Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Discuss   (Up to OJB's Religion and Science Page)

Philosophical Objections to Evolution

On this page I discuss the philosophical objections I have heard which people use to try to discredit the theory of evolution. I'm not considering the scientific and factual evidence for evolution here, just the cultural, philosophical, and religious points. My main objective is to support what is true according to logical and empirical criteria, because these methods of investigation have been shown to work.

Is Evolution Just a Theory?

How many times have I heard this one? This seems to be a favourite of evolution deniers, possibly because its just so easy. By labelling evolution just a theory its possible to ignore everything else, no matter how convincing. The problem is that people don't appreciate what a theory actually is in the scientific sense.

In the generic sense a theory is just a loose idea, often based on opinion and little else. People use this definition all the time in general speech. But in the scientific sense a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon which is supported by evidence and accepted by a significant portion of experts in that area (see note 1). By this second definition evolution is still a theory but not just a theory.

Another problem is that people confuse the observed fact of evolution occurring and the various theories which explain how evolution happens. We know that evolution has happened in the sense that living things have changed over time (see note 2). The explanation for this is that various processes, most importantly natural selection, cause this change over long time periods. The fact of evolution happening isn't disputed. The mechanisms are well understood already, but are still being refined.

So you can see that anyone who uses the defense that "evolution is just a theory" is either very ignorant or has chosen to repeat the evolution deniers favourite phrase without really thinking about what it really means.

Is Evolution Science?

Science is something which is difficult to describe, but a good definition I got from my dictionary is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". By this definition evolution is clearly science, but creationism isn't (it isn't systematic, it doesn't use observation or experiment, maybe it isn't even intellectual).

Another characteristic of science which was introduced by philosopher Karl Popper (see note 3) is that scientific theories should be falsifiable. In other words it should be possible to prove a theory wrong. Evolution could be proved wrong. If we found biochemical or physical structures which didn't fit with the theoretical process of change, or if we found fossils out of place, etc, evolution would at least need to be modified, if not abandoned. But this hasn't happened.

Creationism, on the other hand, can't really be falsified because any time evidence is shown which contradicts it then some new supernatural explanation can be invented to explain it. For example, we find dinosaur fossils but these are just explained as the result of the flood (which we know didn't happen).

So not only is evolution science, but the supernatural alternatives aren't.

Is Evolution a Religion?

Some creationists claim that evolution supporters have faith in their theory in the same way that religious people have faith (see note 4). They also label prominent evolution supporters, such as Richard Dawkins, as "high priests of evolution" and other religiously inspired terms. And they make claims such as "evolutionists pray at the temple of Darwin". This is an attempt to bring evolution down to the same level as creationism, making it easier to fight, but its just not true.

There are many ways to define religion, but in the normal sense there are two important factors: first, there is some supernatural aspect, usually a god or gods; and second, there is a canon or dogma which is accepted as the truth on faith. Neither of these apply to evolution. Evolution sees no need for the supernatural because everything can be explained through natural processes. And science is specifically non-dogmatic, possibly apart from the requirement to stick to the rules of empiricism and logic, and even these would be open to question in extreme situations (see note 5 and 6).

Evolutionists don't need to attend church services where their emotions are manipulated to reinforce traditional beliefs. And they don't need to accept the words of any book as true without question. Any scientist who disproved evolution would be hailed as the greatest hero of biology for many years. It would revolutionise science, so who wouldn't want to look for weaknesses in evolution?

Is Evolution a Tautology?

The claim has been made that evolution is a tautology in that its definition is circular. A common way of stating this is that evolution is survival of the fittest but survival of the fittest is the result of evolution.

This is an over-simplification of what evolution is. The phrase "survival of the fittest" is rarely used now, and more complex interactions between individual, species, and the environment, are used instead. But the criticism still remains to some extent.

But evolution is far more than just a statement about the survival of the fittest. Its an explanation of how life changes, the mechanisms involved, and a history of how this has already happened on Earth. Reducing it to a simple phrase is a misleading and naive simplification of the truth.

Does Evolution Contradict Occam's Razor?

Creationists often like to invoke one of science's favourite principles: Occam's Razor (see note 7), in defense of their beliefs. This is usually stated as "the simplest explanation is the best". In that case saying "god did it" is far simpler than complex evolutionary theories.

There are two problems with this. First, Occam's Razor doesn't really state that simpler is better, instead it says that we should make the minimum number of arbitrary assumptions, and contradict as few established principles as possible. The supernatural requires many arbitrary assumptions and breaks most existing theories. Second, it is only a guide, not an absolute rule, and truth is even more important than simplicity!

Should Science (including Evolution) Study the Supernatural World?

Many evolution deniers claim that science is blind to the truth because it fails to consider possibilities in the realm of the supernatural. Here's how I answer this implied criticism. By the way, when I talk about the supernatural here, I include the religious definitions of concepts such as the soul, spirituality, etc.

First, does the supernatural world affect the real (natural) world. Most people would say "yes". In that case the supernatural has a natural effect which science can study, thereby also examining supernaturalism in a consistent way. If the answer is "no" and the claim is that there is no interaction between the natural and supernatural worlds we have to conclude that the supernatural world practically doesn't exist, because if it can have no influence on the real world in what way does it exist?

Some believers in the supernatural produce the rather weak excuse that there is an interaction but it refuses to be studied by science. For example, in an experimental situation prayer always fails, but it works if no one is studying it. I can't prove that is untrue, but following that logic (or lack of) it would be possible to believe in the existence of anything!

Can Science (including Evolution) Answer the Big Questions?

Some people prefer to think that there is something beyond science which it can't answer. For example: Why are we here? What caused the Universe? Is God good? In some ways they are right, because often there is no answer to a question when the question itself is sufficiently imprecise. Also, some questions imply a non scientific answer in the way they are phrased.

For example, expecting science to answer the question "is God good" is ridiculous because science states that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore the question is inquiring about a non-existent entity. And answering "why are we here" implies there is a reason. Maybe there isn't.

This isn't a weakness of science. By requiring that questions have a certain amount of structure and internal consistency we can ensure that we don't try to find an answer to a meaningless question.

So science can answer the big questions, but they aren't the same big questions that religion and philosophy might ask. For example a big question in science might be: what theory can be used to combine the current theories of quantum mechanics and relativity? Asking big questions about the nature of god, without first proving god exists or establishing a way to test the truth, is pointless.

Is Evolution Compatible with Religion?

This question can only be answered if we have a precise definition of which religious beliefs we are considering. For example, anyone who thinks science and a literal interpretation of Genesis are compatible is really just fooling themselves. If someone is happy to change Genesis around, or to say it is just a symbolic or figurative story, then it can fit in with anything, but it also loses any real meaning it might have as well.

A common way to make evolution and religion compatible is to indulge in the "god of the gaps" strategy. This states that science is right about the things it has discovered so far, but that there is still room for god somewhere in the gaps that science hasn't looked in yet. For example, it could be conceded that evolution does happen but that god oversees the process for some reason.

The problem is that, if god is overseeing evolution he's doing a lousy job because the vast majority of his "evolutionary experiments" have been failures. Another problem is that as science advances the gaps get smaller. Does this mean that there is less need for god? And eventually all the gaps might be gone, then where's god?

Is Evolution Only Responsible for Small Changes?

Many religious people who can't deny the evidence for evolution resort to the idea that evolution is only responsible for the small changes in life, and not the major ones, such as the development of new species. Presumably these are controlled by god, or some other supernatural process (often unspecified). This is a favourite trick employed by Intelligent Design (see note 8), an updated version of Creationism which has been in the news a lot over the last year (as of February 2007).

Unfortunately (for its supporters), this idea doesn't stand up to much scrutiny (see note 9). For a start, micro-evolution (small changes which don't lead to new species) are caused by the same processes as macro-evolution (changes which cause new species, and higher classifications). The macro-evolution just takes a bit longer. Why should evolution cause small changes and then stop for no reason before major changes happen?

The other problem is that the classification system we have doesn't really have a lot of basis in reality. There is no perfect definition for a species, for example. Variation is continuous, and to a large extent the concept of a species is just a convenience more than a scientific truth. Therefore what meaning is there in the statement that evolution leads to small changes but not to new species if species don't really exist?

We also see extensive evidence for transitional fossils (sometimes inaccurately referred to as "missing links") which do indicate evolutionary processes cause the formation of new species and higher classifications.

Is Evolution Random?

A common comment about evolution is that the complexity of life cannot have arisen solely through random processes. The comparison is often made of a 747 aircraft spontaneously assembling itself from a junk yard. It just doesn't seem possible to many people. This is the classic fallacious argument from personal incredulity. If something seems unlikely from a person's superficial personal perspective then it must be untrue. Well, nature just doesn't work that way. There are many other things which sound even more unlikely but are true: quantum theory and relativity, for example.

The other fallacious part of this argument is that its a straw-man anyway. Evolutionist don't claim the process is totally random. Seemingly random changes through mutation are a large part of the initial source of variation, but the selection mechanism of natural selection is anything but random. So evolution isn't random, although random changes are a part of the process.

To return to the analogy of the 747. Imagine there is a process which randomly puts parts together, then takes the result and throws away the bits that don't work and keeps the bits that do. Then run this process in parallel millions of times simultaneously for billions of years. Computer modelling indicates it would be impossible for a 747 not be the outcome, assuming the 747 had some advantage over other structures. In fact, the process would probably make something a lot better!

Is Evolution Goal Oriented?

In the section where I discussed whether evolution was random I suggested that a process of selection would always produce a complex outcome. It sounds like evolution is striving towards a goal of complexity or perfection. Is it really a teleological process?

Well yes and no. Complexity isn't a necessary outcome. Many "simple" species have stopped evolving because they can survive fine the way they are. And perfection is a subjective idea. The idea that humans are the end point of evolution isn't true. We are one end point, but every other species is another valid endpoint. From an evolutionary perspective humans aren't any "more" or "better" evolved than any other living thing.

So you could think of survival as the goal of evolution but it would be a mistake to go any further than that and say that intelligence, complexity, etc, are goals. Of course, because there is no higher goal there is no need for any supernatural supervision of the process.

Is Evolution Reductionist?

Reductionism is a philosophy which states that complex systems are simply the sum of their simpler parts (see note 10). In biology this would mean that living things are just a series of systems, which are made of organs, which are made from cells, which are made from molecules, etc, and that all observed phenomena and characteristics can be explained by examining the simple underlying systems.

For anyone who wants to believe that there is more (for example, a soul) to a living thing (especially a human) than its biology this is not a particularly acceptable idea. But, whether an idea is attractive or not, doesn't have any influence on whether it is true or not. Many people would like to think the Earth is the center of the Universe, but it isn't. We shouldn't confuse wishful thinking with truth.

The other factor to be considered here is that reductionism doesn't preclude the possibility of accepting the beauty and wonder of things. I enjoy the beauty and grandeur of nature (for example the awesome photos of galaxies from the Hubble Space Telescope) as much as anybody even though I know we're just looking at atoms!

Is Evolution Amoral?

Science should be morally neutral. Its purpose is to discover the truth, not make moral judgements. If science is used for immoral purposes that is unfortunate, but it shouldn't stop it from pursuing the truth, even if the truth is distasteful.

Morality has no external source when supernaturalism is discarded, but that doesn't make it any less real. Studies of many different cultures indicate a general trend for humans to believe in similar principles of morality, so morality can stem from humanities strong social sense. In fact morality is logically the product of evolution. Anyone who doesn't have a strong moral sense will not survive well in a social organisation with other people. So it seems we have evolution to thank for morality, and not god!

The notion that evolution encourages the survival of the fittest and so discourages philanthropic behaviour doesn't necessarily follow. As I have already mentioned, the idea of survival of the fittest is somewhat outdated. We now realise that evolution is more complex on that and also works through multiple environmental and social interactions. So anyone who claims the Nazis used evolution as an excuse for genocide isn't really being honest. Or maybe the Nazis weren't being honest, because the idea is totally invalid.

In fact, it seems to me that its the religious people who are immoral, not the atheists, because basing your morality on a church's dogma is anything but moral. I do agree that religions do have some positive messages, but its the dogmatic beliefs that go with them that worry me. Also, religions don't have a monopoly on positive ideas - many philosophies and non-religious beliefs are equally positive.

Does Evolution Lead to Lack of Meaning in Life?

People often wonder what the meaning of life is. In the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Universe the answer is 42 (sorry for the nerdy reference there) but it is then realised that no one really knows what the question is. This humorous reference makes the point that trying to get answers to badly defined questions is a waste of time.

Atheists can't rely on religion to provide a meaning, so they are forced into looking elsewhere. In my opinion its up to the individual to find their own meaning. Here are a few suggestions: do your best to help your friends and family; be creative; discover or produce something that improves human civilisation; etc. Surely an intelligent adult can accept these goals without having to resort to childish myths and a morality based on what a church wants you to do.

Conclusion

None of the philosophical objections to evolution stand up to much scrutiny. The conclusions of science make most religion obsolete, but believers find it hard to change their world view regardless of how much contrary evidence exists.

Notes on Sources

I've used many sources in compiling this document, including web sites, University study of biology, and several excellent podcasts, especially Evolution 101. Here's a selection of sources for further information.

1. What is a theory? A definition at Wikipedia
2. Simple definition of evolution at How Stuff Works
3. Entry for Karl Popper at Wikipedia
4. Is evolution religion? A religious view at Pathlights
5. Is evolution religion? From Atheism Web Site
6. Is evolution religion? From Evo Wiki
7. Occam's razor discussed at Wikipedia
8. Intelligent Design from Wikipedia
9. Does evolution cause macro-evolution, at Talk Origins
10. What is reductionism? Definitions from Answers

Discussion

Comment by GD on 2007-10-03 at 19:22:23: A very good summary of the subject which seems to deal with most (maybe all) of the objections people have with evolution. Well done.

Comment by SM on 2015-10-12 at 09:46:10: Re: "Does Evolution Contradict Occam's Razor?", didn't Ockham's principle of parsimony include the Bible ("Sacred Scriptures") as one of the necessary authorities in positing entities?

Comment by SM on 2015-10-12 at 10:55:47: "Morality has no external source when supernaturalism is discarded" - How do you produce the moral "ought" from the naturalistic "is"? Social conventions of behaviour cannot be the preconditions for normative moral standards. How can what one particular social group perceives as being moral, be normative for those outside of the group, especially if morality is still evolving? As a society, was what Nazi Germany deemed ethical treatment of the Jews, immoral in any objective sense? "Anyone who...

Comment by SM on 2015-10-12 at 16:11:50: "Evolution sees no need for the supernatural because everything can be explained through natural processes" - Can the principle that, "...everything can be explained through natural processes", be discarded from evolution, without the evolutionary paradigm being affected?

Comment by SM on 2015-10-14 at 09:50:02: "...expecting science to answer the question "is God good" is ridiculous because science states that the supernatural doesn't exist" - Isn't it ridiculous to allow science to make ontological statements, such as, "the supernatural doesn't exist", while not expecting it to answer ontological questions?

Comment by OJB on 2015-11-01 at 19:56:36: In answer to SM's comments... 1. I think the modern interpretation of Occam's Razor excludes any special pleading associated with giving Christianity a "free pass". That was included in the original formulation simply because the author was a Christian. 2. I think that morality is based on social norms which are in turn based on the beliefs of the majority of sane, normal people. I know this is a bit imprecise but it's really the best we can do for this type of philosophical issue. Note th...

Comment by SM on 2015-11-03 at 12:23:04: "I think that morality is based on social norms which are in turn based on the beliefs of the majority of sane, normal people." By what normative (moral) standard do you declare the majority, "sane, normal"?

Comment by OJB on 2015-11-03 at 17:16:35: You will see that I conceded that using that definition is somewhat imprecise but it is maybe the best we can do in this situation. The key facts are this: Morality is something created by people. This is partly innate (many civilisations have similar rules) and partly based on cultural norms (there are some differences in what different societies consider moral). It also changes with time (many things we consider moral now weren't moral in the past). There is no need for an external source for moral rules.

Comment by SM on 2015-11-04 at 10:00:53: Thank you; appreciate the discussion.

This discussion has been shortened. View the full discussion, or add your own comments here.

Contact: OJB, OJB@mac.com. Site Features: Blog, RSS Feeds, Podcasts, Feedback, Log. Modified: 11 Nov 2003. Hits: 73,184,350 118 ....................

Comment on this page: Convincing • Interesting • Unconvincing or: View Results