Top 15 Misconceptions about Evolution-- by Evolutionists
15. Evolution is NOT a theory about the origin of life
Truth: Evo is all about finding a way to account for life without God, i.e. the religious philosophy of Naturalism. Pure science only observes; philosophy interprets. Philosophy is religion when it holds to its views in absolute blind faith, as evo does:
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: “I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection’s] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.” (Source)
14. Organisms are NOT always getting better
Truth: Evo proposes an increase in complexity, which nobody on either side always claims is “better”. Evo, by definition, is supposed to explain the alleged “progression of life” in the fossil record, holding up Man as the most highly evolved by virtue of his complexity and intelligence, which is supposed to have evolved from “lower” or “simpler” organisms over time. So this claim is really a straw man.
13. Evolution does NOT mean that life changed ‘by chance’
Truth: Evo is ALL about “chance”, which is the opposite of “design”. Here they attempt to equivocate on the word “chance” by contrasting it with natural selection.
12. Natural selection does NOT involve organisms ‘trying’ to adapt
Truth: Again, natural selection is held up as a cause of adaptation-- and thus a cause of evolution. As I’ve stated many times before, to select is to take out a subset of a larger existing set; it does not, cannot, and has never been observed, to create new information or complexity. Adaptation, far from being the result of mere undirected chemical processes as evo has always proposed, is programmed into the DNA of every organism-- and there is a Programmer.
11. Natural selection does NOT give organisms what they ‘need.’
Truth: Finally they get the definition of natural selection right-- but in doing so, they prove that it can’t explain evolution!
10. Evolution is NOT ‘just’ a theory
9. Evolution is NOT a Theory in Crisis
Truth: Yes, there is in fact a major debate about whether evo occurred, or evos wouldn’t be trying to keep ugly scientific facts that disprove it out of science classrooms. They wouldn’t fear scrutiny if there was no debate. No, the lame theory is not “sound science” or any kind of science at all, except science fiction. (This title they chose for #9 is a slam on the book by agnostic microbiologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, which I have read in its entirety.)
8. Gaps in the Fossil Record do NOT Disprove Evolution
Truth: Yes, they do. Their claim of “fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their dinosaur ancestors” is laughable even among themselves (see This article from Berkeley). The discovery of an undisputed transitional form would have gotten someone a Nobel Prize.
7. Evolutionary Theory is NOT Incomplete
Truth: They can’t seem to make up their minds. They say it’s complete but then say “Evolutionary science is a work in progress.” Which is it? (And of course, “evolutionary science” is an oxymoron.) Those new discoveries they speak so glowingly about have done more to disprove evo than anything. Evolutionists like to say that there is no controversy over the fact of evolution; it is only the “how” about which they disagree. Not true; they can’t even agree on the “where” or “when” or “how long”. The facts have disproved evo over and over, yet they keep the faith. So it isn’t that they have a complete theory, but that they have a dogmatic religion.
6. The Theory is NOT Flawed
Truth: Yes, it certainly is; it’s full of holes. The alleged self-correcting nature of “science” is thwarted by the naturalistic agenda and efforts by zealots like Gould to make sure nobody who doubts evo is allowed to speak. Brushing off creationists’ objections with claiming they are “based on misunderstandings of the theory or misrepresentation of the evidence” is a flat-out lie.
5. Evolution is not science because it is not observable-- it IS observable
Truth: No, it isn’t, nor is it testable or falsifiable; their faith in the “fact” of evo in spite of those facts continually disputing it makes it so. Here again they presume to equate evo with science, and they are completely separate. Science must observe and test; evo can only interpret from its framework of naturalism. The fact is that nobody has actually observed new complexity arising, or any evidence of it.
4. Most Biologists have NOT rejected Darwinism
Truth: Nobody knows the numbers because many stay “in the closet” for fear of losing their funding, status, or position, as has happened to their colleagues. Biology has only proved the amazing complexity of even the “simplest” life forms, showing purposeless, undirected evo to be impossible. Those who say they still believe in evo do so out of religious devotion to their cause-- and to protect their jobs.
3. Evolution does NOT lead to Immoral Behavior
Truth: Yes, it does. Nobody claims it causes it, but that a belief in “nature red in tooth and claw” will inevitably lead to more animalistic behavior, no law but survival, “looking out for number one”. There is no motivation to be civilized or altruistic if one believes he or she is just evolved pond scum (whose existence evo refuses to admit cannot have arisen by naturalistic processes).
2. Evolution does NOT support “Might Makes Right”
Truth: Yes, it does. “Social Darwinism” certainly didn’t come from Christianity. And it can’t be “a misappropriation of science” because evo is not science.
1. Teachers Should NOT Teach Both Sides
Truth: Yes, they should. What does evo have to hide? What are they afraid of? We’re not asking for “all views” to be presented, but two WIDELY HELD views that both claim to have solid science behind them. The only thing I agree with them about is that religion has no place in the science classroom. So why is the religion of Naturalism allowed? Why evo dogma and no other religion?
And that’s what I think of their little list. Perhaps it will “evolve” someday.