James Pringle

Over the years I have read countless arguments, listened to endless debates, and discussed personally the ideas of evolution. Obviously, I don’t claim to be any kind of scientist, but in light of the fact that the same arguments against evolution seem to always pop up I thought I would list some of the more persistent misunderstandings and try my best to explain why those misconceptions are just plain wrong.

Darwinism is not random.

One of the first misconceptions a lot of people seem to get caught up on when it comes to evolution through natural selection is the erroneous notion that it is random. Listen to any criticism of Darwinism and it’s sure to come up at some point. No, evolution through natural selection is in fact the very opposite of random.

Where this idea possibly stems from is the fact that evolution does rely on random genetic mutations in order for a species to continue to evolve. What are random genetic mutations? Well, my simple understanding and explanation would be to think about a species as a whole, not as a linear generation from one parent to their child and so on. Let’s take the bird as an example. Slight genetic differences in the gene pool will make some birds be born with slightly longer wings (and therefore be able to fly better). Those birds will then have a slight advantage over their cousins and they will be able to fly further, faster and therefore have a better chance at surviving and reproducing. Because it is those birds that have survived with the longer wings then they are most likely to pass on the genetic code for longer wings to the next generation of birds. This next generation will most likely have other slight genetic variations with some birds have slightly longer (and some slightly shorter) wings, but the average has been raised. Those that are best adapted to survive in their environment (we are assuming longer wings are better) will continue to be the ones passing on their genes. And, so on, so on.

I believe the misconception is that one day a rat was born with full wings and took off into the heavens and now we call them birds. Yes, that would be random, and is so unlikely it can be considered impossible. Thankfully, that’s not what Darwinism is implying.

Darwinism is not about physical strength.

Despite what the majority of the population outside the realm of science believes Darwinism is not about physical strength. “Survival of the fittest” is not implying the strongest animal as in the animal with the biggest muscles, or which animal can beat up another animal. No, “survival of the fittest” actually means “the animal best adapted to survive in its particular environment”. So, what does that mean?

In short, it means those animals that are best at passing on their genes (having babies) and therefore continually contributing to the gene pool.

How they do this (have babies) depends on their particular environment. If it benefits one creature to sit in a hole its whole life and only come out once to mate and pass on its genes then that creature will continue to thrive in that environment. That creature would be the fittest (best adapted) to survive (make babies) in that environment.

As you can see that creature didn’t have to be strong to accomplish this. Now, I’m guessing a situation like that doesn’t really exist. It was used for demonstration purposes only, but it attempts to explain the idea in a simple manner. Evolution through natural selection is certainly more complex and beautiful than that.

Darwinism is not a social guideline.

Darwin’s discovery of evolution through natural selection was never meant to imply that “survival of the fittest” be applied to how humans think or act. It is not suggesting that humans should run their lives on that philosophy (because it is not a philosophy). We as humans are in the fortunate position to be able realize this situation and directly effect evolution through such processes as “selective breeding”, or healing and protecting the sick, etc. Darwinism should not be confused with “God’s will”. There’s nothing written in any ancient book that says things must evolve naturally through natural selection or you will be punished. Evolution is not watching you.

Darwinism is not trying to explain the origins of the Earth.

In its purest form Darwinism does not try to explain the origins of the Earth. Darwinism (evolution through natural selection) is only attempting to explain how creatures on this Earth have and are evolving. How that whole process started or where it ends is another story. Darwinism is only trying to explain the process not the reason.

It’s kind of like explaining how a snowball changes as it rolls down a snowy hill. Never mind how it started to roll or where it’s going to hit.

Darwinism is not “just a theory”.

Many religious believers in an attempt to discredit evolution like to point out that Darwinism (evolution through natural selection) is only a theory and therefore is not fact. This is a misunderstanding and misuse of words. A “theory” in a scientific context means that someone has come up with a hypothesis and through the scientific method has collected data, observed, tested and repeated (or disproved) his hypothesis in a dependable manner. It’s not the same as someone saying “I have a theory about why Suzie broke up with Johnny”. (Although that could arguably be tested using the scientific method.) The religious person will attempt to use the term “theory” in such a loose and casual manner as to say that Darwin just woke up one morning and said, “Hey scientists, I have this theory”, and everyone replied, “That sounds good. We’ll pretend that’s true now”. Science obviously doesn’t work that way. Although you probably aren’t aware of it countless scientists have undergone tons of research on the topic of evolution in one form or another and there isn’t much (or anything) that disproves this theory yet.

The theory of evolution is at least as strong as the theory of gravity. You can bet that all religious believers will not argue with you about the theory of gravity. But, if the theory of gravity somehow discredited the belief system that religious people hold so dear, we would still be arguing about it today.

Darwinism and religion do not (and cannot) mix.

Despite what some religious believers and religious scientists think Darwinism cannot mix with a belief that a God (most usually the Christian God) created man and woman. You cannot say that you believe in both. The Christian bible states that God created man and woman in the form we see ourselves today. Darwinism (evolution through natural selection) demonstrates how the human race has evolved from chimps. These two ideas about the origin of man cannot both be right. You cannot say you believe in the Christian God and you believe in evolution. It doesn’t work. If you claim to believe in both then you don’t know enough about either or you are disregarding facts to make the two views compatible, in which case you have created your own reality in your imagination and therefore that reality cannot be true.

Darwinism doesn’t have a goal.

Evolution through natural selection has never and will never be a conscious method. Evolution is not trying to make every animal a human as if humans are the “be all end all” of perfect evolution. Humans are far from perfect but we are adapted to survive in our environment. A slug, a cockroach, a beetle, a hamster: all are as evolved as humans are. We as humans just coincidentally have the consciousness to realize we are alive.

Every progression of evolution (which is constant) is not necessarily “better”. It’s only better in the context of allowing animals to continue to survive in whatever environment they happen to be in. I suppose if the conditions were right humans could evolve back into chimps, and those chimps would be more evolved they we are today.

There are other forms of evolution as well. When humans breed certain types of cats in an attempt to birth felines with cute leopard print we are participating in what is usually called “selective breeding”. We are making the choice of which animals get to mate and which do not. In natural evolution nature does the choosing.

Darwinism doesn’t make leaps.

One concept people don’t seem to be able to get their head around is the fact that evolution happens s-l-o-w-l-y. Just because humans evolved from chimps does not mean that one day a chimp gave birth to a person. What really happened was that a chimp gave birth to a baby chimp that was ever so slightly similar to what we now call human. That chimp then had a baby that was even ever so slightly closer to a human as we know them today, and so on. If we could line up all the babies born as they evolved from a chimp into human you would not be able to tell when that chimp actually became a human. The millions of steps would be ever so gradual that they would all blend together.

Another example I believe I am stealing from Richard Dawkins. (Actually most of this is paraphrasing him and other great scientists). That example is this: Go put some water on the stove and turn the stove on. Now sit and watch it in the pan as it heats up and eventually boils. Having done that could you tell me when the water crossed the point of not boiling into boiling? The fact is you could not say for sure when the water started to boil. It’s a gradual process. Looking at a huge chart as the one I described above would be the visual equivalent of watching water boil.