The evolution of man (and, apparently, ponytails).
Why is the theory of evolution so hard an idea for some to grasp?
Because, well, it really isn’t. I doubt there are many people alive who can profess to understand - wholly – the beautifully simple ‘theory of evolution by natural selection’ while they do not believe it to be true. Once understood, the theory is extremely hard not to accept… Unless of course either: 1) The ideas from a person’s religious upbringing clash completely with those the theory implies (e.g genetic relations with ‘lesser’ organisms, such as bananas), so that person refuses too accept/is happy to disregard just how much explaining the theory actually does; or 2) They don’t really understand it, with understanding being key.
My Mother and I have recently been reading Richard Dawkin’s latest book (‘The Magic of Reality‘) to my eight-year-old younger brother. He’s usually the one to insist, happily, that we do it – so almost every night a sub-chapter is read before he goes to sleep. Often, afterwards, he asks a lot of questions, and questions on evolution are common. Like most children (or adult believers), of no fault of his own he initially supposed the whole idea of evolution involved single organisms ‘turning into’ something else, and he was rightly sceptical of just how this could be. So, after explaining what the actual theory outlined (using easy-to-visualise examples of physical barriers dividing a population into two separately thriving groups, ideas of random genetic variation within a population, ‘arms races’ etcetera), he was a bit more at-ease with it. He understood it; it made sense.
For him the evidence seemed to speak for itself.
And that’s the key word here – evidence… Another parent, in another child’s bedroom may be – at this very moment – lighting up the imagination of their inquisitive eight-year-old with Genesis stories or tales of The Great Flood. That child, quite possibly, realises how much sense it all makes. The only difference here lies in, sadly, the truth of it all. But when children are told something is true by the people they absolutely look up to and respect, it is true – at least for them.
However, the only true truth relies on, again, solid supporting evidence, and evidence for evolution is found everywhere from the fossil record to strains of bacteria continuing to become ever more resistant to the effects of antibiotics. No respectable scientist would refute that fact, ever. Since the discovery of DNA, genetic science has shown similarities in the genomes of countless species, and even allows evolutionary biologists to paint a picture of just how connected the evolutionary pasts of all of the species on this planet really are.
So where does the confusion come from?
The first port of call for many all-to-confident ignorant individuals is to express their confusion and misunderstanding of the word ‘theory’, as if it has any bearing on the content of the “just a” theory itself. Semantics, again, bring up non-arguments.
I’m always in two minds as to whether I should bother to explain the scientific – as opposed to publicly used – definition of the word ‘theory’ to the average proud moron or not. When I choose to, it of course consists of me mentioning how a theory, in science, is defined as a “[summary of] hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing“. Or, I could just as easily resort to thinking out loud, in the words of Tim Minchin:
“maybe [you] feel the same way about the theory of gravity… and [you] might just float the fuck away“
But it’s the same point really. The confident confusion comes from not knowing what the word actually means in a scientific context, and is much like the next shouty and blatant misunderstanding of science:
“Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!“
This is quite a popular one among the more cocksure self-deceived, for some reason, and can usually be brushed aside by responding with the follow-up question; “What are the other Laws of Thermodynamics?” (leaving most speechless). If they do happen to answer (and more importantly, if they answer quickly and confidently) then they’ve obviously done their research, and a more thorough reply is in order. Put simply, the ‘second law’ states that ‘thermodynamic systems become more disordered over time’ – with creationists loving to take this to mean that the evolution of complex, ordered life is impossible scientifically.
What they fail to realise is that the rule only applies to closed systems, and that the Earth is not a closed system at all. A lot of the ‘ordered’ complex life on Earth starts with a constant energy input from the Sun – it is an ‘open’ system, so the second law does not apply*.
Misunderstanding (whether known or not) always gets in the way of acceptance, and again this next misunderstanding shows that well… The point it tries to make, deemed ridiculous by even my brother, lives within the question:
“If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?“
Firstly, and most importantly, there isn’t a scientist worth the title – alive or dead – who has ever claimed that humans evolved from monkeys (well, not the monkeys we know, love and poach nowadays anyway). Sure, we share a common ancestor; but that’s not the point. The point is that the question makes no sense. It’s like asking: “If America was colonised by the English, why does England still exist?“. Well, It still exists because – analogous to the sub-theories behind species separation – some of the original ‘British’ group stayed, and some left to colonise North America. Since then, the two populations have progressed, survived and developed independently, and are now characterised separately because of it.
Hence: the question is stupid, and whoever asked it likely hasn’t done their research. If they had done their research, I’d like to think that they’d be asking some serious questions of themselves instead (rather than attempting to argue with the overwhelmingly vast majority of the scientific community!)…
Anyway, the point I’m trying to make with all of this is that no matter how well someone can warp the truth, if something is true… Then it is true – regardless of opinion.
My example: Evolution. No matter how elaborate the stupid criticisms of it are, it still happens (and we have ‘proof’). End of.
Have a nice week.
Carnun
…
*It’s doubtful that this explanation will reach many people though, unfortunately. I find that a lot of the time creationists will seek false scientific justification for their beliefs, not necessarily because they sincerely want scientific justification, but rather because they want to get one-up on scientists at their own game; to prove them wrong with their own findings and confuse into submission the less prepared ‘believer’ in evolution with pseudo-scientific babble. It’s very annoying.