Common misunderstandings about biological evolution

Although Darwin made his revolutionary theory known to the world over 150 years ago, and evolutionary biology has established the core facts of biological evolution beyond any reasonable doubt in the past half-century, misunderstandings about evolution and the evolutionary paradigm abound. As Jacques Monod (Nobel Prize winner in biology in 1965) quipped one time,“Another curious aspect of the

TABLE 2.5 The Uncertain Utilities of Crude Notions of Evolution

Source: Note: 1) DIP-WGM: direct inheritance of phenotypes without going through genetic materials (see Section IV for details). 2) Ambiguous means that an author had been vague regarding a particular aspect of evolution. Ambivalent means that both stands (i.e., accept and reject) can be found in the particular author’s elaboration.

theory of evolution is that everybody thinks that he understands it!” (Quoted in Dawkins 1976 [1996], 18; Hodgson 1993a, 37).³²

For instance, philosopher Karl Popper (1972,168-169,171) infamously asserted that Darwinism is “almost tautological . . . not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program f despite noting “the strange similarity between my [his] theory of the growth of knowledge and Darwinism” and then admitting that “the theory is invaluable” (Italics original). Even eminent (evolutionary) biologists made mistakes. For instance, Dobzhansky emphasized the role of adaptive mutations in the later editions of his Genetics and the Origins of Species. The same accusation applies to the late Stephen Jay Gould.

This section thus highlights some of the most common misunderstandings about biological evolution in the hope of eliminating or at least reducing them.

"Evolutionary theory is a theory; thus, evolution is not a fact"

A theory—as an ideational construct by scientists—will remain a theory and cannot become a natural fact, no matter how established it becomes. Many opponents of evolution, especially Creationists in various disguises, have taken this nature of scientific theory as the launch pad not only for their disputing evolutionism— embodied in the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Synthesis—as a scientific theory but also for their rejecting biological evolution as a natural fact. Surely, Creationists say, scientists cannot just show (i.e., run) a historical tape that shows the whole process of evolution from the “Organic Soup” to modern human beings. Worse, even if scientists could show opponents of evolution such a tape, opponents of evolution can still dismiss the tape as a fake. Is evolutionism therefore doomed? Not at all!”

First, the same principles of logical reasoning and demand for evidence should apply to the theories favored by opponents of evolutionism (i.e., those who support Creationism or “Intelligent Design”). Can Creationism’s proponents show us a tape showing the whole process in which God creates everything? Proponents of Creationism can say, “Yes, we have the Bible!”Yet if they can dismiss the massive amount of evidence that scientists have put together as fake, the scientific community can also view the Bible in the same light. Scientists have the geological record carved into rocks as evidence of evolution, whereas Creationists have only what has been written on paper by human beings in the last few thousand years to make their case, and surely evidence in rock is more reliable than words on paper. The former exists independent from human beings, while the latter cannot possibly have existed before the coming of the human species.Too often, Creationists do not apply the same demanding logic to their own “theories,” as Herbert Spencer (1852 [1891], 1-3) retorted long ago.

Second, for a moment, let us assume that neither evolutionism nor Creationism can prove itself by showing a tape. Thus, the battle has to be settled on the grounds of scientific logic. Here, the rules of a good scientific theory give the overwhelming advantage to evolutionism. Evolutionism is logical, parsimonious, and powerful in explaining empirical facts of biological evolution. Most importantly, evolutionism is endogenous: It can explain the wonders of life without having to enlist the help of any exogenous force. In contrast, Creationism inevitably faces the embarrassing question of where God (and/or His parents) came from. No amount of infinite regression can let Creationism escape from this ultimate question, and Creationism cannot answer it. Ultimately, any theory that relies on general will, natural law, or Intelligent Design as its final explanation is “mystical and tautological” (Service 1968, 397). In contrast, evolutionism eliminates the need of a god or any other external forces.

Finally, although evolutionism will remain a (very powerful) scientific theory'' and cannot become a natural fact, biological evolution is a natural fact, and scientists have established it beyond any reasonable doubt. Three sets of evidence should suffice. First, astronomy, geology, and paleontology have all proven that both the cosmos and life on earth began long before any Creationists can imagine. More importantly, life forms in different geological periods have changed greatly, but always with links to life forms that were further back! Second, the living “Tree of Life” shows that different organisms on earth share many similarities, not only in their anatomical structure but most foundationally in their genetic code.³⁴ If different life forms had been created separately, they should not share so many similarities, especially at the foundational level of genetic code. Finally, human beings have deployed the principles of genetics in domesticating animals and plants and then cross-breeding them into new species. The principles of genetics, which underpin biological evolution, have worked in these artificial processes. Because these principles are unlikely to work in artificial settings if they do not operate in the natural environment, biological evolution must be a real process.

At the end of the day, most of those who reject biological evolution as a natural fact and evolutionism as an established scientific theory are ideologues, and no amount of logic and scientific evidence will convince them.