What regular people think "evolution" is

Vorticity

Fluid Mechanic
Vorticity
Joined
Apr 4, 2002
Messages
2,677
When I was a teenager, I worked at a pizza place for a few summers. One summer, there was another young guy working there. He wasn't an especially well-educated guy. He was what you would call a "regular guy". He was in his twenties, and hadn't attended any college, though he finished high school.

I somehow got into a conversation with him about evolution one day. He didn't believe in it.

In talking to him, and trying to explain the evidence for evolution, I found that no matter what I said, he would come back with, "Yeah, but, how can an ape just turn into a man?" I would explain how, but he would just repeat it: "How can an ape just turn into a man?"

And then I realized the fundamental communication problem we were having. He had somehow absorbed two things:

1) [This is less important.] He believed that the "theory of evolution" is solely about human evolution.

2) [This is the important one.] He actually believed that the "theory of evolution" is this: OK, you got an ape. Not as a species. An individual. It's knuckle-walking on the savannah, eating leaves and whatnot, and then, one day, poof! It turns into a man. The human race is born. That's evolution.

So naturally he thought evolution was absurd. I thought at first that this was an isolated case, but over the years, in arguing with people who said they "didn't believe in evolution", I have run into many people that had this image of what evolution was.

So, my question to people here is this:

Is it just me, that I keep running into these people, or has anyone else heard this weird evolution strawman?

If lots of people really do think this, could this be the explanation for why polls always show X% of people don't believe in evolution (where X is some alarmingly high number that I can't remember)?
 
Last edited:
i come across it all the time and when you pateintly try to explain how evolutin works, they still refuse to get it, you can point to the evicence, the process untill you are blue in hte face and still they insist on coming back to that.
 
I think it's a simple matter of scope of perception...

Most people shut down when they reach a point past which they cannot comprehend...

Just a personal opinion...

Regards,

Axe

P.S.-- Hello everybody, new to the forum...
 
I think you make some good points.

As a religious man, I entered college with a distinct anti-evolution prejudice. I think my understanding of evolution was better than "the regular guy" you mentioned, but was far from comprehensive.

However, I was pursuing a degree in Zoloogy at the time which gave me plenty of opportunities to learn more about evolutionary theory and science in general. With more understanding, I found that my objections to it dissapeared and I have become a strong supporter of it. Currently, I have no idea how any reasonably educated person with a solid understanding of the theory of evolution could disagree with it. Sure there are gaps in our knowledge, things we can't currently explain and some disagreements among scientists, but the basic theory is pretty solid.

I would guess that lack of knowledge is a major reason many people disagree with evolution. Many people, as you've described, don't have a good idea of what evolution actually IS.

Of course, the other reason that many people (i.e. fundies) disagree with evolutionary theory is because they feel it is an affront to their religious beliefs, when, quite frankly, it's not. Evolutionary theory (and science in general) is an attempt to understand observable phenomena and takes no statement about God. God simply doesn't come into it. It's not an affront to religion in the same way that an apple is not an affront to an orange.

ETA: grammatical fix
 
Last edited:
Bradk3 said:
Of course, the other reason that many people (i.e. fundies) disagree with evolutionary theory is because they feel it is an affront to their religious beliefs, when, quite frankly, it's not. Evolutionary theory (and science in general) is an attempt to understand observable phenomena and takes no statement about God. God simply doesn't come into it. It's not an affront to religion in the same way that an apple is not an affront to an orange.
Click to expand...

It is an affront, since it contradicts the biblical version of Adam and Eve (in the case of humans), and the creation of Earth and everything in it in seven days. If evolution is true, then the biblical depiction of creation is false. If this depiction is false, then the Bible has errors, which strikes right at the core of fundamentalism.
 
empeake said:
It is an affront, since it contradicts the biblical version of Adam and Eve (in the case of humans), and the creation of Earth and everything in it in seven days. If evolution is true, then the biblical depiction of creation is false. If this depiction is false, then the Bible has errors, which strikes right at the core of fundamentalism.
Click to expand...
Good point.

I don't personally see a conflict because I understand the biblical account of creation to be allegorical and symbolic rather than literal. However, many MANY christians do not see things this way, so you're entirely correct.

Thank you.
 
Nominated!

BlackCat

Bradk3 said:
I think you make some good points.

As a religious man, I entered college with a distinct anti-evolution prejudice. I think my understanding of evolution was better than "the regular guy" you mentioned, but was far from comprehensive.

However, I was pursuing a degree in Zoloogy at the time which gave me plenty of opportunities to learn more about evolutionary theory and science in general. With more understanding, I found that my objections to it dissapeared and I have become a strong supporter of it. Currently, I have no idea how any reasonably educated person with a solid understanding of the theory of evolution could disagree with it. Sure there are gaps in our knowledge, things we can't currently explain and some disagreements among scientists, but the basic theory is pretty solid.

I would guess that lack of knowledge is a major reason many people disagree with evolution. Many people, as you've described, don't have a good idea of what evolution actually IS.

Of course, the other reason that many people (i.e. fundies) disagree with evolutionary theory is because they feel it is an affront to their religious beliefs, when, quite frankly, it's not. Evolutionary theory (and science in general) is an attempt to understand observable phenomena and takes no statement about God. God simply doesn't come into it. It's not an affront to religion in the same way that an apple is not an affront to an orange.

ETA: grammatical fix
Click to expand...
 
Bradk3 said:
Of course, the other reason that many people (i.e. fundies) disagree with evolutionary theory is because they feel it is an affront to their religious beliefs, when, quite frankly, it's not.
Click to expand...

As empeake said, I think this is false.

I think it's an affront to stupid religious beliefs, beliefs that most of the Christian world has/had long since moved past by the mid-1800s.

No educated, even semi-educated, Christian in the English-speaking world believed in 1850 that the world was less than 10,000 years old; simple math on the White Cliffs of Dover disproved that. No one in their senses seriously believed that Revelation should be interpreted as a literal prediction of events to come. Even today, sensible theologians, including biblical literalists, recognize that "in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

"So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers."

Note the last sentence. "Nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults." Which means Usher's entire Biblical chronlogy is garbage, an attempt to apply modern narration standards to an nonchronological narrative.

This was universally understood in 1850; it is no longer universally understood.
 
My mom, a former Biology teacher, hated the "Pokemon" craze, until she realized that the various creatures "evolve" into their higher stages. She thought "hey, anything to get the word "evolve" into their vocabularies." But it does seem that Pokemon evolution is something that happens within the lifespan (if that applies to animated things) of an organism. Vorticity, did your friend learn his science by collecting trading cards?
 
I suspect no image has caused more harm to public understanding of evolution as it really is than those "Ascent of Man" pictures. You know the ones: Chimp to hunched ape-man to taller ape-man to proto-human to hide-wearing hunter to guy in snappy business suit. Perfectly linear, ascending as advertised, seemingly directed, aimed toward the obvious "superior" form, and just a tad male-oriented.

Obviously, evolution may be defined as "the process that nature uses to make humans out of monkeys." This fails to explain why so many people are intent on going at it the other direction. Life's like that sometimes.

[edit] @Mercutio: From my very limited understanding of Pokemon, I'd say what they call evolution would more properly be called metamorphosis.
 
Bradk3 said:
I don't personally see a conflict because I understand the biblical account of creation to be allegorical and symbolic rather than literal. However, many MANY christians do not see things this way, so you're entirely correct.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, literal vs. allegorical interpretation of the Bible is the subject of debate even in the Vatican and the Anglican Church.
 
empeake said:
As far as I know, literal vs. allegorical interpretation of the Bible is the subject of debate even in the Vatican and the Anglican Church.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that this is not true. Both the Vatican and Anglican churches finished that debate some centuries back.
 
drkitten said:
As empeake said, I think this is false.

I think it's an affront to stupid religious beliefs, beliefs that most of the Christian world has/had long since moved past by the mid-1800s.
Click to expand...
That is more like what I should have said and, perhaps, would have said if I had thought about it a bit more.

I keep forgetting what silly things fundamentalists believe.

I guess my point is that science is portrayed by many religious people as an attempt to subvert and destroy religion. This simply isn't true. Science attempts to explain observable phenomena using logic and reason - religion doesn't come into it. Science is not an affront to religion, it is, as you alluded, an affront to stupidity and this is an affliction that far to many religious people possess.
 
The most prevelent, but subtle, misconception I come across is two fold:
1) Not understand that the individual mutations are a random occurance, not a deterministic serial set of events
2) Whether or not a mutation continues is based upon whether or not the mutation benefits the reproductive success of the individual

These, coupled together, lead to questions like, "Why do we have poor night vision?" or "Why can't we also breath underwater?" or "Why don't we live longer?"
 
Except that there are atheists who are blatant, both in their adoption of evolution and their disdain for religion. An angry message can confuse folks, allowing the religious no room to maneuver. Then they get angry.

Science can allow for a god-of-the-gaps, the religious just have to allow for shrinking/closing gaps. :D
 
The best (and most accessible) description I have ever read of the evolutionary process is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. I'm sure it's been widely read among you folks, but I assure you I hadn't heard about it until just last year, while reading Douglas Adams' biography (He considered it a life-changing book and I agree).

If everyone read that book, I guarantee that the number of people objecting to evolution would drop.
 
Good afternoon Vorticity.
A while back I decided to stop trying to discuss evolution with people unless they at least had a basic understanding of the subject. I did this because many people didn't even know what they were arguing . They simply were spouting antiDarwinism stuff that they overheard from creationalist/ID'ers propaganda. They cringe when I state evolution is a fact, not a theory, and then suggest that they might want to focus on the mechanism, natural selection. Everyone I have ever encountered who actually stated that they dissbelieved in evolution, didn't even know what evolution means by definition or that natural selection is Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolution.
JPK
PS Welcome to the forum Axenos
 
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
The most prevelent, but subtle, misconception I come across is two fold:
1) Not understand that the individual mutations are a random occurance, not a deterministic serial set of events
2) Whether or not a mutation continues is based upon whether or not the mutation benefits the reproductive success of the individual

These, coupled together, lead to questions like, "Why do we have poor night vision?" or "Why can't we also breath underwater?" or "Why don't we live longer?"
Click to expand...

In the interest of having ammunition against IDers, can you provide the answers to those questions? Not being a biology major, they seem to make sense initially to me. I wouldn't know how to refute them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom