Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Misleading Evolutionary Myths & Misconceptions – New Scientist

Categories
Creationism
Darwinism
Evolution
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Per recommendations, here is a separate thread on:

Michael Le Page weighing in at New Scientist with:

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

18:00 16 April 2008
He provides the mother pie statement that:

Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become overwhelming. . . . Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.

This might be tolerable if “evolution” is limited to microevolution defined as mutations and heritable variations in populations. e.g., to “fast-changing viruses such as HIV and H5N1 bird flu” — except that he gives equal weight to the controversial “pollution-matching pepper moth”.Le Page then begs the question of macroevolution stating that:

DNA sequencing has confirmed beyond any doubt that all living creatures share a common origin.

Such are the skills of those who “strain out the cell and swallow the whale”, trying to persuade us of this Just-so story of from “goo to you via way of the zoo.”

Following are Le Page’ lists (with labels SM# added to Shared Myths, and CM# added to Creationist Myths):

So here is New Scientist’s guide to some of the most common myths and misconceptions about evolution.

There are already several good and comprehensive guides out there. But most biologists would probably agree that there can never be too many.

Shared misconceptions:
SM1 Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection

SM2 Natural selection is the only means of evolution

SM3 Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity

SM4 Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment

SM5 Evolution always promotes the survival of species

SM6 It doesn’t matter if people do not understand evolution

SM7 “Survival of the fittest” justifies “everyone for themselves”

SM8 Evolution is limitlessly creative

SM9 Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality

SM10 Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution

Creationist myths:
CM1 Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant

CM2 Accepting evolution undermines morality

CM3 Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide

CM4 Religion and evolution are incompatible

CM5 Half a wing is no use to anyone

CM6 Evolutionary science is not predictive

CM7 Evolution cannot be disproved so is not science

CM8 Evolution is just so unlikely to produce complex life forms

CM9 Evolution is an entirely random process

CM10 Mutations can only destroy information, not create it

CM11 Darwin is the ultimate authority on evolution

CM12 The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

CM13 Yet more creationist misconceptions

CM14 Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics

See full article:

————————-
Following comments are transferred over from
An Intelligent Discussion about Life – Chapman
#1 CN
In comments, please refer to SM# or CM# to help locate similar issues.

OFF TOPIC but useful me thinks:

From NewScientist

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn13620

Rebuttal anyone?
————————–
#2 nullasalus
I find their entry on the myth of ‘Evolution and religion are incompatible’ as particularly poor. And I believe they -are- compatible.

Trying to offer up pantheism is a weak move that will just serve to make people misunderstand things more than anything else. Arguing that there’s ‘nothing supernatural’ about what makes us human goes over the bounds of science as well (just defining ‘supernatural’ is itself a point of debate.)

The article smacks of ‘Sure, you can be religious and accept evolution – but only on our terms’.
————————–
#3 God’s iPod
Some people may want to go leave some comments on Digg here: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Evolution_24_myths_and_misconceptions
————————–
#4 Jack Golightly
The New Scientist article probably needs it’s own thread.

Bruce Chapman’s article is very well done. What a breath of fresh air, as opposed to the drenched-in-bias vitriol that is usually served up in MSM.
————————–
#5 God’s iPod
The comments left on Digg surprise me. I have never met anyone that believes in evolution that is THAT blind. These people have no clue about evolution, and yet they sit there and argue it repeating the stupidest comments I have ever seen on any topic. Where DO these people live??? I want to meet them…
————————–
Let the critique continue: