Misunderstanding Evolution

I once saw a bumper sticker that read: "99% of people who don't believe in evolution don't even know what it is." I myself went a long time not knowing what evolution actually was, mainly because I didn't like biology. As I've matured, I've made an effort to become more informed about things I used to spurn. I have run across several myths and some misinformation out there floating around about what evolution actually is and I thought I might address this "myth-information." I decided to take the most common evolution critiques I've come across and address them one by one.

1. "Evolution is just a theory." This is probably the most commonly repeated criticism of evolution among creationists. It is rooted in a profound misunderstanding of the word "theory." In science, a theory is defined as a working model based upon the best available evidence. For over 100 years, the theory of evolution has been the best possible fit to the evidence we have, just as the theory of gravity and germ theory are the best possible fits to the evidence we have in those branches of science. In the time since their inception, all three theories have been expounded upon as new evidence has come to light, but the original theories are still intact. Which brings me to article 2.

2. "There's no proof of evolution." "Proof" only exists in mathematics. If you want to get technical, we have no "proof" of gravity, atoms or germs either. In science, what we look for is evidence. Based upon the evidence, we formulate our theory. As we progress, new evidence will either validate or invalidate the theory. Despite fantastic claims to the contrary, no new evidence has invalidated evolution, it has only strengthened its validity. This is especially true in light of recent genome-mapping projects.

3. "Evolution teaches that [life on earth/the universe/everything] happened because of random chance." First of all, the theory of evolution deals with the origin of the diversity of life on earth, NOT the origin of life, nor the universe, nor anything else. The study of the origin of life on earth is abiogenesis, and the study of the origin of the universe is cosmology, which are separate branches of science altogether. Neither of these has anything at all to do with the theory of evolution, which falls under the umbrella of biology. Second, of the six evolutionary processes, only two (mutation and genetic drift) can be described as "random." The other four (adaptation, gene flow, natural selection and speciation) are determined by a myriad of factors and can hardly be classified as "random chance."

4. "Evolution promotes Atheism." Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life in the natural world. That's it. If evolution "promotes" atheism, then so do all scientific explanations of the natural world. Does the study of medicine promote atheism by suggesting a natural cause for illnesses other than the "divine will of God?" Does the study of physics promote atheism because it postulates that matter operates according to laws of motion as opposed to the arbitrary will of God? No rational, intelligent person would suggest this, regardless of their beliefs. If you want to put a religious spin on the theory, what's wrong with saying that evolution was simply the process through which God operated? That's how I reconciled the two, and how countless other believers of every faith have also done.

5. "Evolution promotes racism/sexism by teaching survival of the fittest." First of all, racism and sexism were around and promoted long before evolution was ever postulated. Bigots will always look for stuff to "cherry-pick" in order to bolster their own ignorant beliefs, be it Darwin, the Bible, or history books. Second, "survival of the fittest." is not taught by evolution. It is a crass mischaracterization and gross oversimplification of what evolution actually teaches. It is as equally ridiculous as saying "Christianity promotes cannibalism by teaching the idea of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus."

I hope I have adequately addressed these topics in a thorough fashion. I'm sure I will come across other arguments, but that is another article entirely.