Common Misconceptions
Unfortunately, in any debate between theists and atheists, some nearly universal misconceptions pop up. No public discussion seems to be without at least some reference to these misconceptions, if only to point out that they are misconceptions.
Several of these misconceptions are about evolution. Many theists seem to think that by disproving evolution, they can prove God. Conversely, they think that atheists are trying to prove the theory of evolution in order to disprove God. Both of these are absolutely wrong. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with God. It has nothing to do with the origin of life, either. And it is not something that people are trying to prove; it has already been proven.
Confusingly, some atheists buy into this nonsense and try to use evolution to disprove God. Once again, this is completely wrong. There could be a thousand gods, a single god or no god at all, evolution is true regardless. This seems to be tied to the misunderstanding that evolution explains the origin of life, and therefore renders creation myths obsolete. Unfortunately for those who, like me, want people to realize that there is no reason to believe in a god, evolution says nothing about the origin of life and does not render creation myths obsolete.
The only way the theory of evolution contradicts the various creation myths of mainstream religions is to read the Holy Bookstm of the respective religions literally. That is, you must believe that God created humans and all the other animals exactly as they are now, and that no evolution has ever occured on earth at all. You could come up with a whole lot of other creation myths in which God plants the spores of life and lets evolution go down its merry road, or create the animals in some more primitive form and then let them evolve from there. The theory of evolution could still be true, only it’s operated only in some parts of history. Of course, such ideas are ridiculous, but they don’t contradict evolution, only our understanding of it.
Another, even worse misconception is that evolution is somehow random. The “Whirlwind building a Jumbo Jet in a Junk Yard” analogy is false, and wasn’t even intended to describe evolution. Evolution works by the law of natural selection: those traits that increase likelihood of survival in a given environment will succeed in that environment. Only the mutations are to some degree random, but they are mutations of existing DNA and as such not independent of the original. Also, however strange the mutations are, they are all subjected to the same test. Those traits that result in successful reproduction will naturally reach out to a larger part of the population, and over time the “best” traits in an environment will survive, while the other, less successful traits will die out. This isn’t advanced particle physics - it is more common sense than anything. Obviously the more children you get, the more your genes will be spread. Thankfully, this misconception doesn’t seem to be as common as it was some time ago. Perhaps educating the masses works after all.
Burden of proof seems to be something lots of theists lack an understanding of. For any given claim, the default is to assume it is not true until evidence is shown. The neutral position is not agnosticism. Agnosticism refers to knowledge: can we really know? Truly? If I tell you that there’s a pink elephant in the room we’re standing in, is the neutral position to say: “Hm…I don’t know. I’m not really sure”? No, it’s not. Before you heard about my claim that there’s an elephant in the room, and one that is pink besides, you were of the opinion that there are no elephants in the room. You just didn’t consider it consciously, because the idea that there’s an undetectable pink elephant in the room is so incredibly stupid that it isn’t worth the effort to consider it seriously. Should you change that opinion just because I managed to communicate this claim to you? Of course not! The idea is ridiculous!
The burden of proof is always, invariably, on the one making a claim. This isn’t something science made up; this is true in philosophy as well. When you deny something on the basis that there is no evidence, you are not making an implicit claim that must somehow be justified by evidence. If I say, “There’s a pink elephant in this room”, and you look around and see no elephant, you conclude that there is no elephant. In the case of God, you look around and see no sign of an almighty, all-good creator. Instead, you see happiness, love and beauty, but also sadness, hate and ugliness. There’s no sign of a God anywhere. Even if there is a creator, he sure doesn’t get involved with individual human beings. Since this hypotethical God has no more evidence going for it than the pink elephant in the room, we should place it on the shelf along with the pink elephant, Zeus and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is, the “Unprovable ridiculous claims” list. That is why babies and others who haven’t heard about God are atheists; they are without a belief in theism, just as they are without a belief in pink elephants in the room. For them, the idea is impossible to conceive of, at least until they mature enough to create little myths themselves.
The last misconception I’m gonna try to cure today is the one about religion’s status. Religion is not special! This point can’t be stressed enough. There’s nothing special about religion. You can’t make a belief immune to scrutiny by calling it your religion. A Holy Booktm isn’t any more credible than any other book. The tale of the Garden of Eden isn’t any more credible than the tale of Atlantis. Just because you use your belief to feel good and possibly even guide some aspects of your life (very few use religion to determine personal choices in everyday life), it doesn’t mean that your story is any better. The wizards in Harry Potter aren’t any less believable than the wizards in the Bible (you know, God, Jesus, and that gang). Except J.K. Rowling makes no attempt to sell her stories as facts. That is all the difference between the most popular books in the last decade and the most popular books of all time, namely the Holy Bookstm such as the Bible, the Quran and the Torah.
Filed under: agnosticism, atheism, bullshit arguments, religion, superstition, theism |
-
Recent Comments
angie on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Ereredync on Empire State Building, Evoluti… phil on Empire State Building, Evoluti… 
Avil on The Blog Is Dead Kevin Trudeu on Starting Your Own Religion: a …
A post inspired by your recent dialogue with me or, at certain points, your garbled understanding of my position. But there’s nothing to gain in carrying our dispute on certain points from my blog over to yours.
• The theory of evolution … is not something that people are trying to prove; it has already been proven.
I agree with you — I accept that evolution is true — although the “proof” is not absolute proof. Presumably you know that.
• The only way the theory of evolution contradicts the various creation myths of mainstream religions is to read the Holy Books of the respective religions literally.
Again, I agree. Personally, I am not that sort of literalist. Whether that will come as a surprise to you, I’m not sure. I just don’t want you to leap to any unwarranted assumptions about me.
Religion is not special.
Neither is atheism, so why do you claim special exemptions for it?
Don’t presume to know my inspiration. If you understand my points, then this post is not directed at you. This is a general trend I have noticed, and both people who agree and disagree with me seem to misunderstand what evolution is about. Believe me, if this was addressed to you, I’d put a huge poster (read: link) to the specific blog post of yours and written, “Look! This post is an objection to this load of shit over there at Stephen’s blog.” It is not.
Again, this is not addressed to you. You only suggested that God may be, without giving this proposed deity any characteristics. Actually, one of my objections is that you are very general. I suspect that the god-concept of some people is far wider than mine. Personally, my idea of the meaning of the word “god” does at least involve some kind of conscious being. That’s why the pantheistic “god” isn’t really a god in my eyes, but rather some other supernatural force.
I claim no special exemptions. I acknowledge that the current theories about the origin of life and the origin of the universe are by no means stable or well proven. Big Bang has some pretty good evidence going for it, but Big Bang doesn’t explain the origin of the universe. There’s no universally agreed-upon explanation for how non-life became life either. Neither do I presume that this things are proven. I fail to see what your argument is besides the tired old God of the Gaps.
But anyway, that is not what this post is about. It is about my frustration because always when these kinds of questions are raised, evolution is confused with proof or disproof of God, and always are there some religious nuts who thinks religion is immune to science by virtue of being religion. This may not be addressed at you at all; in fact, I’m fairly certain you’re not that kind of religious nut.
Interesting post
If it’s okay with you I’ll ad you to my blogroll?
And an interesting blog altogehter
Please do! The more the merrier.
Technically the theory of evolution is still that, a theory. Therefore by definition it isn’t proven beyond a doubt.
Otherwise it’d be a law, like the Laws of Motion or the Law of Gravity.
Not to say that it isn’t wrong; all evidence so far points to it being correct, but there are still numerous questions on aspects of evolution that keep it from being accepted as scientific law.
Just a common misconception about evolution.
-Before you heard about my claim that there’s an elephant in the room, and one that is pink besides, you were of the opinion that there are no elephants in the room. You just didn’t consider it consciously, because the idea that there’s an undetectable pink elephant in the room is so incredibly stupid that it isn’t worth the effort to consider it seriously. Should you change that opinion just because I managed to communicate this claim to you? Of course not! The idea is ridiculous!
By the same token, if you’ve never heard of Australia and then someone tells you that it’s there on the opposite side of the world why should you believe them? Isn’t it just as stupid and naive to believe in some vague area that you’ve never physically experienced yourself? Obviously, you’d ask for proof in some form.
But just because the idea of Australia wasn’t in your head before you heard it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Hell, lots of things exist without humans knowing about them. Do you believe that there are stars and universes out in space that you can’t see with your naked eye? Why? Because scientists you’ve never met tell you there are? Isn’t that amount of skepticism just as rediculous?
A theory in the scientific sense is much stronger than a “theory” in common usage. Evolution is a theory just as “the earth is round” is a theory.
What if gravity stopped working tomorrow? Obviously it’s not gonna stop working, but we can’t prove it beyond doubt. We have just observed that gravity has always worked, and there’s no signs that there’s ever been a time when it didn’t.
There’s heaps of evidence that there’s a place called Australia. I’m not so paranoid that I believe there’s a worldwide conspiracy whose only goal is to trick me into believing there’s a place called Australia.
Your analogy is wrong. There’s lots of evidence for those facts. Conversely, in my elephant example, you’re standing in the room, and there’s no evidence at all. To really paraphrase my metaphor, you’d have to imagine that someone told you there’s a giant star in the same room as you are, but you can’t see it with the naked eye.