Anti-evolutionist Credibility is Marred by Ignorance

A study published in 2005 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science surveyed the frequency of acceptance of evolution across the United States, Japan and 32 European nations.

In this study, the U.S. ranked second to last in acceptance of evolution, above Turkey but below Cyprus.

It is my observation that most of those who reject evolution and accept creationism usually hold fundamental misconceptions about the nature of evolution. All too often, these misconceptions are deliberately propagated by those who stand to profit from the creationist cause.

If creationists would trouble themselves to learn the basic facts of evolution from a credible source, much of the acrimonious debate that has surrounded the creation/evolution controversy would disappear.

Briefly, evolution refers to the change in frequencies of different versions of genes in populations over time. These changes in frequency are most notably caused by environmental pressures.

For example, a shortage of food is relatively unlikely to cause an elimination of those who possess a gene that allows them to smell out food more effectively. A shortage of females unlikely to cause an elimination of those males who possess a gene that allows them to produce more eye-catching mating displays.

The possessors of these genes are more likely to reproduce and to pass these genes on to their offspring. Assuming the environment does not change, these genes are likely to spread further with the next generation.

The theory of evolution by natural selection, as proposed by Charles Darwin and redefined by modern scientists to include genetic mutations is a framework of ideas used to explain the observed fact of change over time. Thus, evolution is not just a theory; it is both a theory and a fact.

One might liken it to the germ theory of disease. The germ theory of disease is a theory, but the occurrence of disease is an observed fact.

The theory of evolution does not touch on the origin of life (abiogenesis), the beginning of the universe or anything outside of changes in the frequencies of different versions of genes in populations over time.

It's also worth noting that the theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it is a record of the way things are, not a commentary on the way things should be.

Some creationists promote the idea that evolution somehow dictates that we should eliminate those who are "unfit," and go on to associate acceptance of evolution with eugenics. However, anyone with a strong understanding of science should be able to tell that the theory of evolution no more prescribes that we exterminate the disabled than the theory of gravity prescribes that we be attracted to massive people.

There also seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the theory of evolution's status within the scientific community. While there are many debates over various details of the workings of evolution, there is no controversy within the scientific establishment regarding evolution's overall validity

While young-earth creationism may be virtually mainstream in the American public, it is a fringe perspective among biologists.

A 1991 Gallup poll showed that, among American scientists working in fields relevant to evolutionary biology, less than .15 percent are creationists or believe that creationism has any scientific validity. I would expect this number to be even lower in most other industrialized nations.

The reason for this far-reaching certainty is simple: Evolution is supported by overwhelming amounts of virtually incontrovertible evidence. Moreover, no credible evidence refutes it. Unfortunately, the common misconceptions regarding the evidence for evolution are too numerous to be addressed here. However, there are a few points which deserve special mention.

One claim frequently made by prominent creationist mouthpieces such as Answers in Genesis is that there are no transitional fossils which illustrate the gradual speciation. Though it's an objection I hear often, it's simply not true. Smooth continua of intermediate species can be demonstrated between fish and tetrapods, reptiles and mammals, and chimps and Homo sapiens.

Of particular interest to creationists should be the Tiktaalik, a fossilized animal which might be roughly described as a fish with feet.

It's fairly illustrative of the many transitional fossils which you'll never see mentioned by Answers in Genesis.

Another particularly clinching proof of evolution can be found with retroviruses. Retroviruses, upon infection, splice their DNA into their host's genome.

Sometimes this chunk of DNA is passed down from the host to its descendants.

Many instances of retrogenes common to both chimpanzees and humans, for example, provide compelling evidence for descent.

On the other hand, had God simultaneously poofed everything into existence 6,012 years ago, the presence of this retroviral DNA which seemingly allows us to view evolution would be incomprehensible.

There's much more I wish I could cover, but, unfortunately, evolution is too complex a topic to be fully addressed via a column.

With any luck, acquaintance with the facts will eventually persuade America's non-evolutionist majority to reexamine its position.