Over the 14 years (can it be that long?) that I’ve been writing this website, I’ve put up several lists of misconceptions about or misrepresentations of evolution, but they’ve all been compiled by other people (for example, see here, here, and here). Some of them aren’t really misconceptions, such as the second link, which lists “misrepresentations” that are really pieces of advice about how to teach evolution. Those are generally good, though I can’t say I agree fully with this one: ““Avoid giving the impression that evolution is atheistic, or that evolutionists must be atheists.”
The way I teach evolution, starting with two sessions on why we accept evolution (these lectures were turned into Why Evolution is True), involves a certain amount of creationism-bashing. That’s because I use the rejection of creationism in favor of evolution in the late 18th century as an example of the way science proceeds: theories are discarded when they become increasingly incompatible with the evidence, while the alternative theory (evolution in this case) is able to explain facts that stymie creationism. The fossil record, anomalies of development, vestigial organs, and (my favorite) biogeography are all areas in which evolution explains phenomena that can’t be explained by Biblical creationism.
Now it wasn’t I who made this argument, but Darwin. If you read On the Origin of Species, which Darwin himself characterized as “one long argument,” you’ll see that he’s constantly opposing creationism with evolution without going too hard after Christian creationism (Britain wasn’t full of fundamentalists like America is now). Describing the imbalance of organisms on oceanic islands, for instance, was a very clever way that Darwin showed how evolution could explain phenomena that baffled creationists. In fact, I’ve never seen a good creationist explanation of biogeography, especially of the “unbalanced” nature of life on oceanic islands: the lack of endemic mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish while there are plenty of endemic insects, plants, and birds.
But teaching this way offended a few of my religious students, who called me out for “creation-bashing” in my evaluations. I reject that criticism, for, after all, creationism was THE going explanation for life and its patterns before Darwin, and within a decade his compelling arguments had vanquished that explanation. Teaching this way, I think, is a good object lesson in how science is done (yes, creationism was a scientific hypothesis before Darwin), as well as educating the students on why nearly all scientists accept the fact of evolution. And I took this approach in Why Evolution is True. The usefulness of opposing two theories and adjudicating them with evidence is supported by the success of that book—far greater than I expected.
I don’t say anything about atheism in my classes, for that’s not part of my job, but most students do get the idea that the Bible should not be taken literally as a theory of biology. And if they ask me my views about gods straight out, I will be honest with them. Further, if they ask me, according to the guidance in bold above, whether religion and evolution (or science in general) are compatible, I will explain to them (privately, because the explanation is long) that while one can be religious and accept evolution, they are incompatible in a fundamental way: one accepts religious “truths” based only on authority, dogma, or scripture, while science accepts empirical truths based on evidence and the consensus of scientists. (Yes, religions do make truth claims.) That is why I wrote Faith Versus Fact. But I’ve never had a student complain that I’ve said that either evolution or science are atheistic, for I have never claimed that in lecture. It is of course true in an important way, for a practicing scientist rejects the idea that what he/she is investigating could have divine explanations. You leave your faith at the door of the lab. (I won’t reiterate my incompatibility claims here; read FvF if you want to see my argument.)
In that sense, then, science is atheistic, for it rejects belief in gods. Let me emphasize that, as I say in FvF, that this rejection is not by a priori agreement: scientists didn’t get together in some smoke-filled room and agree to reject gods, despite some creationists who claim that. Indeed, there were times in science, like early astronomy or when Biblical creationism reigned, that divine explanations were part of science. But since they haven’t proven useful in explaining anything, we now reject them as being useless. The best expression of this idea is the conversation that supposedly took place between the Emperor Napoleon and the French polymath Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1802, after Napoleon had been given Laplace’s five-volume work on celestial mechanics. There are many versions of this conversation, which may never have taken place, but here’s one from British mathematicial Walter Ball, published in 1888:
“Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ [‘I had no need of that hypothesis.’]
Even if the conversation never happened, the anecdote explains why science is atheistic in practice: we have no need of that hypothesis.
But I digress. In August I’m lecturing to people on a cruise to the Galápagos Islands, which of course were visited by Darwin on the Beagle. I’m giving two lectures on that trip, “Darwin on the Galápagos” and “Why evolution is true”, as well as a Q&A session with two five-minute mini-lectures. But first let me point out two widespread misconceptions about Darwin and the Galápagos islands, which I won’t go into here but will do on the voyage:
- Darwin did not have an “aha moment” in the Galápagos islands when suddenly evolution and natural selection became clear to him.
- The famous “Darwin’s finches”, while they did play some role in Darwin’s thinking that led to The Origin, did not play a major role. He doesn’t even mention the finches in that book, and barely mentions the Galápagos (only 16 times). Other data and ideas were more important to the revolution in thought wrought by Darwin. If you want to read about his adventures on the islands, read Chapter XVII of the earlier The Voyage of the Beagle, “Galapagos Archipelago.” It’s free online at the link.
But I digress again. I have 5-10 minutes to explain to the guests what the biggest misconceptions about evolution are, so of course I have to leave some out. But the list is designed to inspire discussion, so here it is:
- Evolution is “only a theory”
- In evolution, everything happens by accident
- Natural selection transforms individuals over time (in reality, individuals don’t change, but populations and species)
- Evolution operates “for the good of the species”
- Evolution is inherently progressive
- Evolution equips organisms to face challenges that arise in the future
- Humans are no longer evolving
I could of course give more, but these are the seven I’ve chosen to explain, and I hope I can do it in no more than ten minutes. (I’m leaving out details and hope that they’ll come out in audience discussion.)
I may give summaries of my other minitalks here later (on the ship I’ll ask people which one(s) they want to hear), which include “What evidence would disprove evolution?”, “What IS the theory of evolution?”, and “Why do so many Americans reject evolution?”.
**********
Here’s a first-edition of On the Origin of Species in a presentation copy. (I’m not sure what that is for the handwriting is surely not Darwin’s.) Only 1250 copies were printed, and this one goes for $950,000:
Atheism is most closely associated (I think) with you-know-what : Marxism. Say what we will about Marxism, I think it would help to treat that somehow.
Perhaps how Marxism replaces god with man ; how religion was a direct competitor with the Soviet Union. Clearly there is some explanation needed with my claim alone.
IOW philosophy, theology – and that is not interesting scientifically. But might help with “Why do so many Americans reject evolution?”.
Ooo, serious proofreading backpedal:
I used the word “man” because that is the word Marx uses in his writing. So I should have used quotes, otherwise I sound like a person who says that kind of stuff, and I do not want to mean it that way.
I’m reading it right now so it just came out.
I’m no Marxist but have no problem saying there are plenty of misconceptions about it, often from those who practice it!
Once, I read an interesting question about evolution on Reddit. It concerned the probability of evolution. If evolution requires random mutations, natural selection, and time, it would seem challenging for all the species to evolve so successfully and so quickly. Yet, it’s important to remember that millions or even thousands of years are quite incomprehensible to our minds…
Has there been models calculating the probability of evolution in different species?
Read this piece by Dawkins and the paper on which it’s based. It shows that a camera eye could have evolved from a light sensitive eyespot in a much shorter time than one can imagine. But these models are of course hard to make. But the best evidence for evolution is not calculating whether it could happen, but the many lines of observation that it DID happen: fossil record, biogeography, vestigial organs, development, and so on.
And please give your real email in a comment; nobody sees it but me, but I may need to communicate with readers. Emails or real names are never disclosed on this site without permission.
Most species do not evolve successfully, at least, not in the end. The saying goes that 99% of all species that have existed are extinct? And, of course, the majority of organisms fail to make it to adulthood and so cannot be described as successful – if success is defined as passing on your genes.
I am of the opinion that, if you have system with a selection process and copying with occasional mistakes, no matter what the system, something analogous to evolution is inevitable.
99%? in a rough estimate, rounding, that would basically mean al species are extinct :). Yet there are more than 4 million species alive. If all that is correct, then close to half a billion species went extinct.
To put it in perspective : if you got only one cent per extinct species, you would be a multi millionaire (close to 4 millions worth). 4 million is ‘intriguingly’ the speculative number of extant species we started with :). 1 cent is, of course, 0.99% of a U$D.
Please forgive me, I couldn’t resist.
Perhaps related to your question, a very common claim I’ve seen from creationists and similar is that the probability of even just a complex organic molecule, for example a protein, forming by random chance is so low that it could never happen. Typically this sort of claim is backed up by some simple calculations that result in an appropriately huge X for 1/X.
Aside from any other misunderstandings that might contribute to this sort of fallacious claim, the one glaring mistake is that chemical and mechanical interactions do not occur by random chance. They are constrained by the regular patterns that we’ve come to refer to as Physical Laws. If reality actually functioned as such claims would require, the universe would still be dark.
Right, it’s sometimes stated as “To be an evolutionist, you have to believe that a 747 could be spontaneously _assembled_ by a tornado!”
Another related confusion is “irreducible complexity,” the idea that some processes are too complex to have been created by evolution. Chemical process with many steps are given as examples: if any step is missing, the process fails. This means that the system can’t be constructed by simpler processes, the argument goes, because again, there are no sub-processes that evolution could assemble into the useful result.
But this argument is easily refuted in two ways: 1) there could be sub-processes that lead to other useful results that can then be assembled, or 2) the process could arise from a more complex, less efficient process that was optimized by evolution to become irreducible.
It’s like saying that arches can exist in nature because wind can’t stack rocks…
The 747 itself was actually created by a form of evolution, albeit not spontaneously and not by natural processes. There were many, many, many failed efforts at powered flight before the Wright brothers’ successful design, and many other failed designs before we came up with the 747.
And, of course, as everyone here knows, the 747 analogy completely ignores the self-evident natural processes that drive the evolution of life, which are nothing like a tornado blowing random molecules around. No intelligent person can deny that organism’s mutate, and that an organism that is more suited to its environment will out-reproduce an organism that is less suited.
In refuting the argument that evolution is “only a theory,” I think it’s a waste to time trying to explain what, exactly, a “theory” is and to get them to believe your explanation. I think it’s a more productive approach agree that a “theory” and a “fact” are two different things (which is presumably the crux of their argument), but that according to the National Academy of Sciences, the occurrence of evolution is an established scientific FACT:
“[T]he evidence supporting descent with modification, as Charles Darwin termed it, is both overwhelming and compelling. In the century and a half since Darwin, scientists have uncovered exquisite details about many of the mechanisms that underlie biological variation, inheritance, and natural selection, and they have shown how these mechanisms lead to biological change over time. Because of this immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts. Biologists also are confident in their understanding of how evolution occurs.” — ”Science, Evolution and Creationism,” published by the National Academy of Sciences (2008).
And all those low-probability (because endergonic) reactions are coupled with energy-releasing reactions that drive them “backward” to make complicated products that, no, could not have arisen in isolation by pure chance. They are driven in what appear to be impossible directions, not just catalyzed. To add a single amino acid to a peptide chain requires hydrolysis of three high-energy phosphate bonds. To pump a single sodium ion out of a cell against a 25-fold concentration gradient requires one phosphate bond, and we actively transport hundreds of different substances in and out all day long. All of our biochemical reactions including synthesis become highly likely, going to near completion, once the free-energy changes of the whole reaction including the ATP* reactants are considered. That’s why life gives off heat. The creationists need to buy some thermometers and calorimeters.
—————
* usually
“The fossil record, anomalies of development, vestigial organs, and (my favorite) biogeography are all areas in which evolution explains phenomena that can’t be explained by Biblical creationism.”
My favorite is endogenous retroviruses (ERVs).
Then there are some phenomena that, conversely, were thought to require divine intervention because they couldn’t have arisen naturally, the eye being the traditional red-herring. Another is ribozyme, ribosomal RNA that turns out to have catalytic but no informational activity, a discovery that won a Nobel prize for Czech and Altman in 1989. It neatly answers the chicken-and-egg objection, How did the first protein get synthesized. and the first nuclei acid polymer get edited and duplicated, if there were no enzymes (peptidyl transferases and endonucleases) yet to catalyze these reactions? Ribosomal RNA can do this in vitro and seems to have no other function in eukaryotes today (although it must do something, to be conserved so long), analogous to using a cast bronze hammer and tongs to make the first forged iron hammer, and then you can make everything else with your iron hammers.
* Sorry, autocorrect misspelled Cech’s name.
I hope I’m not stating the obvious or belabouring the point but ribozyme provides direct support for the theory of evolution. A trio of scientists including Crick predicted in the 1960s that a naturalistic mechanism for the evolution of early life would require RNA with catalytic activity to get protein synthesis off the ground. Biochemistry textbooks of the 1970s (e.g., Lehninger) cited this prediction —it’s not a post hoc “just so” story. The directed search for catalytic RNA in the modern ribosome found it, just as the discoveries of Neptune and Pluto were predicted by cosmology. A theory that makes verifiable predictions that are verified is a good theory. Hence the Nobel.
It seems the fact of continued evolution in humans is evidence enough that evolution does not move in one direction.
Perhaps we have not yet reached that perfect, god-like ideal that we are inexorably headed toward?
Teilhard’s Omega Point? (JK)
Why leave Malthus out of the evolution of evolution?
I didn’t leave him out; his work was, of course, the source of Darwin’s real “aha moment” about natural selection (not evolution).
This post appears to imply religious authority is not acceptable, but evolutionary authority (“consensus of scientists”) is acceptable ? What’s the difference? Why should I trust a “consensus of scientists” more than a consensus of theologians? Scientists used to recommend blood letting to cure all ills. That changed. What else will change? Sorry, the argument that my authority is better than your authority, nanny nanny boo boo doesn’t work. There’s “evidence” and the interpretation of evidence. Different scientists interpret “evidence” different ways. All have an agenda and a bias.
I guess I’ll go read your book and learn more. I’m confused at your point. Thanks.
Note that I mention evidence. There has to be publicly available EMPIRICAL evidence for other scientists to examine, and for the public to examine, too. When virtually all rational scientists agree on the empirical data, we have a (provisional) scientific truth. PLEASE note that there is NO consensus over a single religious truth.
Fair point, but give me an example of one consensus of believers about religion. “Jesus was God’s son”? Nope. “Muhammad was the prophet of God, who dictated the Quran taught to him by an angel?” Nope. The angel Moroni showed Joseph Smith the golden plates?” Nope. No consensus, and no evidence.
Now do the same thing with “The Earth goes around the Sun”, and ask scientists from all over the world.
Yeah, I’d suggest you read my book, and also this article I wrote about “faith” in science vs. “faith” in religion.
“Scientists used to recommend blood letting to cure all ills. That changed.”
Exactly.
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever wrought.”
-Immanuel Kant
1784
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
At least in principle, I can go and look at the evidence for evolution myself – I can look at the similarities and differences between the fauna and flora of different parts of the world, I can examine fossils in situ and in museums and i can look at similarities and differences between different plant and animal species in terms of morphology, physiology, genetics etc. All of that evidence provides a highly compelling argument for the evolution of life. By contrast, evidence for the alternative claim that evolution has not occurred and all life was created at a stroke by a deity can only be found in the claim itself, i.e. in the pages of the holy texts.
The authority of science doesn’t rest on the authority of the scientists — their honesty, their intelligence, their skill or their ability to be objective. It rests on a method that basically assumes they don’t have any of those virtues.
A consensus that’s wrung out of a stiff competition where demonstration from the evidence is key, everyone is a judge, and no conclusion is sacred is very different than what goes on in theology.
In a strictly formal sense, consensus among scientists does not mean much. However, in practice, the idea is that scientists are driven to a consensus by the weight of evidence. That need not happen if scientists are ideologically driven. For example, there is at least one scientist who thinks the Standard Model of Cosmology suggests the existence of a creator. If there are many more who think like he does, we might have a consensus among scientists. However, a consensus does not create evidence. A consensus among physicists that string theory is true (I’m not saying that such a consensus exists) does not create evidence for string theory. They have to look for the evidence, and if it is not found, the question will remain open — more open than usual because, science being what it is, all scientific questions are open to questioning at some level. It is not dogma.
It is possible — perhaps even plausible — that there is a consensus among theologians that God exists. That too means nothing unless the concept is reified. Not even the ideas of true or false make sense unless the statement is made more concrete. Here, the concept of evidence is vacuous.
In the end, science has to come up with frameworks and theories to predict physical phenomena. The more applicable scientific knowledge is readily demonstrable, useful things like cars and nuclear bombs are good examples.
Perhaps ironically, creationism is not necessarily “good theism,” although it is undoubtedly a certain kind of Biblicism. If “God does not lie,” then neither do the phenomena.
Your 1-7 is a very good list, as are your two Darwin misconceptions. A related misconception is that evolution is linear, and by “linear” I mean something other than progressive. I mean that there is a tendency to misunderstand the role of branching, or speciation (cladogenesis). This, for instance, lies behind a criticism that is common among creationists. “If humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?” This criticism, whether it is honest or not (I suspect the latter), neglects (or misrepresents) the branching component of evolution. If people better understood the fact that branching that produced the 10 million (or more) species we have today, this criticism would carry no weight.
I like to answer this one with something along the lines of, I (human) am not the child of my first cousin Nancy (chimp), instead we are both descended from our common Grandma Hoffman (ape-like ancestor). Something anyone with relatives can relate to.
But would Grandma Hoffman really admit to being an ape-like ancestor? 🙂
She is long since gone, so she’ll never know! She might have been ok with it anyway, she had a good sense of humor.
ahem Susan – surely ‘Hoff-person’! We do not want to be genderist! 🙂
Yes, to those who pose this argument we can ask “If we are descended from our grand parents why are there still cousins?”
On a related tangent: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/enceladus-phosphorus-life-building-block-saturn-moon
Cool. Thanks for posting the link.
+1
Beautiful. Phosphate is the breath of life. Without phosphate we are just bags of inert chemicals.
Darwin was a quiet, humble and modest man who never liked confrontation. The last thing he wanted was problems. But he certainly became non-religious over time in his life and was open about it in his personal biography if I’m not mistaken.
I have to hand it to you for this long range/long game fight you’ve been waging. What amazes me (all the time) is that there are people who don’t actually accept evolution. Like not accepting gravity.
I live in a bubble: retired, Manhattan, ex-lawyer, ex-Wall St., writer: I really don’t get out much. I read lots of conservative stuff (even though I’m a disillusioned non-woke lefty) but I leave at the sound of Jesus. Conservatives I can argue with and agree with on some occasions, but the Christ clappers entire universe is alien to me. Magical thinking. Like the woke.
Keep up the good work, PCCE
D.A.
NYC
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/06/10/photos-of-readers-93/
That is something that I’ve always thought about. While it would be wrong to propagate religious ideas in a science class, discussing why scientific ideas took hold could involve examining the failure of religious ideas and other superstitions. Science and religion did not develop as two ways of knowing — one works while the other does not. I’ve wondered if teachers would get into trouble for discussing this sort of thing. It’s good that they don’t. When discussing the development of scientific theories, there is nothing wrong with mentioning why some old ideas were abandoned.
Your fellow travelers are lucky to hear your lectures. I wish I could!
There is a whole lot you could cover; instead you have wisely chosen to uncover some of it and made some choices all of which seem good to me and ones your general audience would benefit. I’m reminded of your presentation at the Stanford Conference. You restricted yourself to 4 points and in the 5 minutes allowed (you kept to time) you did the audience a favor and explained each beautifully.
Great post, makes me think I should go back and reread WEIT. My recollection of it was that it was very clear and to the point.
Good luck on the cruise!
Wish I were on that cruise!!
Maybe they need someone to swab the decks?! 😉
I suppose if you had time you would have to dismiss the two Wilsons re “Evolution operates “for the good of the species”” – well, if that means group selection…
While Darwin’s finches have in the past, been oversold as a source of Darwin’s ideas, ever since Frank Sulloway’s writings on the subject there has been an opposite tendency. The Galapagos were still a crucial part of Darwin’s thinking. It was there, in 1835, that he wrote in his “Ornithological Notes”:
The above passage does not record, as Jerry notes, an “aha” moment, but it was a step on the journey toward descent with modification. And, back home in England in 1837, he wrote in his “Journal”:
The particular Galapagos species he had in mind were probably not the finches, but rather the Galapagos mockingbirds and tortoises (both mentioned immediately prior to the quoted passage from the “Ornithological Notes”); but Darwin had been amazed when John Gould told him the finches were, in fact, all finches, and not, as Darwin had supposed, composed of species from multiple families and genera.
So, Jerry and his passengers have every reason to go to the Galapagos to learn about evolution. For a scholarly appreciation of the “Voyage of the Beagle” see here at Darwin Online, and here for the chapter on the Galapagos. This is from the last edition (1860) revised by Darwin.
GCM
Starting off class with a Big Bang — a live, attention-getting controversy which the students are familiar with — is I think a wise tactic, and another good reason for using Creationism when teaching Evolution.
Darwin’s publisher (John Murray) would have written that in the book and sent it on Darwin’s behalf to people he wanted to have complimentary copies of the book. The recipient of this one was George Buist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Buist_(journalist)
In your second paragraph, I think you mean “late 19th century”.
Resisting the idea of what to do if you corralled a random thousand religionists at a convenient stockyard, I suspect that all of them would agree with the statement that “the other guys are wrong”.
Obviously, there would be a considerable number of “others” mentioned, but it is a truth universally acknowledged that people of a different religion to to are wrong – and will either die for it, or suffer an eternity of torment for their error.
I think that by now the idea of needing personal atheism in science is a misconception by itself, since as of 2016 and on the whole universe is observed to be the result of a process (scale expansion). That leaves no room for beliefs in magic actions, whether religious or something similar.