Accepting Evolution Is More Important Than Understanding It
One of my most long-standing passion projects has been to help people understand – and accept – evolution. This passion was born of my own relationship with the topic that started with me as a young earth creationist wanting to teach science. And as I learned more and more about evolution,
I realized that not only did I have so many misconceptions about evolution, but that it was also fascinating.
Trying to understand it, and how humans fit into it, has driven my academic career. While I no longer believe as I did when I was younger, that decision has had nothing to do with evolution or science.
Other Resources on Evolution
Media Center | National Center for Science Education (ncse.ngo)
The Christian Man’s Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist – Scientific American
Frequently Asked Questions | Science, Evolution, and Creationism | The National Academies Press
Selected Books
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne | Goodreads
Evolution vs Creationism (2nd, 08) by Scott, Eugenie C [Hardcover (2008)] by Scot | Goodreads
What is Evolution?
Misunderstanding the Term
Probably the biggest reason someone dismisses evolution is because they misunderstand the term. Many people think that evolution means “one individual morphing into something else” (thanks, Pokémon…). But that’s not what evolution is.
It’s about a population changing, not an individual.
That means that “witnessing” evolution isn’t watching a single individual until they change into something else. Instead, it’s watching a population change over time. When biologists are studying a population, they are specifically looking at how the genetic makeup of a population changes.
That’s it. It’s that simple. That’s why evolution as a fact – as something that is observable – has been well-accepted for centuries.
That’s not to say there weren’t questions – there were many. For a long time, one of the biggest questions was what was causing evolution. Everyone knew it was happening. It was easy to see. The science around studying evolution has been looking at the mechanisms of evolution, not whether it was happening.
There are “Mechanisms” of Evolution
What biologists have discovered to date is that there are three main mechanisms that cause evolution.
Drift occurs when a random event changes the population. Let’s say a fire rages through a forest. If you compare the population living there before the fire to the one after, it’s likely going to be different. The fire was random, and it caused the genetic makeup of the population to evolve.
You might know this mechanism as immigration (moving into an area) or emigration (moving out of an area). Anytime a new individual moves into a population, we have “gene flow”, and we have evolution. Let’s go back to our fire example. The fire caused a group of rabbits to flee the area and move into a new area and become part of a different rabbit population. We say that the new rabbit population evolved.
Natural selection occurs when nature “selects” the next generation by allowing “fit” individuals to reproduce in greater numbers than less fit individuals. This mechanism is generally considered to be the most impactful mechanism of evolution – as in, this has “driven” most of the changes that we see today.
Understanding Natural Selection
Understanding natural selection starts with understanding four basic observations:
Observation 1: Individuals vary within a population.
They have different heights, sizes, personalities, skin/coat color, eye colors. Diversity is both wonderful and important.
Observation 2: Some variations lead to greater reproductive success.
A fast deer will outrun a predator where a slow one won’t. Thus, the fast deer will likely live longer and have more time to produce offspring.
Observation 3: Variation is often heritable.
Children tend to look like their parents who look like their parents. That’s because much of who we are and how we look is determined and passed down through DNA.
Observation 4: Competition exists.
Not everyone who is born will survive the same amount of time and have the exact same reproductive success. The earth has limited resources, and we all compete for those resources.
Conclusion
The most successful individuals have the most offspring, and because those successful traits are usually heritable, the next population will have a greater proportion of “successful” traits.
That is natural selection.
Foundational Ideas of Evolution
At a rudimentary level, evolution is based on two big ideas.
The natural processes we see today have happened in the past and will continue to happen.
Science has no reason to presume the laws of nature are about to stop. The consistency of scientific observations has allowed us to harness electricity, to launch satellites, to create atom bombs, and to create medical treatments. It is completely logical to assume that laws have always been acting on earth and will continue to act. While it is theoretically possible that what we have been observing over thousands of years will change dramatically tomorrow, it isn’t likely, and it doesn’t warrant significant scientific consideration.
What we find today was caused by something in the past.
In other words, effects have causes. If you step outside in the morning and the ground is muddy, you can logically assume that somehow, water came in contact with the ground last night: it could have been rain, a sprinkler, a busted fire hydrant, or a diverted river. But you are safe in your conclusion that it was caused by water of some kind. Similarly, biologists use this to draw conclusions about what we find. When we find a whale skeleton on top of a mountain, then we can safely conclude that, at one point, that mountain was once land covered by water.
Taking these two premises together, we can draw an important conclusion:
Our current observations about how the world works can be extended back in time.
If rivers cause erosion now at predictable rates, then we can make estimates as to how fast erosion occurred a million years ago. We can then make predictions about specific events: “If evolution were true, what would we expect to find?” The evidence we have of evolution comes from answers to this question.
Misconceptions
Many dismiss evolution because they have an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of it. Here you’ll find just a few of the misconceptions surrounding it. For more information, see our Resources tab.
In everyday use, the word “theory” is synonymous with an “idea” that someone has about something. However, “theory” means something very different in science, and it carries far more weight than “facts” or even “laws.”
There are four levels of understanding in science.
A repeatedly confirmed observation practically accepted as true.
Examples of facts include, “When I let go of an object, it falls to the earth,” and “When a flip a light switch, the light comes on.” Facts bear no greater significance other than a repeated observation – it is not a fact that objects will fall to the earth tomorrow, or that every flipped lights which comes on. These are predictions and do not count as “observations.” Facts are historical only and are therefore limited: facts do not, on their own, extrapolate into the future – you need a hypothesis for this.
A prediction based on facts.
Hypotheses are predictions about what is going to happen. The fact that an “apple falls” leads to the hypothesis that “apples will always fall”, and thus allow us to count on apples falling. In science, scientists use hypotheses to make predictions as to what will happen in different controlled circumstances that may be otherwise difficult to determine based on the facts you already have.
For example, taking the fact that you’ve witnessed apples falling, you may hypothesize that apples will always fall. But when you take an apple into space on the International Space Station, apples no longer fall. Is “apples fall” a fact, then? “Apples fall” and “apples float” would appear to contradict.
“Apples fall” is still a fact, and it reveals an important truth of facts: they change based on the circumstances. Facts are limited and are true only in the circumstances in which they were observed. That apples have always fallen on earth says nothing about the behavior of apples anywhere else, or even the behavior of apples tomorrow. Today, apples fall on earth, but they float on the ISS. Both are facts. Hypotheses are stronger pieces of information than facts because they are based on our collective facts.
So, what happens to apples when they’re dropped over water? Or in a ship during freefall?
A description of what will happen given specific circumstances.
Laws describe behavior. They incorporate facts and hypotheses and show us what will happen in what circumstances. Importantly, laws involve mathematics and usually represent behavior in the form of an equation. The law of gravity calculates and describes precisely what happens to apples in different scenarios.
Using laws, we were able to predict what would happen when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon even though it had never happened before. We created probes that travel through space and rovers that explore on Mars. We can design vessels that can withstand intense pressure of deep-sea exploration. We place satellites in orbit, and we program those satellites to allow us to communicate via cell phones. Laws are tools that scientists use.
A well-substantiated explanation for behavior.
Laws describe behavior. They incorporate facts and hypotheses and show us what will happen in what circumstances. Importantly, laws involve mathematics and usually represent behavior in the form of an equation. The law of gravity calculates and describes precisely what happens to apples in different scenarios.
Using laws, we were able to predict what would happen when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon even though it had never happened before. We created probes that travel through space and rovers that explore on Mars. We can design vessels that can withstand intense pressure of deepsea exploration. We place satellites in orbit, and we program those satellites to allow us to communicate via cell phones. Laws are tools that scientists use.
Knowing what will happen to apples is one thing; explaining why they happen is another. Scientific theories are the explanations behind the behavior, and they encompass all related facts, hypotheses, and laws.
The theory explaining why the law of gravity works the way it does is the Geometric Theory of Gravitation, also known as the Theory of General Relativity. It explains that mass bends space-time, and the greater the mass an object has, the more space-time bends around it. Like a bowling ball on a trampoline, other objects close by are drawn toward the center in a manner proportional to how much mass that bowling ball has. Since the theory of relativity was first proposed in 1915, it has explained anomalies in Mercury’s orbit, unified Newton’s laws with special relativity (what happens when objects are traveling at really high speeds), been supported by gravitational lensing (how objects with really high gravity bend light – for example, why light can’t escape a black hole), and been supported by “gravitational red-shifting” (when you move from an area of strong gravity to an area of weaker gravity, time starts moving faster resulting in a “red-shift” in light).
A scientific theory isn’t just someone’s idea. Theories incorporate everything we know including simple observed facts, confirmed hypotheses, and well-established laws. Theories are incredibly well-supported. As we make new discoveries by testing new hypotheses, we add to the collective understanding of theories, but the knowledge that has formed its foundation is still present. When we say that “science is always changing,” it isn’t because the data we’ve gathered for centuries are suddenly invalid; it’s because we are constantly adding to our current level of knowledge, and we understand that tomorrow may reveal something new.
So yes, evolution is a theory. But it is not “just” a theory.
Evolution has as much explanatory power as any other theory, including the germ theory of disease, the theory of electricity, and atomic theory.
Dismissing evolution because it is a “theory” is a semantic fallacy, meaning that it’s using the wrong definition of “theory” in order to dismiss it.
What people think macroevolution is: a creature morphing into another kind of creature. (e.g. a crocodile turning into a duck) (not helping, Pokémon)
What macroevolution actually is: the same thing as “microevolution”, just over a longer period of time
Explanation: Evolution is often split into two types – “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. Microevolution occurs when there are slight genetic changes occurring in a population over time. One of the most common examples is bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. Macroevolution occurs when the changes in microevolution add up to where some individuals can no longer reproduce with other individuals. This can happen pretty easily – slight changes in protein structure might make sperm incompatible, behavior might make mating unlikely, food source might change where they forage and meet potential mates. Biologists define a species based on their ability to produce viable offspring with other individuals, and as soon as that becomes impossible, then we have macroevolution.
Many people will more readily accept microevolution while rejecting macroevolution, often because they try to envision a creature morphing into another creature. Because we have found no examples of real-life “crocoducks,” some people claim that there are no real “transitional fossils.” But evolution would never predict anything like a “crocoduck.”
Really, microevolution and macroevolution are essentially the same thing with a different time frame. It is logically impossible to accept one without the other.
https://kaylynnemglover.com/science-and-religion/
This misconception hinges on a misunderstanding of evolution itself. Scientists don’t say that humans evolved from modern apes. There is no species today that is the ancestor of another species. Your cousin isn’t an ancestor of yours – you share a different common ancestor, one that still might be able to be defined biologically as an “ape”. But apes didn’t “become” humans. Crocodiles didn’t “become” ducks. Your cousin didn’t “become” you. In all cases, they are relatives that are descended from another ancestor. The famous “March of Progress” image depicting a monkey turning into a human doesn’t actually depict evolution, even though it will undoubtedly flood any google image search of “evolution”. These types of images only confuse the issue by presenting evolution as something that it isn’t (which is why I’m not including the image here).
Many people believe that these three terms all refer to the same events or processes, but they do not. While they are related, they are distinct, and discussions over evolution should not involve talking points about abiogenesis or the big bang. It just confuses things.
Abiogenesis
The study of how life first appeared on the earth, translating roughly into “creation without life.” It focuses on understanding how the first proteins, nucleic acids, and phospholipids could form, creating the first cellular structures.
The Big Bang
The theory explaining how our universe first came into existence. Studied primarily by physicists and astrophysicists, it is currently the best explanation we have for how matter first appeared.
Evolution
The change in existing populations over time. That’s it.
Evidence for Evolution
Entire books have been written detailing only portions of the massive amount of evidence we have for evolution, so this will not be a comprehensive resource, and merely point to a few general areas and provide additional resources for those areas.
Paleontology
Paleontology is the realm of the ever-famous “fossil record” which chronicles the gradual change in species over a very long period of time. While the fossil record is perfect – we don’t have a fossil for every being that has ever existed – we have a lot of fossils that paint a fairly clear – and most importantly, consistent – picture of our past. As we find more fossils, we continually revise our timelines and estimations, but we have yet to find a single fossil “out of place” – an ancient fossil found with fossils from a far more recent strata, or the fossil of a modern-day elephant with the earliest plant species.
What Does the Fossil Record Show? – BioLogos
Fossil record | Definition & Facts | Britannica
Fossil evidence – Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)
Biogeography
This is the study of the distribution of living things, usually plants and animals. When we combine biogeography with plate tectonics, we learn about how plants and animals have diversified in ways that support evolution. For example, some kinds of animals are only found in certain areas that have been separated from other areas for a long time. Australia is famous for its unique biodiversity. We find a lot of consistency between the amount of time areas have been separated and the amount of divergence between the species in those areas.
Examples of Biogeographical Proof for Evolution | Sciencing
Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener – Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)
How Darwin Developed His Theory – BioLogos
Comparative Anatomy
Comparative anatomy compares the physical structures of different species. Evolution would predict that animals closely related would have similar morphological structures and similar underlying features. For example, humans, cats, whales, and bats are all mammals, and we would expect them all to share similar bone structure. This is, in fact, what we find (see images below), and we call these kinds of structures homologous.
Comparative anatomy | Definition, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
Homologies: Anatomical evidence – Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)
Comparative Anatomy – Organisms, Evolutionary, Structures, and Common – JRank Articles
Homologous structures « KaiserScience (wordpress.com)
Genetics
Genetics is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for evolution. Genetics is the study of DNA, and DNA codes for proteins that make up an individual. All living organisms rely on DNA, use the same nucleic acids, and use the same processes for reading those genes and turning them into proteins. While genetic changes occur on the small scale (which we use to watch for antibiotic resistance bacteria and to predict changes in the flu virus), we can also use this to trace major changes using “molecular clock” techniques based on known rates of change. Additionally, we can compare the genetic makeup of different species, knowing that, due to reproduction, the more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their DNA will be: closely related family members have nearly identical DNA. We also know that all humans share 99.9% of their DNA, and we share approximately 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees and 92% of our DNA with mice. When you think about it, this makes sense: All three share many key features: we are mammals that give birth to live young after internal copulation and gestation. We grow hair, lactate, and share very similar bone, organ, and muscle structure and function. It’s no surprise that chimps are genetically more similar to us than mice, since their anatomy, intelligence, communication, and social relationships are more similar to us than they are to mice.
The Molecular Clock and Estimating Species Divergence | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)
Molecular clocks – Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)
Genetic Similarities: Wilson, Sarich, Sibley, and Ahlquist – Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)
Comparative Embryology
Similar to comparative anatomy, comparative embryology compares the similarities and differences of embryos of different species. Embryos of different species are remarkably similar, even though their adult forms will look very different. Embryology gives us insight into the evolution of developmental stages as well as the origin of traits.
Evolutionary Embryology – Developmental Biology – NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)
What Is Comparative Embryology? (seattlepi.com)
Comparative Embryology – Evidence for Evolution (weebly.com)
How we use evolution
Evolution is not only supported by the evidence we have, but also by the application of evolutionary principles today. We use it in medicine and agriculture as we combat ever-resistant bacteria and pests. We use it in computer programming to create better and more efficient programs. We use it when we selectively breed domestic animals both for agriculture and for pets (for example, creating specialized breeds of dogs with particular traits). We use it when we manage trophy game populations. The principles behind evolution are so important that they have become the foundation of modern medicine.
Speciation Events
Speciation, or the creation of new species, are more common than many initially conceive. A species is defined by its ability to reproduce viable offspring with members of its same species. So when two individuals, who were once part of an interbreeding population, no longer can reproduce, we have speciation. Speciation is the key behind macroevolution – the tiny changes of microevolution accumulate into the incompatibility of macroevolution.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | ScienceBlogs
Observed Instances of Speciation (talkorigins.org)
Cases of Speciation (brown.edu)
Evidence for speciation – Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)
Speciation (nationalgeographic.org)
Evolution and Religion
Most who struggle with accepting evolution do so out of religious concerns. I have had many students come to me seeking answers to questions that weigh on their souls.
Though the religious-scientific struggle is not a new one, it is primarily a problem for Christians and Muslims. One of the earliest conflicts arose when the Catholic Church opposed heliocentric theory – the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. First proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543, it was later advocated for by Galileo Galilei who was convicted of heresy and sentenced to life under house arrest. Claims that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe not only contradicted particular scriptures that seemed to reference an earth-centric system, but also brought to question the relationship between Man and God:
“If we are not at the center of His creation, who are we?”
Eventually, most religious people came to terms with heliocentrism; the Church officially apologized to Galileo in 1992, and today, we can hardly understand the resistance they felt. Most Christians today find no difficulty accepting their role as Children of God, even if humans aren’t at the literal physical center of His creation. They can accept that scripture written thousands of years ago, having undergone hundreds of translations, written for people with no understanding of science, can still be true without being factual.
Christianity and Islam are facing similar struggles today, trying to understand evolution and the implications it may have in their relationship to God: “Who are we if we evolved?” And this is no small question to answer.
Reconciling these is difficult because the beliefs being taught by religion is based on what was generally accepted – the known science – of the day. There was no reason to reject geocentricism before Capernicus, and so doctrine reflected the certainty of the Truth of Heliocentrism. When that Truth was questioned, the bedrock of their faith was questioned.
The mistake they made was in tying their religion to their current understanding of science, a doomed relationship when our understanding of science is only limited by time, technology, and invention.
Today, few Priests, Pastors, Ministers, Bishops, and Imams teach that mankind’s relationship to God is based on geocentricism, but this question, and the others that we have, are no less important. While I cannot speak for all, and certainly not for God, perhaps I can help answer some of these questions.
It means that God is a scientist. It means that He operates through laws that He set down eons ago. It means that He created a Universe that managed to get everything right in order to create humanity – which demonstrates far more skill than someone who could just snap their fingers and bring someone into existence. And it means that studying science can only teach you more about God.
It means that God didn’t merely think you into existence. He spent 4.6 billion years to get you here. And I don’t know about you, but if I spend a great deal of time and work on creating something, it is very special to me. Evolution is the real special creation.
You are being of great potential. Your ancestors not only include all of the animals that existed before you, but also includes the God who created you. And it means that your descendants have greater potential still.
Some may tell you that accepting evolution means turning your back on God. But I think that denying the evidence of the world He created is turning your back on God. When someone make assumptions about what God did and didn’t do, they are constraining their own understanding of who He is. You can never understand what you cannot conceive, and you can never truly come to understand God unless you’re willing to accept that He might have done things differently than you imagined.
That one can accept evolution and retain their relationship with God is evidenced in the many religious organizations that have issued statements in support of their adherents accepting it. While not comprehensive, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) provides a list, and many other religious organizations have issued similar statements. If you are struggling with this, I encourage you to review some of the items listed on the Resources tab.