Entry 2379, on 2025-01-04 at 16:36:18 (Rating 3, Science)
In recent weeks I have come across several on-line discussions where religious people have tried to reject science which is inconvenient to their views, especially related to evolution. In a recent post ("I Support Religion!" from 2024-09-20) I did moderate my opinion somewhat, mainly because what often replaces traditional religion (what I call "woke-ism" and "woo") is even worse than the actual religion, but I still feel as if I need to defend science against the attacks from creationists and the like.
Here's the first claim: that the chance of specific proteins, or sometimes other chemical structures, or the cell, etc arising by chance is so low that it is impossible that it happened naturally, and an intelligence (which, of course, is the particular god the person prefers) is the only explanation. A common number tossed about here is that there is one chance in 10^70 (ten thousand trillion quadrillion quadrillion) of a protein arising naturally.
Another claim is this: that the complex life we have nowadays developing through evolution is like a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and leaving a fully assembled 747 afterwards. Again, it is so unlikely that it is practically impossible.
Then there is this, which seems more sophisticated but is actually the easiest to answer: that thermodynamics states that the universe tends to a greater state of "disorder" (entropy) and this scientific theory, which is almost universally accepted, contradicts evolution.
For someone without much of a science background, or little knowledge of critical thinking, or with an ideology they want to support, these all seem like pretty fair points, but there are a few factors which maybe they didn't take account of.
So the most simple question I would ask, which requires no technical knowledge is this: if it is really that easy to disprove evolution (or maybe abiogenesis) why do the vast majority of scientists still accept evolution as fact? Sure, there could be a vast conspiracy against religion, but even many religious scientists accept evolution, and conspiracies are generally (but not always) untrue. This isn't proof in any way, but it is something to consider.
The bigger factor is this: evolution is the continual process of small changes accumulating over time. Not only that, but it happens massively in parallel, with billions of individuals being potentially affected by it simultaneously, and over billions of years. And each small step is selected for and these act as the starting point for the next step.
There is one other point too: it isn't really random, and there is something like an "intelligence" controlling it. The laws of physics act like an intelligent agent might, by selecting and enhancing each step.
So, if we use our "747 from a junkyard" example, it is more accurate to think of it slightly differently. Imagine instead of one junkyard, there are billions, and each junkyard is subject to hurricanes in quick succession over billions of years. And the 747 doesn't need to be created in one step; anything that is useful (like part of a wing) will be kept and used as the starting point for the next step. And the "partial 747s" which are created will increase in number greatly and the failures will disappear. And it doesn't have to be a 747; it could be anything useful.
That final point is important. We could say that the chances of a 747 being created are practically zero, but why would we expect that a 747 is the required outcome? That just happens to be something we are retro-fitting to the process. It could have been an A380 instead, or a Cessna, or a helicopter, or something we have never seen before.
Many of these ideas, and a lot more, are covered in Richard Dawkins' book, "Climbing Mount Improbable" which is particularly good at explaining how the small steps are not only possible, but inevitable. I do admit I haven't ready this whole book (only parts) but I have read other material on the subject and other Dawkins books, so I think this one might be useful for people who doubt evolution.
Note also, that modelling on these factors has been done, and the probabilities do check out. Also note that the most important evolutionary steps happened billions of years ago, and we have very little indisputable evidence of them, but that is just the nature of the problem, and not a specific weakness of evolution.
Finally, there is the entropy argument. Entropy applies to closed systems, so the total disorder (not a technically correct term, but close enough in this context) in such a system does increase, meaning highly "ordered" objects should be less likely. But we have a continuous source of energy which can overcome this affect (the Sun). Also, small parts can become more ordered as long as the system as a whole (the universe) becomes more disordered. So thermodynamics is fully compatible with evolution.
I tend to avoid using the word "fact", because philosophically we can never be absolutely certain about anything in the physical world (as opposed to abstract worlds such as maths and logic) but as an approximation I think it is reasonable to say that evolution is a "fact".
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2025-01-06 at 10:46:58:
But so many scientists think evolution is fake. Look it up, it is true.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2025-01-06 at 11:00:25:
OK, there are a few issues here which I want to mention...
First, there is probably nothing that all scientists agree on. Disagreement is the driving force behind science, so it is expected and good. However, the number from relevant fields (biology) who disagree is extremely small.
Second, Darwin didn't know enough at the time (they didn't even understand the basics of genetics at the time) to ensure that his version of evolution was particularly accurate or complete. So many scientists believe evolution but not Darwinism.
Third, there are some "semi-serious" scientists who believe alternative theories (Michael Behe being the most famous) but their reasons tend to be problematic. For example, several of the intelligence design supporters' objections have already been shown to be false.
So the claim of "so many" scientists is either simply untrue, to at best, misleading. I'm not blaming you are lying, because I think the misconception you hold is both common and understandable (anything which can be seen as anti-evolution is emphasised in religious communities).
Comment 3 by OJB on 2025-01-06 at 11:03:53:
I found this at Quora, but haven't verified the sources: "The overwhelming majority of biologists accept Darwinian theory of evolution as a fundamental scientific principle. Surveys and studies indicate that around 97-99% of scientists in relevant fields, such as biology and related life sciences, support the theory of evolution."
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE