Atheists Concerned for America: Evolution in a Nutshell



"Evolution IS the Real Thing: Falsifying the Non-Hypothetical, Non-Theoretical Creationism Pseudoscience"

By Jordan Miguel Adorno

Although there is substantial conflict between the scientific principles in biology and the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic holy texts, the basic Darwinian principles behind Evolution remain the sole verified essence to the origin of life. Many prematurely disregard Evolution to defend their religion ("It's 'just' a theory!"), misunderstanding the empirical value behind that term itself nonetheless. But Evolution's validation began with the release of Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species in 1859, which centered on uncovering a phenomenon he named "Natural Selection" (later discussed). Today, Evolution remains the ultimate catalyst in biology to studying the origins of life, whereas "creationism", however, continuously fails to provide a shred of intrinsic testability in science.

Weakly, "Intelligent Design" apologists repeatedly fail to provoke judicial courts into—falsely (and so to be strictly spoken as)—believing "creationism" to be an actual hard (i.e. real; testable; tangible) science. Originally, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) , in Texas, was the first Supreme Court ruling against creationism ("Intelligent Design") as a 'school-appropriate science'. Countless similar Supreme Court rulings statewide have since also discredited creationism. This is very easily done since creationism's TRUE nature, that of a pseudoscience, remains far too obvious. As such, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) and consecutive Supreme Court rulings have promptly shut down the fraudulent "Intelligent Design" conspiracy, legally anyway, by resolving two essential inquiries: WHY Evolution's valid; why "creationism" is simply a popularized pseudoscience short of even a hypothesis! This general ruling will continue to universalize anytime a civil case is filed in the states because the First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly separates Church from State in its guarantee of free speech & worship to all. Indeed, as the University of Berkley's renowned scientists differentiate it, "Evolution is science. The study of Evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions clearly differentiate science from religion and do not permit the advocacy of religious doctrine in science (or other public school) classes." Thereby, obviously Evolution belongs in the classroom while religious ideas like creationism belong in the private lives of worshipers.

But before one can be compelled by Evolutionary evidence, first the meanings of a "theory" and of a "hypothesis", as well as how scientists methodically use them, must be definitively explained. When scientists study something, they make at least one premature educated guess, their hypothesis, which MUST be testable, re-testable, provable and falsifiable so that then they can experiment until finding disproof, proof, or mixed findings. Once hypotheses have been tested repeatedly with consistent positive results, its findings can become a theory. Theories of science (i.e. Gravity, Electricity, Black Holes) provide a basis for empirical study on a topic. A theory isn't yet a fact because at least one of its conclusions may be revised or expanded later on. Nevertheless, a theory, as defined by its pure scientific standard, exceeds most affirmed merit in its credence, and is capable of continuous utilization for further scientific application and inquiry. (And on rare occasion, a theory even grows so prolific it gains its hallmark in history as an extraordinary contribution to the scientific community, hence case-in-point.) Well-summed in Biology Concepts & Connections Sixth Edition, a collegiate textbook resource, a theory is a principle based upon "... [A] great diversity of observations, supported by a large, growing scientific body." So just how all unstable and stable people alike believe in "The Theory of Gravity", so they should in Evolution likewise. (For further extensive reading, see Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory” by Ellery Schempp.)

People's "Evolution fears", so to speak, have constantly depended upon the stubborn choice to be ignorant. Mostly, that choice singularly hinges ever upon the widespread perceived "threat" suspected against their religion at Evolution's cause. When given consideration, Darwinian theory, even at its most rudimentary principal level, as such does indeed contend the creation of an inevitable, blasphemously-filled divide with Christianity's totally adverse and no less deep-seated Scripture. Believe it or not though, the reality remains despite all the scandalous, extremist Evolution-deniers' constant, lie-filled exploiting to the public, over 99 % of the world's top scientists are wholehearted believers in Evolution ; this fact serves no doubt as pure, shown proof of how futile such Evolution-denying creationists are in their utterly unprecedented denouncement of transparent scientific evidence. (source: National Center for Science Education). Conversely, the damaging preconception that creationism is valid science is unfortunately the overwhelming misbelief of the general public. Such is the inevitable culmination of widespread inflammatory propaganda from various biased, uniformly religious institutions, including but certainly not limited to fundamentalist churches, fear-mongering Bible-based campaigns, radical alleged "Christian science" groups, sensationalist televangelism, or sometimes just bad journalism. Either way, the trouble is these repeated social religious campaigns have, consistently opposing all-throughout America's history (and with ever-growing livelihood, too), etched our society's stigma on science, breeding ignorance and encouraging masses to be, specifically, afraid and thereby Evolution-illiterate. Nonetheless, regardless of the many conspiracies misleading people into disregarding Evolution as junk science, its compelling evidence can't ever be retracted entirely by the scientific community. As the University of Berkley scientists clarify, "Scientists do not debate whether Evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated...Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide." Again, the only reason why even exemplary theories (like Evolution or Gravity) aren't yet classified 'facts' is because theoretical evidence leads different scientists to slightly different conclusions; particular indeed, in Evolution's case it's a matter of the 'wheres' and 'hows' that make it not yet 'fact', not whether or not it exists.

Therefore, because there are an infinite mass of species on earth, plotting the evolutionary path of each species may never technically occur. Still, scientists' strongest efforts are put to legitimate application in attempt to sketch the puzzling evolutionary tree. Any one example of arbitrary evolutionary data doesn't draw Evolution to uncertainty, but rather it's those specifics which are not yet absolutes for scientists across the board. As Berkley scientists elaborate, "Thus far, however, there have been no credible challenges to the basic Darwinian principles that evolution proceeds primarily by the mechanism of natural selection acting upon variation in populations and that different species share common ancestors. Scientists have not rejected Darwin's natural selection, but have improved and expanded it as more information has become available" ("Misconceptions about evolution," 2008). This corroborates a beautiful description of the widespread developmental, not skeptical, consensus among global biologists who progressively uncover new evidence of our biological origins via their progressive application of basic Darwinian principles.

Notwithstanding, the most common defamatory belief regarding Evolution, that which has sourced most of the rampant mockery and satire in pop culture, is nevertheless based almost totally upon one perforating misconception: yes indeed, the ignorant masses have continuously bypassed scientific understanding by stubbornly believing a widespread, very specific sinister lie about Evolution — that it claims human beings came from monkeys. That's the statement that has brought a desensitizing disregard for Evolution, given the mere suggestion we evolved from apes is preposterous, and is often humorous enough for so many to disbelieve in Evolution. And yet that is very strictly speaking NOT AT ALL what Evolution posits is our fundamental biology! As detailed in History and Methods of Science, "The most widely accepted hypothesis of human evolution is that our branch of the family tree broke off from the branch that includes orangutans and other primates about 7 to 8 million years ago" (Trefil, 2007). Indicatively, it's hardly a laughable matter once it's understood that we evolved as a separate species, not directly from and out the ape species (such an idea in the world of legitimate science is comical); what IS proved true is how Homo sapiens and primates share extraordinarily close familial lines genetically. Detailing this genomic likeness, a 2005 National Geographic article, entitled "Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds", explains compellingly, "Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species [...] Because chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, the chimp genome is the most useful key to understanding human biology and evolution, next to the human genome itself" (Lovgren, 2005). (Key within this stated fact lies an important distinction to help example why Evolution remains a theory: see, our extremely similar DNA bonds are examples of Evolutionary facts, whereas whether our oldest ancestors were only in Africa is a debated uncertainty for now.) That alone OBLITERATES the desired "pseudoscience" stamp which ludicrous fools want on Evolution, for our astounding closeness to chimpanzees is irrefutable no matter what.

Now, the survival of each species is dependent on a Darwinian-established principle called natural selection, which basically refers to how some species genetically outlast others throughout time. Certain living species, therefore, will slowly cease to, over typically grand scales of time, evolve adequately and eventually become genetically unequipped for survival. As such, Berkley's finest accord, "Either an individual has genes that are good enough to survive and reproduce, or it does not [...] but it can't get the right genes by trying" ("Misconceptions about evolution", 2008). Thus, Evolution describes a process by which organisms procreate & survive throughout time completely on genetic strength. For instance, the spectrum by which humans evolved spans across times where we humans did not walk upright (pictured to your left). Such processes, however, were completed slowly across millions of years, totally illustrating how the short few thousand years "creationism" nonsensically alleges to the Earth's full age amount to nothing but true ABSURDITY (okay yeah, and maybe a little hilarity, too).

In conclusion, the Theory of Evolution is an enthralling, insurmountable principle central of all biological study. It is the scholastic basis to all the extensive developments and discoveries about life's origins, the theory scientists solely work from. Though still with much to expand as a body of information within itself, Evolution, at the very prime essence of its study, relies on a solid makeup of irrefutable evidence, and hence its theory will never be fully dispelled, only ever revised. More, newer and newer of its discoveries everyday shed greater light on our originating biological stems. Thus, Evolution is never to be ridiculed. No grand-scale scientific theory for that matter--much less Evolution undoubtedly, not with its ever-growing library's powerful span of compelling biological knowledge to work as a practical source of constant reaffirmation—is the unsellable work of unintelligible or mediocre craftsmanship. On the contrary, Evolution continually proves itself as new facts emerge, paving the ingenious way to solving the puzzles behind the biological origin of modern-day Homo sapiens.

Works Cited

Helmenstine Ph.D., A. (2009). Scientific hypothesis, theory, law definitions. Retrieved from

Lovgren, Stefan. (2005, August 31). Chimps, humans 96 percent the same, gene study finds. National Geographic, Retrieved from

Misconceptions about evolution and the mechanisms of evolution. (2008). Retrieved from

Trefil, J. (2007). History and Methods of Science, Second Custom Edition for Strayer University. Wiley.