The religious right
never lacks for idiotic comments about evolution. In light of a new bill in
Missouri to allow parents to pull their children out of classes that teach
evolution, it’s important that people understand what a scientific theory
actually is.
A scientific theory is “a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” In other words,
it’s not your everyday hunch, or speculation, or guess. When you say, “I have a
theory about that,” that’s what you’re talking about. A scientific theory is
completely different.
The theory of evolution
didn’t come from Darwin just randomly saying, “Hey, I have this theory that we
evolved from monkeys,” and then running a huge campaign to get it into all of
our scientific literature and education. In fact, for a very long time, the theory of evolution wasn’t widely accepted, even
among scientists.
The idea that a scientific theory is just a guess is a huge part of the
problem. Scientific theories, in reality, enable valid
predictions, are based on real evidence, and have been tested repeatedly.
Theories do come from ideas, yes. Basically, a scientist has an idea, assumes
the idea is true, then sets about to see whether observation and
experimentation bear that out.
Hard core creationists
don’t accept that, and often confuse scientific theories with the everyday
definition of “theory” as an idea. Here are some creationist quotes about
evolution and the word “theory” that demonstrates their sheer lack of
understanding about how many definitions the word “theory” has.
Rick Perry on evolution, while running for president in 2011:
“[Evolution is] a
theory that is out there, and it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach both
creationism and evolution.” [SOURCE]
Perry makes it sound
like he believes Darwin just threw that idea out there one day. As for having
gaps in it, of course it does. A lot of science has gaps in it. All scientific
theories are works in progress.
Some theories have so
much evidence supporting them that there’s likely no new evidence out there,
anywhere, to refute it (like heliocentric theory; what evidence can there
possibly be that would disprove the Earth revolving around the sun?). However,
that doesn’t mean it can’t continue to be refined, as new evidence comes to
light. Evolution is another one of those theories.
Missouri Republican Rick Brattin on evolution, after introducing
a creationism bill in 2014:
“Even though
[evolution] is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the
air as, say, any religion.” [SOURCE]
Wow. This one is
absolutely ridiculous, and shows that Brattin knows absolutely nothing about
the science behind evolution. It’s not something that was pulled out of the
air. It’s not an “idea.” Brattin is a prime example of why we need to better
teach people what a scientific theory actually is, and how an idea becomes a
theory.
Kentucky State Senator David Givens on teaching creationism
alongside evolution in the classroom in 2012:
“I would hope that
creationism is presented as a theory in the classroom, in a science classroom,
alongside evolution.” [SOURCE]
Too bad creationism
isn’t observable and testable. That’s another aspect of a scientific theory
that takes it out of the realm of speculation. Creationism, because it can’t be
observed and tested, is a philosophy at best. But it’s not science in any way.
Therefore, it has no place in a science classroom or in our legislation.
Kentucky State Representative Ben Waite, also talking about
teaching creationism in Kentucky science classes in 2012:
“The theory of
evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science —
Darwin made it up.”
No, Darwin did not make
it up. He developed his ideas into the theory of evolution on a trip to the
Galapagos Islands. While there, he saw that each island had its own brand of
finch. They were related, but different in major ways, such as the size and
shapes of their beaks. The differences came about over time, and allowed each
type of finch to thrive in its unique environment.
Waite went further to
say that evolution has never stood up to even rudimentary science. One has to
wonder if this man has ever actually read anything real about any science at
all.
The Institute for Creation Research has articles upon articles
attempting to “disprove” evolution:
“Evolution, at the
most, is an idea about history, not observational science. There may be
inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these
may or may not be true, but don’t bother claiming that ideas about history are
the same as repeatable observations in the present. And don’t insult us by
thinking that we will believe that they are.” [SOURCE]
Scientists have observed evolution in action in the wild. For
instance, wild fish are smaller now than they were mere decades ago because of
our fishing practices. We hunt the biggest fish, and in response, fish species
are maturing at smaller sizes, in an evolutionary effort to make us ignore them
in favor of bigger fish.
There is also the
possibility of observing evolution in bacteria, fruit flies, and other very
short-lived organisms in a lab. Bacteria such as MRSA are antibiotic-resistant
not because they always have been, but because that’s how bacteria responded to
our indiscriminate use of antibiotics. This is observable, and can even be
reproduced in a lab setting.
Glenn Beck on evolution, in 2010:
“How many people believe in evolution in this
country? I’d like to see. I mean, I don’t know why it’s unreasonable to say
this. I’m not God so I don’t know how God creates. I don’t think we came from
monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person
yet. Did evolution just stop? Did we all of sudden — there’s no other species
that’s developing into half-human?” [SOURCE]
He wouldn’t have seen
that several million years ago, either. Early hominids were not “half-monkey,
half-person.” They were their own species then, just as we are our own species
now. There are actually many species in the fossil record that have
“transitional features,” but they, too, were their own species. They weren’t
half of one animal, and half of another.
There’s this major
misconception (that Glenn Beck appears to buy into) that evolution is simply
one species turning into another. That’s not an entirely accurate view.
Evolution can best be explained as a divergence in the gene pool. New species
are, at first, offshoots of existing species.
For example, we’ll say
Species B is an offshoot of fish Species A, and it shows smaller fins with
rudimentary, underdeveloped fingers or toes at the ends. Later on, we discover
Species C, which appears to be related to both Species A and B, but has paws to
go with those fingers and toes, instead of fins, and is therefore better able
to deal with its environment than Species B was.
We also know Species B is
extinct, but Species A is still around. Why is Species A still around? Because,
like Species C, Species A was well suited to its environment. Species B, with
diminished fins and underdeveloped digits, was not well suited to either of its
environments. So Species B died off, while Species A and C lived on.
It could appear that Species B became
Species C, but it didn’t. Granted, this explanation is also simplistic, but
it’s a more accurate explanation than “evolution is one species becoming
another.”
Whether a new species
survives or dies off depends on many, many factors. The reasons behind survival
and extinction are the basis of evolution, not evidence showing one species
becoming another.
You can see this in the family tree of our own species—homo sapiens—as
they co-existed with another human species—homo neanderthalensis
(Neanderthals), during the last ice age. Neanderthals weren’t our predecessors,
and our family tree is not one straight line. So it’s incorrect to say that
apes (or other primates) eventually became humans.
One possible reason why hard-core creationists have problems
with scientific theories.
Creationists, at least
the hard-core creationists, seem to want simple, definitive answers. Science
allows for too much doubt, and is changing too much, particularly when it comes
to evolution. Therefore, science is wrong. Their holy book is right.
And that’s the kicker.
Science always allows for the possibility that it can be wrong. It must allow
for changes and refinements in its theories. That’s part of its purpose; it’s
an ongoing learning experience. Science is how we understand the world we live
in.
Skeptics can learn how to perform an experiment, or properly observe
something, and make up their own mind about it. But creationism requires faith
before one can do anything with it. If you’re a skeptic, there’s no way to test
it and get results that will make you believe it. You just have to believe it.
It’s time for people to
learn why evolution is called a theory, and why creationism is not. That
difference there is why creationism should not be taught in classrooms
alongside evolution. Creationism is an idea that requires a leap of faith.
Evolution is not.
