Top 15 Misconceptions about Evolution
Published on February 19, 2008 - 566 Comments
Biological evolution is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life. While evolution is very widely accepted, many people hold to misconceptions about it. This list should help to dispel some of those myths.

15. Evolution is a theory about the origin of life
The theory of evolution primarily deals with the manner in which life has changed after its origin. While science is interested in the origins of life (for example the composition of the primeval sludge from which life might have come) but these are not issues covered in the area of evolution. What is known is that regardless of the start, at some point life began to branch off. Evolution is, therefore, dedicated to the study of those processes.
14. Organisms are always getting better

While it is a fact that natural selection weeds out unhealthy genes from the gene pool, there are many cases where an imperfect organism has survived. Some examples of this are fungi, sharks, crayfish, and mosses - these have all remained essentially the same over a great period of time. These organisms are all sufficiently adapted to their environment to survive without improvement.
Other taxa have changed a lot, but not necessarily for the better. Some creatures have had their environments changed and their adaptations may not be as well suited to their new situation. Fitness is linked to their environment, not to progress.
13. Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance’
In fact, natural selection is not random. Many aquatic animals need speed to survive and reproduce - the creatures with that ability are more suited to their environment and are more likely to survive natural selection. In turn, they will produce more offspring with the same traits and the cycle continues. The idea that evolution occurs by chance does not take the entire picture in to account.
12. Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to adapt

Organisms do not “try” to adapt - it is natural selection that enables various members of a group to survive and reproduce. Genetic adaptation is entirely outside of the power of the developing organism.
11. Natural selection gives organisms what they ‘need.’
Natural selection has no “intelligence” - it can not tell what a species needs. If a population has genetic variants that are more suited to their environment, they will reproduce more in the next generation and the population will evolve. If a genetic variant is not present, the population will most likely do - or it will survive with little evolutionary change.
10. Evolution is ‘just’ a theory

Scientifically speaking, a theory is a well substantiated idea that explains aspects of the natural world. Unfortunately other definitions of theory (such as a “guess” or a “hunch”) cause a great deal of confusion in the non-scientific world when dealing with the sciences. They are, in fact, two very different concepts.
9. Evolution is a Theory in Crisis
There is no debate in science as to whether or not evolution occurred - there is, however, debate over how it happened. The minutiae of the process is vigorously debated which can cause anti-evolutionists to believe that the theory is in crisis. Evolution is sound science and is treated as such by scientists worldwide.
8. Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution

Actually, many transitional fossils do exist - for example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their dinosaur ancestors, as well as whales and their land mammal ancestors. There are many transitional forms that have not been preserved, but that is simply because some organisms do not fossilize well or exist in conditions that do not allow for the process of fossilization. Science predicts that there will be gaps in the record for many evolutionary changes. This does not disprove the theory.
7. Evolutionary Theory is Incomplete
Evolutionary science is a work in progress. Science is constantly making new discoveries with regard to it and explanations are always adjusted if necessary. Evolutionary theory is like all of the other sciences in this respect. Science is always trying to improve our knowledge. At present, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for all of life’s diversity.
6. The Theory is Flawed

Science is an extremely competitive field - if any flaws were discovered in evolutionary theory they would be quickly corrected. All of the alleged flaws that creationists put forth have been investigated careful by scientists and they simply do not hold water. They are usually based on misunderstandings of the theory or misrepresentation of the evidence.
5. Evolution is not science because it is not observable
Evolution is observable and testable. The confusion here is that people think science is limited to experiments in laboratories by white-coated technicians. In fact, a large amount of scientific information is gathered from the real world. Astronomers can obviously not physically touch the objects they study (for example stars and galaxies), yet a great deal of knowledge can be gained through multiple lines of study. This is true also of evolution. It is also true that there are many mechanisms of evolution that can be, and are studied through direct experimentation as with other sciences.
4. Most Biologists have rejected Darwinism

Scientists do not reject Darwin’s theories, they have modified it over time as more knowledge has been discovered. Darwin considered that evolution proceeds at a deliberate, slow pace - but in fact it has now been discovered that it can proceed at a rapid pace under some circumstances. There has not been, so far, a credible challenge to the basic principles of Darwin’s theory. Scientists have improved and expanded on Darwin’s original theory of natural selection - it has not been rejected, it has been added to.
3. Evolution Leads to Immoral Behavior
All animal species have a set of behaviors that they share with other members of their species. Slugs act like slugs, dogs act like dogs, and humans act like humans. It is preposterous to presume that a child will begin to behave like another creature when they discover that they are related to them. It is nonsensical to link evolution to immoral or inappropriate behavior.
2. Evolution Supports “Might Makes Right”

In the 19th and early 20th century, a philosophy called “Social Darwinism” sprung up from misguided attempts to apply biological evolution to society. This philosophy said that society should allow the weak to fail and die, and that not only is this an ideal situation, but a morally right one. This enabled prejudices to be rationalized and ideas such as the poor deserved their situation due to being less fit were very popular. This was a misappropriation of science. Social Darwinism has, thankfully, been repudiated. Biological evolution has not.
1. Teachers Should Teach Both Sides
There are tens of thousands of different religious views concerning creation. It is simply impossible for all of these views to be presented. Furthermore, none of the theories are based in science and therefore have no place in a science classroom. In a science class, students can debate where a creature branched off in the tree of life, but it is not right to argue a religious belief in a science class. The “fairness” argument is often used by groups attempting to inject their religious dogmas in to the scientific curricula.
This list was inspired by the brilliant Berkeley, Evolution 101 FAQ.
Related ListsAnother 10 Common MisconceptionsTop 10 Common Misconceptions Top 10 Cool Dance Videos Top 10 Most Commented On Lists |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post

1. Ruairi - February 19th, 2008 at 8:07 am
awesome, awesome list!
2. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Wonderful List!, I can’t wait for the arguments….
3. puddingpuppet - February 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
A well written and informed list. Awesome!
4. Bananas - February 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
ooo second!
5. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
You’ll stand tall with me when the creationists come rabble-rousing, right Mom424?
6. Bananas - February 19th, 2008 at 8:12 am
fouth.
7. puddingpuppet - February 19th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Bring on the creationists!!!!
8. RockNTheFreeWorld - February 19th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance’ is actually true in most respects. The original mutation is by chance alone. Those traits that are beneficial allow those mutated animals to propagate their new genes to more young and perpetuate the trait, but the original mutation is still by chance.
9. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am
As an interesting aside, there are some states in the Grand Ol’ USA where “public funds” are used to teach creationism as an alternate to evolution. Not a private fundamentalist christian school, but public school….scary
10. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 8:16 am
And of course Slick; I got yer back….
11. Scar.. - February 19th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Back in the day I went to a school that refused to teach evolution and how to world may have been created except for there theory that God just.. “made it”..
And when we read from the science textbook instead of saying “6 million years ago..” the teacher said “But we know God made the world 6,000 years ago!” So we had to say “6,000″ years ago instead.
Complete and utter bullshit.
The support the theory of evolution.
12. Peter - February 19th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Gutsy call on number one, but I whole heartingly agree. I applaud listverse for publishing the idea that religion has no right in the classroom.
However, I do have a problem with number 12. Well it is fundamentally true that an organism either does or doesn’t adapt, you fail to point out humans. Biologically, we are a very weak race. The only reason we truly survive is because of the advancements we have made in our technology. Thus we survived because we “tried” to adapt, we created houses and clothing to protects us, and developed weapons for hunting.
Though, it is also arguable that we evolved our intelligence and hence our ability to adapt is an evolutionary trait. Either way, I think it is worth noting that the human race adapts in a completely different way than others.
Unfortunately, it should be noted that there is some social Darwinism going on today, in that there is the belief that our advancements in technology have paved the way for those with genes not suitable for life in a more wild habitat to procreate, thus weakening the human race overall.
13. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Peter; I disagree, evolution gave us the brain to succeed, brawn wouldn’t have been near as useful, no higher thought processes, no technology,,,we are but very smart animals…
14. Paul Carter - February 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Awesome list man!!
Very educational! A+
15. closet_nerd - February 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Peter: We are “trying” to adapt, but what you refer to is cultural evolution, not biological evolution. We can learn things and pass on our knowledge, but we can’t “try” to evolve anymore than my grandpa can “try” to grow hair to cover his bald spot. When a black bear moves north, he can’t say “I’m going to try to be white to match this snow!” *grunt* POOF! “I’m white!”
And with number one, YES! If creationism is made to be taught in a science classroom, then shouldn’t science be required to be taught in church?
16. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Peter, I don’t think that would count as social darwinism, since your example is moving us in the opposite direction of natural selection….less fit, overall, instead of more fit. Physically speaking, human beings are more-or-less evolutionarily perfect for our environment (at least, perfect for our environment several hundred thousand years ago). It is our big brains that is our ultimate evolutionary gift….physically, we have no more need to adapt to survive in the modern environent. As the species expands into environments unsuitable for us to live, our technology takes over for us and evolves to suit the situation. We are still evolving as a species….it’s just a technological evolution rather than a physical one. As for your comment about number 12, you are right that we are the only species that is purposefully trying to adapt. We are also the only species with a brain complicated enough to perceive the environment as capable of being taken advantage of.
17. Jackie - February 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I love this list.
So my favorite myth about evolutionary theory that creationists always like to argue is “Well if we evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?” (I’ve heard this a lot) Wow, well there are two problems with that question. Number 1: We didn’t evolve from monkeys (not the ones still around anyway), we all evolved from the SAME ANCESTOR. Number 2: Monkeys still exist because monkeys and humans are two different branches in the complicated evolutionary tree. Branches keep evolving into different branches, and those species branch out into two more species and so on.
*sigh* I’m terrible at trying to explain this in writing…I just hate that particular argument against evolution.
18. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Peter; Evolution has allowed many animals to adapt by changing their environment, our large brains just allow us to do it more efficiently,,,polar bears dig dens to allow them to winter over, chimps make rain shelters and beds, moles dig huge winding masses of dens underground,,,animals adapt their environment to provide the necessities of life as do we. The so-called weakening of our gene-pool is also an adaptation of evolution. Our sense of empathy allowed us to live co-operatively, an obvious asset when yer not the biggest thing on the savannah…
19. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 8:38 am
All this talk about organisms is giving me a woody
20. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Jackie: That was pretty much the correct response to that particular myth, without getting into needless details. (The creationist probably wouldn’t know what you were talking about, anyway.) Keep fightin the good fight.
21. dangorironhide - February 19th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Great list J. I’ve never understood how people can beleive in creationism with all the mountains of evidence against it. I laugh when I read how God ‘put the fossils there to put us off’ or shit like that.
22. Sidereus - February 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I am a Creationist and I have no qualms with this list. It is very nicely presented and makes sense. Evolution is real and does not in any way contradict the Bible.
I think the problem occurs when people take Evolution to explain that all things have a common ancestor. Sure species change and develop over time, but there is no evidence that a dog and a pine tree are both evolved from some single-celled organism. It begs the question of how life came to be, but I believe honest Evolutionists will say they do not know.
I believe religion should be kept out of the science classroom, just as mathematics should be kept out of the English classroom. Evolution is science. Theories about the origin of life is religion. Don’t make Evolution religion and everyone is happy.
23. sid - February 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
One of the best lists i have seen on your site till date.
I am sure you will get loads of comments on this one.
I diasgree with peter, well because early humans did try to adapt to their environment but they still had to possess the required genes for adaptation.
For example, the neanderthals were the more stronger race physically than the modern human who migrated to parts of central europe where the neanderthals had gone extinct 30000 years ago because of compeition from homo spaiens who were more intellingent than their conterparts.The neanderthals had been living there for tens of thousands of years why couldn’t they try to adapt to warmer climate or become more brainer?
The point is a organism cannot evolve into another just because it tried to adapt to a environment. Number twelve is absolutely true.
Once again a great list from the listverse.
24. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 9:08 am
LOL @ buclism (#19)!!
This is an amazing list Jamie…
25. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The difficulty here is putting someone off of their personal beliefs. Most hard core religious folk consider evolution to be an affront to God Himself, so it doesn’t matter how much evidence you pile up in front of them. Another problematic area is that the church hasn’t had the greatest record when it comes to scientific things. (Galileo, DaVinci etc,) So it’s easy to point to the stereotypical believer with the glazed over eyes, willing to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the dude in a slick suit and plastic hair, and willing to go to war with anyone who disagrees with the creative power of the Almighty.
Science on the other hand has difficulty in answering the really interesting questions - who am I, how did I get here and what happens when I leave and when is the ‘White Sale’ going to happen at Penneys. Everyone who has a brain considers these things.
Some think we’re trail mix for worms, others think the big black box at the end of the bed will tell us the answer, and Tom Cruise thinks Xenu holds the key to this mystery.
It’s a cosmic pickle, and only when the scientist gets on his knees to pray will he change his mind, or when the believer forsakes his god will he begin to doubt.
I think I’ll have another beer and watch Gilligan’s Island and wonder why if the Professor can make a radio out of bamboo, why the fuck can’t he patch up the hole in the boat.
26. Jackie - February 19th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Thanks SlickWilly!!
Sidereus: I wish more creationists were like you! Evolution does NOT contradict a belief in God. Everything you said I totally agree with.
27. Jackie - February 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Haha bucslism: “and Tom Cruise thinks Xenu holds the key to this mystery”.
Maybe we ARE all wrong and scientology is the answer to where we came from.
..ok I couldn’t even type that with a straight face.
28. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sidereus:
I hate to pick on you, because you seem like an honest, intelligent person. However, there is evidence of common ancestry in most animals, and most animals (even almost *all* animals) share DNA with many kinds of plants and trees. This suggests that the DNA for both organisms has a common origin. It’s not enough evidence to be considered factual, of course, but it *is* evidence nonetheless, and given how extensive our knowledge of genetic heretidity is, it’s fairly strong evidence that both dogs and pine trees evolved separately from the same primordial, single-celled ancestor.
As for the question of how life came about, any honest person, evolutionist or otherwise, will admit that they don’t know. Nobody knows. Creationists *think* that God created life, but the don’t *know* it, not like how we know about thermodynamics or natural selection. Abiogenicists (those scientists that study the origin of life - which is an entirely separate field of study from the study of evolution, and not generally related, though it does use the tenets of evolution to venture theories) don’t *know* how life started, but they have a few good ideas that are supported by a certain amount of evidence.
29. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Siderus; Evolution is the path, God started the journey…who’s to say it didn’t begin with the big bang….
30. MiSaNtHrOpE - February 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Very, very good list. JFrater: I appreciate your being ballsy and choosing “Evolution and Creationism are Equal” for #1.
31. Mystern - February 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Wow. And the debate has already begun. Well done Jamie! Excellent list, well thought out and well delivered. While I’m sure to enjoy all the debates this list will stir, I likely won’t read all of them.
Mind if I write an alter list about creationism?
32. DRay - February 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I wish I knew more people like Sidereus.
33. jfrater - February 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Mystern: definitely - I was hoping to do one eventually so you are more than welcome!
34. goodspeed83 - February 19th, 2008 at 9:32 am
An informative and well-written list! Definitely one of my favorites. Even as an ardent supporter of evolution, I learned a few things. Number one was a great point. Science is not a religion, and religion is most certainly not a science. You’d think it’s such a simple distinction, no? Religion already has its place; a church. Sidereus, you hit the nail on the head with one of your points, and it’s another misconception that I’ve seen a lot of people have. So many people get the idea that evolution and religion are mutually-exclusive areas and belief in one is incompatible with belief in the other. I myself am not religious, but I have many close Christian friends and they don’t have a problem with evolutionary theory. I don’t know if a belief in both depends on how strong your beliefs really are, or how literally you interpret the bible. That’s something I am curious about.
35. ProgRapture - February 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Oh God, was this list just created to piss off the creationists? I am a Christian, and I believe that God had a hand in evolution. For all those atheists that just creamed their pants reading this article and pranced around denouncing the Bible, you have failed to realize that the Bible is largely a symbolic story full of metaphors. While it says God created Earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, who says that it’s Earth days? One day for Him could be millions of years for us. I fully support this article, but I’m just disappointed that all the liberal atheists took it and used it to make fun of Christians. I hope your proud of how childish you look now. Way to be mature about it.
36. Fili - February 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Thank you Listverse. Gutly as ever!
37. Hellbound Alleee - February 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Unfortunately in my daily experience, one of the biggest misconceptions is that evolution means one animal changed into another. Part of the problem is that “march of time” poster.
The one thing that people who promote and argue against evolution seem to not understand out in the lay world is that all animals existing today are equally evolved. No animal came from another, if you see it walking about today. People did not come from any monkey in any zoo. Those guys are just as adapted as we are.
38. Hellbound Alleee - February 19th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I didn’t prance about from reading this article, ProgRapture, nor did I have an orgasm in my pants. That wouldn’t be “mature.”
I denounce the bible purely from reading the bible.
I understand the idea of metaphor, so, can we assume that God, Jesus, and the resurrection are also metaphor?
39. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Wonderful list!
40. dave4248 - February 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
This is a fantastic compilation. That’s it,…all I have to say. Usually I say “great list but….” None of that here. This list is perfect. That’s not a word I like to use very often.
41. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Hellbound Alleee, I don’t believe Jesus to be a metaphor, there is enough historical evidence to prove that he existed, and died. Personally I kinda think the whole resurrection thing is likely a metaphor, but I won’t be nasty to those who believe otherwise….lordy My uncle is a RC priest
42. Elana - February 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
So I’m confused about the creationists? They say they support the list, yet still argue how God created humans. How can you support both?
- An atheist liberal =]
43. Shane S. - February 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
What about the role of midichlorians in all of this???
44. Mary - February 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
*clapclapclap* Will be sharing this with certain people when I need to
45. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I’m sitting in my own waste products after reading Shane’s comment.
46. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I hate to interject here, but Hellbound and ProgRapture….can we keep the argument centered on evolution? Nobody said anything about the Bible before ProgRapture read the list without bothering to read the comments and jumped to conclusions about the people who regularly read and comment on this site. That’s no excuse for Hellbound to launch into attacks against the bible and - if this conversation continues - religion in general.
ProgRapture: “I fully support this article, but I’m just disappointed that all the liberal atheists took it and used it to make fun of Christians. I hope your proud of how childish you look now. Way to be mature about it.”
Which liberal atheists are you referring to? I didn’t see anybody making fun of Christians. Maybe some of the hard-liners, but I hardly think that handful of individuals qualifies as “Christians” in general. (I don’t even think half of those people are real “Christians” anyway, and I’m sure you would agree with me.) I think, perhaps, you jumped to the predetermined conclusion that evolutionists are small-minded, petty bullies who just a kick out of haranguing religious folks for their beliefs. There are a lot of people that do this, and truth be told, most of those folks probably know less about evolution than the creationists they are “debating” against. I think you’ll find, by and large, that the people on Listverse are civil and intelligent, as long as you approach them in a civil and intelligent manner.
Hellboun Alleee: Leave the anti-bible, anti-religious propaganda at home, please.
47. goodspeed83 - February 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Definitely a valid point, Shane. Understandably, the Jedi minority want answers, too.
48. Miss Destiny - February 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Really great list, Jamie! And great comments from all of you! I’m going to be entertained by this for a while.
49. Theknowledgeablecreative - February 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
#24. Sidereus…Touche’! and thank you for that brief yet accurate reply.
50. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Weren’t the midichlorians a construct of the matrix?
51. Shane S. - February 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
No, the Cylons created the Matrix so they could charge their batteries.
52. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am
bucslim: No one really knows where midichlorians come from. Except Star Wars geeks who read too much Star Wars-related peripheral material. Perhaps those people could also venture a guess as to the nature of proton torpedoes and the inner workings of the light-speed drive.
53. Mystern - February 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Slick: If you really want I’ll go into proton torpedoes and FTL travel. I was gonna save it for a list I’m writing but I don’t mind spending the time now. As for the midichlorians, supposedly they are a screen adaption entirely and never made any appearance in the book but I have no citation to back this up.
54. Miss Destiny - February 19th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I have weird beliefs when it comes to Evolution and God, I’m somewhere in the middle but leaning closer to Evolution. I believe in both, but I don’t think that God is solely responsible for Evolution, I think more along the idea that God kind of got the ball rolling and then nature took its course. That probably doesn’t make sense to anyone else but me. My brain’s way out in left field, partially why I’m not into the whole going to church thing, I can’t make my brain think the same way as other people.
And I thought I saw on that one video from You Tube that the origin of life came from a jar of Peanut Butter.
I kid, of course. I saw SlickWilly mention Abiogenicists and it made me think of that video.
55. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Mystern: LMAO…..word. Tell ya what, put it all in a bad-ass list (which I know it will be), post it, and then we’ll dedicate a whole comment section to discussing it. (I was joking in #54, but all that SF stuff really grabs my attention. I guess my inner geek is closer to the surface than I’d like to admit sometimes.)
Also, I could be wrong, but wasn’t there a list in the last few months where a few commenters went off on the logistics behind FTL travel? Interesting stuff.
56. ProgRapture - February 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
SlickWilly, you’re right. I kind of did jump to conclusions there…I’m on pain medication right now, and I’ve been arguing with people all day. I kind of just ranted way off topic, and I don’t want to sound like a complete ass, but that may be too late. I apologize for the accusations, and I want you to know, I respect the evolutionist’s opinion, and I do know that most evolutionists aren’t petty close-minded idiots. There’s good and bad on both sides.
And Elana, as a creationist who believes in evolution, I believe that God did make us the way we are, but he didn’t do it just immediately. He worked on us slowly, making us improve over millions of years. If He wanted us in His own image right away, things would be a lot different now. When I read the Bible, I have to look at it outside the box, very metaphorically. For instance, if Heaven truly is like a mustard seed, that would really suck!
57. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Shamelessly stolen content from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....ns_faq.php which is copyright the University of California at Berkeley.
58. Mystern - February 19th, 2008 at 10:17 am
tazx: It’s a good thing Jamie listed a source then right?
59. Villanueva - February 19th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Sidereus - I’d have to see that evolution does contradict the Bible … what about Adam and Eve?
60. grungefreak10 - February 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
While this list is entirely true, I have kind of learned the hard way that there is really no swaying the most adamant of creationists. They have loads of ready made spin to counter even the most logical of arguments. It is really the equivalent of going up against a highly skilled lawyer; you shouldn’t expect to win just because you are right.
61. Mystern - February 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Slick: You might be referring to the list I wrote of the top 10 sci fi inventions that shouldn’t be invented. I believe that it got discussed somewhere in the comments.
62. Miss Destiny - February 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I guess most people don’t read the fine print at the end of the article, because it seems that after every list posted someone has to make a comment complaining about citation.
63. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I think he stole this list from Obama
64. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Wow zing Mystern(#60)!! I felt that one and I wasn’t even looking at this list at the time!
65. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Slick, Mystern; I am a geek, I can quote Star Trek…you know how they talk about teachin’ yer kid in the womb, classical music etc….Well my first born, no kidding, would wake right the hell up and look around whenever the star-trek music would come on…from the day we brought him home from the hospital…do the trek list,,,
66. Mystern - February 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Geeks rule!
67. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Villaneuva; they were little hairy guys with long arms, and they lived in the damn apple tree
lol
68. Bondles - February 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Miss Destiny and Mystern: Allow me to quote from the Copyright notice linked at the bottom of the UC Berkeley page:
“Copyright
Copyright 2008 by The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California. All materials appearing on the UCMP Web Servers (WWW.UCMP.BERKELEY.EDU, EVOLUTION.BERKELEY.EDU) may not be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system without prior written permission of the publisher and in no case for profit.”
Wikipedia is published under an open document license, but that isn’t true of the rest of the web. Citing where you plagiarised from doesn’t mean it’s not plagiarism.
69. Bob - February 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Wow, what a misguided and misguiding list.
Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.
Sheesh, even Maria got that right.
70. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Bob - Didn’t Billy Preston say the same thing? Nuthin from nuthin leaves nuthin, and ya gotta have somthin, if you wanna be with me.
71. Bondles - February 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Bob: Nobody is suggesting that nothing comes from nothing. Things come from other things (plus heat). It’s amazing what you can do with enough things and enough heat.
72. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am
It doesn’t matter that the source is put at the end. Unless UCMP specifically gave you permission to republish their material, you are violating their rights. “All materials appearing on the UCMP Web Servers may not be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system without prior written permission of the publisher and in no case for profit.” Fair Use doesn’t reach as far as taking an entire article, sticking Google ads all around it, and republishing it. You’re profiting by stealing other people’s work. What you COULD have done is said “the Berkeley Evolution 101 site has a nice FAQ on Misconceptions about Evolution, here’s a link”, but then that’s just not what this site does, is it? It’s hard to get those Adsense bucks that way.
73. Miss Destiny - February 19th, 2008 at 10:38 am
He’s posting lists that none of us pay to read and he’s profiting from it? As for advertising revenue, I’m fairly certain (correct me if I’m wrong) that goes into maintaining the site.
74. RAMEN - February 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Jamie:
Thank you for #1.
However, it is not ‘both sides’ - as if there are ony two views. As an occasional member of FSM (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), it is important to understand what is the real story’
Please visit http://www.venganza.org/
Pastafarians of the world untie!
(ps: just stirring the pot - no pun intended)
75. Mystern - February 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Bondles and tazx: So here’s a question for you (and this is a legitimate question, I’m not trying to be a smartass or anything), if someone posts something verbatim in wikipedia and leaves a source, then someone else posts the wiki text and cites wiki, what are the copyright rules?
And, as a side note, the site owner does not actually profit from this site.
76. Mathilda - February 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Great list! A few months ago, I was discussing evolution with someone who informed me that she did not believe in evolution because there was no evidence that any form of life had evolved or changed at all, ever. I knew that she was on antibiotics at the time so I asked her if she was taking penicillin. She responded that she was not, she was taking a stronger antibiotic because penicillin was no longer effective against whatever bacteria she had because they had become resistant to the lower strength antibiotics. At which point, of course, I got to suggest that that meant that the bacteria had evolved!
I think that this type of thing is why it is often frustrating to discuss evolution with some people; faith or reasoned rebuttal is one thing - choosing to completely ignore glaring logical inconsistencies in things that you believe is something entirely different.
77. David - February 19th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Teach Planet of the Apes.
http://oregonstate.facebook.co.....2244354827
78. stevenh - February 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
WHEW!
76 comments in 2.5 hours
jamie: I think that this’ll be in the top the most commented real soon!
Great Entry!
79. Sumguy - February 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
As someone who believes the science behind evolution, I find it rather sad that so many here gleefully shower praise on the article for their “#1″ choice. Evolution should be able to stand on it’s own when opposed to creationism (Creationist is actually code for neo-pagan earth worshiper, so give the true Christians a break already!) If a students reasoning abilities are such that he or she is unable to decide which is more plausible, than that is his/her problem to deal with.
It’s like saying, “there is a raging debate between people who all basically believe the same thing in this room, and I’m afraid there is no more room for any other opinions.”
Creationism is, admittedly, idiotic. Let it be proven so in the classrooms and give the whackos one less thing to bitch about. It is still censorship when it comes from the left, you know…
80. Bondles - February 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Mystern: The author of the original piece still holds copyright. You can’t revoke a document’s original copyright by stealing it and reposting it under an open license. The original lifting to Wikipedia is a copyright violation (and is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines.)
81. JMurf - February 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Im not a Bible basher, but I think religion has a place in school. I believe in evolution but I believe every living thing has a soul, not a Christian soul, more of an inner entity that will be passed on to an afterlife when I die. Just my train of thought which I don’t cram down peoples throats like some people do on both sides of the argument. If evolution can’t tell us where we’ve originated than why can’t we use religion as a source of inspiration to find out why?
82. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Bondles; people do not seem to understand the concept of a list,
a list is by definintion a compilation and how would you know if our esteemed leader sent them a little note asking permission?..I some how can’t imagine them refusing….
83. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Ramen:
From a fellow Pastafarian to another, may the Great Flying One bless you with His Noodly Appendage, and may you forever bask in the precious, ice-cold flow of the Heavenly Beer Volcanoes and the company of many beautiful pirate strippers. RAmen.
84. ds5000 - February 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Talking about creation… I just wondered what everyone thought about that old analogy about the watch in the forest written by the theologian William Paley… I think it goes something like… if you find a watch in the forest there has to have been an intelligent creator that created that watch and it didn’t appear by chance… same thing applies to all living creatures… they are too complex to exist by chance, they must have had an intelligent creator… any rebuttals to this analogy?
85. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mystern: Content posted to Wikipedia *must* be copyright free, by policy. Quotations or images can be used within a fair use context, but article content must be original by the editor, or known to be public domain or GFDL licensed. If it’s not, it must be rewritten or removed. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....violations
What would have been valid for Listverse to do here is see the interesting list on the Evo 101 site, REWRITE it using the original as a reference, and republish it.
Is UCMP going to sue LV? Probably not. Is this a big deal? Not really. It it unethical and shoddy journalism? Absolutely. How would the LV publishers feel about a new site, LotsOfLists.com, cutting and pasting entire articles from the LV database? I suspect they wouldn’t be too happy about it.
86. Blogball - February 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Terrific list and great (respectful) comments. The nice thing about this web site is that most of the time there is a civil healthy attitude when debating stuff like this.
Just my 2 cents: I think many times Christians are painted as people with their heads in the sand and not willing to listen to any theory or hard facts about evolution. As goodspeed83 pointed out many Christians do not have a problem with it. My daughter goes to a parochial school and her science text book teaches evolution. Even Pope John Paul II several years ago recognized that evolution is more than just a theory. Article here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....A960958260
I just wanted to point that out because sometimes the hard core evolutionist are the ones that might be a little narrow minded about Christians.
87. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am
ds5000, here is an excellent video that addresses that idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 Essentially, watches are not reproducing organisms, and the components don’t have a natural biochemical affinity for one another. But in the video, a computer simulation of randomly produced clocks with variation over time and selection for the best time keepers produces functional clocks after a few hundred generations.
88. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I fully agree with #1 Jamie, I am an evolutionist who was raised as a creationist (Roman Catholic) and I believe that it is important for all people to learn both ways so that they may form their own opinion.
Just because you are raised a certain way does not mean that is who you are.
89. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am
But Sumguy; thats the entire point of separation of church and state, creationism is not science, it is religion. You start teaching it in the classroom and you legitimatize it as a science. You want to start that discussion in University theology class or maybe highschool sociology, not the science class…
90. Bondles - February 19th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Mom424: I understand what a list is. I also have a very good understanding of academic conduct with respect to citations and sources. Check tazx’s 87 for what JFrater should’ve done.
As for esteemed leader sending a note; were that the case (and had he received an affirmative reply), a note along the lines of “By permission of …” would’ve been appropriate (and it also would’ve been more ethical to be up-front about the fact that it was a verbatim copy).
That being said, given JFrater’s patchy history and Berkeley’s “in no case for profit” policy, I struggle to believe that such permission was obtained.
91. Hellbound Alleee - February 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Either the bible is metaphor or it is not. So which is it?
92. Hellbound Alleee - February 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I don’t need to attack the bible, btw. It does a good enough job on its own. Deuteronomy, for example.
There are not “Two Ways,” or “both ways,” by the way. The idea that there are two things: creationism and evolution is looney-nuts. You try “teaching both” in school and you find yourself understanding what the Pastafarians are trying to get people to understand. There is not one religion any more than there is one mythology. Evolution has nothing to do with those fights, as I was trying to point out to certain Christians trying to equate evolution to their religion.
93. Revolution - February 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am
At my school they didn’t teach evolution OR creationism! I didn’t really think abou it until years later, but that was somehow not a part of the curriculum. I guess my teachers dodged a bullet there!
94. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
ds5000, tazx: I can’t watch the vid because youtube is blocked at my workplace, but I’m assuming its the Blind Watchmaker computer program that was championed by Richard Dawkins. DS5000, I don’t have either the energy or the motivation to go into the rebuttal of the watchmaker argument, when Richard Dawkins (a man infinitely smarter and more well-educated than myself) wrote an entire book on it (”The Blind Watchmaker” same as the computer model.) The wiki article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Watchmaker
It’s kind of a blurb though, and there are better summaries available online. You’d be better off googling “Dawkins Blind Watchmaker,” or just shelling out the money and buying the book itself.
95. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
ds5000:
The analogy is easy to rebut. It is in fact an example of the logical fallacy called “begging the question.”
To begin with, it is fallacious to assume that life’s complexity demands an intelligent designer behind it. No, pocket watches do not evolve from grandfather clocks (something Carl Sagan said once, I believe) but then pocket watches are not equivalent to living things. (In fact living things are far more complex, but that doesn’t matter in the slightest). The evidence is clear that life evolves on its own; nowhere does the evidence suggest that an interfering hand (god’s) has been necessary every step of the way to make evolution happen; indeed, if we insist upon such godly interference, then we must really question god’s wisdom in creating some of the failed species this earth has seen. In our times we’re seeing animals who have over-specialized (cheetahs for instance) who are threatened in part because while well-adapted to their particular small niche, they are terribly ill-suited to adapt to changes in their environment. There are many worse examples than cheetahs. In fact many of these have died out, and we continue to see the extinctions happening. What’s the point, if intelligent design is behind it all? Why bother?
But if god’s hand isn’t in this on a day-to-day basis, then why is his hand even necessary to start it? Again, the evidence clearly points backwards to different stages of diversity and development, until we begin to see simpler and simpler organisms.
As Sagan also used to say, if we insist upon a watchmaker/god that made the universe… then we must ask the question, where does the watchmaker/god *come from*? And if the answer is “he always existed,” then why not simply save a step and assume the universe always existed? The same applies to life.
Yes, men make watches. But the complexity of life is its own creation. If it needs no help from god along the way, why does it need his help to get started?
96. ProgRapture - February 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
You know, I tried to be mature in the end, I apologized, I admitted both sides have logical arguments, and I was hoping my second comment got read. But I have to say, by now I have seen some of the evolutionists make accusations.
“They have loads of ready made spin to counter even the most logical of arguments.”
Excuse me? Calling my religion “ready made spin” IS immature and insulting. Some of my best friends are atheists, and I don’t stomp on their toes because I think they’re wrong.
As for teaching evolution in school, when I went to high school they didn’t teach evolution or creationism. We learned of the different branches of species, but nothing about evolution was mentioned. If you’re going to teach either one, I believe it should be done in college, where not only do you have a choice in what you learn, but by that time you have made up your mind and can hopefully maturely learn the viewpoints and opinions of either side.
97. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Copyright and ethical issues aside, I don’t think Berkeley would matter too much that their excellent article is getting more exposure and erasing some of those myths that might still exist in the minds of some people who don’t regularly visit Berkeley’s website. Not an excuse for plaigirism, of course, but this site is completely harmless, not-for-profit, convenient and educational; I’m a big anti-plaigirism guy myself, but the pros of the format of this site outweigh the cons, and as long as the source is cited and it’s made clear that the ideas and words are not those of the author, I don’t really see a problem with it.
98. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Haha….yeah, what Randall said. I love how this guy is always waiting in the wings and then swoops in like a superhero when he sees an opening and makes us all a little more knowledgable.
99. Bondles - February 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
That may be so, SlickWilly, but it’s not your call, my call, or JFrater’s call to make. Only the author has the right to decide who may use it. He or she may disagree with your analysis, thinking that this list may draw Google hits for “Misconceptions about Evolution” away from the more complete Berkeley site. Or, he or she may just not like this site for personal reasons, or be jealous and self-centred. Which is why you ask before you take.
100. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Another counter to the idea of “life is complex and must be designed” are the numerous examples in nature of how whoever the designer is must be incompetent, insane, or outright malicious. Examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html However, all of these features are explainable through evolution, which allows for organisms that are “good enough to survive”, even if they’re not necessarily elegant or the best design solutions.
101. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I nominate Randall as one of the listverse gods; all knowing, all seeing, and a damn fine wit to boot…
102. Jackie - February 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am
SlickWilly: Haha that’s true. Randall does tend to do that, Randall that was a pretty awesome argument I have to say.
103. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Bondles: Just for the record, if you Google “misconceptions about evolution” Berkeley’s site is #2 on the return. You have to get all the way to page 4 before this site pops up. I don’t think that your Google argument would qualify as valid. Either way, you’re right, it’s ultimately the author’s call, I agree. However, again, nobody is making money off of the site, the original list exists in the public domain and although that doesn’t necessarily make it right, it’s essentially harmless to repost the list at anothet site, so long as the origin of the list is cited. Which it was.
104. JT - February 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I love this list! Although I can’t help thinking that Jamie only put it up in an attempt to initiate a new ‘Most Commented’ list…
Either way, it’s important that we continue to educate people about evolution, especially since something like 40% of America don’t believe in it.
105. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Mom - and when he disagrees with thee he smites thee with a righteous smiting!
Whom should I make the sacrifice out too?
106. Miss Destiny - February 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Yeah I was waiting for Randall to write us all a novel. Brilliantly done though, I must say.
107. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am
bucslim: “….and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger all those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”
Eh?
108. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
ProgRapture: Evolutionary biology is as solid science as atoms, plate tectonics, and astronomy. Remember that Galileo was held under house arrest just 400 years ago, for saying that the Earth orbited the Sun? That evolution contradicts a literally reading of the Bible and the belief that the world is only 6000 years old is not a problem for science, nor should it be a problem for schools and teachers. One is the scientific view supported by evidence, the other is a belief system derived entirely from a book written by a nomadic desert tribe 2500 years ago.
Evolution forms the foundation of modern biology: it is the framework that helps us make sense of all our other discoveries in biology and medicine: bacterial resistance, the relations between species, genetic inheritance, and so on. If students are to be scientifically literate and part of a technologically advanced civilization, they deserve to understand all major areas of science, rather than have them be hidden because they offend a religious minority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
109. Bondles - February 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
SlickWilly: The original is publicly accessible, but it is not in the public domain. Reposting without permission is illegal and unethical, and we’ve already agreed that “harmless” isn’t JFrater’s call to make.
110. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
“the original list exists in the public domain”
I think you might misunderstand what public domain means. It’s a copyrighted work. Things only become public domain after copyright expires or is explicitly released by the author. Publishing something doesn’t place it into the public domain.
111. jfrater - February 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am
This list has now been rewritten completely - it is now derived from (but not a copy of) the Berkeley FAQ.
112. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Slim and bucslim; I get the Pulp fiction quote, and if he looks and acts like bruce he can smite me all he likes with his “righteous tool”
113. Mom424 - February 19th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Sorry I prefer Bruce to sam jackson…..
114. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Kudos to you for doing so Jfrater. That’s commendable on your and LV’s part.
115. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Slick, Mom, Jackie, etc.:
I am humbled and honored.
Remember when presenting sacrifices that I am no fool like that drunken letch Zeus, and I therefore insist on the good stuff… you can keep the bones and fat for soup.
116. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Minor correction: “There are many transitional fossils that have not been preserved, but that is simply because some organisms do not fossilize well or exist in conditions that do not allow for the process of fossilization.” That should probably be forms or species.
117. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“…And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”
Yeah….. I like that.
’bout time I got some respect around here.
Now bring me another glass of nectar and peel me a grape while you’re at it.
118. Jackie - February 19th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I bet there are a lot of people who don’t believe in evolution but get the flu shot every year. HA!
Although I did know someone in undergrad who believed in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. That was pretty interesting…
119. jfrater - February 19th, 2008 at 11:55 am
tazx: thanks - corrected
120. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Mom:
Randall does not look like Bruce (Willis or any other Bruces) but he has at turns been told that he looks like 1) Harrison Ford or 2) Dennis Quaid. And once in college, a girl he was dating described his looks as “Shatner-esque.” It was meant as a compliment. I think.
121. Mystern - February 19th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Dennis Quaid? Really?
122. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Shatner-esque?? I’m trying to picture that in my head and I’m having a hard time!!
I must say though I am not much for Bruce Willis but I do enjoy a good early 80’s Indiana Jones-esque Harrison Ford so if Mom won’t have you, I have a spot all picked out for you in my living room!
123. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Quick question: Do you do the dishes by chance??
124. Adorabelle - February 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Just for the record…and I know I saw a comment about it futher up, but Catholics ARE NOT creationists. I went to a Catholic school, for all of my student career until I reached college,and we were taught evolution in the science class room. In the theology class room we were taught the intelligent design theory, in which there is evolution but a higher being guided it. And then we could decide for ourselves. I always thought the set up was a good one, but its not appropriate for a public school because of the seperation of church and state.
Any way, I don’t know how it is for other Christian schools, but I do know that if it is Catholic school science and religion are kept seperate.
125. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I was once told that I looked like I had swallowed Tobey Maguire. I had a short lived nickname my freshman year of college. “Fat Tobey Maguire.” Unoriginal but effective. (Keep in mind, these were drunk frat boys we’re talking about.)
126. Elana - February 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I just don’t understand why there would be debate over evolution and religion.. Evolution is science, it’s been proven.. Religion was created by humans. The bible was written by humans. Religion was created to form beliefs, a way of having hope and faith that there is more to life than just this. I can understand why people would want to believe there is a heaven, it makes death a lot less frightening. But please stop trying to incorporate your religious beliefs into something proven like Evolution.
127. jfrater - February 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Adorabelle: I can confirm that as well - the Catholic Church does not teach Bible fundamentalism.
128. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Adorabelle: Where did you go to school?? My Roman Catholic high school did not teach evolution except in our social studies class as one of the “beliefs held by other cultures”.
Our Christian Ethics class never once mentioned the intelligent design class. My Biology teacher conveniently ignored evolutionary debate. I wonder to this day how he could call himself a Biology teacher.
129. boot13 - February 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Evolution is a fact, not a theory - just like gravity. Natural selection is a theory that explains how evolution probably works; there are others. Part of the problem is that one usually sees evolution spelled out as “The theory of evolution by natural selection” - which makes it sound like evolution is a theory, when in fact it’s natural selection that is the theory.
130. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Jamie: We were not taught fundamentalism we just were not advised of all sides.
131. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
ProgRapture:
“If you’re going to teach either one, I believe it should be done in college, where not only do you have a choice in what you learn, but by that time you have made up your mind and can hopefully maturely learn the viewpoints and opinions of either side.”
I’m afraid I don’t agree in the slightest.
The mistake you and others make on this point is that you assume Evolution and religion are somehow co-equal (but at odds) and that Evolution is in some way equivalent to a “philosophy” (as opposed to theology). In fact Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and it is not a “philosophy” at all. Evolution is science, pure and simple. Science is its own self-correcting entity based on strict rules of order and empirical evidence. It shouldn’t cause one to question one’s religious or spiritual beliefs. If science causes us to doubt religion, then there is something wrong with the way we perceive religion, not the other way around.
It’s like saying that electricity, having no place in the Bible (it isn’t mentioned or supposed to exist) is therefore anti-religion and shouldn’t be taught in schools, as we should “choose” whether to believe in it or not. Rubbish.
Similarly, Evolution is the basis of modern biology…. and that’s ALL it is. It makes no comment on god or faith or any other spiritual matter. It’s only when people insist upon literal interpretations of scripture–and are hostile to anything that contradicts such an interpretation–that they run into trouble. We then hear talk such as yours that Evolution should be a “choice” made by adults—but in fact this is a disguised way of saying that science itself should be made a “choice”—that it should be left out of our societal dialogue until people *want* to hear it or encounter it. Such a notion is clearly ridiculous and anti-civilized. It decides to place the darkness of magic, superstition and religion on a higher plane than knowledge, awareness, and understanding. This is not what our civilization (or any successful civilization) is built upon. In fact, when societies and civilizations allow themselves to become obsessed with superstition over rationality, they fail and fall.
*God* is the possession of the individual; if you believe in him then nothing should endanger your faith. *Religion* on the other hand is an institution like all human institutions, and no more valid than science… and one could argue a good deal LESS valid.
132. Daves_Kicking_Game - February 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Is this one of the lists just to see how many comments you can get?
133. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Shatner-esque? Good god I hope you don’t start singing.
Who better to lead us through the Squires of Gothos than a dude who’s a clone for TJ Hooker.
And jeez-um crow stop making an ass out of yourself by assuring us that the whole karate team will be able to get on the plane.
WHY?!?!? BECAUSE I’VE GOT TO MISTER!!
134. ProgRapture - February 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I wouldn’t call the largest religion in the world a minority. I don’t know where you went to school at, but where I’m from Christians are definitely NOT the minority. I even admitted I believe in evolution, but I also said that I believe it was God’s will for it to happen. But not even any atheist or pro-evolution group have I ever seen so many people who proclaim insulting ideas about Christianity. Evolution is a science, Christianity is a way of life, a set of morals, a charitable community, and the reason America was founded in the first place! There may be extremist Christians who go around claiming you will go to Hell if you do one thing or the other, but I’m disappointed that so many atheists essentially stoop to that level.
“Religion was created by humans. The bible was written by humans.”
There was no need to say that other than to belittle Christians.
“One is the scientific view supported by evidence, the other is a belief system derived entirely from a book written by a nomadic desert tribe 2500 years ago.”
Once again, you fail to realize that most of the Bible is to be taken in a metaphorical sense, that the first 7 days of Genesis essentially stood for the first millions of years of Earth’s creation. And calling everything that America was founded on as nothing more than something made up by desert nomads is terribly insulting. What you may call the blunt truth seems to me as nothing more than wording something to be as harsh and insulting as possible.
I’ve been following the progress of The List Universe essentially from the beginning, and I always thought the readers to be open minded and friendly. I don’t know if this list brought out the worst in everyone, but I’m really disappointed by how close minded some people are.
135. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
SocialButterfly:
I find myself nonplussed and my ego blooming like the first daffodil in April. Virtual female bulletin-boarders virtually commenting on my virtual desirability…. on the heels of being commended for my virtual intellectual contributions. What a day.
In fact I *do* do dishes… far from my favorite household chore, but I’m pleased to wade in if there is sufficient cause and if my female partner will get up off her ass and pitch in around the house too. I’m the neat and tidy sort but not obsessively so. I just don’t like to be the only one pulling his weight, if you know what I mean.
On the other hand, if she’s a particularly good sport and deliciously appreciative, I can be enticed to do all sorts of chores, though I never allow it to become a quid-pro-quo.
As for that spot in your living room… well I suppose that depends on whether “Shatner-esque” describes YOUR looks as well.
136. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
bucslim:
Shatner is a funny bastard, that’s all I can say.
137. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
buclism: I always thought that was Ace Ventura!! Awesome.
My favourite is Shatners version of Rocket Man.
138. CK - February 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I think it’s funny that perhaps half the comments on this list have nothing to do with evolution and more to do with Star Trek, plagarism, etc.
Anyway, I think most Christians believe in some sort of evolution. I personally believe in God but I also believe that we all evolved to some degree. I don’t quite understand everything but I think God and science could work together to some extent. I also don’t think Creationism should be taught in schools because that is a personal, religious belief and science is universal.
However, I don’t think it was very nice for some of you guys to taunt Creationists/Christians with your ready stance. Everyone has an opinion and I don’t think it fair to call it “rabble-rousing”; you’re just asking to start arguments there. Since I think a lot of Christians do believe in evolution to some degree, this thread is not going to get quite the same debate that other lists do. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong though, we just need 1,000 more comments to compete!
139. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
SocialButterfly - Ace imitating James T. Kirk
140. Adorabelle - February 19th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
SocialButterfly: I went to school in Delaware(yes it really does exist) St. Mark’s High School. I don’t think we went really indepth on the subject of evolution, but we definately talked about it objectively in Biology. I also know we talked about the Big Bang Theory objectively in physics class.
I think that although most of the people that taught at my school were religious(not every one was Catholic) they were scholars first and foremost and wanted to present to us the newest/most relevant information they had access to in their chosen feilds.
141. ProgRapture - February 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Randall- I worded what I meant wrong. I don’t think evolution should NOT be taught, in fact, I think it should. I just don’t think that it should be taught AS a replacement for religion. For the most part, that’s never a problem, but I have had college professors who blatantly proclaim how evolution is true, and religion is not. For a philosophy class, that’s fine, for a biology class, it’s not. Also, at least for me, it doesn’t cause me to question my religion. Like I said, I can believe in both.
I also agree that for a civilization to succeed, it should not be based purely on superstition over rationality. But I’m also saying that hypothetically if you forbid religion in favor of evolution, you essentially have taken away one of the first and famous rights of mankind.
Thanks for being civilized about this, I’ve been dealing with a lot of shit recently, and if you haven’t guessed, I’m not too patient with people who word things just to be hurtful.
142. jfrater - February 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The Big Bang theory was formulated by a Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître.
143. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Randall: Well.. pleasantly surprised is my first reaction to your post. While I was aware of your verbal accoutrements (as they say) I am impressed nonetheless.
Now while daffodils are my favourite flower, I wish you no harm with your ego and wish that you do not need to turn sideways in order to enter and exit a room.
In regard to your needing enticement… I can only say that my living room boasts the finest collection of DVD’s and a particularily comfortable couch(I have references if necessary).
My looks I believe would not unfortunately be described as “Shatner-esque” because as good looking as he is I am afraid that I would not want to be described as the manliest of men.
144. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
ProgRapture:
You’re taking all this way too personally. The fact is that we have been dealing with an assault on science from Christian quarters on account of Evolution for decades now–over a century in fact–but in particularly odious ways over the last 20-30 years. So it’s not surprising that people who detest that kind of fundamentalist ignorance are indignant about it and fed up. I know I am. Great, you’re a rational Christian. I appreciate that, we all do. But realize how much damage the vocal minority of Christianity, in the form of fundamentalists, has done to the reputation of Christians in general. And if you’re truly a Christian, forgive people for being defensive about having to cope with these bigoted creationist schmucks.
I agree entirely that the Bible should be read metaphorically–but surely you must realize that there is a large and highly vocal minority out there who don’t agree and insist that anything that contradicts their literal interpretation is to be damned. It shouldn’t surprise you, therefore, to find yourself encountering hostility from those who don’t wish to be thus dictated to.
Lastly, America was NOT solely founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, Prog. It has its roots in other traditions as well–most importantly in the democratic and individualistic, rule-of-law mindset of the Greeks and Romans.
145. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
ProgRapture: those portion of Christians that interpret the Bible literally and believe in direct creation by God are a clear minority. The majority of Christians worldwide, and most mainstream Christian denominations, all accept the scientific account of the history of life on Earth. Evolution and belief in God aren’t mutually exclusive; but fundamentalist views, including that the Earth and all life were created in the last few thousand years, as believed by a subset of American Christians, are directly contradicted by the scientific evidence.
I would dispute the idea that Christianity is “the reason America was founded in the first place”. Some early settlers were puritans seeking to exercise their religion without state interference, but several of the founding fathers were non-Christian Deists. America was founded on Enlightenment age philosophies and values including individual freedom, Natural Rights as propounded by Locke, and a constitutionally limited form of Republican government. There’s no mention of God in the constitution, and the only mention of religion is there to limit the government’s entanglement with it.
The Old Testament of the bible is a collection of myths, legends, and oral traditions of a pre-scientific bronze-age group, many of which were derived from earlier, neighboring cultures. For example, the story of Noah is clearly based on the Babylonian epic of the Enuma Elish. It offers insight into their history and culture, but is not an authoritative reference for either science or history.
Nothing I’ve said is intended to offend; if you *are* offended, then I surmise it’s because you view anything that contradicts your existing views as being offensive. No set of beliefs should be immune to being question or examined.
146. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
buclism:: AHH, the world makes sense again!
Adorabelle: I think that perhaps this was the problem, the teachers at my schools were very religious(not a fishless minivan among them) and that probably led to their unfortunate classes.
I was not entirely tainted though, I escaped the confines of religion and merrily lept my way into sin in my graduating year.
147. bucslim - February 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I’ve followed this thread most of the day, basically dismissing my deadlines at work, just so I can toss out a few lines of prose that make myself, and if I’m lucky, others chuckle at something that will probably be debated ad nauseum.
I’ve had my own personal run ins with what I believe is the Judeo/Christian God. I take that stuff pretty seriously. And I also recognize other people’s right to believe whatever they want to to make it through the day. I don’t take their posts as a personal attack, just as I also recognize I won’t convince anyone of my personal take on the supernatural.
Did this stuff evolve out of Chaos’ chicken boullion? Did God want it that way? How does it all end? I don’t really know. I just have faith. And faith ain’t something you can put in a test tube and swirl over a bunsen burner. I don’t think it’s superstition or magic or that I’m a stupid hick in need of a crutch.
All I can tell you is what comes out of my own personal background. Some people will snicker and others will nod in agreement. I just don’t think I can slap somebody around with a few Bible verses. That’s what pains me in this debate.
148. Andrea Carlena - February 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I say we put this theory to rest! It’s unsettling to see people go grapenuts crazy over a theory that everyone was a monkey. Figuratively speaking, of course. No need for ME to spark controversy.
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
149. lightningclash - February 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
wow, Jfrater I hope you never stop making these awesome lists available to us. I used to go to a catholic high school and my science teacher refused to teach creationism and she got hounded not by the board of education but by the PTA. I think it’s wrong that parents can keep their children from learning the well-researched theory of evolution and instead teach the ludicrous creation theory (which by the way was penned up by someone who had NO education. period. And also claims a senior citizen built an ark and rounded up two of every animal.) My argument for “why don’t monkeys still evolve today” is “why isn’t God still appearing as burning bushes today?”. Anyways, my science teacher still practiced her right to educate her students without interference from religious nuts. The reason why humans aren’t still evolving is that we don’t change to accommodate our surroundings, we change our surroundings to better accommodate us. Example, instead of growing a coat of fur to survive the cold, we hide in houses with the heat turned up. Animals can’t exactly due that, that’s why they are constantly evolving.
150. Yodz - February 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Mom424 at #43. I’m curious as to the historical evidence of Jesus’ existence. While I myself believe he existed, there is scant evidence outside of the Bible on this issue. In fact, my understanding is that the only non-Gospel related information is a one line comment from the 1st century historian Flavius. The veracity of Flavius’ writings are seriously in question based upon comparing them to the archeological evidence from that period. Again, I’m just curious.
Also, it seems to me that some/many creationists don’t give God enough credit. This appears to be based upon their idea that we as humans are the ultimate intended result. Perhaps we are created in the image of God, but we’re still a work in progress yet to realize our potential. Perhaps God decided that, rather than creating and being done with it, he’d/she’d/it would enjoy watching us develop, much as I enjoy watching my children move through the various stages of their development. This life would certainly be less joyful if we were fully matured physically, mentally and otherwise when we came out of the womb.
Regardless, anyone who is certain that they know what God wanted, wants, thought or is thinking had better take a better look at their theology. I’m not aware of any religious text that says we humans are even capable of understanding the wonder of Gods power. In fact, I believe they say quite the opposite.
151. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
ProgRapture:
“Religion was created by humans. The bible was written by humans.”
I don’t see what is insulting about this. Both parts of this statement is true. As intelligent as you seem, you must agree. “Religion” *was* created by humans; God didn’t come out of the sky and build up this massive, organized spiritual institution….it was all the work of humans. The “spirituality” is from God. The bible was also written by mere mortals. God may have been “talking through them” but it was from their flesh-and-blood fingers that the original holy text was penned.
“One is the scientific view supported by evidence, the other is a belief system derived entirely from a book written by a nomadic desert tribe 2500 years ago.”
I’m not sure who posted this statement, and I’m wont to point fingers. You shouldn’t let this get under your skin. First of all, either the poster is incredibly uninformed, as the first parts of the New Testament wern’t written until about 60-80 c.e. (in which case, why care what dumb people think?) or secondly, they are referring to the Old Testament, which, last I checked, is essentially the Torah and the *jewish* holy script, not the *christian* holy script. In which case, he is insulting Jews and not Christians.
You’re argument about “everything that America was based on” is essentially calling someone unpatriotic for questioning the credibility of a book. I find this a bit laughable, not to be insulting. It’s a bit like the “if you don’t support the War in Iraq, you are un-American!” You can see the problem here. (At least, I hope you can.) Also, yes, yes, we know the Bible is to be taken metaphorically. Those LVers who do believe in God and read the bible know that. The rest of us don’t believe in God or choose not to say anything (seeing as how last time a Young Earth creationist showed up in the ranks they were quickly laughed out the door.) The point is, we *all* know the bible is metaphorical, but for some reason you keep pointing out how somehow we fail to see it and that somehow supports your argument (if you even made one?).
I think you are probably just looking for a reason to be upset at atheists in general, maybe because you had a couple of bad experiences, and are jumping into these “righteous” missives at the drop of a hat. Just chill, read the convo, interject if you have something constructive to add (including putting into check those asshole giving the rest of us atheists a bad name), just do so in a way that won’t alienate you from the rest of the community.
152. tazx - February 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“I have had college professors who blatantly proclaim how evolution is true, and religion is not.”
I would consider that quite inappropriate, and that sort of behavior should be brought to other members of the faculty.
“I’m also saying that hypothetically if you forbid religion in favor of evolution, you essentially have taken away one of the first and famous rights of mankind.”
Teaching evolution in classrooms doesn’t deny anyone their religious rights. Students are free to view it skeptically, or compartmentalize it as “stuff scientists believe”, and while they should understand it, they’re not necessarily forced to accept it.
Evolution is science, creation is mythology. One belongs in science classrooms, one does not.
A comparative religions course that explores the creation myths of multiple cultures: say the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Indian, the Native-American, the Greco-Roman and so on wouldn’t violate anyone’s religious rights or violate church-state separation. But trying to introduce creationism into high-school classrooms in the guise of “Intelligent Design” is a clear agenda to promote religious belief at the expense of accurate scientific education, and why those efforts must be resisted, both in the arena of public opinion and in the courts.
153. Andrea Carlena - February 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Oh I’m just going to take a seat and watch as the drama unfolds. Have fun you guys!!! Call me if you need me.
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
154. lightningclash - February 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
www.zeitgeistmovie.com watch this, it’ll blow your mind. the first half uses historical fact to prove that Jesus was not an actual person, the second half goes into the 9/11 conspiracy (which we’ve all heard a thousand times) BUT the first part is interesting nonetheless
155. ProgRapture - February 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I think it’s too late. I’ve had a shitty day and I’ve said too much. I wanted to sound rational, but now I just sound like an accusing asshole. Tone isn’t conveyed well over the internet. I actually agreed with a lot of stuff said, I just didn’t agree with the connotation. I’m sorry. I’m done now.
156. SocialButterfly - February 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Slick Willy: HERE HERE!!! *pounds fist on table enthusiastically*
Very well written I have a quick question for you though; who was the “last young Earth creationist” and where did they make their appearance?
This posts in this list are getting good Jamie, I think it might be appearing on the most popular lists soon.
157. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Yodz:
You’re quite correct, there is scant evidence of Jesus’ existence outside of the bible… Josephus (Flavius was his Romanic add-on) mentions someone who is supposed to be Jesus (it’s kinda hard to imagine who else Josephus would be talking about) and that’s about it. But this is hardly a major point–the fact is that aside from Kings and Emperors and other bigshots (in this context we discount Jesus, who was not a bigshot on the political scene and only gained his major rep *after* his death) we don’t have real evidence of the existence of *anyone* from ancient times, outside of peculiar texts here and there. (Plato for instance, we know of from his own books, but there is little evidence outside of these that he actually lived).
However, it would be very hard to imagine anyone being able to make up such a character–be it Plato or, even more so, Jesus–out of whole cloth. In only a few decades after Jesus’ passing from this mortal coil, we have people writing about his life in detail and clearly talking as though he was a real person. While the evidential support for all these texts varies, in *aggregate* they must be taken seriously and as very good reason to believe that he was a genuine individual. It would simply be beyond the pale to imagine such a person being invented entirely, when contradicting stories (denying his existence) surely would have arisen to challenge the deception. Yet no such contradicting stories are known and are not even mentioned. Surely people only a short while after he lived accepted, as a general rule, his existence—and therefore we are safe to assume he was a real person.
158. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
SocialButterfly:
“In regard to your needing enticement… I can only say that my living room boasts the finest collection of DVD’s and a particularily comfortable couch(I have references if necessary).”
Hmmm…. I was thinking of *other* enticements, if you know what I mean… though a comfy couch is a good start…
And cagey re: your looks huh?
But I grant you, there is no female equivalent of Shatner-esque, I suppose…
159. Andrea Carlena - February 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
It’s ok ProgRapture, we still accept you.
-Andrea Carlena Beauman
160. Csimmons - February 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
OH MY GOD JAMIE! You may have just caused the biblical tales list all over again! but still, i love the list, i always love to argue about evolution!
161. Randall - February 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
ProgRapture:
Don’t beat yourself up. You’re opinions are welcome and we thrive, here, on bickering and argument.
Settle yourself and take a deep breath and feel the love.
162. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
ProgRapture: You are welcome here. Don’t feel like we are ganging up on you to try to drive you away. It’s just the LV is notoriously composed of mostly well-educated, intelligent people who are quick to point out others’ intellectual follies. I’m sorry you’ve had a shitty day. How about getting some rest and coming back to the roundtable?
SocialButterfly: Oy….that’s a challenge. I would have to look back at the multitude of lists this site has and pick through the comments to find the person. I distinctly remember a Y.E.C. being vocal about his/her beliefs and getting the proverbial smackdown. Perhaps it’s hidden in the 1000+ comments of the biblical stories list….maybe you’d like to help me look?
163. SlickWilly - February 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Randall, Yodz: I’m currently reading a great book called “Jesus for the Non-religious” by John Shelby Spong. It addresses the logical reasons for which the person Jesus must have existed, as well as strips him of the mythology that the bible surrounds him in by examining the nature of the four gospels (including the socio-political context in which the books were written) and drawing parallels between the Jesus mythos and that of Moses and Joshua of the old testament. If either of you get a chance, I would highly recommend picking it up.
164. ProgRapture - February 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Randall-You are probably one of the few people on here who have the connotation to not come off as insulting on here. Thank you.
Otherwise, as open minded as I try to be, it’s not the pro-evolutionists on here that get to me, it’s the people who went from talking about a list on evolution to essentially listing off reasons that “Christianity/religion in general is made up for making yourself feel better”. There’s just too many people doing that.
You mentioned that “young Earth Creationist” who was ran off? Maybe it’s because our ideas aren’t welcome here. Too many anti-creationists just looking for a place to talk about how dumb religion is.
For as long as I’ve been here, I’ve never seen so much disregard for people’s feelings. Here’s another young Earth Creationist you won’t be seeing again.
JFrater, I loved your site, but I can’t take this, my opinions aren’t welcome here.
165. Andrea Carlena - February 19th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Prog, everyone’s opinions are wanted. Yours included.
Willy!! I read 4 pages of that book!!
-Andrea Carlena Beauman