10. Beyond a shadow of doubt, human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are 98% identical. We diverged from the same common ancestor 5 million years ago. This isn’t idle speculation, it is a fact bound up in deductive logic. We are the modern descendants of ancient apes, just as modern apes are the descendants from that same ancestral tree but on a different branch to humans. Just as the VW Beetle is the ancestor of the Porsche Carrera GT, one does not cease to exist because of the emergence of the other. But where car designs are engineered and refined by man, life is shaped by genetic mutations, which over time, gives rise to entirely new species.
9. The genetic evidence of natural selection is compelling enough proof of evolution without any evidence from fossils whatsoever. If Darwin had never lived, we would still have eventually discovered naturally occurring selection mechanisms in our DNA. If there were no fossils in the fossil record, whatsoever, the evidence of evolution in our genes would still be a fact. Genetics does not require the evidence from the fossil record in any way shape or form. Lateral gene transfer is a major mechanism in prokaryotic genome evolution. Gene theory and palaeontology are two completely separate areas of study that just so happen to support each other. Independently acquired, mutually corroborative evidence is the heart and soul of the theory of evolution. To disprove one, you must disprove the other, yet each set of evidences are intrinsically linked, while being independently ascertained.
8. Evolution does not propose origins of life. Evolution does not seek to answer the question of how the first multicellular organisms appeared. It describes how they evolved once they formed, not how they formed in the first place. Abiogenesis is in no way related to Darwinian evolution. We do not know how the first multicellular life formed, but we know what it was made of and that these elements were abundant on the early Earth, after it formed 4.54 billion years ago*, and that these same elements are present throughout the universe today. The vast timescales involved aren’t easy to comprehend. But admitting you do not understand something, in science, is the only way to find out.
7. “Survival of the fittest” is NOT the guiding principal of individual behaviour. It is the biological mechanism which determines the adaptability of a species over time, NOT individuals within their own lifetime. Evolution happens gradually over hundreds of millions of years. Random mutations in the DNA code do not always produce positive results. Mutations are not always beneficial because evolution is unguided; it has no foresight. Natural selection builds upon mutations that produce adaptations which are beneficial in specific areas, just as it cancels out mutations that are detrimental in others. This explains why 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is now extinct.
6. Not a single living organism that has ever been discovered shows any sign, whatsoever, of having evolved by non-Darwinian means. If there were, the scientific method is precisely designed to discover it. There are no known species of any living organism anywhere on Earth that can not be fully described by evolution theory. The only people who assert otherwise are religious fundamentalists who have repeatedly demonstrated they do not understand how Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection actually works. Hence it is illegal in almost every industrialised nation on Earth to teach creationism in the science classroom.
5. Darwinism when applied to free market economics, is a flawed form of capitalism and gives rise to a supreme irony. Free market theory has been shown time and again to favour the rich to the detriment of the poor. Every single European and American government who has applied Darwinism to their economic policy, has been forced, at some point, to apply regulations to the market, so as to counterbalance this unwanted effect. Despite this, in the American system of governance, free market ultra-capitalism remains to be the fundamental ideological difference between predominantly evangelical smaller state conservatives, who favour it, and predominantly non-religious liberal democrats who oppose it. Darwinian economics is synonymous with conservatism, not liberalism.
4. The vast majority of evolutionary biologists are practising Christians. Indeed the only group among scientists who profess higher religiosity than biologists are physicists. The official dogma of the Catholic church is that “evolution theory is not incompatible with a belief in the bible”. The only quasi-religious sect which does not accept the facts of evolution, are classified by the International Cultic Studies Association as “cults with authoritarian, exploitative and possibly dangerous systems of ritual practices”. This includes the deliberate obfuscation of facts so as to indoctrinate children and vulnerable or credulous adults. Hence, young-earth creationists, even within Protestant evangelicalism, make up less than 3% of those who otherwise describe themselves as bible believing Christians worldwide. EDIT: Please read comments
3. Darwin was wrong about a great many things. As were many of the people who supported his theory when it was first published. There are examples throughout history of scientists making huge mistakes which have led science down blind alleys of investigation, sometimes for hundreds of years. But the beauty of the scientific method, is that these mistakes always come to light. Darwin did not set his theories in stone, rather he hoped that future generations of naturalists would DISPROVE his many claims. Since then, this is what biologists, palaeontologists, geneticists, chemists, anthropologists and every other discipline in science has sought to achieve. We have yet to find any compelling evidence that might falsify any aspect of natural selection, despite that the scientific method is geared towards doing exactly that.
2. Evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins are not the atheist’s Jesus. They are men with opinions of their own. Nothing more, nothing less. Some of their opinions are based upon irrefutable facts and some are not. Atheism and science are not two sides of the same coin, nor do individual scientists who happen to be non-religious speak on behalf of all agnostics, rationalists, free thinkers, humanists or pastafarians worldwide. Science and scientists are two completely different things, just as are what you believe and what you can prove. If you believe in things that you can not prove, that does not constitute a reason for others to do the same.
1. Abandoning reason and fair mindedness does not bring you closer to Jesus. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the light.” By that light many of humanity’s finest thinkers have discovered the mechanisms by which the world works. Darwin himself was a devout Christian. And while it is true he lost his faith because of a series of tragedies in his personal life, he never ceased to believe that God may exist. He did not become agnostic because he established the most important principal in science, nor did he lose his faith because he gained reason. He woke up to the reality of the majestic universe and abandoned childish notions, which seek to divide people between faith and facts. Faith is a virtue, but so is humility. And nothing is more humbling than the glimpse into the grandeur of nature upon which Darwin’s theory casts such brilliant illumination.
“I don’t want to believe, I want to know” – Carl Sagan.
But by far the greatest distortion of evolution that creationists wilfully and repeatedly proffer, is that it formed the basis of Nazi eugenics, which is the most evil form of artificial selection ever devised. The only people who assert a link between the heinous acts of mass genocide, carried out by Hitler and Darwin’s ideas, are those who, despite that Darwin wrote at length about his fears that his theory would be used in this way, repeatedly misrepresent what Darwin actually had to say about this matter, when he pre-emptively spoke out strongly against any attempts to apply his theory to fix the societal issues of his day.
But because creationists only listen to each other, the only time this fact is alluded to, in creationist propaganda, it is in an edited format, taken from Darwin’s original text. In one version, used in a pro-Intelligent Design film by Mark Mathis, “Expelled” and despite that the filmmaker had the full unedited text from Darwin’s “Decent of Man” available to him, the text appears to endorse the subduing of inferior minded people. In another form it appears to suggest Darwin himself believed this was some way forward for his theory in terms of improving the human condition, by breeding mental frailties and physical disabilities out of the human race. These various perversions of what Darwin actually wrote, which are hosted widely on pro-creationist websites such as answersingenesis.org and Ray Comfort’s Way of the Master blog, are the version of Darwin’s original text almost all fundamentalists believe to have been taken, word for word, from Darwin’s work, when in reality he said something quite the opposite.
Here is exactly what Darwin wrote in “Decent of Man”, followed by the text as it appears in the pro-Intelligent Design film, “Expelled”:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed
And now the edited version, popular on pro-creationist websites:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
*The original version of this article incorrectly used the age of the universe as the age of the Earth. I pieced this article together from drafts of my soon-to-be realised donation-ware book and inadvertently cut and paste the wrong paragraph. Oops!
I think you mixed the age of the universe with the age of the earth.
Yes, I noticed that as well. The universe is about 13.7 Billion years since the Big Bang, but the earth is only 3-4 Billion, right?
Yeah, thanks for the correction guys. I was in the middle of writing that section slightly differently and ended up mixing the two together. Thanks for the heads up.
There’s also some great comments over at reddit.com
http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/craug/i_though_this_might_help_anyone_who_has_had_to/
clip from wikipedia
The age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.
annyway, good work :-)
I thought the name of Darwin’s book was “The Descent of Man” – not “Decent”. Although some are – decent, that is.
I knew you were Larry Loves Jesus.
http://twitter.com/MovingToMontana/status/20650461776
Michael: If you think Joker Joe is smart enough to figure that one out, you’re crediting him with more intelligence than he’s capable. I thought about re-uploading it when I realised I was logged in as the wrong user, but Larry is purely there to punk Joe, so figured no harm since he doesn’t follow MovingToMontana anyway.
By the way, Joe is currently trying to get me to read Luke 3 and work out why it makes it OK to lie about how many atheists he’s met who “think life came from nothing”, so you might want to stay tuned to @LarryLovesJesus and watch Joe squirm his way out of answering any serious questions again.
Interesting article. I’m curious as to where you got the information to be able to state: “Indeed the only group among scientists who profess higher religiosity than biologists are physicists.”
I am a physicist and would have to strongly disagree with that statement based on my experience.
You can be deluded if you want, but if you want to quote Jesus, quote him right. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” He is the life – the source of all life. Elsewhere he is referred to as the light, but in your quote you had it wrong.
You can rationalize all you want. Darwinian evolution is theory. THEORY, not fact. Adaptation is not the same as evolution.
@ Umm – No.
The word ‘theory’ has a very specific meaning in a scientific context.
In everyday use, ‘theory’ usually means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof.
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.
@ John
I’m also curious as to where he got the information for #4. I’ve heard the exact opposite (though I’m not in any scientific field). In my experience, the people I know or have known that even show any keen interests in biology and/or physics are the least religious people I’ve ever met.
@Derek
I was surprised to find that too, but Dawkins has mentioned this statistic on a number of occasions, most notably in a debate with Alister McGrath, which I think you should easily find on YouTube
@ Jim Gardner
Unfortunately, I don’t currently have access to YouTube to watch that long debate and listen carefully for Dawkins to say that, nor can I find a transcript of the debate online. It makes no sense that Dawkins would ever say anything like that, ever.
In searching for “vast majority of evolutionary biologists are practising Christians” I came across a site about Phillip E. Johnson, who is considered the father of Intelligent Design. Even HE states that he thinks most evolutionary biologists are atheists, as they rightfully should be if they take their scientific beliefs seriously. [Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/johnsonp.html
Of course, he also thinks America needs more Christians to tell Muslims to gtfo and that AIDS isn’t a product of HIV.
Anyway, I’ve been searching for about an hour online and I can’t find anything stating that most evolutionary biologists are practising Christians, or that they even believe in a god.
I admit I am also puzzled by #4. I’m a biologist and I don’t think I’ve run into a practicing Christian in my colleagues in almost 20 years. Many instead are outspoken atheists.
The 1998 survey of NAS members reported in Nature put the number of theist biologists at 5.5%. This was the lowest percentage of any group of scientist. Pretty much getting told by fundies over and over again that you can’t be a Christian and believe in evolution, pushes you to take a stance that other scientists aren’t prompted to make
I wouldn’t want to come across as sounding like I’m above holding my hands up here, if I’ve got something wrong. I do remember being taken back by this when I heard it at the time, but I’m having a similar problem finding a source as Derek.
It’s entirely possible I’ve just remembered this wrong or mixed it up with some other similar nugget drifting around my brain. I’ll insert an edit on #4 pointing to the comments.
Does nto surprise me in the least that this article is already falling apart with a number of errors. Jesus is the way…and unfortunately too many people will find that out the hard way.
@fgitl
don’t see any errors here that make the core fact wrong, we disagree about if most biologist is christian or atheist, what doesn’t tell anything about if the evolution theory is wrong or not.
and that just one thing we are disagree about, not multiply things, if you have something concrete so come whit it, and don’t make something up because you cant deal whit facts.
@FGITL
Any argument that depends on the death of the observer to prove your point, is dredging the depths of absurdity and entirely without merit.
I found this on a pro-God website. It does reference a published study-Ecklund, E. H. and C. P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.
I also found this article, which does not seem to bode well for the theory that theism or Christianity is particularly high within the life sciences. My anecdotal observation is that of all people within scientific disciplines, those who use the term “engineer” in their title are usually the most God friendly, although I regularly read a blog by a very religious physicist.
evolutionists are the new pagans. THEY WORSHIP THE UNIVERSE, WE WORSHIP THE GUY WHO MADE IT. REPENT OF YOUR DELUSIONS RIGHT NOW AND ASK JESUS TO FORGIVE YOU FOR YOUR ERRORS. HE WILL. THE WORD OF GOD IS TRUE. AND WHEN YOU KNOW THE TRUTH, THE TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE
IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH.
My idea of hell is spending an eternity surrounded by people like you.
The idae that your god is real is based on your own perseption of the world. A perseption that is based on a simple book writen in the middle east.The the world that you percive is a one dimentinol world were only those how folow your god are good and all others must be evil
No argument has ever been won or found persuasive when it is typed entirely in caps mode.
It seems baptism involves inserting a very thin and pointy crucifix through the eyesocket and wiggling it about a bit, judging by “JESUS IS LORD”.
In the name of the Father, the son and the frontal lobotomy, Amen
Just wondering if you had seen the clip of Bill Maher where Christine O’Donnell (a neocon Teaparty recently elected Senator) says “Evolution is a myth”
I haven’t seen it Kaybee322, but I love how these people have to borrow the language of their critics in a desperate bid to sound like they know what they’re talking about.
By the way, if these people do achieve their ultimate goal of turning the whole of America into a nation of imbecilic bible freaks, Britain’s doors are open to all you non-mentally ill Yanks. Just promise you’ll learn to spell Colour and Aluminium properly and we’ll forget all about the whole George Washington thing.
Your article is accuate and well written,too bad it won’t make a bit of difference to those who parrot one of the Creationist mantras. Those ignorant jagoffs would’nt know a scientific fact if they tripped over one. Thank goodness we have the FACTS AND LAW on our side.
The earth is only 6000 to 10000 years old.
This is indeed a very well written piece of material. I was looking for something that would inform me of evolutionary beliefs and this certainly did the job. However, i do have a few questions, you wright about a great many ideas that that seem good and dependable but very few facts are presented. Yes are DNA is 98 percent identical to that of apes, but that fact in itself means nothing. It seems to be only an odd coincidence. Any one with an education knows that micro-evolution occurs regularly so when you wright of the “naturally occurring selection mechanisms in our DNA” you are exactly right that does happen, but it does not in anyway prove macro-evolution. Macro-evolution (in case you have not heard the term before) is evolution out side a species or mutations from one species to another. Micro-evolution occurs within a species, this is what Darwin witnessed in the finches he studied. There is no evidence of macro-evolution in our DNA code whatsoever that is a simple fact, there is of course an abundance of evidence for micro-evolution so in that aspect you are correct. My point is this, there is very little evidence presented in this post, if one already believes in evolution this is of course already their accepted doctrine but to someone who has heard the other side of the story this post offers no convincing. I wish in no way to insult, it is simply obvious that the evolution theory has many unanswered questions and makes many claims that it cannot support. I encourage you to look at the other side of things, an individual cannot claim to be truly knowledgeable until they have encompassed with their mind the entirety of a subject. I assure you they are not all “cults with authoritarian, exploitative and possibly dangerous systems of ritual practices”.
@William B Allen
This is an interesting video you should watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQYAHwKRbMs
Russdot’s YouTube link is a good place to start, William. Also, note that the terms “Macro evolution” and “Micro evolution” are only ever used in creationist literature. That is to say there really isn’t any such delineation in actual science between the way microorganisms evolve and the way natural selection works in the rest of the plant and animal kingdom. In reality, this apparent differentiation between macro and micro only ever appears in a pro-creationist context.
As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, this began happening somewhere around the time organisations like The Discovery Institute (TDI) were forced to admit, as a result of losing a series of highly damaging legal cases, that they didn’t actually have any positive evidence in support of, so called, Intelligent Design.
As a result of this, TDI had no choice but to adopt an alternative strategy; appearing to accept the evidence of evolution up to a certain point, so that—as The Wedge Strategy dictates—they could then attempt to enter into further litigation, which might once again attempt to present the case that, contrary to the findings of previous rulings, they do in fact adopt a scientific approach—despite that it has been repeatedly shown they do not.
Finally, it is not a matter of “believing in evolution”. It is matter of accepting the overwhelming evidence of evolution. There is no “belief” required—only evidence.
Yes, there is much still to be learned about many thousands of organisms; but there is not a single scientist who works in legitimate areas of research, who doesn’t welcome this fact. This idea that the “scientific establishment” only wish to present their side of the story, when it comes to describing the natural world, is a complete fabrication—itself a facet of the Wedge Strategy and other pro-creationist documentation—delibartely designed to create the appearance of a controversy where in fact none exists. Answers in Genesis are more often than not the source of this misinformation, but it is also a popular tactic among a class of conservative politicians, who seek the support of low information voters.
Please feel free to ask any specific questions you might have, relating to your claim that “it is simply obvious that the evolution theory has many unanswered questions and makes many claims that it cannot support”.
I hope that helps to clear some things up.
darwin was wrong about many things. so are many scientist before and after him.:First they say these are the facts then oops we were wrong again, but this time we got right. ooops wrong again ,but now we really have it right. on and on again.they try to make the evidence fit their theories.just like the ways they try to date fossils or rocks or whatever. just keep changing the assumptions until it fits their theories.
I dont get this…..
Let’s sum up this article:
“Creationists are ignorant and…”
No, guess we can strike out that ‘and’. Basically those first three words provide a fairly accurate summary here.
However, while taking an undergraduate-level Biology course, I began to question all that I had been taught on evolution. I don’t know if you would say I’m solidly in the Creation camp because I actually believe that science backs up many of the creation arguments. I see this more in terms of a Venn diagram. You have two circles overlapping. The intersection of the two sets would include those who accept that science validates the creation theory. The symmetric difference of the set would be those Creationists who scoff at science as well as Evolutionists who refuse to accept the possibility of intelligent design. In fact, some of those on the evolution side will use an example such as “just as modern apes are the descendants from that same ancestral tree but on a different branch to humans. Just as the VW Beetle is the ancestor of the Porsche Carrera GT, one does not cease to exist because of the emergence of the other” not realizing that they are actually setting up a great argument pointing toward creation science! The VW and the Porsche had a creator. In fact, many cars share many of the same elements simply because their creator knows what works. Oh sure, superficially they have differences but, internally they contain the same basic components.
Yes, there are facts regarding evolution. No argument from me there. They just point solidly to a creator. If you are talking about the ‘common descent’ theory, not buying into it. I think we’ve seen enough proof to toss out common descent.
By the way, just based on a comment here, the first time I heard the words micro- and macro-evolution were in a graduate level biogeography course at the State University I attended. The Professor who was in the evolution camp discussed why micro-evolution was fact and discussed macro-evolution as theory but one she believed would one day soon be ‘fact’.
Just stumbled across this and thought I’d leave a note.
If your fact is right then why 2% difference between us and apes are making all the difference as we are now and they are not even o.ooooooooooooooooooo1% close to us (I mean socially). Another questions, where the enzymes or catalysts come from, as evolution takes time, and only there should be some one to introduce a catalyst which make reaction fast otherwise 1 g of urea to make urine will take millions of years without the catalyst. We also do not know if sun is also revolving around some bigger object or it is stationary. All are just theory. Nothing has been proven. The more we dig, more and huge fossils come around and the life on earth goes back to billion of years…
lucie is gay!