and fundamentally and predominantly have remained prokaryotic. These earliest forms of life were necessarily simple and because they were simple any evolutionary change could only be in the direction of complexity.

Metaphorically speaking, Darwin's theory of evolution has proceeded like a branching tree of ancestral descendent relationships. If we were to draw a tree of life depicting these relationships, all the primates, including humans, would occupy an arbitrary position of the tree. Contrary to popular belief, evolution is not a one-dimensional progressive ascent of life.

 

6. Natural selection is a theory of random chance events and could never lead to the complex structures that are evident in organismal diversity.

Although chance plays a role in the theory of evolution by natural selection, it would be misleading to suggest that evolution is a "theory of chance." Mutations are random, undirected changes in DNA that provide populations with genetic variation. Natural selection is a non-random process that subsequently "acts" on this variation. Those variations that provide individuals with a greater survival and reproductive success in a given set of environmental conditions will be retained over time, while less successful variations (e.g., those yielding reduced survival and reproductive success) will be lost or reduced. Over evolutionary time, the non-random process of natural selection can lead to divergence between populations and allow individuals within populations to become better adapted to their environment. As Richard Dawkins so eloquently and succinctly put it, "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

It may, at first, be unfathomable to understand how the simple process of natural selection could generate complexity, including elaborate structures such as the vertebrate eye. However, it is important to realize that complex structures probably arose in a small series of steps over long periods of time (e.g., millions and millions of years) rather than in a single, onetime event. Each generational step is preserved during the evolutionary process and yields a change that is only slightly different from the previous step. After a long period of time and the accumulation of a large number of small steps, complex structures can arise. Individual steps in the process were initiated by chance, but the entire set of steps were put together cumulatively by natural selection. When evolution is viewed as a non-random process of natural selection operating in a series of small steps over long periods of time, it is not difficult to understand how it can explain the apparent design and complexity inherent in the natural world.

 

7. Natural selection acts for the good of the species or the group.

Natural selection is defined as the differential survival and reproductive success of certain individuals in a population under a given set of environmental conditions. Certain members of a population are more likely to survive and reproduce when compared to others because they possess features that render them more successful in the local environment. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, selection cannot favor traits unless they increase the fitness of the bearer of those traits relative to that of competing individuals. Thus, individuals, rather than species, become the units of selection. For example, the elaborate tails of male peacocks help individual males compete with other males for access to females. There is no reason to suspect that these elaborate tails benefit the entire species. In fact, the tails are rather cumbersome and male peacocks with showier tails are likely to be more susceptible to predation than are individuals with simpler tails.