Most people in the United States do not accept the validity of evolution.
A study published in 2005 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science surveyed the frequency of acceptance of evolution across the United States, Japan and 32 European nations.
In this study, the U.S. ranked second to last in acceptance of evolution, above Turkey but below Cyprus.
It is my observation that most of those who reject evolution and accept creationism usually hold fundamental misconceptions about the nature of evolution. All too often, these misconceptions are deliberately propagated by those who stand to profit from the creationist cause.
If creationists would trouble themselves to learn the basic facts of evolution from a credible source, much of the acrimonious debate that has surrounded the creation/evolution controversy would disappear.
Briefly, evolution refers to the change in frequencies of different versions of genes in populations over time. These changes in frequency are most notably caused by environmental pressures.
For example, a shortage of food is relatively unlikely to cause an elimination of those who possess a gene that allows them to smell out food more effectively. A shortage of females unlikely to cause an elimination of those males who possess a gene that allows them to produce more eye-catching mating displays.
The possessors of these genes are more likely to reproduce and to pass these genes on to their offspring. Assuming the environment does not change, these genes are likely to spread further with the next generation.
The theory of evolution by natural selection, as proposed by Charles Darwin and redefined by modern scientists to include genetic mutations is a framework of ideas used to explain the observed fact of change over time. Thus, evolution is not just a theory; it is both a theory and a fact.
One might liken it to the germ theory of disease. The germ theory of disease is a theory, but the occurrence of disease is an observed fact.
The theory of evolution does not touch on the origin of life (abiogenesis), the beginning of the universe or anything outside of changes in the frequencies of different versions of genes in populations over time.
It’s also worth noting that the theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it is a record of the way things are, not a commentary on the way things should be.
Some creationists promote the idea that evolution somehow dictates that we should eliminate those who are “unfit,” and go on to associate acceptance of evolution with eugenics. However, anyone with a strong understanding of science should be able to tell that the theory of evolution no more prescribes that we exterminate the disabled than the theory of gravity prescribes that we be attracted to massive people.
There also seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the theory of evolution’s status within the scientific community. While there are many debates over various details of the workings of evolution, there is no controversy within the scientific establishment regarding evolution’s overall validity
While young-earth creationism may be virtually mainstream in the American public, it is a fringe perspective among biologists.
A 1991 Gallup poll showed that, among American scientists working in fields relevant to evolutionary biology, less than .15 percent are creationists or believe that creationism has any scientific validity. I would expect this number to be even lower in most other industrialized nations.
The reason for this far-reaching certainty is simple: Evolution is supported by overwhelming amounts of virtually incontrovertible evidence. Moreover, no credible evidence refutes it. Unfortunately, the common misconceptions regarding the evidence for evolution are too numerous to be addressed here. However, there are a few points which deserve special mention.
One claim frequently made by prominent creationist mouthpieces such as Answers in Genesis is that there are no transitional fossils which illustrate the gradual speciation. Though it’s an objection I hear often, it’s simply not true. Smooth continua of intermediate species can be demonstrated between fish and tetrapods, reptiles and mammals, and chimps and Homo sapiens.
Of particular interest to creationists should be the Tiktaalik, a fossilized animal which might be roughly described as a fish with feet.
It’s fairly illustrative of the many transitional fossils which you’ll never see mentioned by Answers in Genesis.
Another particularly clinching proof of evolution can be found with retroviruses. Retroviruses, upon infection, splice their DNA into their host’s genome.
Sometimes this chunk of DNA is passed down from the host to its descendants.
Many instances of retrogenes common to both chimpanzees and humans, for example, provide compelling evidence for descent.
On the other hand, had God simultaneously poofed everything into existence 6,012 years ago, the presence of this retroviral DNA which seemingly allows us to view evolution would be incomprehensible.
There’s much more I wish I could cover, but, unfortunately, evolution is too complex a topic to be fully addressed via a column.
With any luck, acquaintance with the facts will eventually persuade America’s non-evolutionist majority to reexamine its position.
Zac Smith is a University College sophomore. His column appeared every other Monday.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
EN 3 years, 5 months ago
The headline is very confusing.
Rhology 3 years, 5 months ago
JJanowiak, My 6 challenges in my 1st comment, if they survive the light of scrutiny, would make ALL experiments performed with respect to evolution examples of and evidence of Intelligent Design.
I know you've sworn off talking to me, but unfortunately apparently you haven't sworn off making abusive and irrational comments. Why not deal with my challenges?
Could it be that "Expelled" is right - that ID and creationists don't get wide acceptance in academia b/c there exists a bias? Oh, no, of course, that's just OBVIOUSLY a wad of guano, to take your words.
Rhology 3 years, 5 months ago
Maybe one day, evolutionists will actually be able to find some evidence that paramecia can evolve into chimpanzees!
"But what about the fossil record!" Read Henry Gee's In Search of Deep Time. You DON'T KNOW whether the fossils you have represent animals that reproduced, who had the best phenotype for survival. All you know is that they died. We're talking billions of years here (if what you say is correct).
Bottom line: Given the great care that the Darwinian camp has taken to differentiate itself from the Intelligent Design stuff, one would think that certainly said camp would be highly, strongly interested in providing evidence for its position, absent ANY INTELLIGENCE involved whatsoever. Given that, I'd like evidence that evolution from one type of organism to another is occurring TODAY with the following qualifications: 1) A laboratory injects intelligence into the equation. No lab. 2) Experiments observed on a REPEATED basis, as good science should be. 3) No intelligent (ie, human) manipulation of the events. 4) With ALL normal environmental factors present. No control group, no outside interference from intelligent agents (ie, humans). 5) With ALL normal other factors present, such as predators, weather, fluctuations in prey, water, and other nourishment. 6) And a good way of judging when the line of organism has become a different type.
Clifton 3 years, 5 months ago
What's funny is that I'm not sure the author of this article actually knows ALL the facts before writing it, or if he simply looked up a few websites which "confirmed" his pre-supposition to his flawed beliefs. From someone who has taken many graduate-level courses in Evolution, I still do not believe in the theory. Simply because we can prove micro-evolution, does not mean we can write a whole theory around macro-evolution, especially when transitional species do not exist. My issue with alleged scientists is that they do not research all possible theories with an open mind. For instance, Intelligent Design. Now, if you have stopped reading by now, you are doing the same thing the writer of this article encourages us not to do. If believers in Evolution want us to take them seriously, then they should do the same. In this researchers article, we find many justifiable reasons to believe in Evolution (http://www.discovery.org/a/8051). I would even encourage the AsianBeliever to read this, as believing in Evolution and Intelligent Design is mutually exclusive, and not simply a "hodge podge" of believing anything someone writes in a book. For everyone's consideration, please look at the facts, and not think that everyone who believes in Intelligent Design isn't looking at the other people's facts. We have brains too, I guarantee you!...
moore5484 3 years, 5 months ago
ha ha ha the discovery institute. No zoology or medical graduate student in their right mind would cite the Discovery institute. Wow, you people should take evolution before you make your comments. All of these topics are addressed in the course EVOLUTION ZOO 3013. Take Fincke, she'll answer all of your questions.
briareus 3 years, 5 months ago
This is a strange article, with the rhetoric being rambling, disjointed, and incoherent. Even the title contradicts the premise of the author. The author can't even define evolution. He confuses theory with fact. Descent with modification is an observable fact, evolution is a theory. He presumes what he has to demonstrate. A very few transitional forms can be found in the fossil record, but these exceptions prove the rule. The fossil record shows stasis punctuated by episodic and rapid change. This is not what Darwin predicted. Too often, evolution is used by atheists and materialists to "prove" that God does not exist. Sadly, this essay suggests that the quality of the education being offered at OU is less than satisfactory.
AslanFollower 3 years, 5 months ago
I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. First of all, there are many different types of evolution. There is the natural selection process, the evolution of humans, and others. We see natural selection through the sciences, and some claim to see human evolution as well. The fight over human evolution is bitterly disputed, but I believe that either is possible.
First of all, Darwin himself said in the Origin of Species that the evolution of humans is very unlikely. He didn’t mean for his proposal of evolution to apply to humans.
Secondly, I believe that God could work through evolution or outside of it. In other words, who are we to say that God could not have made us through evolution? In my own opinion I do not think that quite adds up to His character, but that is only my opinion and not a factual knowledge. On the other hand, He may have decided to create humans from nothing, if one is to take Genesis literally. There are many facts that just don’t add up to human evolution, and this is why I do not accept it off-handedly. I do not reject it because of my beliefs, just because of the facts.
In the same way, I wish scientists would not try to plant evidence to prove human evolution as if that were an attack against a Creator. So what if the Creator chose to use evolution? Why couldn’t He? There are many possibilities of what God could have done to make the world, and I believe that science should point to the way He made it on it's own without us interfering to shape the facts. Therefore, if science shows that the earth is millions of years old, why should our English translation of the Bible disprove that alone? The word “day” in Genesis can also imply an “epoch” or “age”, not just a 24 hour day. This view is hotly disputed, and I respect those who believe otherwise, but we should not dictate to science and God how He created the world. We should be seeking the truth, and the truth will tell us answers. We should not look for evidence to back up our view, but look for truth and see where that leads us.
JJanowiak 3 years, 5 months ago
Clifton, the very fact that you've supposedly taken "many graduate-level courses in Evolution" - something I HIGHLY doubt - yet still link to the Discovery Institute definitely says something about your intellectual abilities. Perhaps graduate school isn't the right path for you...?
This is obviously a rambling, incoherent page of babble written by someone who is not a biologist and who at most has a very basic understand of evolution. As do most people. That's fine, but he definitely doesn't "speak" for evolutionary theory in any way.
So nice to see all the usual cranks around here. Have you all ever heard of "scientific consensus"? The scientific community isn't an evil conspiracy against religious zealotry (well, in some sense it is) and if no credible "Intelligent Design" or "Creation" theorists have made the rounds in scientific literature, you get three guesses as to why.