Thursday, April 17, 2008

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions


Shared misconceptions:

Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection
Natural selection is the only means of evolution
Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity
Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment
Evolution always promotes the survival of species

It doesn't matter if people do not understand evolution
"Survival of the fittest" justifies "everyone for themselves"
Evolution is limitlessly creative
Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality
Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution

Creationist myths:

Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant
Accepting evolution undermines morality
Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide
Religion and evolution are incompatible
Half a wing is no use to anyone
Evolutionary science is not predictive
Evolution cannot be disproved so is not science
Evolution is just so unlikely to produce complex life forms
Evolution is an entirely random process
Mutations can only destroy information, not create it
Darwin is the ultimate authority on evolution
The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
Yet more creationist misconceptions
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics


  1. Hi Larry, I'm glad you like the special.

    I understand your point about the picture - but what better way to illustrate a special on myths and misconceptions than with one of them?

    Great blog, btw.

  2. Thanks for pointing this out Larry.

  3. My historical geology professor introduced evolution by saying, "Evolution isn't about survival of the fittest; it's about survival of the fit enough." Then he went on to explain what that meant. It was good way to make students think about that old phrase, and learn what it really meant.

  4. Hi,

    "Actually people in more secular countries appear to behave more morally."

    Erm ... well ... before I agree or disagree with this statement, I'd like to know how one would set about defining what is "more moral" and what evidence there is in support of it.

    One person's morality is another person's horror. Mohammed Atta, for example, could be seen as a very moral person, very devout and religious, etc. For obvious reasons, he could also be seen as a mass-murderer, which is the interpretation I favor.

    I'm not trolling or disagreeing ... I'm just not sure what this statement means or how it can be evaluated objectively.

  5. "...flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex."

    I think this is the wrong approach here. It was Hermann Muller who first outlined the notion of irreducible complexity, and plenty of biological systems are irreducibly complex by Behe's definition. Behe's not wrong about irreducible complexity; he's wrong about the value of his personal incredulity regarding the generation of such things by natural means.

  6. For a quick summary on the differences between Muller's "interlocking complexity" and Behe's "irreducible complexity" (one can get a sense of the difference in viewpoints just from the difference between the terms "interlocking" and "irreducible"), see

  7. SFMatheson says,


    I agree. Lots of things are irreducibly complex—like the citric acid cycle. Behe is wrong to think that irreducibly complex things can't evolve. We know how most of them evolved.

  8. Larry, thanks for the post. I use links like these to educate myself and my friends about evolution and religious thought.


  9. Well, my biology teacher in high school told us that fittest is not necessarily the strongest or fastest, but that in biology it means "being able to produce offspring", and that anything that lets you do that can become an adaptation.

    When he sais that, it made perfect sense to me; I don't know why so many people don't get it.