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.