Evolutionary theory, for a variety of nonscientific reasons, has obtained
the status of sacred revelation. To express doubts by bringing up the
counterevidence to the theory is to brand oneself an
intellectual infidel.
Evolution is far from sacrosanct. Since Darwin's formulation of it,
there have been several significant revisions of important aspects of
it:
Mendelian heredity: Darwin thought genes were both blending
(not particulate) and influenced by the environment of the
organism, a kind of Lamarckian inheritance he called
"pangenesis."
Speciation: For a long while Darwin's own view on what caused
new species to rise (natural selection) was rejected by most
biologists in favor of geographical isolation. Only recently has
Darwin's view come back into favor as one cause among many.
Jumping genes: Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize for
showing that genes can move from one place to another within the
genome.
Symbiotic origins of organelles: Lynn Margulis proposed that the
ancestors of eukaryotic cells arose from prokaryote cells joined
together in "symbiotic consortiums" (Margulis 1981).
Genetic drift: This idea from Sewall Wright says that much
genetic change in populations is due to random drift rather than
natural selection.
Neutral theory, proposing that most generic variation is neutral,
not subject to selection (or nearly neutral, in Ohta's extension of
the theory; Kimura 1983; Ohta 1992).
Prions: The discovery of an entirely new kind of "life" form that
replicates without genetic material via a catalytic change of
molecular configuration. This also yielded a Nobel Prize for
Stanley B. Prusiner.
Lateral gene transfer: Some genetic material is not inherited from
an immediate ancestor but from distantly related organisms (e.g.,
Woese 2000).
Challenges to parts of evolutionary theory continue today. However,
they are the sort of thing one rarely encounters below the graduate
level.
Evolution has undergone a tremendous amount of testing, some of which
has shown that correction is necessary. Correcting a scientific theory
makes the (corrected) theory stronger. The testing and correction
account for evolution's strong reputation today. If evolution were
sacrosanct, it would not undergo testing and revision, and it would
lose its reputation among scientists.
Critics of evolution are treated as intellectual outcasts not because
they criticize evolution but because they do not know what they are
talking about. Answers in Genesis (AIG) recognizes the problem of
poorly educated creationists doing more harm than good to the
reputation of creationists, so they devote a page to arguments
creationists should not use (AIG n.d.). Still, it is extremely common
to hear creationists speak with ignorance about the second law
of thermodynamics, no transitional
fossils, irreducible
complexity, and other subjects, and AIG's list of bad arguments barely
scratches the surface. The real infidels of evolution, such as Barbara
McClintock and Stanley Prusiner, win acclaim.
Creationist works almost invariably cite mainstream science in their
attempts to discredit evolution. If evolution is sacrosanct, how can
creationists so readily find science articles to use against it?
