Getting the Theory of Evolution Wrong
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
One of the commonest tactics of creationists is to get the theory of evolution completely wrong, most commonly by ignoring the law of natural selection altogether, by failing to understand the meaning of the word mutation and the role mutations play in evolution, by mixing up evolution with other scientific concepts which they also get wrong, or any combination of the three.
[edit] Examples
Here, for example, is Kent Hovind's version of the theory of evolution:
- The idea that all life came from nothing, 18 billion years ago. [1]
Here, by contrast, is Anne Coulter's version, as checked and approved by William Dembski:
- Evolution is the eminently plausible theory that the human eye [...] came into existence purely by accident
Sometimes creationists take the trouble to get the theory of evolution wrong in much more detail. The following nonsense is part of a batch of rubbish that creationists attempted to get into schools in Louisiana:
- Needed: 1 die and a sheet of graph paper.
- Goal: Try to get from a point at 1,1 (species A) at the lower left hand corner of the graph paper to the upper right hand corner (species B). Instead of using the 1 to 1000 probability evolutionists suggest use the die with a probability of 1 to 6. Let 1 represent a favorable mutation and advance one square towards species B along any path. Any other number represents an unfavorable mutation and means go back one square. Three successive unfavorable mutations means go back to A since the organism is probably dead.
- QUESTIONS: Will we ever get species B?
- If the odds were 1 to 1000, would this help us get species B?[2]
As with the previous quotation, this entirely ignores the role of natural selection; the author also seems to believe that evolution is something that one organism does by somatic mutation, rather than something that happens to a population by progressive accumulation of germ-line mutations.
[edit] Malice or Ignorance?
As usual with creationists, it is hard to settle the question of whether they are acting through malice or ignorance. Either they know what the theory of evolution is, realize that it is perfectly sensible, and so attack the nonsense that they've made up as a substitute for being able to attack the actual theory as it appears in science textbooks; or they are genuinely so ill-educated that they think that the nonsense they've made up is the theory of evolution.
We incline to the latter probability. For in the former case, they would have to know that the theory of evolution is unassailable: in which case, why oppose it? If, on the other hand, they really identify "the theory of evolution" with the purile nonsense that they've invented, then it's no wonder that they object to this "theory of evolution" so strongly. So would any sensible person, for the "theory of evolution" invented by creationists is as implausible, unscientific and stupid as ever other idea invented by creationists.
To this we would add the observation that if they were deliberately getting the theory wrong, they wouldn't have to get it so wrong. If, for example, they deceitfully removed the existence of natural selection from the theory, then it would be unnecessary also to lie about mutations: this would only increase the chances of them getting caught lying without making the theory any less plausible than would be achieved simply by concealing the law of natural selection. By analogy, anyone who wished to discredit the theory of gravity could do so by lying about the law of gravity; they needn't also lie about the laws of motion.
