What Evolution Isn't

There is much confusion among creationists as to exactly what the theory of evolution is and isn't. Here, I address some of these confusions.

1. It is "only a theory", and is unproven.
   
   It is not "only a theory". It is a scientific theory, which is something quite different. From Wikipedia, "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
   
   In science, we do not 'prove' things in the sense that we prove theorems in mathematics. It's best to think of the legal definition of "proven beyond reasonable doubt". There are doubts about evolutionary science, but they are not reasonable ones, being driven by presupposition, and fuelled by ignorance.
   ..
2. There is no evidence for evolution.
   
   No evidence that most creationists will look at, let alone consider.
   
   Here is a classic suite of pages giving the lie to this. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, Ashby Camp tries to critique it, but Theobald dismisses his critique.
   
   Theobald is rather out of date on endogenous retroviruses, so here is my FAQ on them.
   ..
3. It doesn't explain "____" (fill in the blank).
   
   When people talk about evolution, unless the context or a qualifier says otherwise, they are talking about biological evolution.
   
   Biological evolution is the how and why the forms of living creatures can change over the generations. That's it.
   
   When people talk about the origin of life, the origin and development of the universe, galaxies, stars and planets, and the formation of the geological record, they may use the word 'evolution'. This does not mean that these things are part of the theory of biological evolution. In these contexts, the word means something close to it's original meaning, that of development, or unfolding.
   
   Creationists have the misconception that anything that runs contrary to their own understanding of Genesis is 'evolutionist' or 'atheist'. (See below). I often conjure up the image of rabbits caught in the headlights of trucks at night on the highway. The rabbits may well think the trucks are there just to try and turn them into roadkill. The truth is that they are just there to haul their load.
   
    
   
4. It is atheistic.
   
   Most Christian denominations accept evolutionary science, and branches of the other Abrahamic religions do too. Creationists claiming that these people are atheists are lying. Creationism and Christianity (or Islam or Judaism) are not identical. For creationists to hide behind the skirts of these venerable faiths is not an edifying sight.
   
   The Big Bang, often confusedly conflated with evolution, was first proposed by a theist, BTW.
   
   And even if it was atheistic, that would not falsify it. See the notes on racism just below.
   ..
5. It is racist.
   
   No, but even if it was, such a bleat would be an infantile response. It would have no relevance as to whether evolution was true or not. It is best to grow up and deal with reality.
   
   The reality is that before Darwin's Origin of Species, it was not clear that all humans belonged to the same species. Louis Agassiz was the leading "authority" on human origins, and he promoted the idea of polygenism - different groups of humans had different origins. This was well received in the slave business, especially in America. Prejudice against miscegenation stems from this, together with the stoking of a fear of a mass slave uprising instilled by the slavers among poor and ignorant 'whites'. It is very prominent in Mein Kampf, where Hitler regarded different 'races' as different species. He was biologically illiterate. The Nazis banned books on evolution.
   
   Darwin's Sacred Cause is a good antidote to the anti-evolution propaganda which, again, is totally irrelevant to the truth of the science.