The misinterpretation of evolution

[Haratu]

I am a Christian (Protestant) and a Science teacher, here are some common misinterpretations concerning society and evolution i come up against from friends and in the class.

Evolution denies the existence of God
-False, it only denies the 'literal' translation of 2 chapters in Genesis. Some people treat Genesis as a different type of narrative, and others who believe in a God may not be Jewish/Christian/Islam.

Evolved species are better than unevolved species
-Not true, many of the 'unevolved species' are actually able to survive better than others. Sharks and crocodiles are perfect examples.

Fundamentalist religious groups are against evolution on the basis of Genesis
-False, the Roman Catholic Church officially recognises teaching evolution in Catholic schools. Islam also encourages the teaching of evolution.

Evolution is about survival of the fittest
-False, Sometimes the fittest can be the ones most vulnerable. Epidemics with new viruses reveal that usually the fittest people die fastest. 'Fitness' relies on an unchanging world.

Evolution and geology disprove creation
- false, for two reasons, firstly these processes can be started by a God. Secondly a god would be powerful enough to create these processes in mid swing.

Evolution can not be proven as we have not experience enough of it.
-False, there is enough evidence in nature over the past hundred years that proves evolution repeatedly, to ignore this would be naive. DNA analysis of dead organisms have shown many modern species also have evolved over the last hundred years or so.

The theory announced by Darwin and Mendel was perfect
-False, as a science evolutionary theory always can be developed to be more accurate. in fact Evolutionary theory has changed to a large degree in just the last 20 years.

Finally here is one that is true:

It is not possible to change from one species to another suddenly
-True, in fact changes occur in small, very small jumps. this is similar to how racial groups have different features (although the difference hasn't been enough to make new species)

 

[weker]

I'm not entirely sure about America but it may be the way in which children are taught, or possible not taught, about what the theory of evolution is because it confilcts with the religious beliefs of the parents. Also, what exactly is Intelligent design?

Intelligent design is the religious argument that something created everything the way its designed, such as the way we evolve and change as well as why we think this way and grow.
It is religion conforming partly to science and it is in the situation where science cannot comment, which is where I believe religion belongs.

 

[Haratu]

(removed due to double post)

 

[AperioContra]

Wow, 308 posts in a day. Well, maybe 's not too late to throw in my 92% unprofessional opinion on this subject.

First, the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate is not the first Scientific Debate that has rached this critical mass of controversy. The Ptolemetric (Geocentric) Planetary Rotation Theory vs the Copernican (Heliocentric) Planetary Rotation Theory, Wave Theory vs the Theory of Relativity, and Steady State (Static Universe) vs. Expansion Theory (The "Big Bang" Theory) have all had their respective stay in the spotlight. With that perspective it comes of no surprise that there is a wide divergence with these theories not only amongst the populous but even physicists themselves.

That said, I cannot find myself able to accurately defend Intelligent Design for a couple simple reasons, which can be summed up as: "ID is inherently unscientific (as far of what we know of science)." What I mean by this is that Intelligent Design fails in all ways as a Scientific Theory. My reasoning of course comes from the basic tenants of the Scientific Method.

First: The Theory must have empirical evidence which can be recreated and tested using the Scientific Method.
Second: Such evidence must be Falsifiable (Arguable and overall disprovable if evidence were to come up to the contrary.)
Third: Such evidence must not hold a Supernatural Premise.

In all ways Intelligent Design fails in this aspect as it has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Stop hold on ID theorists. Don't quote me Watchmaker Arguments, don't ask me about Mitochondrial Flagellum propulsion and for your God's sake don't quote me Bible Scriptures. We both know that that does not qualify as empirical evidence or even falsifying evidence and it is intellectually dishonest present that as proof for an intelligent designer. The fact is: to this date there is virtually no indication of an Intelligent Designer's presence in our universe and until such evidence arises we both know that it is ultimately futile to hold Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory. Ipso Facto end of story.

I guess in the end Intelligent Design simply does not hold up as a theory (as we know it today). If the day comes that such evidence is presented that it is impossible to believe such an Intelligent Designer does not exist I may change my opinion on this subject but as it stands today I find it completely intellectually vacuous, with no sustainable weight of it's own.

 

[Wedgetail122]

evolution is an interesting prospect and is fascinating to look on just how nature can adapt, thing is in your origanal statement you say that the rise of Creationism may be partially responsible for that startling percentage of people who refuse to believe evolution. one thing that people need to realise is that Evolution is not a religeon it is a scientific hypothesis on the development of living organisms over time. The same applies to religeon, which is more of a philosiphy. There is room for both of these Ideas to coincide, although Im not saying that they should be tuaght in the same classroom, however im just producing a notion that they can get along. Thats something my school sort of acts on, Its catholic but our science teacher asks us to leave any beliefs outside the classroom, however the class and the teacher did have a quick discussion on the topic and he showed us that these this theory and this philosiphy can co exist

 

[AngloDoom]

MITOCHONDRIAL LINK TO EVE

You need that or you can't prove evolution and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST will admit they don't know what that link is...

Why?

I was going to stay out of this topic, but why is it that people who believe in evolution have huge amounts of fact and evidence to support their opinion, but then people who believe in intelligent design win by default because they have one less piece of information than they'd like them to.

How about a big graph/chart? A list of evidence for evolution, and a list of evidence that supports creationist ideas. I'm pretty sure the results will sway massively toward evolution as it is, in every practical sense, proven.

 

[Eclipse8804]

As a scientist I find the idea of creationism insane. I respect that certion Catholics believe that it is fact and that (and I love this) Catholic scientists have apparently proven that the earth is only 6000 years old. It is just simply not true. If the world is only 6000 years old then what are these fossils of huge creatures that roamed the earth? Were they in the bible somewhere to the back? It has no basis in fact what so ever. The bible barely has any basis in fact either, the earliest Gospel (out of the four that makes up the bible) was written, as far as I can remember, about 30 -40 years after the death of Jesus. The oldest was written some where between the 2nd and 3rd centuary. Is my lack of memory from something that I learned maybe 5 years ago no evidence enough that people can get things wrong if they have to write on something that happened over a 4 decades after the fact?


While I am a scientist I will be the first to admit that we do not have all the answers. We are filled with holes in our theorys and we cannot explain everything, however we can explain most things to within a reasonable margin of error. It is that that makes science able to take the moral high ground in the situation in this argument. We are based in logical conclusions while Creationists are based on faith. WIth the same level would I be equally correct to say "Well yeah, a wizard did it"?

 

[weker]

I was going to stay out of this topic, but why is it that people who believe in evolution have huge amounts of fact and evidence to support their opinion, but then people who believe in intelligent design win by default because they have one less piece of information than they'd like them to.

Well ID doesn't attempt to disprove evolution and they are not comparable as ID can support evolution.
The only thing that could be disproved about ID from my point of view is the Intelligent part of the name.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

I'm a Crevolutionist. I believe that God likes dominoes and set up the entire universe to play through this. So, you can't really put Creationism at odds with Evolution. I think the problem is that people do put it as Evolution vs. Creationism.

I agree that a big problem is that people see creationism and evolution as mutually exclusive, while evolution actually says nothing about the origin of life. In fact, the mechanism of evolution does not contradict at all with the idea of creationism.

However, the idea posed by Darwin that evolution is responsible for almost all different species we currently have on earth, which was later confirmed by anthropological evidence, does contradict an aspect of the (literal interpretation of the) biblical creation story.

 

[weker]

For a start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Read it before you start posting opinions rather than facts!

Evolution as far a science goes it pretty cut and dry. We have a genetic trait that is advantageous (in some cases not)it makes us fitter and more likely to survive (or be able to find a mate) traits are then passed on to your offspring....

Repeat this over a long time and some of these traits that began as one off mutations in one individual cold then make there way into more of the population, this mutation could be something as simple as a resistance to a disease. however if most of the population are struck down by said disease then the mutation has a selective advantage and become more common in the population. The survivors of said horrible disease could be said to have "evolved" in order to survive the threat.

This is a really crude example thrown together while I am writing an essay on co-evolution in bacteria.. pick holes in it if you want there will probably be room to if you look hard enough. People are allowed their own opinions they just aren't always right. educate yourself on both sides if you are going to make statements about one over the other or you just come of as argumentative.

If your going to link such things with many variations and different interpretations Wikipedia is not a valid source. I do know that Wikipedia is highly moderate but in such a topic things can be edited and are to controversial for the mods to intervene.

 

[AngloDoom]

I was going to stay out of this topic, but why is it that people who believe in evolution have huge amounts of fact and evidence to support their opinion, but then people who believe in intelligent design win by default because they have one less piece of information than they'd like them to.

Well ID doesn't attempt to disprove evolution and they are not comparable as ID can support evolution.
The only thing that could be disproved about ID from my point of view is the Intelligent part of the name.

Really? I thought the main crux of the theory of evolution was random genetic mutation with no guiding hand? That's at odds with ID very much, if I interpret it correct?

I see intelligent design as saying "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." On the other hand, I see evolution as going "The monkey who happens to be born with longer arms happens to survive and breed more until longer-armed monkeys are dominant as a species."]

Unless, I've not interpreted ID correctly?

 

[Abengoshis]

The fact of the matter is, whether or not you believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago or that we evolved from monkeys doesn't really matter much in life.

Just to be annoying, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We're apes, we evolved from previous apes, not previous monkeys.

Aha, but I believe apes evolved from monkeys! After all, we still have tailbones!

Also it matters a lot to medicine if you're that kind of scientist.

Does it? A stomach is still a stomach, whether or not you believe it is the process of millions of years of mutations and adaptations or something created in a day by God. Where you believe it came from does not change what you know it is. I've never seen a creationist deny the existence of genetic conditions or diseases, though if there are any I'm pretty sure they are the tiniest minority.

Actually I don't think they did, they split from the same ancestor, we didn't evolve from them.

 

[Dreaming Dan]

For a start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Read it before you start posting opinions rather than facts!

Evolution as far a science goes it pretty cut and dry. We have a genetic trait that is advantageous (in some cases not)it makes us fitter and more likely to survive (or be able to find a mate) traits are then passed on to your offspring....

Repeat this over a long time and some of these traits that began as one off mutations in one individual cold then make there way into more of the population, this mutation could be something as simple as a resistance to a disease. however if most of the population are struck down by said disease then the mutation has a selective advantage and become more common in the population. The survivors of said horrible disease could be said to have "evolved" in order to survive the threat.

This is a really crude example thrown together while I am writing an essay on co-evolution in bacteria.. pick holes in it if you want there will probably be room to if you look hard enough. People are allowed their own opinions they just aren't always right. educate yourself on both sides if you are going to make statements about one over the other or you just come of as argumentative.

If your going to link such things with many variations and different interpretations Wikipedia is not a valid source. I do know that Wikipedia is highly moderate but in such a topic things can be edited and are to controversial for the mods to intervene.

Fair point about wiki being a junk source but it was simply to illustrate that you can read up on the subject without taxing your search skills.

 

[GenericAmerican]

I have a question.

Why is any of this important? Why is knowing what we evolved from, or what created us such a big fucking deal?

I have a new religion, it's called "fuckitallism"

In this religion we worship nothing, we don't have to pay tithes, we don't have to pray, we don't have to worry about sinning, we don't have to study books...we just utter the sacred phrase, "fuck it all, i don't care" if asked about our religion.

 

[weker]

Really? I thought the main crux of the theory of evolution was random genetic mutation with no guiding hand? That's at odds with ID very much, if I interpret it correct?

I see intelligent design as saying "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." On the other hand, I see evolution as going "The monkey who happens to be born with longer arms happens to survive and breed more until longer-armed monkeys are dominant as a species."]

Unless, I've not interpreted ID correctly?

"with no guiding hand" well you can class their environment, and organisms being a "guiding hand"

ID just says an Intelligent being created everything the way it is, in other words we were pre-programmed to evolve. "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." this statement suggest the monkey suddenly becomes Stretch Armstrong

ID again doesn't conflict with evolution itself, it is just theist or agnostic views on what cannot be explained, which is again the place where Im fine with these views being located.

 

[Vindictus]

I was going to stay out of this topic, but why is it that people who believe in evolution have huge amounts of fact and evidence to support their opinion, but then people who believe in intelligent design win by default because they have one less piece of information than they'd like them to.

Well ID doesn't attempt to disprove evolution and they are not comparable as ID can support evolution.
The only thing that could be disproved about ID from my point of view is the Intelligent part of the name.

Really? I thought the main crux of the theory of evolution was random genetic mutation with no guiding hand? That's at odds with ID very much, if I interpret it correct?

I see intelligent design as saying "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." On the other hand, I see evolution as going "The monkey who happens to be born with longer arms happens to survive and breed more until longer-armed monkeys are dominant as a species."]

Unless, I've not interpreted ID correctly?

Yeah, but who is to say God isn't behind the genetic mutations? Personally, I don't believe that, but it can be said, albeit it's a pointless idea to push.

Abiogenesis is what Creationists should be going after, but even it has more evidence than Creationism.

 

[weker]

I have a question.

Why is any of this important? Why is knowing what we evolved from, or what created us such a big fucking deal?

I have a new religion, it's called "fuckitallism"

In this religion we worship nothing, we don't have to pay tithes, we don't have to pray, we don't have to worry about sinning, we don't have to study books...we just utter the sacred phrase, "fuck it all, i don't care" if asked about our religion.

it's the pursuit of truth, and is something that many are driven by.
It is also something to stop silly ideas that such as... were all intergalactic space monkeys who crashed their space scooter while on a pizza run.

Abiogenesis is what Creationists should be going after, but even it has more evidence than Creationism.

Don't follow you, isn't Abiogenesis just the idea that when a combination of matter started rubbing together it created life's constant chemical cycle.

 

[Vindictus]

Don't follow you, isn't Abiogenesis just the idea that when a combination of matter started rubbing together it created life's constant chemical cycle.

Yes. Although, I think the 'seeding from meteors' theory is more popular.