sign in sign up
<<
Home , From Darwin to Hitler, Kent Hovind, Objections to evolution, River out of Eden, TalkOrigins Archive, The Blind Watchmaker

© 2009, Dustin J. Penn

V. Myths and Misconceptions

A. General Misconceptions about

"Thus the creationist's question - 'What is the use of half an eye?' - is actually a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye, which is already better than 48 percent, and the difference is significant."

- , 19951

Summary

There are many myths and misconceptions about evolution and this section provides an overview of the most common ones, especially those promoted by the movement and other creationists. Misconceptions about evolution have been addressed by many and educators, both religious as well as non-religious ones.2-10 The many misconceptions about evolution help explain its low acceptance by the public, especially when combined with the numerous misconceptions about the implications of evolution for . (See Section V.B)

Myths:

1. Myth: Evolution is a , not a 2. Myth: Evolution is scientifically controversial 3. Myth: Evolution cannot be observed or scientifically tested 4. Myth: The is only 6000 years old, so there has not been enough time for evolution to occur 5. Myth: Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics 6. Myth: The complex, functional features of organs cannot be explained by evolution 7. Myth: Evolution is merely a random process and therefore cannot explain life 8. Myth: Darwin’s theory fails because it does not explain the origin of life and other mysteries of life

1. Myth: Evolution is a theory, not a fact

Creationists often claim that evolution is "just a theory," but such claims are misleading.7 Evolution is both a fact and a theory (the theory is Darwin’s theory of ). However, evolution is not a theory in the colloquial sense of the word, which implies a mere , conjecture, or speculation. Darwin’s theory is a theory in the scientific sense, which means that it is a comprehensive explanation strongly supported by evidence, and useful for making predictions. Other scientific include the Germ Theory, Atomic Theory and Quantum Theory, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Scientific theories are not less than scientific laws, contrary to what is often assumed. Scientific laws describe whereas theories explain them. Darwin’s Theory, for example, explains the fact of evolution. It is crucial to understand that evolution — like all facts in — remains open to question. This tentativeness of facts is a fundamental distinction between science and . This is precisely the reason that "intelligent design" and "" are not sciences: no amount of will alter creationists’ in . Thus, evolution is not "just a theory", in the usual sense of the word, and it is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of scientists. The "just a theory" claim is a misrepresentation that exploits the fact that scientists use the word theory differently than the general public.11-12

For example, a school board in Atlanta, Georgia (USA) placed disclaimer stickers on to warn students that 13 Figure 1. Disclaimer stick- "evolution is a theory, not a fact" (Figure 1). The disclaimer was er.13 meant to appease more than 2,000 parents who complained about the absence of biblical creation in science textbooks. In 2005, a federal judge ruled that the disclaimers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The board challenged the decision and then settled out of court: the board agreed to drop the disclaimers and to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees in the case. Nevertheless, the creationist lobby continues to promote the "just a theory" myth.

2. Myth: Evolution is scientifically controversial

Creationists often misrepresent evolution as "a theory in crisis".14 Evolution has long been accepted as an established fact among the vast majority of scientists. Scientists spend no more time debating the fact of evolution than the existence of atoms. Scientific controversies about evolution exist, and they can be heated, but these debates are over how – not whether – evolution occurs. For example, some scientists debate the relative importance of natural selection versus and other processes for explaining the evolution of life. The scientists involved in these debates, such as S.J. Gould (1941-2002), have voiced their objections to being misrepresented by creationists (Figure 2)11,16-18,21. Creationists continue to promote the myth that evolution is scientifically controversial as a Figure 2. Stephen J. deliberate strategy to raise doubts about evolution, just as corporate lobbyists Gould11,16-18,21 use this tactic to create confusion and doubts about the health risks of tobacco and due to fuels.15 Evolution is controversial, but the debates are political rather than scientific, and creationists generate the controversies themselves.

3. Myth: Evolution cannot be observed or scientifically tested

Since creationists have failed to convince courts that "creation science" and "intelligent design" are legitimate sciences, they now assert that evolution is not a science either. In particular, they argue that no one was around to observe whether or how life originated, and therefore evolution is untestable. This claim is misleading for the following reasons. First, it misrepresents the importance of indirect evidence in science. Scientific facts come from both indirect and direct observations, and there is a great deal of indirect evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. How can the fossil record potentially disprove evolution? J.B.S. Haldane, one of the founders of , once pointed out that evolution would be disproved if someone discovered a fossil rabbit in the Figure 3. Experimen- Precambrian Era (i.e., millions of years before had even evolved). tally testing evolu- tion.23 Second, no one was around to observe the evolution of life, however, there is a tremendous amount of direct evidence showing that life continues to evolve. Scientists have recorded genetic changes over time in many , such as the evolution of pesticide resistance in crop pests. A large and growing number of experimental studies, mostly with microbes and fruitflies, confirm evolution and Darwin’s theory (Figure 3). Some studies have even documented in the laboratory.22 Thus, evolution is testable, and it is supported by a massive amount of evidence, direct as well as indirect.

4. Myth: The Earth is only 6000 years old, so there has not been enough time for evolution to occur Creationists who promote this notion ("Young Earth Creationists") base their estimate of the age of the Earth on Genesis, and reject techniques that show the Earth is around 4.6 billion years old.24-25 The 4.6 billion years estimate comes from a large number of measurements using different dating methods, and there is no scientific controversy about this figure. There used to be a scientific controversy about the age of the Earth. In fact, one of the most important in the 1800’s was the age of the Earth. William Thomson (a.k.a. Lord Kelvin) estimated that the Earth was only 24 to 400 million years old, which if correct would have indeed posed a problem for Darwin. Thomson’s calculations turned out to be wrong, however (as it was Figure 4. Scientific dating techniques not yet known that heat from the is generated by radioactive fusion). Once radioactive dating methods were discovered, they showed that there has been more than enough time for evolution to occur. Thus, creationists' belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is not a trivial mistake, and as Richard Dawkins points out, it is like believing that the distance from New York to San Francisco is only 28 feet! Not all Creationists are Young Earth Creationists, and many other creationists accept the scientific estimates for the age of the Earth. These "Old Earth Creationists" realize that they have lost this battle and instead are focusing on other criticisms of evolution.

5. Myth: Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

To make "intelligent design" and "creation science" appear to be science, creationists have increasingly been using scientific jargon. For example, creationists sometime argue that evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since the tends to decrease order () rather than increase order and complexity, creationists claim that evolution is inconsistent with the physics. However, the Second Law only applies to closed

Figure 5. No systems, in which energy cannot enter a system, whereas the earth is an in Science! open system with energy provided by the sun and captured by plants in .26 Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics any more than does photosynthesis. The "evolution-violates-the-Second-Law" notion misrepresents physics as well as biology.

6. Myth: The complex, functional features of organs cannot be explained by evolution

Creationists argue that the amazing complexity of living cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution (or any other natural process), and can only be explained by a Creator. The idea that the complexity and design-like features of life provide evidence for design by a supernatural agent is called the "Argument from Design" or "", and it goes back to and even ancient Greek philosophers.27 The most well-known version is ’s "watchmaker " from his book, Natural . Paley argued that if one found a watch in the woods, full of complex and intricate working parts, one would have to conclude that it was designed by a watchmaker. It could not have arisen by chance. Similarly, complex traits of organisms, such as eyes, are taken as evidence for purposeful design by a supernatural Creator. The Argument from Design once posed an important challenge for scientists, but solved the problem. He recognized that although organisms are too complex to have arisen by chance, but his great insight was to discover Figure 6. Biological complexity a process–natural selection–that can explain the design-like features of life–without the need for any supernatural agent. For this reason, some suggest that Darwin’s theory is the single best idea that anyone has ever had.19,28

7. Myth: Evolution is merely a random process

Natural selection is often misunderstood as merely a chance process, and creationists often perpetuate this misunderstanding. Life could not have evolved by chance, and to explain why life is so improbable, the astronomer pointed out that if a tornado blows throw a junkyard containing all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray, that it would never create a fully assembled 747. Creationists mistakenly portray evolution by natural selection as a "tornado in a junkyard".29 Hoyle’s tornado-junkyard analogy is instructive to help understand why life is indeed highly improbable and demands a special explanation. Darwin recognized the problem and he provided the solution, but creationists fail to understand that his theory of natural selection is not a random process. On the contrary, natural selection is, by definition, non-random survival and reproduction; it is the antithesis of chance. The reason why natural selection is sometimes misunderstood as a chance process is that it requires , which is random with respect to . Subsequently, most are harmful and quickly eliminated by selection, but some mutations are beneficial. By favoring the beneficial mutations, natural selection generates adaptive evolution changes through a gradual and cumulative process.

Nevertheless, creationists continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection as merely random processes. They also misrepresent Hoyle because he actually made his famous "747 from a tornado" scenario to explain why (origin of life through spontaneous generation), rather than evolution, is so improbable.

To help conceptualize how natural selection works in a cumulative fashion, Richard Dawkins wrote a highly instructive computer program, which has been dubbed "the ".28,30 It is obvious that an randomly pushing keys on a typewriter will never produce the complete works of Shakespeare, even if given millions of years. He will not even be able to produce the short sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel", as the Figure 7. Dawkins' "Weasel Program". probability of producing this small sequence of characters by randomly typing is extremely low (the number of possible combinations in this sequence is 2728, or about 1040, which is not likely to be achieved within the age of the universe, even by the fastest computers producing random sequences). Yet, the probability that the ape will produce at least one correct letter in this sequence is quite high. Using a computer program to generate random sequences, replicate them to produce ‘progeny,’ and allowing random errors at each generation (mutations), one will still never produce the sentence. However, if the program allows selection to occur at each generation, so that only sequences containing the ‘correct’ mutations are allowed replicate, then it only takes a few seconds (or 43 generations) to produce the correct sentence (Figure 7)! Similarly, natural selection produces adaptive evolution through the accumulation of small mutations in DNA and protein sequences.

8. Myth: Darwin’s theory fails because it does not explain the origin of life and other mysteries of life

Creationists’ criticisms of evolution are claims about its supposed shortcomings, and have not proposed any scientific alternatives to Darwin’s theory, and these shortcomings are completely misrepresented. For example, the origin of life continues to be a mystery to scientists, and creationists often use scientists’ inability to explain life’s origins to invalidate evolution all together. Creationists are apparently unaware that a great deal has been discovered about the origin of life, and these findings are amazing. They show that the gap between non-living molecules versus simple forms of life (such as viruses) is not as insurmountable as generally assumed, and that the Figure 8. Exper- conditions on primitive earth were conducive to the formation of the organic iments on the molecules that provide the building blocks of life. Furthermore, have origins of life. found RNA molecules capable of self-replication and undergo natural selection in the laboratory. Creationists claim that evolution is false because it fails to explain a variety of other aspects of life (e.g., , freewill, , , , and ). Yet, evolution has shed much light, if not already explained many of these problems. Even if evolution does not explain the origin of life or other such mysteries, this does not rule out the possibility of another will (in other words, a failure of evolution does not prove creationism). Evolution does not explain everything, and probably never will, but nevertheless, it has been incredibly powerful for explaining the mysteries of life, which is why it continues to provide the theoretical foundation for all the biological sciences.

Other General Misconceptions Promoted by Creationists:

There are no transitional to link major groups of (or humans to other species).31 Natural selection is a tautology (based on ): the fittest are the ones that survive, and those that survive are considered the fittest. Evolution is often misunderstood as suggesting that simple organisms will inevitably become more complex or become humans. For example, creationists often ask, 'If evolution is true, why then are there still monkeys?' (see Blogs) Natural selection might explain small evolutionary changes (), but not the origin of new species (). Mutations are only harmful and cannot improve organs (see 7. Myth above). Evolution is a religion.32

Links

References

1. Dawkins, R. (1995): : A Darwinian View of Life. New York, Basic Books 1995, p.77. 2. Godfrey, L.R. ed. (1984): Scientists Confront Creationism. New York City, W.W. Norton & Company 1984. 3. Kitcher, P. (1983): Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Boston, MA, MIT Press 1983. 4. Scott E.C. & N. Eldredge (2005): Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkley and Los Angeles, CA, University of California 2005. 5. Shermer, M. (2006): Why Darwin Maters: the Case Against Intelligent Design. New York, Times Books 2006. 6. Futuyma, D.J. (1995): Science on Trial: the Case for Evolution. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1995. 7. Miller, K.R. (2008): Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for American's . New York, Viking, New York 2008. 8. Ayala, F.J. (2008): Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, D.C, John Henry Press 2008. 9. Giberson, K. (2008): Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. New York, HarperCollins 2008. 10. Pigliucci, M. (2002): Denying Evolution: Creation, , and the of Science. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer 2002. 11. Gould, S.J. (1981): Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover 2 (5), 34-37. 12. Ruse, M. (1983): Creation-Science is not scienceCreation-Science is not science, in Creation, Science, and the Law: The Arkansas Case, edited by M.C. La Follette. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press 1983, 150-160. 13. Wikipedia (2009): Selman v. Cobb County School District, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 280567568. 14. Denton, M. (1985): Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Adler & Adler 1985. 15. Goozner, M. (2008): The uncertainty principle, New 2660, 48-49. 16. Wikipedia (2009): , in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289404682. 17. Wright, W. (1999): Born That Way: , Behavior, Personality. New York, Routledge 1999. 18. Alcock, J. (1998): Unpunctuated equilibrium in the Natural History essays of Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution and Human Behavior 19, 321-336. 19. Dennett, D.C. (1995): Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York, Simon and Schuster 1995. 20. Dawkins, R. (2006): A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Essays by Richard Dawkins. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2006. 21. Catalano, J. (2001): The Gould Files: Writings related to the ongoing debate involving Stephen Jay Gould and others. 22. Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg (1992): Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory, Evolution 46 (4), 1214 (1992). 23. Wikipedia (2009): , in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 223611671. 24. Wikipedia (2009): Age of the Earth, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 285324071. 25. Wikipedia (2009): Young Earth creationism, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289178298. 26. Wikipedia (2009): Second law of thermodynamics, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 288877369. 27. Wikipedia (2009): Teleological argument, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 284346392. 28. Dawkins, R. (1986): : Why the Evidence of Evolution reveals a Universe without Design. New York, W.W. Norton 1986. 29. Perloff, J. (1999): Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of . Arlington, MA, Refuge Books 1999. 30. Wikipedia (2009): Weasel program, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 287764581. 31. Wikipedia (2009): Transitional fossils, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 287856382. 32. Dawkins, R. (1997): Is Science a Religion? The Humanist 57, 1997, Jan./Feb. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn

V. Myths and Misconceptions

B. Myths about Evolution and Human Affairs

"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important . Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."

- Charles Darwin, 1859 [Chapter XIV]1

Summary

The opposition to evolution mainly stems from concerns about its moral, religious and political implications. Darwin anticipated that the main resistance to evolution would be applying evolution to humans, which is why he avoided the topic in his book, Origin of Species. Evolution indeed has profound implications for our species, but these are widely misunderstood. Creationists often misconstrue evolution as morally dangerous. The opposition to applying evolution to human behavior in academia has been more from the political left than religious right. Many scholars assume that evolution is politically dangerous, and fear that Darwin’s theory is an excuse for social inequality and oppression. Despite enormous resistance, evolution is increasingly being integrated into the social sciences and humanities, and applied to better understand and address human health and ecological sustainability. The integration of evolutionary biology into the social sciences is not as controversial as it used to be, and the debates are shifting more to how rather than whether evolution applies to humans. This section addresses common misconceptions about applying evolution to humans, and the implications of Darwin’s theory for human affairs, especially those that generate unnecessary opposition to evolution.

Myths:

1. Humans are just another 2. Evolution justifies inequality 3. Evolution justifies eugenics 4. Evolution contributed to Holocaust 5. Evolution destroys morality 6. Evolution inevitably leads to 7. Human behavior is explained by culture, not evolution 8. Applying evolution to human behavior is genetic determinism 9. Evolution undermines efforts to change 10. Evolution destroys purpose and meaning

1. Myth: Humans are just another animal

Many are unwilling to accept that evolution applies to humans because they mistakenly assume that it denies human uniqueness and dignity. Evolution emphasizes our animal origins and our similarities with other species, challenging the widely assumed human/nature dichotomy2 (Figure 1). Evolution provides a valuable perspective as the similarities we share with other species are too often ignored (and the differences are too often exaggerated). Most of the traits once assumed to be unique to humans have been found in other animal species, including culture, tool-use, morality, , personality, complex communication, and social intelligence. However, evolution does not imply that humans are not special among animals. Our species'

Figure 1 (a). Figure 1 (b).3 unusual social complexity, oral and symbolic communication, and social learning are extraordinary by any measure. Rather than reducing human dignity, an evolutionary perspective can equally help to appreciate our differences, and elevate our appreciation, admiration, respect, and empathy for other species. The impressive intelligence and other cognitive abilities of other animals have inspired ethologists to raise concerns about animal consciousness and suffering. Some even support extending certain "human rights" to chimpanzees and other great . (If this idea seems extreme, imagine the ethical quandary we would face if Homo erectus, Neanderthals or other more closely related Hominid species were still around today. Regardless of ones' position on animal rights, evolution helps to understand both our similarities and differences from other species, and it does not reduce human dignity.

2. Myth: Evolution justifies inequality

One of the most common objections to evolution is that Darwin’s theory has been misused to excuse and other aspects of social inequality and oppression. It is true that Darwin’s theory has been misused by some to rationalize social inequality in the past, but this was a mistake. SO-called "Social Darwinists" mistakenly assumed that if "" is nature’s way, it ought to be our way (Figure 2a).

However, this is not the perspective of modern evolutionary thinkers (nor Charles Darwin). Ought does not automatically follow from is, and attempts to justify ought directly from is are known as the "appeal to nature" or the "naturalistic fallacy". Something is not good or ethically justified just because it is natural. For example, infectious diseases are natural, but this fact does not make them good or ethically defensible. Additionally, social Darwinists (unlike Darwin) failed to recognize that Figure 2 (a). sympathy, altruism and other moral sentiments are just as natural as competition Social Darwin- and aggression. Thus, accepting Darwin's theory does not require accepting social 6 ism. Darwinism. Part of the reason Darwin’s theory is often mistaken as supporting social inequality is the misleading label "". It was (1820-1903) rather than Charles Darwin who promoted social Darwinism, and therefore, some suggest that "social Spencerism" is a more appropriate label for his (Figure 2b).

The unfortunate abuse of evolution by social Darwinists is often used by critiques to argue that evolution does not – or should not – be applied to human behavior, but Figure 2 (b). this claim is mistaken for several reasons. First, misusing Darwin’s theory (or any Herbert Spencer. scientific theory) is unfortunate, but it does not make the theory false. Second, appeals to nature have been misused to excuse the status quo long before Darwin, and are still common, even among opponents of evolution (e.g., is often condemned by creationists because they claim it is unnatural). Thus, the problem is the naturalistic fallacy and not evolution. Third, a better understanding of human behavior (what is) can help to understand and resolve political and ethical debates (what ought to be). For example, evolutionary analyses help to understand why humans cause climate change and other ecological problems, and how these problems can be addressed more effectively. Unfortunately, it is a popular misconception that deriving ethical statements from facts (ought from is) is necessarily fallacious, when if fact it is an inextricable part of any ethical argument. Darwin’s theory helps understand human behavior, but it does not justify inequality or oppression. Darwin’s theory helps explain the evolution of compassion and altruism, as well as selfish greed, inequality, and oppression, and therefore, it can just as well be used to understand how to make more effective social policies aimed to reduce social inequality and address other concerns of the liberal left.4, 5

Charles Darwin adopted Spencer’s phrase "survival of the fittest", but he was not a social Darwinist. Darwin addressed concerns that the "weak in body or mind" are no longer eliminated in modern ; however, he concluded that calls to ignore their plight are hopelessly unrealistic, as they go against our species’ social and moral for sympathy – "the noblest part of our nature"7. Thus, "social Spencerism" is arguably a more appropriate label for Spencer’s philosophy than "social Darwinism".

3. Myth: Evolution justifies eugenics

Whereas social Darwinists advocated ignoring the needs of the poor and sick, others have promoted active intervention by government and other institutions to guide . Eugenics, in the broad sense, refers to efforts to improve human genetic qualities (infanticide, prenatal screening, genetic counseling, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering), and in the narrow sense, it refers to using forced sterilization, euthanasia, or even murder.8 Eugenics was originally developed by Sir (1822-1911) (who was Darwin’s cousin) (Figure 3a).

Many prominent scientists and politicians initially supported eugenics, especially in the U.S., where a number of states had eugenics programs. Contrary to what is often assumed, however, eugenics was mainly popular among progressive political liberals rather than conservatives. Eugenics eventually lost support and it was abandoned for several reasons.6 First, for many traits there is no objective way to decide which are "desirable" and which are "defects" – or who decides such questions – and by the 1930’s, some scientists raised concerns about possible Figure 3 (a). Sir exploitation to justify class and racial prejudices. Second, eugenics lost its Francis Galton.9 popularity in the U.S. after many abuses of forced sterilization. Third, after Nazi Germany implemented eugenics to "improve intelligence and racial purity", most scientists wanted to distance themselves from the field as much as possible (Figure 3b). It would be difficult to overemphasize the effect that the atrocities in Nazi Germany had in turning social scientists against biology, , and evolution. Recent advances in medical genetics, however, are making eugenics controversial once again. Darwin’s theory is important for efforts to understand human evolution and the consequences of our interventions, but its findings do not excuse or justify Figure 3 (b). Nazi propaganda forced sterilization. On the contrary, evolutionary analyses of human behavior help poster. understand why people should be on guard against social dominants attempting to control their reproduction.

4. Myth: Evolution contributed to Holocaust

Some creationists blame Darwin for and , but such claims are completely unfounded (Figure 4).10 Hitler was surely exposed to popular versions of Darwin’s theory, which may have reinforced his notions of racial purity (in those days, evolution was popularly misconstrued as a struggle among human races). However, Hitler did not use evolution to justify his goals. Darwin’s theory is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the Holocaust. Evolution was more widely accepted in other countries than Nazi Germany, where people had very different interpretations than racism and . Moreover, there have been many atrocities against Jews in Europe before Darwin, and mass murders of other religious, ethnic and racial minorities throughout history. In fact, the mass murders in the Stalin’s USSR, China, and Cambodia were committed by left-wing Marxists, who were generally unaware or opposed to Darwin’s theory and eugenics. The causes of the Holocaust and other acts of genocide are not well understood, though nationalism played a major role (Nazis were motivated by ethnic nationalism and anti-Semitism). Even if Darwin’s theory had inspired the Nazis, this would not make the idea false (see the moralistic fallacy above), nor imply that censorship is good idea. Censoring all the ideas that influenced the Nazis would require censoring other scientific theories, environmental ethics, and religion. Hitler never cited Darwin to justify Nazi ideology, though he did cite his religious beliefs. For example, in Mein Kampf, Hitler stated, "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord".11

The Darwin-Hitler myth is promoted by , a senior fellow at the – a hub of the Intelligent Design Movement. In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: , Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, he argues that Darwinism was at the core of Nazism, though he recognizes that "it would be

Figure 4. Creationism propaganda.12 foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust." Historians and other scholars point out that Weikart fails to provide any evidence that Darwin’s theory influenced Hitler or played an important role in the rise of Nazism.13

5. Myth: Evolution destroys morality

"The clear implication [of evolution] is that people are just animals, so there is no right or wrong. It teaches that all evolutionary progress has been made by some at the expense of others. Highest success comes to those who will step on, grind down and, if necessary, destroy others."14

Creationists blame Darwin’s theory for a variety of social ills. It is often claimed that "If we teach children they are animals, they will act like animals." Tom DeLay, a former member of the US House of Representatives and House Majority Leader (2003-2005), suggested that the tragic massacre at Columbine High School was due to schools teaching evolution: "Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup."

Evolution challenges pre-Darwinian ideas about the origins of humans and morality; however, it does not deny the existence of morality or prescribe how people ought to behave (see 2. Myth above). On the contrary, evolutionary has supported Darwin’s idea that human morals are more than just arbitrary 'social constructions', and instead argue that humans have genetically determined moral instincts that evolve by natural selection.15, 16 Evolutionary analyses aim to better understand human morals, and determine why people often behave altruistically.

Evolution challenges assumptions that morality requires supernatural explanations (the goal of science is to find natural or material explanations), but contrary to what is often assumed, evolutionary research does not conclude that "might makes right" or "nice guys finish last". Evolution has been misrepresented to support oppression and social inequality, however, all scientific fields (and also ) have the potential to be misrepresented for political ends. Evolution is not unique or even unusual in this sense. Therefore, Figure 5. : it is important address the implications of evolution and other sciences for "The Dangers of humans, and to be vigilant about misrepresentations of science for political 17 Evolution". purposes. This is the reason that scientists oppose creationists’ efforts to remove evolution from public schools, and political efforts to keep evolution out of the social sciences and humanities.5, 9

6. Myth: Evolution inevitably leads to atheism

Evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism, contrary to what creationists often assume. Some scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, are critical of religion and emphasize the contradictions between scientific versus religious claims.18, 19 Other scientists, such as Stephen J. Gould, maintain that science and true religion are not in conflict, but rather occupy separate realms of human understanding.20 Some scientists believe in , and some believe that God was responsible for evolution (Figure 6).

In the USA, approximately 60% of scientists express doubts or disbelief in God, which has been constant from 1914 to 1996, whereas among the most prestigious scientists in the USA (members of the National of Sciences), disbelief has risen from 70% to 93% during this same time.21 This means that 40% of scientists have religious beliefs in God, and this percentage has remained stable: approximately 40% of scientists believe in Figure 6. Theistic evolu- both evolution and an active deity,21 and about 40% believe in tion and a God that answers .22 So, although most scientists are atheists or agnostics, atheism is not universal among scientists, or among the general public that supports evolution. One of the reasons that creationists fear that evolution fosters atheism is due to the common assumption that atheism leads to ; however, this is also a myth: atheists (and evolutionists) are no more likely to commit or otherwise act immorally than religious individuals.23

7. Myth: Human behavior is explained by culture, not evolution

One of the reasons for the opposition to applying evolution to explain human behavior is due to confusing proximate versus evolutionary analyses.9, 24 Most research on behavior, like the rest of the biological sciences, is aimed at unraveling the proximate mechanisms that control behavior, and such as brain and neurosciences, cognitive psychology, etc. To understand how such mechanisms evolved, other scientific fields investigate ultimate or evolutionary analyses (i.e., , , behavioral ecology, ). These disciplines are often controversial partly because evolutionary explanations are often mistaken as proximate mechanisms. For example, to understand human menopause, most researchers study the hormonal and other physiological factors that trigger menopause, but attempts to explain its evolution should not be mistaken as alternatives to these proximate explanations (Figure 7a).

Such confusion is especially easy for human behavior, as evolutionary explanations are often misunderstood as psychological motivations. For example, there are several ideas to explain how altruistic behaviors toward relatives (nepotism) and non-relatives evolve by enhancing an individual’s own evolutionary success, but these ideas are often misunderstood as arguments about psychological motivates (Figure 7b). Similarly, it is often claimed that rape has nothing to do with sex Figure 7 (a). because it is motivated by aggression, which mistakenly pits an evolutionary explanation (sex) for a proximate one (aggression). Aggression may very well be the proximate motive or cause of the behavior, but this would not rule out the possibility that it evolved as a reproductive behavior or a by-product of other functional reproductive behaviors. Such misunderstandings are complicated by the fact that evolutionary analyses are also mistaken as attempts to provide excuses or justifications for selfish greed, rape, and other immoral behaviors Figure 7 (b). (see 2. Myth above).

Such misunderstandings are often due to the fact that evolutionary researchers often use metaphors as a short-hand way of communicating their models that treat genes as purposeful agents acting in their selfish interests. When combined with the numerous misunderstandings about the role of genetics in behavior (see below), some get the mistaken idea that genes are the source of Sigmund Freud’s unconscious (and ulterior) motives in the brain.5 8. Myth: Applying evolution to human behavior is genetic determinism

Much of the opposition to applying evolution to human behavior has been due to misconceptions that it requires erroneous notions about the way that genes influence behavior.9 The "nature- versus-nurture" debate has been scientifically resolved for decades, and all agree that behavior is a phenotype, and like all phenotypes, the development or of behavior is controlled by both genetic and environmental influences. One cannot separate how much of an individual’s phenotype is due to genes versus the environment (just as one cannot partition a cake into the portion due to the recipe versus its ingredients). Similarly, it is a mistake to debate how much of an individual’s behavior is instinctive versus learned (since learning itself is an ). On the other hand, differences among individuals can be attributed to genetic (or environmental) causes. When geneticists report that a trait is "heritable", this means that some proportion of the variation in the trait is due to genetics. Such interests evolutionary researchers because such variation is necessary for a trait to evolve by natural selection. However, some have mistaken evolutionary analyses as supporting the obsolete naturists’ view of development (i.e., the myth of ‘genetic determinism’).

To add to the confusion, critics of evolutionary research often advocate the obsolete nurturist’ position ('environmental determinism'), and deny that genetics influences human behavior.25 Genetics (and Darwin) were kept out of the social sciences for decades and replaced with environmental determinism’ and other versions of the "Blank Slate" model of human nature (Figure 8).5 This

Figure 8. Sigmund Freud, James Watson, and situation has changed, as several evolutionary disciplines B.F. Skinner are bridging the gap between the biological and social sciences, which are helping to understand how genes and the environment interact to influence human behavior, and how social learning and other aspects of culture can potentially influence evolution.9

9. Myth: Evolution undermines efforts to change

Social scientists are interested finding ways to change behavior and , and many have erroneously assumed that evolutionary sciences are obstacles to such efforts, and perhaps this is the main reason that applying evolution to humans has been so controversial. It is often assumed that if undesirable aspects of human behavior – such as aggression, selfishness, greed, philandering, nepotism, rape, and racism – are "natural" or "biological" that they would be justified (see the naturalistic fallacy; Misconception 2 above). The problem, however, is that many have concluded that behaviors that ought not to be natural, cannot be products of natural selection. Such reasoning is called the "reverse naturalistic fallacy" or "moralistic fallacy". If the darker aspects of human nature are "biological", it is often assumed it is pointless to try to change them (Figure 9).

Again, one does not have to reject scientific Darwinism to reject social Darwinism and the naturalistic fallacy. Just because a behavior is natural, this does not mean that it cannot be modified – or that political aspirations for change are a waste of time. The brighter sides of human nature, such as learning, empathy, trust, kindness, and altruism, ethics, and morality, also evolved by natural selection. Humans are cable of making behavioral and social changes – not despite human nature – but Figure 9 (a). Franz Boas, (b) because natural selection favored the evolution of learning and other Margaret Mead (center).5, 26 mechanisms that allow behavioral and social changes. The moralistic fallacy provides another example of how the opposition to applying evolution to human behavior has been more political than scientific. 10. Myth: Evolution destroys purpose and meaning

Many people accept evolution for other species, but like Pope John Paul II they draw a line at humans (such ‘human creationists’ usually object to applying evolution to the human brain and behavior) because they assume it removes purpose and meaning from our lives. The notion that Darwin’s theory destroys meaning and purpose is a mistake.27

The fallacy is assuming that we have no purpose or meaning in our lives unless the process that created us – and the human brain – was also purposeful (i.e., a supernatural God with a plan). In other words, this assumption confuses two levels of analysis, as it mixes up ultimate causation (how our brains came about) with proximate causation (how our brains work) (see Misconception 6 above). A scientific and Darwinian world view is perfectly compatible with efforts to seek a Figure 10. E.O. higher purposes in life, including humanitarian efforts to reduce poverty and 29-32 Wilson. disease, concerns for animal suffering, and efforts to protect the Earth’s . Darwin’s theory does not destroy meaning, purpose or the beauty of life. On the contrary, many share Darwin’s view that "There is grandeur in this view of life" (The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 429), even more beautiful and inspirational than traditional myths.28

Links

References

1. Darwin, Ch. (1859): The Origin of Species. London, John Murray 1859. 2. Gould, S.J. (1977): A Matter of Degree, in Ever Since Darwin. New York, W.W. Norton & Company 1977. 3. Gould, S.J. (1977): Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution, in Ever Since Darwin. New York, W.W. Norton & Company 1977. 4. Singer, P. (2000): A Darwinian Left. H. Cronin, O. Curry, Eds., Darwinism Today. Yale, Yale University Press 2000. 5. Pinker, S. (2002): The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York, Penguin Putnam 2002. 6. Degler, C.N. (1991): In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York, 1991. 7. Darwin, C. (1871): The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London, John Murray 1871. 8. Wikipedia (2009): Eugenics, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289001747. 9. Ridley, M. (2003): Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human. New York, HarperCollins 2003. 10. Ruse, M. (2008): “Darwin and Hitler: a not-very-intelligent link”. Tallahassee Democrat. Tallahassee 2008, Feb. 6). 11. Hitler, A. (1999): Mein Kampf. R. Mannheim ed. New York, Mariner Books 1999. 12. Wikipedia (2009): Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 289315574. 13. Wikipedia (2009): Richard Weikart, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 282673014. 14. Scientific Facts & Evolution at evolution-facts.org 15. de Waal, F.B.M. (1996): Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press 1996. 16. Ridley, M. (1996): The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation. New York, Penguin 1996. 17. Hovind, K. (2009): Kent Hovind FAQs The TalkOrigins Archive. 18. Sagan, C. (1996): The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York, Ballantine Books 1996. 19. Dawkins, R. (2006): . Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 20. Gould, S.J. (1999): Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, 1st Ed. New York, Ballantine 1999. 21. Larson, E.J. & L. Witham (1997): Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature 386, 435-436. 22. Witham, L. (1997): Many scientists see God's hand in evolution, in Washington Times, 1997, Apr. 11, pp. pA8. 23. Paul, G.S. (2005): Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in prosperous : a first look. Journal of Religion and Society 7. 24. Alcock, J. & P. Sherman (1994): The utility of the proximate-ultimate dichotomy in ethology. Ethology 96, 58-62. 25. Harris, J.R. (1998): The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. New York, Simon & Schuster 1998. 26. Freeman, D. (1998): The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research. Boulder, CO, Westview 1998. 27. Dennett, D.C. (1995): Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York, Simon and Schuster 1995. 28. Dawkins, R. (1998): : Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company 1998. 29. Wilson, E.O. (1975): Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press 1975. 30. Wilson, E.O. (1978): Introduction: what is sociobiology, in Sociobiology and Human Nature. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass 1978. 31. Wilson, E.O. (2001): The Future of Life. New York, Alfred Knopf 2001. 32. Wilson, E.O. (2006): The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. New York, W. W. Norton 2006.