Common Misconceptions About Evolution
Isn’t evolution just a theory?
Technically yes. But a theory in science has a different meaning than in layman’s terms. In science, a theory means “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
There are many theories in science that people seem to have no problem with. The theory of gravitation, theory of electricity, and the germ theory of disease are just a few. If someone is going to label evolution as just a theory, then all these and more must be labeled as such as well. The theory of evolution is the most attacked scientific theory in history, and it has withstood every attack. This testifies to the strength of the theory of evolution.
Since so many people believe in creationism, shouldn’t it be taught as well just to be fair?
According to a March 5, 2001 Gallup poll conducted in the U.S.A., 45% of the respondents agreed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” Thirty seven percent answered that evolution happened, but God guided the process, while 12% agreed with the statement that life evolved over millions of years and that God had nothing to do with it. (Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, p. 292)
Just because something is popular doesn’t make it right. Science succeeds or fails on the evidence alone, not on popular opinion. It doesn’t matter if 1% or 100% of the population accept a scientific theory, what makes a theory accepted in science is facts, evidence, and repeatability of experiments.
According to a National Science Foundation poll taken in 2002, sixty percent of the respondents believe in ESP, 70% think that magnetic therapy is scientific, 40% think that astrology is scientific, and 88% think that alternative medicines are a viable why to treat illness (Shermer, How We Believe, p. 246-247). If we are going to allow nonscientific ideas into classrooms based solely on popular opinion, then these ideas should be included too since they have just about as many or even more believers than creationism.
There are only two explanations, creationism or evolution.
This is the either-or fallacy. It’s like saying if A fails then B is correct. Even if evolution is completely wrong, that doesn’t make creationism correct. There could be other alternatives that have not been discovered yet. Problems for evolution are not evidence for creationism (and problems for creationism are not evidence for evolution). Creationism should stand regardless of evolution, by having facts and evidence on its side. Since creationism consists of little more than attacks against science it has no positive evidence of its own. Also once you allow the supernatural into science, science goes out the window. There can be no evidence for creationism because natural laws and the scientific method no longer apply in the world of the supernatural. You can’t get God to come down to the laboratory and submit to experiments.
Can biology be taught without evolution?
Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Without evolution, biology is nothing more than natural history. Evolution ties together all the ideas in biology. Not teaching evolution in biology would be like teaching an American government class without mentioning the Constitution.
I heard there are hundreds of scientists against evolution. Is this true?
Most of the scientists who sign these kinds of lists do not work in the earth or life sciences. Most are engineers, mathematicians, philosophers and so forth. Their knowledge about evolution is probably little better than the man on the street. It’s not as important as to who is saying something, but why they are saying it. Most of the people who sign these lists do so for religious, not scientific reasons. Being skeptical of evolution is fine, as long the person has evidence to back up their claims.
The National Science Foundation has Project Steve, which is a list of scientists all with the name Steve or with variants of that name, all who support evolution. As of December 28, 2005 there were 688 signatures. And since people with the name Steve only account for about 1% of the US population, that amounts to approximately 68,800 scientists. Please see National Center for Science Education, Project Steve.
Having lists with people with high level degrees does not make a scientific theory correct or incorrect. What makes a theory right is the facts and evidences behind it.
Creationists who circulate these lists are just doing another form of argument from authority.
Since evolution can’t explain everything, does that mean it is wrong?
Evolutionary theory does not claim to explain everything. Evolution deals with how organisms change over time. It does not deal with the beginning of life, the beginning of the universe, and a myriad of other scientific fields. Evolution deals with biology, not physics, geology, cosmology, astronomy, etc. These fields often overlap and information that is pertinent to one field is often useful to another. Anti evolutionists often call any field of science or history that disagrees with their view of the world evolution, when in reality they are talking about something that has nothing to do with evolution. Sure there are plenty of unanswered questions about evolution, but more and more are being answered all the time.
Scientists are human, and humans make mistakes. How can we trust their conclusions?
Scientists do make mistakes. But in science there is the peer reviewed process to weed out any bad science and mistakes. The peer reviewed process allows other scientists to double check the work of others. In this manner incorrect conclusions are stricken out, leaving only what is correct.
A good example is the Korean scientist, Woo-Suk Hwang, who claimed to have replaced the nuclei of unfertilized human eggs with nuclei from ordinary cells taken from patients. Hwang claimed to have cloned the cells and they had matching DNA from their donors. His claims were published in Science in the May 2005 issue. When other scientists were able to check his claims, they turned out to be false. This is an example of the self correcting nature of science. (Peter Singer, “Why the Korean Stem-cell Controversy Matters”, free inquiry, April/May 2006 Vol. 26 No. 3, p. 25-26)
Common Creationist Claims
Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?
The second law of thermodynamics states “that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.” This doesn’t apply to evolution for one good reason. The earth is not a closed system. The earth is always receiving energy from the sun. All it takes for evolution to work is reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. These happen all the time with no problem. (Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism p. 126-127) (Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things p. 149-150). Please see here.
I have heard that there are no transitional fossils. Or alternatively, that there are not enough transitional fossils. Is this true?
No, there are actually plenty of transitional fossils. It’s just that creationists ignore them. There is Archaeopteryx, with reptile and bird characteristics, Tiktalik is a fish with land animal characteristics, and Australopithecus is a human ancestor that walked upright. When given an example of a transitional fossil, creationists claim that it is just not transitional enough. It’s like having two cups sitting on a table. You have a gap between the two. Now put a third cup in between. Now you have two gaps. This is what creationists do with fossils. Please see here, here and here for some examples of transitional fossils.
The low number of transitional fossils could be from a process called Punctuated Equilibrium, proposed by Elridge and Gould in 1972. Punctuated equilibrium states that a small founder population gets separated from the main population. Rapid changes build up in the smaller gene pool. This creates new species that leave behind few fossils since fossilization is so rare anyway. The low number of fossils may be evidence of rapid change, not missing evidence for gradual evolution. (Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things p. 148-149)
The Cambrian Explosion shows new creatures appearing suddenly, with no ancestors. There are no Precambrian fossils. How could this occur?
There was no sudden explosion of life at the start of the Cambrian. Fossils of Precambrian creatures have been found. Evidence of multicellar life dating back 590 millions years has been found in China. One reason why Precambrian fossils are rare is because they were soft bodied. They had no hard body parts that could easily fossilize. Also, the Precambrian rocks are so old many have been destroyed due to weathering and the earth’s cycle of subduction, where rocks are pushed back into the mantle and melted.
Many of the animals that lived at the beginning of the Cambrian are totally alien to us. What appeared where most modern phyla. Birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians did not appear in the Cambrian. The fish that existed are totally different than those that exist today.
The Cambrian explosion lasted anywhere between five and forty million years, plenty of time for evolution to take place. Please see here, here and here for some examples of this.
Does the entire geologic column exist?
The entire geologic column does exist in certain parts of the world. The Bonaparte Basin of Australia and the Williston Basin of North Dakota are two examples.
The entire column does not have to exist all in one place in order for it to be understood. There is enough overlap in many parts of the world to figure out the column anyway. Please see here for more information regarding the Geologic Column and it’s implications to the flood.
Did a global flood deposit all the fossils?
The fossil layer shows simpler creatures becoming more and more complex over time. A flood cannot explain this. Flood advocates will often claim that smaller creatures, like humans, floated to the top and larger creatures, like dinosaurs, sank to the bottom. The average size of dinosaurs was that of a station wagon. Many were very small, no larger than modern birds. Why don’t we find any of them at the top layer with humans? And why didn’t any of the flying reptiles fly to higher elevations to avoid the rising water? And what about the creatures that lived before the dinosaurs, many of them were smaller than the large dinosaur species. Why did the big dinosaurs float higher than them and they sank to a lower strata? There has never been any fossil find that contradicted evolution.
Did Darwin recant on his deathbed?
This is called the Lady Hope story, and it is false. Even if it were true, it would not invalidate evolution. It would be like if Isaac Newton recanted on his deathbed, and someone claiming that now gravity was incorrect.
Even most major creationist organizations no longer use this as evidence against evolution. (Answers in Genesis, Did Darwin Recant?, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html) Please see here and here for further refutations of this claim.
Is Creationism scientific?
Creationism is nothing but religion dressed up as science. This is obvious just by browsing creationist literature or websites. The mission statement to Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization states:
Goal
To support the Church in fulfilling its commission.
Vision
Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.
Mission
- We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
- We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
- We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the Gospel, individually and collectively. “
Answers in Genesis, Mission Statement
The Institute for Creation Research has a statement that must be adhered by all faculty members and researchers:
1. The Bible is the written word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. Please see here for this oath. (Also cited in Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, p. 141-142)
Science works by collecting new facts and seeing how they support or falsify current theories. Science collects facts, and sees what can be learned from them. Creationism already claims to have all the answers, in the form of the Bible, and only uses facts if they support their religious convictions. Creationism is based on the authority of the Bible, and to creationists no facts or evidence can ever undermine it.
I have heard people claim that evolution is the cause of all our social problems. Communism, Nazism, racism, lust, greed, hate, all are caused by the teaching of evolution. Is this true?
Social problems existed long before evolution. We have always had greed, lust, hate, and racism. Getting rid of evolution would not remove these problems. Religion has tried for thousands of years to control these problems with limited success. By blaming evolution we are missing the real complex social issues behind these problems.
Evolution is not the foundation of communism. In fact, the teaching of Darwinian evolution was outlawed in the Soviet Union during Stalin’s reign. Many biologists were sent to the gulags or were never heard from again. Please see here for more information on Lysenko and Lysenkoism.
Nazism was not based on evolution. The German Workers Party had a list of twenty five points what they considered made a good German. Evolution is not mentioned anywhere. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html) Hitler himself thought that he was doing God’s work.
In his 1938 Reichstag speech he proclaimed: “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By fighting of the Jews I am doing the Lord’s work” (Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, p. 153). There are many such more quotes in Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.” (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 562.)
Nowhere does Hitler mention that evolution caused him to have his particular views. Please see here and here for evidence of that.
Is it possible for evolution to create the diversity of life? I don’t see how it could have happened. Surely it had to have had a creator?
This is called an argument from incredulity. Just because the individual making such a claim can’t conceive of or doesn’t know how evolution worked in this particular case, it doesn’t mean that no one does. Even if no one knows the answer, jumping to a supernatural explanation is not justified. What if someday someone finds the answer?
This can also be called the God of the gaps argument. Creationists use God to explain any unknown phenomena. God used to be used to explain things like the weather and diseases, but now we have natural explanations for these. People use God to explain the things we do not understand, and with more and more knowledge, the unknown continues to shrink.
Were many famous scientists creationists? Newton and Pasteur were creationists.
Creationism was the standard explanation until Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859. And for some decades after that, creationism was still considered to be a valid explanation. But with more and more evidence, creationism was replaced by evolution. Most of the famous scientists creationists like to mention, such as Newton, lived long before evolution was published. And others were not familiar with it, since evolution was not their field of study. There are almost no creationist scientists today. Creationists imply that all scientists who support evolution are lying, stupid, or incompetent. That is just preposterous.
How many scientists are actually creationists?
According to a 1991 Gallop poll, only about 5% of scientists are creationists. And that number drops to 0.15% if only scientists who work in the earth and life sciences are counted. And that is in the United States, which has more creationists than any other country in the world. If the rest of the world is tallied up, the number of creation scientists drops to less than one tenth of one percent. Please see here and here for further information on the scientific consensus regarding evolution.
Were you there when evolution happened?
A better question would be “How do you know?” If the person can back up their answer with evidence, then it should be considered a valid answer. We know evolution happened because of a convergence of evidence from the fields of biology, geology, chemistry, paleontology, biogeography, cosmology, physics, astronomy, archaeology, ancient history, and basically every other –ology. There would have to be many fundamental flaws with all of these fields if creationism was correct.
The police solve crimes all the time without eyewitnesses. They have to rely on physical evidence. Scientists are like detectives, they go where the evidence leads. The evidence points to evolution, not creationism.
Is it true that human and dinosaur tracks have been found together at Paluxy River, Texas?
This is false. Even many creationist organizations no longer use this one. There are only prints of a bipedal, three toed dinosaur. No human prints have ever been found. Please see here and here for some further evidence for this.
Is the earth only 6,000 years old?
The earth is very old, about 4.55 billion years old. If the earth is old, isotopes with short half lives should have decayed already. And they have. Testing of radioactive elements in meteorites, which formed at the same time as the earth, give an age of 4.55 billion years. (Powell, Mysteries of Terra Firma, p. 45-73). Please see here.
There are also varves, which are deposits of annual sediment layers in lakes. The rate of sedimentation is consistent with the other dating techniques. Some varve formations have millions of layers. Please see here.
There are Loess (wind blown silt) deposits in China that are over 300 m thick. They give a consistent climate record for over 7.2 million years. The Loess deposits are verified by fossils and magnetostratigraphy. Please see here.
Tree rings, which are often used to date past events in human history, show a history of 8,000 years. Please see here.
Isn’t evolution just another religion?
Religion is defined as:
- Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
- A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
- A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
Let’s break down this definition:
“Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.“
Evolution is not considered to be supernatural. It is a natural process that conforms to the laws of nature and can be studied using the scientific method. While many supporters of evolution believe in a higher power, it is not necessary for evolution to have such a power involved. Evolution is also not considered to govern the universe.
“A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.”
Since evolution supporters no more worship evolution than gravity supporters worship gravity, it fails this criterion of religion. There is no church of evolution where one can go and worship it. Evolution also has no priests or adherents.
“The life or condition of a person in a religious order.”
This is very similar to the above explanation. There are no monasteries to evolution.
“A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.”
There are no spiritual leaders of evolution. There are scientists who are highly respected, but one doesn’t have to like or listen to these people. There are no set values or practices that an evolution supporter must adhere to.
“A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”
This could apply to almost anything. If this makes something a religion, then stamp collecting, fly fishing, and playing sports could be considered a religion. This would make the meaning of religion useless.
Even the courts have ruled that evolution is not a religion:
“Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.” {The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
Creationists say that there is no evidence for evolution and that all the evidence points to creationism. Is this true?
There is absolutely no evidence for creationism. When you take all the evidence in every science, it all adds up to evolution. We have a lot of evidence for evolution, such as:
The fossil record.
Evolution predicts that the fossil record should show a progression of simple life forms to more complex life forms over time. And that is exactly what it shows. Evolution also predicts that we should find transitional fossils, and we do. There have been many such finds in just the past year. Tiktalik, a fossil fish with tetrapod features, is a transitional from aquatic to land animals. Evolution also predicts that all organisms share a common ancestor. By looking at the fossil record we can see the ancestral organisms by comparing the derived characteristics of varying organisms.
Creationism can offer no explanation for the fossil record.
(Tim M. Berra, “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism p. 31-46) Please see here.
The genetic evidence.
Evolution predicts that the more closely related two species are, the more genetic similarities we should find. And we do. Humans and chimps share almost 99% of the same DNA. We share less with gorillas and other apes. This means that humans and chimps both split off from the other apes at a later time, and that we both share a common ancestor. Humans and chimps also cannot synthesize vitamin C naturally. The gene that synthesizes vitamin C is broken, at the same place in the DNA in both humans and chimps. This can easily be explained by sharing a common ancestor who had this broken gene. Since both humans and chimps can get vitamin C from food, it is not life threatening and could be passed down through the generations.
Creationism can offer no explanation for genetic similarities.
Please see here and here.
Vestigial organs.
Vestigial organs are leftovers from the evolutionary past. Since evolution is a bottom up designer, it can only modify existing structures. Evolution predicts that we should find such organs, and once again we do. The human appendix is a classic example. The appendix was used by our ancient ancestors to help with the digestion of tough roots. Since we haven’t eaten these for tens of thousands of years, the appendix has lost its original function. Other examples of vestigial organs are hips in whales. Whales are entirely aquatic mammals that are descended from terrestrial animals. Since whales can survive in the ocean with hips, evolution can leave them. Also vestigial doesn’t mean useless. These organs have been adapted to serve other functions. The human appendix is used by the immune system, but people can survive just fine without it. It is not a vital organ. Whale’s hips are used during mating. Evolution can give reasons why organisms posses such structures, it is the bottom up design of evolution.
Creationism cannot explain why a designer would give useless or unneeded organs and structures to living things.
(Tim M. Berra, “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism” p. 22) Please see here.
Atavistic features.
Atavistic features are “reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character.” Please see here. A good example is whales with legs. Since whales evolved from land animals, they still carry the genetic instructions for legs. So evolution would predict that occasionally whales will be born with legs. And there have been whales found to have legs. Human tails are another atavistic feature.
Creationism can give no explanation for the appearance of atavistic features in living animals.
Morphology.
Morphology is the scientific study of form and structure of organisms. Morphology was used by taxonomists in the past to classify living things, since that was all they had to go on. Shared similarities and differences are in fact how animals and plants are classified. The reasons for similarities and differences are that some organisms are more closely related to each other by common descent than others are. The forelimbs of such diverse animals such as frogs, whales, bats, horses, lizards, and humans all share essentially the same boney parts, relationship of parts, and embryological development. They are similar because they share the same blueprint from a common ancestor. The forelimbs of each creature have been modified by evolution to survive in different environments and for different uses. The basic structure used by terrestrial animals is inherited from lobe-finned fishes that also had the same arrangement of boney structures.
Creationism can give no reason why an omnipotent designer would give the same basic structures to many different organisms that live in completely different environments and live completely different lifestyles.
(Tim M. Berra, “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism” p. 20)
Embryology.
Embryology is the study and growth of the early development of an organism. Evolution predicts that species that are more closely related should go through similar embryonic development. And they do. The early embryos of all vertebrates resemble each other. Embryos of creatures that breathe air go through a gill slit stage, complete with aortic arches and a two-chambered heart, like those of a fish. Creationism can give no valid explanation to why this would occur.
(Tim M. Berra, “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism” p. 22)
These are just some of the examples of evidence for evolution. There is a vast amount of information on the subject, but hopefully this will give the reader a little more understanding about evolution and why it is accepted by the scientific community. There is just not one piece of evidence that has evolution written on it. It is a convergence of evidence from many different fields that leads the scientific community to say that evolution happened.
One of the main differences between evolution and creationism is that evolution has explanatory power. Evolution offers natural explanations that we can make predictions about and test for their validity. Creationism makes no predictions. Every time that creationism has given a testable hypothesis, it is proven incorrect. Creationists have to rely on attacking science to make it seem like modern science is incorrect, and by some twist of logic, that somehow makes creationism automatically correct.
I’ve heard that crime rates have gone up since the teaching of evolution began. Surely there must be a correlation?
There does not seem to be a correlation with the teaching of evolution and crime rates. In fact crime rates have been going down in recent years. Other western nations teach evolution, and they have lower crime rates than the US. Please see here.
Since according to surveys, almost half of the respondents claim to be creationists, then they should share the blame for the crime rate. (Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, p. 292)
Has speciation ever been observed?
Yes, many times. Scientists can make speciation happen on small scales using artificial selection and allopolyploidy (Having two or more complete sets of chromosomes derived from different species). Scientists have created new species of plant crops, bacteria, and the famous examples of fruit flies. We can also see speciation in ring species. Ring species are distributed in more or less a straight line, such as around the rim of a valley, which forms a ring of the organism’s distribution. Each population of organism can breed with its neighbors, but they cannot breed with the organisms at the other end of the ring. Major changes take too long for us to observe directly, but we can deduce them from living organisms and from fossil remains. (Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, p. 129-130) (Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale, p.301-303, 307-308). Please see here and here.
Micro evolution occurs, but macro evolution does not. Is this true?
Micro evolution is often described as small changes within a species, such as a population of a certain bird species growing longer beaks than normal. Macro evolution is described as large scale changes above the species level. Speciation has been observed many times, so we have seen macro evolution in action. Since evolution is the accumulation of many small changes over long periods of time, and there is no reason why many small changes cannot add up to larger changes, we can deduce that macro evolution occurs. Since human life spans are so short, we cannot see such large changes directly. Luckily we have the fossil record, genetic evidence, and more which shows that macro evolution has occurred. Please see here.
Micro and macro evolution can be described using the following analogy. Taking one step can be considered micro evolution. It will not get you far. But if you take another step, then another, and another, you can end up in an entirely different place than where you started from.
Is Carbon 14 dating accurate?
It is accurate when used properly. Carbon 14 dating can only be used to date things younger than 50,000 years old, and it can only be used on once living things like wood, bone etc. or carbonate deposits such as tufa. Using Carbon 14 to date objects younger than 150 years will also give bad results due to the carbon released in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Please see here and here.
(Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, p. 131)
Carbon 14 dating has been tested repeatedly and it is confirmed by other dating methods. Tree ring dating, which goes back 8,000 years, has calibrated Carbon 14. Please see here. Carbon 14 dating has also been verified by testing things on which the age was already known. Multiple samples from the objects were tested, and they gave consistent results.
Piltdown man was a hoax, what does that mean for evolution?
In 1912 a skull was found near Piltdown, England. Part of a skull, which looked like a modern human’s, and a mandible, which appeared to be apelike, became known as Eoanthropus dawsoni and was thought to be 500,000 years old. In the early 1950’s it was exposed as a fraud.
Piltdown Man was a hoax, but the hoax was uncovered by scientists, not creationists. Even though it took forty years for it to be uncovered, it proves the correcting nature of science. Many scientists, especially outside of England, did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically. Piltdown man began to come under more suspicion as more and more fossils were discovered that contradicted it.
Creationists have hoaxes of their own, like the Paluxy River tracks. Piltdown Man is no longer used by scientists as evidence for human evolution, but many creationists still use the Paluxy River tracks. Please see here.
Do you want to be descended from a monkey?
It doesn’t matter what we want, it only matters what is. Humans evolved from other animals. Denying the fact of human evolution is denying reality.
Humans didn’t evolve from monkeys anyway, at least not directly. Humans evolved from apes, and apes evolved from monkeys.
If humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
Evolution does not work by going in a straight line. Evolution is a branching bush. Humans and apes are two different branches of the same bush. We share a common ancestor with modern apes. Apes need not be extinct for humans to exist. This is like asking, “If I am of Irish descent and live in America, why are there still people living in Ireland?”
If evolution is true, does that mean that there are no morals?
Morals exist because of evolution. Humans are social creatures and developed what we call morality to be able to survive in complex social groups. Cooperation and altruism is the only way to succeed in a complex social group. This led to advanced social creatures like humans who later developed such principles as the Golden Rule. Religion later codified these principles into religious notions of morality. (Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, p. 24-65) (Steven Pinker, “Evolution and Ethics”, Intelligent Thought, p.142-152)
What is Creationism?
There is not one exact definition of creationism, but this one from Henry Morris, one of the founders of the modern creationist movement, described creationism as:
Creation denotes abrupt appearance of basic categories of life without any basic type having descended from some other category, and with no extensive change once the category appears. Lack of change is known as stasis. Fish have always been fish, ever since they first appeared, and dogs have always been dogs. Fish and dogs and all else may have varied a little, but did not come from a common ancestor (Morris, “What You May Not Know About Evolution”).
Like Mr. Morris, most creationists believe in something like this. They do not accept that life on earth has evolved, and that organisms (especially humans) are descended from previous species. But even in the creationist community there are varying beliefs. I will attempt to give a brief description of each of the versions of creationism. Most of the article will deal with Christian creationism, since it is by far the most popular in the United States and other western countries, but I will also give some short examples of other forms of creationism. For a more detailed look at creationism, please click here.
Flat Earthers
Flat earth creationists believe that the earth is a flat, circular disc with the North Pole at the center. They also believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Needless to say, flat earth creationists are very few in number. For more information, read Martin Gardner’s Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science or click here.
Geocentrists
Geocentrists believe that the earth is round, but that it is at the center of the universe. The sun, moon, stars, and planets all move around the earth. Like flat earthers, geocentrists are also rare, but there are still geocentrists publishing books and websites. You can find more information on Geocentrists here.
Young Earth Creationists
This is the most common form of creationism. When people speak of creationists they most often mean young earth creationists. According to recent surveys in the USA 45% of the respondents agreed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” (Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, p. 292) Young earth creationists have no problem with the earth orbiting the sun, but they believe the earth and universe to have been created 6,000 years ago. They also believe that a global flood deposited all the fossils and created all the geologic features on the earth, like mountains, valleys, canyons, etc. Like flat earthers and geocentrists, young earth creationists reject modern physics, chemistry, geology, biology, much of ancient history, and just about any form of knowledge that contradicts their religious views. There are many books and websites for young earth creationists, but I’ll only present a few here: Answering Genesis, ICR and Dr. Dino.
Old Earth Creationists
Old earth creationists have no problem accepting that the earth is billions of years old, but they do reject most of evolutionary theory. They believe that all life was specifically created by God. For more information on Old Earth Creationism, please click here.
Gap Creationism
Gap creationists believe that there is a large temporal gap between Genesis chapters I: 1 and chapter I: 2. They believe that there were two creations, one pre-Adamic which was destroyed. God then recreated the world in six days. (Armstrong, Herbert W., Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead, New York, 1985.)
Day Age Creationism
Day age creationists believe that the six days of creation were long periods of time, perhaps millions of years long. They claim there is a rough parallel between Genesis and science, with plants and animals appearing before humans. (Anonymous, Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Brooklyn, NY 1985)
Progressive Creationism
Progressive creationists accept modern physical science, but reject large amounts of biology. They believe that God created “kinds” sequentially, and the fossil record is an accurate history of life on earth. Progressive creationists believe that evolution occurs within these kinds. God created an original cat kind that later evolved into the many cat species alive today. Many progressive creationists also believe that God is the power behind the Big Bang. You can find more information on Progressive Creationism here.
Intelligent Design Creationism
Intelligent Design creationists can trace their history back to William Paley’s Watchmaker argument. They believe that God can be proven by examining his works. The Watchmaker argument claims that if you found a watch laying on the ground you would assume that it had a designer. So therefore all things in nature must have a designer too. Most of the IDC arguments are along the line of “This is too complex to have evolved; it must have had a designer.” They call this irreducible complexity. They claim structures, like the human eye, blood clotting system, and bacteria flagellum as irreducibly complex. But many do accept some amount of evolution, at least within “kinds”. IDC is often used as an umbrella attack on evolution where creationists of every stripe can unite. IDC also hold that all beliefs about evolution are a kind of philosophical materialism. You can find more information on Intelligent Design Creationishm here.
Evolutionary Creationism
Evolutionary creationists do not deny evolution; they just believe that God caused it to happen. This view is held by many conservative evangelicals. You can find more information on Evolutionaly Creationism here.
Theistic Evolutionists
Theistic evolutionists believe that God created through the process of evolution. They accept modern science. Many theistic evolutionists believe that God does things that are outside the realm of science, like the creation of the soul. This is the official position of the Catholic Church.
Methodological/Philosophical Materialistic Evolution
Materialistic evolution claims that God did not interfere with evolution. They do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, but instead say nothing of the role of the supernatural. Philosophical materialists believe that there is no such thing as the supernatural and that the natural is all there is.
Below are some forms of non biblical creationism. They are not as popular as biblical creationism, with the possible exception of Islamic creationism.
Islamic Creationism
Many Islamic creationists can be classified in one of the categories for biblical creationism. Most Islamic young earth creationists get their information from biblical creationist organizations in the USA.
Hindu (Vedic) Creationism
Hindu creationists believe that the earth is very old, far older than what science has established it as. They also believe that humans have existed for billions of years. (Cremo, Michael A. & Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (Govardhan Hill, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994))
American Indian Creationism
There are many different creation stories amongst the tribes of American Indians. The most famous recent example is of Kennewick Man which was a 9000 year old fossil Caucasian or possibly Polynesian or Ainu fossil man found in Washington State. According to the belief of the Umatilla Indians, they have always lived in that part of the world. The Umatilla filed suit to gain custody of the remains, but in 2004 the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their claims.
Raelians
Raelians believe that a highly technologically advanced alien race started life on earth. You can find more information on Raelians here.
Panspermia
Panspermia claims that life originated on other planets, was carried to earth on a meteorite or other cosmic body, and life evolved from there. You can find more information on Panspermia here.
Catastrophic Evolution
Life on earth was caused by great astronomical catastrophes. Immanuel Velikovsky’s books Earth in Upheaval and Worlds in Collision have this view. Velikovsky states that a huge comet slammed into Jupiter, which caused the planet Venus to erupt from it. When Venus passed close to earth, it caused worldwide disaster, like a global flood.
Intelligent Design
Surely some things are too complex to evolve. Isn’t it true that the human eye and bacteria flagellum are examples of irreducible complexity?
Irreducible complexity, as defined by Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box:
“By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”
But there are ways in which the eye and bacteria flagellum could have evolved. There is no need to posit a supernatural designer. The eye is also not irreducibly complex, in which the removal of one part causes complete blindness. Many people have problems with their eyes, but some sight is better than none. The human eye is the result of millions of eyes of gradual change of pre-existing structures. We don’t have fossilized eyes, since soft parts rarely fossilize, but we can look at the different eyes in nature to figure out how the eye could have evolved. First there is the simple eyespot where a few light sensitive cells give the organism the location of light sources; a recessed eyespot where a small indentation in the surface provides additional information to the location of the direction of the light; a deeply recessed eyespot where even more light sensitive cells which provides even more accurate information to the organism; a pinhole camera eye that is able to focus an image on the back of a layer of deeply recessed of light sensitive cells; a pinhole lens eye that is actually able to focus the image; and finally the complex eye found in humans and other modern animals. (Shermer, “Science Friction”, p. 183-186)
The eye is not that intelligently designed. The retina is configured in three layers, with the light sensitive rods and cones at the bottom. They face away from the light, underneath a layer of bipolar, horizontal, and amacrine cells, which are under a layer of ganglion cells. They help carry the transduced light signal to the brain by way of nerve impulses. This entire structure sets below a series of blood vessels. Basically the eye is backwards and upsides down. Evolution can explain this, since evolution is a bottom up designer, while Intelligent Design cannot. (Shermer, “Science Friction”, p. 183-186)
The bacteria flagellum is another of the Intelligent Design movement’s favorite examples of Irreducible complexity. Flagellums are whip like structures that some bacteria use for locomotion, while for others it is secretion. Some use it to attach themselves to cell walls. Simple bacteria didn’t use the flagellum for propulsion, but for the other uses mentioned. More complex bacteria co-opted the use of the flagellum for propulsion.
(Shermer, “Science Friction”, p. 186-187) (Dawkins, “The Ancestor’s Tale”, p. 549-553)
There is an analogy that applies to irreducible complexity. An arch is irreducible in that if you remove one part of it the whole collapses. But it is possible to build it by means of scaffolding. The removal of the scaffolding after the arch is completed can give the appearance that the arch could not have been built as it is. We have no more reason to suspect that arches are supernaturally designed than we do the human eye or the bacteria flagellum.
Some people claim that intelligent design is not creationism and that it is something entirely new. Is this correct?
Intelligent design is nothing more than repackaged creationism with a new name.
This was brought to light in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People was brought in as evidence. An earlier draft of Pandas from before the 1986 trial of Edwards v. Aguillard read:
“Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”
Creationism was declared to be a form of religion and after the trial the Pandas book was re-written to remove any traces of “creationism”. Instead “intelligent design” replaced “creationism” in the book. Here is the same sentence from the book after the Aguillard trial:
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.”
Judge Jones ruled that Intelligent Design could not separate itself from its creationist roots.
“The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism” (page 31)
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)
Please see here.
Surely Intelligent Design is not religious, but scientific in nature?
Like old fashioned creationism, intelligent design is religion dressed up as science. This is once again apparent just by reading intelligent design literature and listening to ID advocates speak. Jonathon Wells, author of the book Icons of Evolution, made the following statement while giving a sermon to the Unification Church:
“Father’s (the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s) words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle (J. Wells n.d.).”
Philip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, made the following statement:
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools (P. Johnson 2003).”
William Dembski, author of such works as Intelligent Design, No Free Lunch, Design Inference, and Uncommon Descent, has made many such statements too. Some are as follows:
“Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory buy always a completion.”
“If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient. (William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.) “
“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory (Dembski 1999, 84).”
Judge Jones found ID to be religious in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)”
“Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.” (page 132)”
Please see here.
Many ID books are published by InterVarsity Press, whose purpose is:
“As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of Life.” Please see here.
ID is also not scientific. Judge Jones’ ruling states:
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980′s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” (page 64)”
Please see here.
“The one textbook (Pandas) to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.” (pages 86 – 87)
Please see here.
“ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.” (page 89)
Please see here.
ID offers no testable hypothesis or falsifiable claims. The ID theory consists of nothing more than attacks against evolution and science. It is the same tactic used by the old school creationists.
As we see design in nature, surely there must be a designer?
Many things we see in nature appear to be designed. The man in the moon, oil slicks in a parking lot that look like the Virgin Mary, and shapes in clouds. Humans are pattern seeking creatures. Detecting patterns is one thing we are good at, but at the same time it fools us into seeing design where there really isn’t any. There was no conscience designer to make it appear that there is a smiling face on the surface of the moon. There is no supernatural agency at work to make religious icons appear on oil stains in parking lots. Clouds will form into recognizable shapes on their own without the aid of any intelligence. In fact it would be unusual not to see designs such as these. There are so many craters on the moon we should expect to find that they could form some sort of pattern. There are so many oil slicks in parking lots that from time to time some should look like something, such as a religious icon. There are so many clouds in the sky some should look like recognizable shapes. None of these things require a supernatural designer to happen, why should other things? (Shermer, “How We Believe”, p. 32-58) (Sagan, “The Demon Haunted World”, p. 41-61)
Even if there is a designer, it need not be a supernatural anthropomorphical designer. Some people, like the Raelians, think that all life on earth was designed by a highly advanced alien race. Please see here.
Evolution is a designer, but a bottom up instead of a top down designer. Evolution causes organisms to adapt to their environment via the process of variation and selection.
If a supernatural designer exists, then who designed the designer? If such a being exists without a designer, then why do other things need a designer?
Does Intelligent Design have explanatory power?
Intelligent Design explains nothing, in effect all ID says is that things happened by a supernatural means that we are unable to figure out. This is equivalent to saying that things happen by magic. A scientific theory has explanatory power if you can deduce facts from it. No facts have ever been deduced from ID. There is no scientific theory to ID. If there is no theory there can be no explanatory power to ID.
Intelligent Design does not name a designer. Surely it could have been caused be an advanced alien civilization instead of a supernatural entity?
Intelligent Design proponents may publicly be elusive about the nature of the designer, but in speeches they give to church groups and in their own writings they make it clear that they believe the designer to be the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. Almost all the leaders of the ID movement are Christian. Philip Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, created the Wedge Strategy to:
- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. Please see here.
Philip Johnson himself has made it clear who he thinks the designer is. In his 1997 book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds he states:
“If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,…We call our strategy the “wedge.” pg. 91-92
Johnson has made similar statements that show that ID is a religious movement, and that it is a Christian movement.
In an interview for Touchstone Magazine in 2002 he said:
“So the question is: “How to win?” That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the “wedge” strategy: “Stick with the most important thing” —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, “Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?” and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.”
Other leaders of the ID movement make it clear that they too think that the God of the Bible is the designer. William Dembski said in one of his books entitled Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology (Dembski, 1999), and in it he states that “The conceptual soundings of the [intelligent design] theory can in the end only be located in Christ” (p. 210).
Dembski has repeatedly made similar statements:
“Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.” (Dembski, “Intelligent Design’s Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution”, Designinference.com website, February 2005)
These are just a few examples of the religious nature the ID proponents give to the designer. As Michael Shermer states in his book Science Friction (p. 199) “ID arguments are reasons to believe if you already believe.” In general as people become more educated their belief in God decreases. The ID movement is led by highly educated, religious men who are trying to justify their religious beliefs through science.
Is the universe fine tuned for life?
If the universe is fine tuned for life, why is life so rare? The earth is the only planet we know of that has life. There could be many reasons why our universe has life. There could be multiple universes, each with their own natural laws. Some may permit life, while others cannot. Many of the fine tuning arguments show that life is tuned to the universe, and not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution supposes.
The fine tuning argument says nothing about why the universe exists or how it exists to support life. The rarity of life and the long time span before any life appeared (at least on earth) is an argument against the universe being fine tuned for human beings. The reason for fine tuning may be from natural causes, for unknown reasons, or for no reason at all. Please see here and here.
(Smolin, Intelligent Thought, “Darwinism All the Way Down”, p. 153-168)
* This section has been contributed by Gerald Turner.