A somewhat bizarre and recurrent claim on some social media sites, is that the theory of evolution requires faith to believe in. Hence it’s analogous to a religion. (Often that prefaces an assertion that it requires an extraordinary amount of faith).
The theory of evolution however, doesn’t require faith or beliefs. It’s accepted in the scientific community (and in most secular countries, by a large chunk of the population) because of evidence.
We only need to establish four basic facts for evolution to be- at the very least- deductively correct.
First, it has to be the case that a population of organisms varies in their traits. This is readily observable. This variation is a necessary condition of evolution.
Second, there has to be a mechanism of inheritance. Again, this has been firmly established. Chromosomes carry DNA. DNA is the molecule of inheritance.
Third, selection[1] has to operate on populations or organisms. Again, this is observable. The example of the pepper moth is a classic example from the wild. Pesticide resistance in insects is another example.
So these three things means that evolution is going to occur. Evolution is about shifts in gene frequency. Some genes become more common, some genes become less common. So these facts mean that some traits will be selected for. They will have some evolutionary advantage. Mosquitoes that are resistant to common insecticides will be more successful than those without this resistance. These will pass this trait on to their descendants. And there will be a lot more resistant mosquitoes in the population as a result.
That leads to the last condition for evolution. That’s just time. There is a lot of time available. Early geologists pondering the rock stratas in Europe and North America deduced that Earth is very old. Biologists appreciating the slow, incremental nature of selection, deduced that the Earth is very old. And finally, Clair Patterson nailed the age of the earth down with a lot more precision when lead isotope analysis showed that the earth was 4.5 bn years old.
So, none of the above facts actually require any faith. Evolution is just a necessary consequence of these factors. Now in science, we also go a bit further than this. We also try to make predictions based on this. One very important area of prediction are fossils. The Theory of Evolution is going to make some pretty bold claims about the order in which fossils appear and the types of features these fossils will exhibit.
An excellent example of this is Tiktaalik roseae[2]. This is an important fossil that shows some of the transitional properties we expect between fish and tetrapods (the early vertebrates that first conquered land). From the theory of evolution there should be transitional forms in the late Devonian (375-363 Myr). Palaeontologists looked, and yes, we got it right. It’s there in the Late Devonian and its got dorsally mounted eyes and a neck and head capable of independent movement. 
Image linked to National Geographic
-
[1] Selection isn’t the only mechanism of evolution. Other factors such as genetic drift or hybridisation also can play a role.
[2] Downs, J.P., Daeschler, E.B., Jenkins, F.A. & Shubin, N.H.(2008) The cranial endoskeleton of Tiktaalik rosae Nature 455: 925-929
Theory of Evolution isn’t a religion- it’s science Apr 27
17 Comments Leave a comment
-
-
Grant Jacobs 1149 days ago
I put a video of a song about Tiktaalik up a while back:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/01/27/singing-for-science/
Just in case anyone has that much time to kill :-)
Agree with your sentiments about evolution. It’s odd from an argumentation point of view too. If they think that making it a belief means that they can dismiss it, aren’t they also saying that their own beliefs (religious ones, that is) can be dismissed too? Seems a odd way to argue to me.
-
Brendan Moyle 1148 days ago
Thanks Alison- I agree that Tiktaalik is lovely- its completeness alone makes it impressive. Likewise the transition features it exhibits are very, very appealing.
-
Brendan Moyle 1148 days ago
Grant- I think the arguing tactic is to try to shift the issue away from evidence towards belief. If you decide it is an issue of belief, then you can apply the ‘principle of revelation’ instead. This inevitably elevates their beliefs and discounts all others.
-
drmike 1148 days ago
Could one argue that scientists individually believe in evolution because of it’s acceptance by the scientific community and because of the plethora of supporting evidence. Some dictionaries state that belief is what one “accepts to be true or real” The difference with “belief” in science is that it is based on an accummulation of supporting facts.
The debate over using “belief” to describe science has always confused me so looking forward to clarification at how other people interpret it. -
Alison Campbell 1148 days ago
I tend to avoid it. My concern is a) that using the ‘b’ word falls straight into the hands of those who would say that evolution is a religion. b) And because that’s the connotation that ‘belief’ has for the general public (& also some – non-biological! – scientists, I’m afraid to say) I think that using ‘belief’ obscures the point that a good scientist comes to a particular point of view on the basis of a body of evidence. And will change that point of view if the data stack up against it, which is not usually the case for someone taking a position of faith.
-
Brendan Moyle 1148 days ago
I think you’re touching on the point that ‘belief’ is used in a number of different ways- depending on context- in English. There is however, qualitative differences in these usages. Saying that I believe in evolution (in the sense, it is the explanation that best fits the evidence we have accumulated), is a different claim to knowledge than saying I believe that crystals can cure cancer.
These different usages of belief can generate confusion, especially if you are engaging creationists. Saying that I believe in evolution is not the same as someone saying they believe the earth was created 6000 years ago. For that reason, I think it is better to use synonyms that have greater precision. In biology- at least- the preference is to use accept in the context of scientific claims.
Acceptance also has the implicit qualifier that we are prepared to acknowledge that a better scientific theory may emerge in the future. It doesn’t imply an unqualified acceptance that perhaps, belief does.
-
Grant Jacobs 1148 days ago
DrMike,
To me that problem is that any one scientist’s opinion doesn’t really matter. It’s what is understood to be confirmed (by reproducing findings or backing it up with independent evidence) that matters.
It’s similar to a point I made about interviews of scientists in the media. I pointed out that they should ask what is known, not what is someone’s opinion.
I agree with Brendan that while we know what we mean, ‘belief’ is an annoying word in that it can carry the meaning of acceptance regardless of evidence for or against. I prefer to talk in terms of what is evidenced or not, clumsy as it is, since it passes it back to evidence which is the nub of the thing (IMHO). I’m not quite sure I’d use the word ‘acceptance’.
-
Brendan Moyle 1148 days ago
It’s a bit similar to other terms that in science, have a great deal of precision. Another obvious (and related) example is ‘theory’. What we mean when we talk about a scientific theory (evolution, gravity) is different to common usage of a theory.
-
drmike 1148 days ago
I believe (oops, accept, lol) that the points you all make are quite sensible in relation to communicating science clearly. I think this forum is really valuable for hearing other peoples points of view, in order to refine ones own views.
-
ttrainior 1148 days ago
I believe the principle points of difference here stem from the use of the term ‘evolution’ to mean more than one thing. Everyone agrees that ‘evolution’ meaning change over time in living organisms is an absolute fact requiring no faith, and as such is science, not religion.
But the same term, ‘evolution’, is also used when what is being discussed is not simply change over time, but rather Common Descent. Common descent is NOT established, it is NOT observable, it is NOT repeatable, and the evidence for it is remarkeably scant. As such, for one to claim it is ESTABLISHED does indeed require a fair amount of faith, and as such I believe it does indeed qualify as a religious position; a position I would call ‘Naturalism’, meaning all things in existance came about through natural processes without the need for any divine input.
If anyone wants to discuss this in a CIVIL environment dedicated to Origins issues, come join us at Talk About Origins:
http://www.tao.invisionzone.com -
Brendan Moyle 1147 days ago
ttrainior- your post makes several errors, so I will focus on the main points.
First, speciation is a prediction of evolutionary theory. It is not a synonym- or different usage- of evolution in biology. The prediction is based on the facts I’ve cited above, which you appear to agree with. Hence, no ‘faith’ is required to make this extrapolation.
Second, there is no mechanism we know of that would stop small genetic changes accumulating into large changes.over time.
Third- as a prediction of evolutionary theory- speciation gets tested against molecular biology, the fossil record, anatomy, embryology and biogeography continuously. The evidence here is overwhelming. Your claim that the evidence for speciation is incredibly ‘scant’ is on the face of it, absurd.
Finally, there is no plausible, scientific alternative to evolution.
-
Alison Campbell 1147 days ago
To which I would add: common descent is established – both the fossil evidence and the increasingly large body of data from molecular biology attest to this. Take the phylogenies based on shared/not-shared pseudogenes for example. To describe this body of evidence as ‘scant’ is drawing a long bow indeed. Also, since speciation events can be demonstrated in the recent past (& in some cases have been observed – those involving polyploidy would be a good example) it’s wrong to say that common descent can’t be observed. I agree it’s not repeatable – but the demand for replication applies to scientific experiments & not to historical events. (By that requirement you would pretty much throw out most of astronomy & geology along with the evolutionary bathwater. And to other readers – yes, I know I’m setting myself up for a quote-mine :-) )
-
drmike 1147 days ago
ttrainor
thanks for the reference to the Talk about Origins link but sciblogs is CIVIL enough for my tastes. It is most enjoyable exchanging ideas here with those of a similar scientific bent even if occasionally we disagree. Nothing like a good rational and robust debate.
-
ttrainior 1146 days ago
Speciation has been observed only at a level far below that required to fit the older definition of ‘species’, which was reproductive isolation. I often wonder if the definition of the term was changed specifically so ‘speciation’ could be claimed to have been observed. None of the claimed observed ‘speciation’ events (of which I am aware) resulted in reproductive isolation. And even if they did, it is a LONG step from ‘speciation’ to common descent, which requires ALL living things to have descended from original single celled organisms. In other words, I have no problem with horses, donkeys, zebras and pony’s all descending from a common ancestor, for they can all still interbreed which proves their relationship. But to make the same claim for both a horse and horseradish goes beyond the limits of adaptation.
Allison, the fossil evidence falls very short of proving common descent. I remember a short time ago when the lovely fossil tiktaalik was claimed to be the transitional between aquatics and land animals. I remember when dinosaurs were claimed to be direct ancestors of modern birds; one evolutionist even claimed modern birds WERE dinosaurs. Both of these claims have since been proven false by more recent finds.
Drmike, I was not trying saying this venue was not civil; sometimes discussions are simpler on a traditional discussion forum where many threads can be checked at a glance. MANY years ago, I spent a lot of time on the Usenet group talk.origins, Civil discussion there was very hard to find, so I started Talk About Origins as the civil alternative. It has been through several free hosting services that have come and gone over the years, but finally it is settled with a paid hosting company. In the moving around, unfortunately, it has dwindled down from several hundred members to only a handful now.
This is, indeed, a very civil forum – at least in the brief time I have been here. I find this to be MOST unusual in the theater of Origins, where most adopt the manerisms of Dr. Scott at NCSE.
We creationists are not anti-science; we merely look at the same evidence you folks do, but come do divergent conclusions regarding it.
And in case I do not make it back over here again, THANK YOU ALL for a CIVIL discussion; it was most refreshing!
-
Alison Campbell 1146 days ago
In plants, polyploidy can result, & has resulted, in reproductive isolation between plant populations of different ploidies.
Nor is it a long step from ‘common descent’ within a taxon eg ungulates to common descent of all taxa. There’s an excellent paper by Dave Penny (can’t remember the details but googling will find it) showing that so-called microevolutionary processes can account for macroevolution. (I dislike that distinction intensely; the same processes operate at both levels.
I notice that you’ve side-stepped the question of molecular biology, which shows just as clearly as fossils lines of common descent.
And the idea that birds & dinosaurs are closely related, & that birds derive from one particular dinosaur clade, have not been ‘proven false’ simply because some biologists disagree with the general idea. The list of common features there is a strong argument in favour of the hypothesis.
I don’t have time right now (got to give a class) to talk about the micsconceptions surrounding the idea of transitional forms; might do a post on it shortly. -
Brendan Moyle 1146 days ago
I’m a little surprised at this response Terry. First, you appear to be conceding that while the deduction that evolution occurs is correct, we can ignore this deduction if the fossil evidence doesn’t meet your criteria of a test. That is an entirely specious line of reasoning. What we are looking for in the fossil evidence is the ordering of forms in the strata that show the development of morphological features that test the theory of evolution. Things like the development of an independent neck-and-head of Tiktaalik in the late Devonian are consistent with this.
That molecular biology in the last 20 years is also supporting these common lines of descent via things like ERVs and pseudogenes. There are numerous ways that common descent could be falsified in the molecular, fossil or biogeographical evidence, but it all converges on common descent.
There are anywhere between 200,000 to 500,000 described fossil species. This is not the 1850s anymore. There are fossil regions that have yielded millions of fossils (La Brea in Ca is alleged to have produced some 3 million fossils). There are some very clear instances of smooth transitions of species and forms. Gingerich’s work on the Adapids is pretty convincing.
I’m going to return to this comment here:
In other words, I have no problem with horses, donkeys, zebras and pony’s all descending from a common ancestor, for they can all still interbreed which proves their relationship. But to make the same claim for both a horse and horseradish goes beyond the limits of adaptation.This is a faith position. We know that adaptations are a function of time, and you concede over periods of a few million years, ungulates are able to radiate. But then you propose- with no supporting mechanism- that the same thing could not occur over a period of hundred-of-millions of years and lead to radiation of eukaryotes into plants and animals.
Why? What is there to stop it?
And Tiktaalik is just a downright lovely fossil :-)