Evolution is as reasonable as theory of gravity

Columnist and Columnist

Those that want to deny evolution should consider how this could be inconsistent with believing in gravity.

For starters, those that derisively dismiss the theory of evolution, as originally postulated by Charles Darwin, as “just a theory” should remember that the theory of gravity, as originally postulated by Isaac Newton, also has the “theory” label.

They are both bona fide scientific theories; therefore they are as credible and reasonable as any other concrete concept in science can be (it takes a lot for a concept to be distinguished as a “theory”), and should not be dismissed as “just theories.”

Another argument by some takes the form of an attack on the messenger himself, saying of Darwin that he was a bigot and such, in an attempt to discredit the concept of evolution by discrediting him.

For the sake of argument let’s go a step further; let’s just say that Darwin possessed the most deranged, insane ideas of all time. Given that concession it would still be a fallacious argument, as an idea should be judged solely on its own merits, not on the merits of the person putting forward the idea.

We should remember that Newton believed that “the menstrual blood of the sordid whore” possessed magical properties, among other absurd beliefs.

Although he would have been a horrible gynecologist, he was in fact a very good physicist, and his absurd beliefs should not discredit the theory of gravity in the same way that the theory of evolution should not be discredited by any strange ideas Darwin may have held.

There are also some that attack the theory of evolution through pointing out flaws in Charles Darwin’s original manuscript on the matter, “On the Origins of Species.”

This has been the favorite route of criticism for some people, including former child-actor Kirk Cameron who has passed out free copies of the book on several campuses in the past while pointing out some incorrect passages, in an effort to discredit the whole idea of evolution.

Again we should turn to gravity to discredit this line of reasoning, as it should be pointed out that Newton got several things wrong in his original writings on the matter (including, but not limited to, a false conception of comets).

In the same way that it would be absurd for an anti-gravity former child-actor to preach at campuses that gravity doesn’t occur since Newton was wrong about some aspects of it, so is it absurd for anti-evolution Cameron to do likewise.

At this time there may be an anti-evolutionist reader saying, “Why does he keep on comparing gravity to evolution; gravity is clearly real as it can be observed while evolution has never been seen happening.”

First of all, it should be pointed out that evolution has been observed. For some examples of plants, animals, and single celled organisms being observed evolving please consult the following link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

Secondly let’s assume that evolution has never been observed; this would not mean that the concept of evolution is false.

This is because science, and generally rational thought itself, does not depend entirely upon direct observation.

Research into the “clues” of evolution (DNA, fossils, etc.) can, and do, bear witness to its truth (think about the television show “CSI” and how they can solve murders using the clues left behind the crime, without witnessing the crime itself.)

And just as there are benefits for a society that largely accepts the credibility of the theory of gravity (a society that condemned the concept of gravity would turn out rather bad architects and have a horrid space program to say the least), there are also benefits for a wide acceptance of the theory of evolution.

I’ll leave you with the University of California, Berkeley pointing out just one of the many societal benefits to the theory of evolution on the medical section of their website: “Evolutionary theory predicted that bacterial resistance would happen. But evolutionary theory also gives doctors and patients some specific strategies for delaying even more widespread evolution of antibiotic resistance … Ultimately, recognizing bacteria as evolving entities and understanding their evolution should help us to control that evolution, allowing us to prolong the useful lifespan of antibiotics.”

Respond to Mathew at

[email protected]