Evolution Myths Debunked by New Scientist

Sparkybuzzed

24 Myths and Misconseptions about evolution

Great article. Read and enjoy.

Sail

I don't have any of those misconceptions. But I guess it's a good article. Never heard of this "NewScientist" though. They should have picked a different name, it makes it sound like pseudoscience.

Alex

New Scientist is, I believe, reasonably good as a "layman's science" magazine. It's not where you should be going for the cutting-edge of peer-reviewed research, but it is approachable and very rarely sensationalist.

spotdart

As "creationist myths" go, my favorite by a long shot is the bit about the second law of thermodynamics. However, singling out specific "myths" (read: bullshit) seems to imply that there is at least a shred of validity to creationism, which clearly there is not.

TheWhaleShark

New Scientist is, I believe, reasonably good as a "layman's science" magazine. It's not where you should be going for the cutting-edge of peer-reviewed research, but it is approachable and very rarely sensationalist.

You are correct.

That article is a good read.

Σπεκωσποκ

As "creationist myths" go, my favorite by a long shot is the bit about the second law of thermodynamics. However, singling out specific "myths" (read: bullshit) seems to imply that there is at least a shred of validity to creationism, which clearly there is not.

I wonder if the creationist folk even really understand what entropy means, or why it matters.

Gunfire

"Think of a stone archway: hundreds of years after the event, how do you prove how it was built? It might not be possible to prove that the builders used wooden scaffolding to support the arch when it was built, but this does not mean they levitated the stone blocks into place."

Ah. Great.

Norvu

I wonder if the creationist folk even really understand what entropy means, or why it matters.

All they care about is twisting the language using science to suite their agenda, they probably see it and think it makes total sense, not realizing that they are either uneducated about what they read or uneducated about what they're arguing against.

Hell, the Croco-duck should be enough for anyone to look at most creationists and ask "Do you really know what you're talking about?"

Li_Akahi

Man that thing is creepy!

Symmetry

I actually have to say that I have a subscription to the dead tree version of the magazine, and I like it a lot. It really isn't fair to say that its completely unsensationalist, but the sensationalism is pretty much contained within the article titles and lead-ins. My sense from reading the articles about things I do have some expertise in is that while the articles have been simplified a lot for the target audience, they give you a good idea of the important things so I'm willing to trust their coverage of things like biology where I don't know all that much.

HungryJoe

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: There is no no clear-cut division between religion and science.

It’s not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there’s theistic or God-controlled evolution and there’s variations on all those themes.

Jason

The clear-cut division is falsification.

lackofcheese

In my opinion, "It's not a clean-cut division" is a bad choice of words. It would have been better to say "science and religion are not mutually exclusive," or, to be more precise, "belief in evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive."
To some, Johnson's statement might imply that science and religion are equally valid, which is plainly untrue.

It is important that the U.S. populace understand that they can accept science and still believe in God, as this would lead to wider acceptance of science. Ultimately, it is best if those people apply the critical thinking skills they learn (or should learn) in science to all aspects of their life, but it is certainly better if they learn some as opposed to none.

However, the greater problem is Biblical literalism, which is indeed incompatible with much of modern science.

Rym

they can accept science and still believe in God

But they can't rationally believe in a god for which there is no evidence, for this belies their acceptance of scientific principles.

They can try to find gods. They can try to prove that they exist. They can seek evidence. They can hope. This is where science and religion can coexist. But, the moment they actually assert that their gods are real, then they are doing so in the face of the total evidence against and total lack of evidence for their proposition. It's no more ludicrous than asserting that a chemical exists despite a lack of any experimental or observational evidence.

At least in science, when a bald assertion is made, it is done so hypothetically and as the result of observation or predictive modeling.

lackofcheese

they can accept science and still believe in God

But they can't rationally believe in a god for which there is no evidence, for this belies their acceptance of scientific principles.

Yes, but my point is that it is better that they learn these scientific principles but make an exception for them in the case of their religion, than for them to completely deny science in the first place.

A subtle approach is better to divest the religious of their beliefs than a direct confrontation. If you tell a religious person that their beliefs contradict science, all too often this will lead them to reject science. On the other hand, you can teach them the scientific method, and the other requisite critical thinking skills, without asserting that they must reject their religion. Though this means that they will in part have some irrational belief, they are now capable of realizing that this is the case.

chaosof99

Good article. I also really like this video series on YouTube entitled: "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism"

csrjjsmp

they can accept science and still believe in God

But they can't rationally believe in a god for which there is no evidence, for this belies their acceptance of scientific principles.

They can try to find gods. They can try to prove that they exist. They can seek evidence. They can hope. This is where science and religion can coexist. But, the moment they actually assert that their gods are real, then they are doing so in the face of the total evidence against and total lack of evidence for their proposition. It's no more ludicrous than asserting that a chemical exists despite a lack of any experimental or observational evidence.

At least in science, when a bald assertion is made, it is done so hypothetically and as the result of observation or predictive modeling.

Do you mean to say no less ludicrous?
In constructing the periodic table, predictions of chemicals were made despite lack of direct evidence, and these predictions were confirmed later. This sentence implies that believing in God with no evidence is not that ludicrous by comparing it to something that was eventually confirmed to be true. I don't think that's what you meant to say.

HungryJoe

In constructing the periodic table, predictions of chemicals were made despite lack of direct evidence, and these predictions were confirmed later. This sentence implies that believing in God with no evidence is not that ludicrous by comparing it to something that was eventually confirmed to be true. I don't think that's what you meant to say.

The difference there is that the predictions for new elements were based on proven facts and a methodology that produced results that could be verified by experiment. Further, the predictions could be proven or disproven by anyone and, if they were disproven, there would be changes made to the methodology. In brief, the predictions were peer-reviewed and falsifiable.

That's completely different than believing in something with no evidence to support it based on faith alone.

HungryJoe

Mike Pence babbles about evolution. More evidence of conservative backwardness.