The misinterpretation of evolution

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

This is actually a very "American problem" in that it does not really exist elsewhere (or is because of completely different reasons such as everyone is poor)

The main problems are as i remember the following.

1: The misrepresentation of evolution through media and other places. Example: "Evolution says that nothing created everything." or "The chance that animal x evolve into animal y is 1 against 10000 billion trillion."

2: A huge lack of insight from people. Example: "The scientific community is split" or blindly relying on untrustworthy sources again and again.

3: A lack of understanding either from learning an extremely simplified version or simply made it up all together. Example "How could the first animal find a mate of the opposite sex?" or "How could a fully functional eye suddenly appear?"

4: Different emotions keeping them from even listening such as anger or just plain irrational. Example: "Evolution is from the devil" and "The scientific community is conspiring against us."

The main cause for this is that allot of people spend allot of money to confuse facts and rile up people. Btw these are the exact same people that are against global warming and Muslim-phobia as well as the old supporters of the tobacco companies.

You nailed it. It is just misconceptions and ignorance fed by the media and groups like the Discovery Institute. And religion can be another possible roadblock.

 

[Andy Szidon]

So, what's the misinterpretation? I just want the Opening Post to be more specific.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Yeah, and there's no reason we can't teach both Chemistry and Alchemy too, except the first is real and the second isn't... guess which one's older? That's right the wrong one. Creationism is a stupid mystic belief, not an "alternate theory" don't insult our intelligence by trying to push it as such. Your imaginary friend doesn't dictate reality, but our science does explain it. Get used to this fact because surprise, you're talking to someone on the other side of the planet and it was my science not your faith that made it possible.

I think you people need to watch more Futurama. Especially you.

 

[sexbutler]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Separation of Church and state? Maybe.

 

[oktalist]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

Sure you can, its just that the theory has held up so well. In fact, because no one has been able to disprove it shows that the theory is on very very very solid ground.

sigh... just Google "can science prove or disprove anything"

I did Google it, and happily, the second result was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability, which explains the scientific standpoint quite well, and even has a short section on evolution.

"Science can't disprove anything" = bollocks. Disproving things is the core tenet of science.

If a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not science. That is to say, in order to be considered science, a theory must make some claim which could be refuted by observation if it were untrue. Things which cannot be disproven are not science.

If someone found a human fossil, and it was carbon-dated to before primates are thought to have evolved, that would disprove evolution. Therefore evolution is science.

If someone dropped a ball on Earth and it didn't fall at about 9.8 metres per second per second, that would disprove gravity. Therefore gravity is science.

The is no conceivable observation that anyone could make that could disprove any religious belief, creationism or intelligent design. Therefore they are not science.

This could not be easier to understand.

 

[General BrEeZy]

Evolution has some pretty blatant evidence to support it. and yet i dont see any way for it not to somehow coincide with my faith. the explanation is longer than i want it to be, so i'm not gonna state it, just know that i beileve evolution and it still makes perfect sense to me.

like someone said earlier: "I think the problem is that people do put it as Evolution vs. Creationism."

 

[Flac00]

-snip-

I don't get why you haven't factored religion into this equation. Creationism doesn't come from general "ignorance" or the "media." It comes from religion, and Christians mostly, and the Baptists tend to speak the loudest against it.

If both are taken out of context and used completely literally, creationism and evolution are opposing arguments. America is the home of the Bible belt, arguably the largest group of devout Christians who take the Bible completely literally. There's your explanation. This is not a new problem, and nor is either argument growing or receding at an abnormal rate. This creationism VS evolution thing has been going on since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. You're almost 200 years late for this party, I'm afraid.

Yeah, except now they are trying to teach Creationism as a science in school. Creationism is not a science, as you said, it is a religion. Those are not compatible.

 

[Flac00]

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.

You can't actually edit the evolution page though. It is kept up and running only by the makers of Wikipedia. Because of that, I do believe the Wikipedia page for evolution is almost as reputable as any other online encyclopedia, however other pages are less so.

 

[limeyman]

At risk of sounding like a pussy, I feel as though the "Intelligent design" theory and the theory of evolution SHOULD be taught as theories with no bias on either side. I personally believe in science but I take the ground that says "Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and I won't mind so long as their OPINION doesn't affect anyone else.

What annoys me more than anything is when schools say "Hey, we were all created by god and he loves you. But there's also this theory saying we came from fish. Isn't that crazy? Now suck the dick of the lord." I'm paraphrasing but this sort of thing happened at my primary school and just made me dislike religion further.

 

[Dasmaster]

At risk of sounding like a pussy, I feel as though the "Intelligent design" theory and the theory of evolution SHOULD be taught as theories with no bias on either side. I personally believe in science but I take the ground that says "Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and I won't mind so long as their OPINION doesn't affect anyone else.

What annoys me more than anything is when schools say "Hey, we were all created by god and he loves you. But there's also this theory saying we came from fish. Isn't that crazy? Now suck the dick of the lord." I'm paraphrasing but this sort of thing happened at my primary school and just made me dislike religion further.

The problem with "Intelligent Design" is that its not a theory backed by evidence. Essentially it has nothing to teach aside from the assumption that an intelligent being is making everything. Its flagship "irreducible complexity" has been sunk long ago.

 

[Navvan]

At risk of sounding like a pussy, I feel as though the "Intelligent design" theory and the theory of evolution SHOULD be taught as theories with no bias on either side. I personally believe in science but I take the ground that says "Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and I won't mind so long as their OPINION doesn't affect anyone else.

What annoys me more than anything is when schools say "Hey, we were all created by god and he loves you. But there's also this theory saying we came from fish. Isn't that crazy? Now suck the dick of the lord." I'm paraphrasing but this sort of thing happened at my primary school and just made me dislike religion further.

Intelligent design is a theory that argues that Irreducible complexity is evidence of a designer. That is to say because a biochemical system can not be reduced to functional parts that a designer must have put all the pieces there rather than the system evolve. This has been shown to be both untrue in a few systems (quiet impossible to explain all) and is logically flawed.

For example people have shown that designed systems like the mousetrap are reducible. This may not seem relevant but a mousetrap was one of the key demonstrations used in the initial explaining of irreducible complexity. This shows that because you can't perceive how a system is reducible does not mean it isn't.

Secondly it makes only one prediction "You shall find irreducible systems". Which doesn't mean anything as irreducibility can come from a multitude of things. My favorite example is that if a previous function changes into something else and all evidence linking to it are completely removed of previous function. For example if I take a glass table/cup/window and shatter it or melt it down, color it and make a lawn ornament out of it then it is impossible to see those previous functions (Table/cup/window) in the new ornament. Yet it is comprised of all three. Especially if you lived in a hypothetical world that for some reason never conceived of cups/windows/tables made of glass.

Thus since irreducibility is not a sign of a designer (it is only one possibility out of many) then the whole theory falls apart. A flawed theory should not be taught alongside one that is not in he same way we should not teach the idea of a geocentric solar system (Sun revolves around earth) alongside heliocentric one (Earth revolves around Sun). The theories are contradictory and one has been dis-proven. That is the existence of a Designer hasn't been dis-proven, but that this attempt to produce a scientific theory supporting their existence has been.

This leads me to my conclusion. No matter how true you believe it is or even how true it is you can't teach religion in a science classroom because it holds no bearing in science. Even if science supported ideas in a religious text you should not use religion in the classroom because that is only one out of many interpretations of the evidence and an unscientific one at that. Religion has already been decided to be separated from publicly run institutions (Separation of Church and state) by our government in the USA for good reason. Thus quit trying to say that the two "Theories" should be taught side by side. One is a extremely well supported scientific theory (a collection of many hypothesis that have all been tested and verified numerous times and all pointing towards the same or extremely similar conclusion) and the other is a dis-proven idea. That is not comparing apples to oranges. That is comparing apples to vinegar.

 

[Syzygy23]

I will start off by saying I am no scientist. However, I have noticed that almost everywhere (including here on the Escapist) many people do not understand evolution. This not just simple missteps like accidentally involving use and disuse into your arguments, but major misinterpretations. But this is not the problem, simple misunderstanding and misinterpretations are not somehow horrible offenses. However this has lead to a problem.
These misinterpretations have now lead to a whole culture of people who not only refuse to believe in evolution, but also use their misinterpretations to fuel their arguments. An example of this run amok by ignorants is "Social Darwinism" (which is an extremely annoying name as Darwin had nothing to do with "social darwinism"), which was really just and excuse to "prove" racism. A modern example is half the population of the United States (or less since I have not checked recent polls). That's right, around 50% of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution, and that is sad. Especially since the scientific theory has undergone so much criticism and a constant wave of evidence, that it has become almost completely infallible. And yet people still live ignorant of it as they have been misinformed about evolution.
This all comes down to a single point. Why and how is this happening? Is it because our media seems to commonly ignore facts? Is it because people jump onto bandwagons just to get away from the "norm" of evolution? Is it because our public schools have failed to teach adequate science in the classroom? Is it because of the rise of Creationism and Intelligent design (which are the same exact thing) has been corrupting our science classes and media? I would just like to hear other people's opinions on this.

Edit: Someone has kindly pointed out to me that it is instead "social darwinism" instead of just "darwinism". Also, to add a tad more context. Darwin specifically stated that evolution should not be applied to humans in that sense.

Edit: Sorry I have not answered all of your posts or comments. Hurricane Irene had other ideas so I just got power recently.

What the hell are you smoking? If anything, I have witnessed the OPPOSITE of this happening. Well, except the whole Social Darwinism part, people still get that wrong. But creationism being taught in the classroom? What? Huh? I haven't heard anything about that. I've been hearing about people getting in trouble and losing their jobs for teaching creationism in the classroom! Where have you heard otherwise?

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

You seem to think religious concepts being taught in schools is something new. On the contrary: the first modern educational establishments were created by religious groups--the Jesuites, mostly. At the time, the church was the only organization with the money, power, and generosity to offer such services to the general public (or at least those who could pay the tuition).

Now we have public education, which is on the whole much more secular. But private religious schools in the tradition of the Jesuite schools still exist, as you said. The difference being they now have certain secular standards to uphold in order to maintain accreditation and offer degrees that are worth anything. They probably do encourage their students to believe that creationism is "right," but they are required to teach the rest of the important stuff. At that point, it's up to the student to decide which they want to believe. And again, most schools like that are private anyway.

 

[joecool5000]

I've been a Christian all my life and so I've grown up detesting evolution.

But I just ask one thing. Someone send me a site or a video or something that has nice and solid evidence that proves it's true. Now I'm still going to believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design (there is actually a surprising amount of historical evidence that lines up God's creation timeline with the natural history timeline) but I just want to see where the scientists who are studying evolution are getting there beliefs from.

Who knows? I may even change my mind. (Even though that is highly unlikely.)

 

[oktalist]

You seem to think religious concepts being taught in schools is something new.

It is if they are taught in science class.

 

[oktalist]

I've been a Christian all my life and so I've grown up detesting evolution.

Why should that be? Even Pope John Paul II said evolution is probably true.

 

[alimarin]

I've been a Christian all my life and so I've grown up detesting evolution.

But I just ask one thing. Someone send me a site or a video or something that has nice and solid evidence that proves it's true. Now I'm still going to believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design (there is actually a surprising amount of historical evidence that lines up God's creation timeline with the natural history timeline) but I just want to see where the scientists who are studying evolution are getting there beliefs from.

Who knows? I may even change my mind. (Even though that is highly unlikely.)

Read fucking everything. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology]

[HEADING=1]All of it[/HEADING]​

[sub]Don't forget the citations :3[/sub]

I lol'ed

Another misunderstanding on evolution is that everyone thinks we only know how to date things using Carbon dating, which is only 1 of the dozens of ways we can analyze the age of the Earth.

The reason we have 4.6 billion years old as the age of the Earth, is because that is the estimated average of all of the methods of dating.

 

[Dasmaster]

I've been a Christian all my life and so I've grown up detesting evolution.

But I just ask one thing. Someone send me a site or a video or something that has nice and solid evidence that proves it's true. Now I'm still going to believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design (there is actually a surprising amount of historical evidence that lines up God's creation timeline with the natural history timeline) but I just want to see where the scientists who are studying evolution are getting there beliefs from.

Who knows? I may even change my mind. (Even though that is highly unlikely.)

I think you have misunderstood something. The "Evolutionary theory" you learn from videos and websites are not the "Evolutionary theory" scientists work with. It takes a long time to learn about such a broad theory since it touches on allot of subjects.

If you want to "test" it what you want to look for is "predictability" and such. As an example. Lets say we want to find a lizard that is thought to have lived 500 000 years ago. Can the scientists know where to dig and how deep by knowing about the previous and next species in that family?

Anyway the bottom line is understand that what you are likley to hear is only a simplified version of it.

 

[BrassButtons]

Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want

Not in science class they don't. Or more precisely: they can believe whatever they want, but not all beliefs will counted as a correct answer. Evolution is science. ID is not. Even if ID is correct it should not be taught in science classes. There are no scientific theories competing with Evolution, thus there is nothing other than Evolution that need be taught in science class.

But I just ask one thing. Someone send me a site or a video or something that has nice and solid evidence that proves it's true.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

Alternatively you can start with the biology section of your local library and go from there.

 

[Lilani]

You seem to think religious concepts being taught in schools is something new.

It is if they are taught in science class.

Ah, I see. Well I suppose THAT argument isn't worth maintaining if you're going to dodge my point entirely.

I've been a Christian all my life and so I've grown up detesting evolution.

Why should that be? Even Pope John Paul II said evolution is probably true.

What he said was evolution and Christianity are compatible, which I do agree with. They are not mutually exclusive, after all. Why is it assumed God could not use a system like evolution to create life? It would make perfect sense. Creation doesn't have to be like a David Copperfield trick, where something's not there one second and it's there the next.

In other words, the Pope didn't say God didn't make everything. That would make no sense. He said evolution could have been God's design.