Some clarity on evolutionary theory

It’s been quite a while since my last post on here. I have to plead lack of time due to working full time and studying with the OU part-time. I have had it on my mind for a while to extend a theme which I touched on in my last post; namely my concern about certain groups wilfully distorting the facts about evolution. I really feel that evolution is one of the most fascinating and exciting topics in science. It’s absolutely central to biology and also to how we view life on Earth - and the place therein of the human race. I have become frustrated that there is so much false information perpetuated about evolution and how there is so much certainty in some groups that the whole theory is ridiculous.

My apologies for those who are well aware of these issues already, I realise that there is a lot of literature and information which responds to creationist claims. However I feel that I need to continue that work; if I can highlight this worrying situation to just one more person then this will have been a success.

I am going to use a particular creationist website as my starting point so that I can highlight a few tactics and trends. I think I may extend this post over a few entries to try and cover as much as I can. In truth I could write hundreds of pages which refute most of the claims on this particular website – and I am not even an expert on the subject by any means. This indicates the level of bad science that is being put forward.

First things first though, evolution, well it’s only a theory isn’t it? It’s just a guess, a hunch, an idea that someone dreamed up one day - but no more than that. This is the view eagerly put forward by many creationist organisations. In science there is a technical way in which the word “theory” is used and it's very important to understand that; evolution is a theory but this does not undermine its scientific validity. In science a theory is not a hunch or a guess but a way of accurately explaining a great number of facts and allowing scientists to make predictions about what else would be true if the theory is valid. Any fact is an observation or hypothesis that has been validated so many times by evidence that we accept it as true; a theory takes many observed and verified facts and explains how and why those facts occur. A theory is a body of scientific knowledge with huge explanatory power that has been verified and substantiated so much that we accept it as true. It is vital to understand the importance of theories in science and that they do not relate in any way to the casual usage of the word.

Now, I will move on to the creationist literature which I have chosen to examine. I happened upon a link to this website recently when I was reading a film review:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/index.htm

This is the creation-evolution encyclopaedia which starts as it means to go on by making this bold claim:

“Over 3,000 scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory. This book is based on extensive research and is highly recommended by scientists and educators”

I would like to know which scientists and educators have endorsed this book. Where are the remarks from these distinguished professionals that substantiate this claim? This kind of sloppy work fails to adhere to academic standards and you will find more examples on every page. You cannot simply make such a bold statement and fail to back it up with any kind of evidence. However, this is one of the key tactics used by those seeking to confuse people about evolution. Quotes are used profusely and those quotes are used as evidence. Their argument goes something like this: someone said that this cannot be true – therefore it is not true. Maybe there is some kind of logical flow here, but the fact that someone said something does not make it correct. In most cases the quotes are taken out of context in order to suggest a meaning completely contradictory to that intended.

Returning to their opening statement; simply making a claim does not serve as proof either. If scientists and educators have recommended the book then please list their names. There may well be some “scientists” and “educators” who would put their name to this book but you would quickly find that they were all strongly affiliated with creationist organisations. What we are interested here is the support of people who are not swayed by personal beliefs that interfere with their subjectivity. My last sentence deserves much further qualification because we can all be influenced to some degree by our subjectivity; however this would change the purpose of this blog post entirely so I will not deal with this thought at the present time.

There is a particularly strange section on this site called "An evolutionist's paradise". Essentially this is a section in which evolutionary theory is attacked for suggesting mutations can lead to changes in organisms. The part of the section which shocked me most is titled “3-Hiroshima” the following link should direct you straight to it if you would like to have a look:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut11.htm#Hiroshima

To sum it up the author has tried to suggest that according to evolutionary theory a massive nuclear explosion will immediately produce new species through mutation. I have to say that this section truly saddened me. World war two as a whole was a dark period of history in which the worst side of mankind was brought to the fore. The authors of this site have attempted to use the numerous victims of the Hiroshima attack as an example to help “disprove” evolution. This shows quite clearly the lengths that some people will go to. I feel I can almost let this section speak for itself, but let’s just ask a few questions. Does the theory of evolution suggest that species have evolved by continually being exposed to lethal, or at least harmful, levels of radiation? Does the theory suggest that every time a new species evolved it was caused by nuclear radiation? Anyone with even a small understanding of evolutionary processes will know that this is a ridiculous thing to say.

The article states “lots of fine new species should have been produced here” - what a horrible way to make a flawed point. Why should the devastation of an atomic bomb produce lots of fine new species? Which scientist has ever said anything remotely like that? In which piece of evolutionary literature has such a claim been found? The answer of course is that no such thing has ever been proposed by anyone in conjunction with evolution. The atomic bomb was designed to destroy and kill, it was emphatically not designed by dedicated biologists trying to prove a hypothesis about how mutation can lead to speciation.

Natural selection does act on mutations of course, but we are considering small changes to the genetic code which that are then passed on to the offspring. Exposure to massive amounts of nuclear radiation can damage living cells irreparably – this is a completely different kind of mutation. Stating “Not one of them evolved into a different species or a new super-race” is absurd and quite insensitive to any survivors or their relatives. In order for a new species to evolve, small changes have to be inherited by the offspring; may I ask which small changes and which offspring are we considering from the horrific effects of a nuclear attack?

I have barely brushed the surface of the fascinating science that we could discuss - but the authors of this site do not want to enter into honest scientific debate; this argument has not been put forward thanks to dedicated and academically sound scientific investigation. The writer of this piece has tried to hammer home a very untruthful interpretation of genetic mutation with a shocking reference to Hiroshima. I have to say that the Christianity espoused here seems to be lacking some of the humility, compassion, and honesty that Jesus displayed.

This is becoming a very long piece but I will add just one more point here. The basic aim of certain creationist groups is to distort the truth about evolution. They are not interested in truth, scientific fact or intellectual honesty. Most of what is presented about evolution in this creation-evolution encyclopaedia is in many cases completely untrue, and in others a complete distortion. Consider the following example from section 29 “Say it simple”:

“According to their theory, by unthinking chance, sand and seawater changed itself into living creatures. But, really now, is that "science"?”

According to what theory did sand and seawater change itself into living creatures? I have read a great deal of evolutionary literature and I have also studied evolution at undergraduate university level (my studies are ongoing) but not once have I heard of such a claim. The first point is that evolution is not an entirely random process; certainly there are random processes underlying evolution - but the way in which evolution is driven, largely by natural selection, is not random at all.

Now then, sand and seawater, I am not sure to what this is referring but it has nothing to do with evolution. I can only assume that this is a misunderstanding of a particular hypothesis concerning the way in which life began on Earth. Scientists of course are extremely interested in the origins of life (abiogenesis); but very importantly this is not an evolutionary principle. Evolution can be described broadly as descent with modification. Evolution began when there were one or more early organisms from which to descend - and not before. Therefore the origins of life on Earth, whilst vital for evolution to occur, are not directly relevant to the validity of evolutionary theory at all.

I will just make the point that the views I have countered here are not the views of all creationists. There are sadly many sites such as this one and many people preaching those same facts. However creationist views vary quite widely and there are of course more sophisticated arguments put forward by other groups which I have not dealt with here. Contrary to what some are saying however, evolutionary theory is not crumbling under these challenges; in fact the body of evidence is growing rapidly and the new discoveries can be very accurately explained by evolutionary theory.

I think this is enough food for thought in one blog post. If anyone manages to read through this lengthy essay, then I thank you for taking the time to do so. If you have any comments or queries then please post them here and I will try and respond.

Best wishes - Dominic.