The Evolution of Evolution
Contrary to the way it is portrayed by Creationists, the theory of evolution wasn’t handed down from the Goddess Athe to her true prophet Darwin, to whose faith all subsequent researchers have to slavishly adhere. From the day each of Darwin’s books were published, and for the century and a half since, serious and powerful researchers (as well as semi-educated and/or pseudo-scientific dabblers) have busily been trying (and mostly failing) to make a name for themselves by finding a flaw — any flaw — in the overall Theory of Evolution. Darwin’s singular contribution, the principle that those members of a population best adapted to an environment will survive, is rarely challenged.
I was inspired to write this post after reading Can God be scientific? Consider the evidence, Part II by Daniel Jarvis. His post makes it clear that Creationists believe that all fields of science that are cited in support of this basic principle of modern biology have to meet criteria set by Darwin. These include astronomy, geology, genetics, tectonics, crystallography, quantum theory, and many other fields of study.
Let’s look at one supporting pillar of biological evolution: Things take time. The best Creationist argument (IMHO) is that all the species could not possibly have evolved in the short time since the beginning of the universe (or just of the world, for those who accept astronomical science) a few thousand years ago. I discuss this in detail here. In brief, the age of the world and the age of the universe were both determined independently with no reference to Darwin. Before Darwin was born, both geologists and astronomers knew that the Universe and the Earth were older than Biblical time indicated. The estimated ages exponentially increased as more and more accurate methods of measuring were developed. However, for the last few decades the estimates have held steady.
If the world is very young (Biblical history including Genesis is shorter than the archaeological record of modern man), then there obviously wasn’t time to evolve the diversity we see today. That the world is old is not a presumption, it is a hard-won conclusion based on millions of pieces of independent corroborating evidence, and no contradicting evidence.
It is not a matter of tens of thousands of living and retired/demised researchers all obeying an authority, but rather of all these people following the evidence and constructing and modifying theories to fit the facts. Their greatest wish is to change a theory and win a Nobel.
What of the popular Creationist argument that evolutionists have contradicted themselves, and even Darwin? Sure. That’s how science works. First, review what is known, and then try to improve on it. Most newly announced Creation Science discoveries are already on record, and their fallacies well documented. Scientists record both their successes and failures. Creationists are doomed to repeat their history because they only examine the (scant and questionable) positive results they’ve had before proceeding.
As with the age of the universe, the Theory of Evolution will continue to be refined (evolve) as better methods of measurement and detection are developed (evolved). Therefore, the Theory explaining the observed fact of evolution will likely never be complete or uncontested. But at the core, there are no objections within a scientific frame. The basic kernel of it has remained unchanged for over a century.
Responding to Vicki’s comment, I don’t see much to be cheerful or grumpy about regarding humans eventually dropping off the tree of life. It’s unlikely to happen in our lifetime, so it is not relevant to our existence. (BTW, the reason I’m grumpy is because of the many catastrophic decisions the American people and the American government have made since 9/11.)
As regards the Book of Revelation, that book is for me a bellweather: whenever a Christian preacher quotes from that book, I know that what follows will be utter nonsense. Just listen to the most loony televangelists and you will hear them quoting often from either Daniel or Revelations, sometimes also from Genesis, but they love Revelations. When I was in grad school, I joined a Bible study group that was headed up by a guy who knew a lot about the Bible, in part through life-long personal study and in part because his father was a minister. Despite my repeated urgings that our study group study Revelations, he would always direct us to a different book, because Revelations is so dense with bizarre visions and imagery. Even Bible experts don’t agree about that book, yet most any crackpot televangelist — most of whom have no credentialed expertise in Bible scholarship — will happily dive in and talk as if they are experts.
Another tip about Revelations is that anyone who wants to learn more about that book should first study Zoroaster — a fellow who predates Christ by many centuries, yet who also described an afterlife that included a day of judgment by a supernatural god, said god dividing the good people from the bad, and sending the good to a place of eternal paradise and the bad to a place of eternal damnation. With that as an antecedent to Christianity, it’s easy to see that Revelations just adds a lot of theater to a belief system that had been around for a very long time…all of which makes me wonder to what extent all those ‘fire and brimstone’ Chrisian evangelicals (who get lots of mileage out of Revelations) appreciate that their religion is mostly a hand-me-down of previous beliefs.
Further to M.A.’s comment, I would urge people to read the entire opinion by the judge in the Dover school board case — it contains an excellent description of the lengths to which some ID proponents will go to commit fraud on the public. Just google the case — the full text of the opinion is on the Internet.
Evolution does not disprove God. I’ve just read a few pages of the comments posted to the excerpt of my post on science.propeller.com. They are interesting, but all seem to regard the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution as tantamount to Atheism.
I disagree. The relatively small group of Christians that require the Bible (or at least certain translations of it) to be absolutely and literally true in every detail seem to see the conclusions from geology, or astronomy, or biology, or any other field not actually mentioned in their book to be a challenge to their faith. What is known about the physical universe now compared to even 600 years ago is as a sand dune to a grain of sand. The desert is yet vast, but we see much more of it now than when most holy books were written.
However, nothing in any theory of evolution denies that God may have started the whole thing going, possibly even with the intention of us being here now. God may well have even stacked the deck to guarantee that only one species in one tiny slice of time will write a book about Him.
I don’t buy it. But my lack of belief in an invisible friend (or enemy) is not predicated by any particular theory from science. The universe as understood without reference to godly agents is plenty miraculous enough for me.
Dan Klarmann
Evolution does not disprove god… but religious fundies make it unacceptable for people to be a member of their community, and believe in things like the Theory of Evolution.
Belief, or lack of Belief in god should not be predicated by a belief in the Theory of Evolution. But from a practical point of view, Religiosity trumps Theology. In a religious society, with increasing demands for individuals to accept complete church dogma, belief in a god is moot, and micro-management becomes de rigeur.
Thus, belief in the One-True-God depends upon things like your belief / disbelief in theories such as Evolution.
It’s funny how things work.
The future of the Theory Of Evolution depends upon Society however, and this will require some work to settle differences.
Additional Note:
Settling differences will be harder to settle as government takes a more pro-religion / creationism stance.
Check out the National Center for Science Education ( http://ncseweb.org ) for information regarding the Fight for Scientific independence against ID/Creationism. One story in particular concerns Sen. David Vitter, R-LA who earmarked 100k to christian group that has challenged Darwinian Evilution in Public Schools.
Also, check out story about religion in the military at:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/CSM/story?id=3694726&page=1
Settling differences means involves things like:
Writing to your individual State Senators and politely mention your opinion about Sen. David Vitter, R-LA and his 100k support for a christian group that wants Creationism in public school Science Classes.
Run for School Board in your community.
Read Darwin’s writings (hard, I know), or maybe just Cliff’s Notes… or how about Wikipedia.
Read more about what’s being fought about Today, especially in the U.S., regarding the War on the scientific Theory of Evolution at web-sites like the ones I mentioned: Panda’s Thumb, and NCSE.
Talk to your children about the Scientific Method.
Here’s an excellent lecture by Ken Miller, one of the expert witnesses in the Dover Intelligent Design lawsuit. The video contains an hour lecture, and then a lengthy Q&A session.
There are some excellent points made:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
According to a 2005 survey, 40% of Americans agreed with, 39% disagreed with, and 21% were unsure about the proposition “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals”. The United States is almost unique in the developed world for its rate of doubt about evolution with only Turkey faring worse.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/phj263762420/
NCSE is particularly delighted to be contributing a regular column—“Overcoming obstacles to evolution education”—to Evolution: Education and Outreach as part of those efforts.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w685j52320518287/fulltext.html
“Yo Mista, does evolution mean people will grow wings and fly around?” This is the question I am most frequently asked when introducing evolution to incoming ninth graders. The posing of this particular question tells me two things: (1) students have a very basic idea of what mutations and adaptations are but little understanding that mutations are slight and must be passed down through generations, which is a slow process when the affect is evolutionary change, (2) for evolution to occur, there often needs to be a catalyst (for example, drastic climatic change causing environmental degradation resulting in mass extinction opening niches).
The common thread of evolution runs through all science disciplines, and the concept of evolution enables students to better understand the nature of the universe and our origins.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b5525202843mn490/fulltext.html
Most Recent Refinements/Advancements in Science:
Precession of Mercury’s orbit is solved by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. Theory and observations agree. Pluto is demoted to non-planet status
Plate tectonics; seismology used to get more accurate picture of interior structure of earth. Early atmosphere and conditions better understood.
Dark matter & dark energy. Attempts to explain increased rate of expansion of universe. Improvements in telescopes and spectrometers advance knowledge
Relation between elementary particles and fundamental forces sought. Process of reductionism seeks to find a grand unified theory (GUT); superstring theory, M branes are under active research
The universal gravitational constant is hypothesized to change as the universe expands. Black holes are the ultimate condensed matter state. Strong and weak forces discovered
Ceramics, high temperature superconductors, advanced pharmaceuticals
Discovery of the DNA double helix, RNA; the mechanism of inheritance was detailed; gene sequencing & mapping. Prebiotic chemistry and origin of life hypotheses: Miller—Urey, RNA World, Lipid World