10 Misconceptions about Evolution (cont)

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@johnZ

First, Hi John, long time no see until a few days ago. I see we have sucked you back in, you crazy glutton for punishment, you.

I think it’s kind of bad form of Price that he didn’t even link to the article he was critiquing. You had to go all the way down to a footnote and cut and paste the address if you wanted to read his source material. I might conclude that creation.com tries to insulate its readership from actually exploring the other side.

I went back and looked at Jim’s misconceptions.

@johnZ

The YEC response clearly feels that your ten points were part of the misconception about the YEC understanding of creation and evolution.

Are you honestly trying to say that people who promote YEC don’t promote those misconceptions?

I have heard every single one of those misconceptions about evolution repeated by my homeschooling friends at one point or another. Since all they use are YEC science resources, it makes sense to me to assume that is where they got their ideas. I am positive I could find links to show you YEC material making statements that promote those misconceptions, but I’m not convinced it would be a valuable use of my time.

But here’s a ten minute’s worth sampling:

Evolution claims we evolved from monkeys
“Your Uncle was a monkey he was swinging through the trees, he lived on green bananas and his arms swung to his knees” -Christian recording artist Geoff Moore and the Distance from the sarcastic song “Evolution Redefined” Evolution...Redefined lyrics by Geoff Moore, 1 meaning. Evolution...Redefined explained, official 2024 song lyrics | LyricsMode.com

There are no transitional fossils: “In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species.” Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research

AIG also felt the need to address the "if humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys today question “Many creationists today, sadly, demonstrate their lack of understanding of the evolutionists’ position when they ask this question.” If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today? | Answers in Genesis

The second law of thermodynamics: “Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible—given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent...

Evolution is historical science and can’t be proved or disproved: “That’s because evolution is not something we can observe. If it’s happening today, it’s going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can’t return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know? Certainly not in the same way we know 2+2=4. Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science.” Just How Well Proven Is Evolution? | The Institute for Creation Research

If you’re not careful, you’ll start sounding like Eddie defending ID. To say that some YEC people promote a misconception is not the same thing as saying that everyone who accepts YEC has that misconception. The point of Jim’s article wasn’t to help correct misconceptions about the YEC approach. (Since when is there is only one “YEC approach”?) Why would he feel obligated to do that? The point was to address misconceptions about evolution. Just because AIG or IRC aren’t actively promoting every single one doesn’t mean people don’t have them and they are just “straw men.”

[johnZ]

@Christy

I think it’s kind of bad form of Price that he didn’t even link to the article he was critiquing. You had to go all the way down to a footnote and cut and paste…

Bad form eh? That’s it? Insulation? Really? I think its’ bad form to criticize someone else’s decision about how to inform readers or whether or not to use links. Majoring in the minors, so to speak.

@Christy

Are you honestly trying to say that people who promote YEC don’t promote those misconceptions?

Yes. By reading Price’s article, for example, you can see that he does not contradict all of Stump’s points, just most of them. They (creation.com) have an entire blog, or post or article on arguments that should no longer be used against evolution. They have done this because many creationists do have misconceptions, just as many evolutionists have misconceptions both about evolution, and about creationists. But just as Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings were used by biology textbooks for decades after they should have been withdrawn (misconceptions of evolutionists) so some creationists do have misconceptions. However, again without providing context, Stump has tarred everyone with the same brush, and has not put the misconceptions into perspective, which does not seem a charitable thing for a biologos person to do.

@Christy

Evolution claims we evolved from monkeys

Price clears this up and puts it into perspective, while Stump does not. From a popular point of view, any common ancestor of hominids or apes would generally be called a monkey, even if it doesn’t meet some scientific classification. Criticizing this statement misses the point entirely, which is the same as if saying that evolution claims we evolved from bacteria. Thus the straw man applies here.

And for transitional fossils…So you have found a transitional fossil then? or know of one? an unequivocal one? To prove this is not a misconception? Really? Stumps response is typical, and involves faith that something dead and permineralized that looks partially like two other dead things is exhibiting transitional characteristics, rather than simply similar characteristics. But unequivocal? Are the supposed transitionals found in a reasonable proportion to their endpoints, considering the numbers we would expect from trial and error? So, no misconception here at all.
It might be a point of disagreement, but certainly not a misconception.

@Christy

AIG also felt the need to address the "if humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys today question "Many creationists today, sadly, demonstrate their lack of understanding of the evolutionists’ position when they ask this question.

Yes, and that is the point isn’t it, that creationists are also addressing misconceptions. Was that point clearly made in Stump’s article? or did I just miss it?

We’ve shown in the past that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) is a major problem for evolution, at least when it comes to the origin of the universe and life.9 We have also urged some caution about 2nd Law arguments (Price, creation.com)

Just saying it is a misconception, doesn’t make it one. Price maintains that the energy from the sun, would tend to disorder, not create order.

> This is utter misdirection at its worst. As usual for evolution-pushers, Stump tries to deny the clear distinction between operational science and historical science—which was affirmed by leading evolutionists Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson. It has nothing to do with ‘sanctioning bodies’, and everything to do with the scientific method. The Oxford dictionary defines science as, (Price, creation.com)

> The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.5

There is a clear distinction between historical and operational science. Denying this calls into question the depth of understanding of scientific methods and their limitations. This is no misconception.

Stump got it wrong when he said Price had said he was infantile and assinine and dishonest. None of those terms was applied to Stump, but only to particular statements he had made. He also got the misconceptions wrong, other than three that Price agreed with.

It would be great to see Stump produce a list of ten misconceptions that evolutionists have (about evolution). That would likely be a lot easier to do.

[johnZ]

@Christy

I see we have sucked you back in, you crazy glutton for punishment, you.

Yeah, i got sucked in and I’m a glutton. Don’t really have time for this, so it likely won’t last long. With full time job, three building projects, vehicle repairs, house maintenance, firewood, wife and two daughters at home (and two dogs and a cat), and five other children with spouses and twenty-five grandchildren, you know this can’t last long. But you have probably all just been getting off too easy. Appreciate your attitude though.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@johnZ

They have done this because many creationists do have misconceptions,

Yes. The point of Jim’s post was to address those misconceptions, not to offer a complete summary of the young earth position as presented on certain websites by certain groups. You and the blog authors have confused someone criticizing misconceptions with someone criticizing them personally. Saying, “I’m young earth and I don’t think that way, so the critique is invalid,” doesn’t make any sense. If you want to write a column about how some people used evolution to support eugenics and say that that is bad, it doesn’t make much sense for me to say, “But I believe in evolution and I think eugenics is bad too, therefore, you have created a straw man and not fairly represented my beliefs.” Some people have said silly stuff and based it on their version of creationism or their version of anti-evolutionism. That’s a fact. Nowhere in the article did Jim say “AIG promotes this” or “ICR claims this.”

@johnZ

However, again without providing context, Stump has tarred everyone with the same brush, and has not put the misconceptions into perspective, which does not seem a charitable thing for a biologos person to do.

How is his addressing of a misconception different than AIGs addressing of the same misconception? If he is “tarring” people, please provide a quote from Jim’s article that you think accuses, defames, demeans, or otherwise uncharitably characterizes someone promoting young earth so I understand what you mean by that. I don’t see it.

[johnZ]

I think you are missing the point that not all of these ten points are misconceptions. While a few of them are, it’s not wise to say that creationists say that evolutionists believe man came from monkeys as a misconception. It is a misconception to think that some unknown common ancestor would not be thought of as a monkey or ape of some type. Even apes are sometimes thought of as some type of monkey. So your point that Jim’s intent was to address misconceptions, not offer a complete summary, while understandable, is not really the point of the rebuttal. The point is that saying all these things are misconceptions just misses the mark. One of the points that is a true misconception is “if we evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?”. This one is a misconception because evolutionary theory understands that original species can give sideline origins to new species while still maintaining the original species. A couple others given by Stump would also be misconceptions. But the rest are not, according to Price, who gives a good explanation why not. A disagreement on fact or interpretation is not a misconception. I mean would you agree with a creationist who said that the entire theory of evolution is a misconception, or that radio active dating is a misconception, or that common ancestors are a misconception? Is that how you would use that word?

By lumping in real misconceptions with false misconceptions, Stump makes a mistake, or several mistakes. Price makes this clear also in the rebuttal to the 2nd law of thermodynamics point. If you read the Price article more carefully, you will see this in the responses.

By making this mistake with most of the supposed misconceptions, Stump is implying lots more misconceptions than there are, and with the sheer numbers game and guilt by association it has an effect more than it should have. As I said, he has not put the misconceptions into perspective. Someone who implied that most evolutionists are in favor of eugenics would also deserve to be similarly reprimanded.

If you don’t think that his article seems to have that effect, then good for you. But by the same token, Price’s response is a legitimate one as well when it evaluates and addresses the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Stump’s claims about misconceptions.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@johnZ

I mean would you agree with a creationist who said that the entire theory of evolution is a misconception, or that radio active dating is a misconception, or that common ancestors are a misconception? Is that how you would use that word?

No I wouldn’t agree, but why would I expect to? Did you actually expect to agree with Jim’s article? I would totally expect a creationist to say “It is a misconception that radioactive dating is reliable” and then offer reasons I don’t agree with.

I bet I could find one saying it.

And five seconds later: “The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 1940’s. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field. In the following article, some of the most common misunderstandings regarding radiocarbon dating are addressed, and corrective, up-to-date scientific creationist thought is provided where appropriate.”

Radiometric Dating | The Institute for Creation Research

Am I offended by this? No, why should I be? I’m still not seeing where the “tarring” and “uncharitable” come in.

Nowhere in the article does Jim say, “Most creationist believe this.” He says, “Over the last few months, I’ve kept a list of the mischaracterizations I’ve come across, and I present ten of them here today in no particular order.” 10 Misconceptions about Evolution - BioLogos

It is ridiculous to think that someone who totally disagrees with you about what are misconceptions and what is true is going to respect your opinion about what is a true misconception and what is a legitimate assertion and reflect that in an article that is supposed to be representing the opposite position than you have. People who see evolution as valid are asserting all ten are misconceptions, just as your creationist websites will assert that the accuracy of radiometric dating is a misconception. That is merely stating a position, and is kind of expected when you are taking a side in a debate.

@johnZ

By making this mistake with most of the supposed misconceptions, Stump is implying lots more misconceptions than there are, and with the sheer numbers game and guilt by association it has an effect more than it should have. As I said, he has not put the misconceptions into perspective. Someone who implied that most evolutionists are in favor of eugenics would also deserve to be similarly reprimanded.

How? How has he implied this? Where in the article do you read that all ten misconceptions together constitute a characterization of most creationists? Or that if someone has one misconception (which you argue is valid) they also have some other misconception (which is a true misconception)?

He’s not “implying” there are more misconceptions than there are. He is coming right out and saying there are ten misconceptions. The fact that you think some of them are not valid assertions is beside the point. Why would BioLogos pretend to agree with creationists where we clearly don’t?

@johnZ

Someone who implied that most evolutionists are in favor of eugenics would also deserve to be similarly reprimanded.

But someone who points out that some people who accept evolution end up supporting eugenics is not saying all people or even most people who support evolution support eugenics. And that was why I brought it up. It is perfectly acceptable to say “Some people who support creationism believe that the second-law of thermodynamics disproves it.” That is a true statement. It does not imply everyone or most people who support creationism believe it. So I think you are reprimanding someone for something that isn’t there, which just makes Price and Co sound like whiners.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@johnZ

When you report on misconceptions that people have about evolution, without setting the parameters, ie. 10% of those who disagree with evolution think this, or 40% of those who accept evolution have this misconception about it… then you set yourself up for people to take offence at what you have said. Because it seems you are mentioning the misconceptions merely to attempt to discount or devalue the critique of evolution in general.

Let me get this straight. Suppose I am writing a blog post related to issues in the pro-life debate. Based on what I have read on multiple published sources as well as informal conversations with Evangelicals I know, I write “Some pro-life Evangelicals are against the use of hormonal birth control because of the misconception that hormonal birth control induces abortions.” And then I present what I think is valid scientific evidence for how hormonal birth control does not really cause abortions. The objective I have in my mind in writing it is not to “score rhetorical points,” but to bring to light what I believe to be true and accurate information relevant to a debated topic.

By your standards, I would be deserving of reprimand and accused of being uncharitable and offensive because A) I called something a misconception when some Evangelicals believe it is a legitimate claim, B) I did not do a big research project before I wrote my informal blog post (not a dissertation, mind you) to ascertain the exact percentage of Evangelicals that hold the belief I called a misconception in order to “put it in perspective,” and C) I implied by saying that some pro-life Evangelicals have this belief, that all pro-life people have this belief, which somehow damages the reputation of all pro-life Evangelicals.

Sorry, John, that’s just silly.

[johnZ]

@Christy

It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field.

At first I thought you had quoted an evolutionist, and I was surprised, pleasantly surprised at what he had said. Then I realized you had quoted a creationist, and I had to laugh at myself and the situation. Imagine if Jim had said something like this… do you think Price would have taken issue with it? Not likely. And that’s the point. A lack of balance will be perceived perhaps differently than the author intended.

@Christy

How? How has he implied this? Where in the article do you read that all ten misconceptions together constitute a characterization

An implication is something not explicity stated, but derived from explicit statements.

@Christy

The fact that you think some of them are not valid assertions is beside the point

That’s my point. And I think my point is not besides “the” point, but is more valid than “the” point. Obviously.

Price and co whiners? They are permitted to make a rebuttal. A fair rebuttal. Your comments are all about form and empty of substance. Their’s were mostly about substance. Are you then whining about my comments? or just about the form of my comments?

This is what he said, and this is the only thing that sets the tone, the context, and the lack of balance.

*> One of the difficulties people have with coming to accept the science of evolution is that they have absorbed incorrect or only partially correct information. Over the last few months, I’ve kept a list of the mischaracterizations I’ve come across, and I present ten of them here today in no particular order. - See more at: 10 Misconceptions about Evolution - BioLogos

So, it is possible that people have other difficulties, and in this sense you are right that he has not explicitly eliminated other possibilities, such as the many scientific objections to evolution that they bring up. But, since his list of ten says “mischaracterizations”, and not “scientific errors” then it changes the tenor of the discussion. But I can see that you do not totally understand this. You ought nevertheless to be understanding of the reactions to the general tone of the article, even without considering the specifics of the rebuttal in terms of whether these are really mischaracterizations or not. You can argue that people ought not to take offense, but perhaps you ought also to consider whether the offense is merely a result of difference about ten points, or whether it is about the appearance of mischaracterization of those who " have absorbed incorrect or only partially correct information"

Don’t you hate it when people say they are “sorry”, when there is no real indication of it? Anyway, I think this discussion has run past its best before date, and we should stop lest we begin repeating ourselves.