Evolution is not a theory.


Evolution is not a theory.

Evolution is “descent with modification”; it is an observable fact.

Darwin did not “invent” the concept of evolution, it has been present in both Western and Eastern thought for at least 2500 years.

The primary alternative to belief in evolution prior to its establishment as a fact was Essentialism (or “Special Creation”) – the belief that all organisms contain an immutable “essence” granted them by a creator.

A classic example of observable evolution in a biological system is the phenomenon of multi-drug resistant bacteria (“super bugs”) such as Staphylococcus aureus (golden staph).

Another example of observable evolution in a biological system is selective breeding – evolution driven by artificial selection.

Facts and theories differ in science in that the latter are explanations for the former.

Darwin and Wallace’s “Theory of Natural Selection” explains the fact of evolution by elucidating a mechanism for evolutionary change in biological systems.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed an alternative theory as an explanation for the fact of evolution; it was published in 1809 – 50 years before Darwin’s “On The Origin of Species”.

One way of testing the accuracy of a theory is by comparing its predictions to observable facts. Almost every observable fact from palaeontology, physiology, embryology, biochemistry and genetics matches up with the Theory of Natural Selection; those that do not are explainable as different forms of evolution (e.g., “genetic drift”).

The fact of evolution and the robustness of the Theory of Natural Selection do not disprove the existence of a creator; they just render it unnecessary.

Evolution is not unique to biological systems – it also occurs in language, culture and all anthropogenic technologies.



  1. Wrong. Darwin observed modification of an existing feature. That is not evolution – there were no new features – only slight modification of an existing feature.

    1. Sorry which part is “wrong”? I didn’t actually comment on Darwin observing anything, did I? it seems like you are disputing the definition of “evolution”, rather than anything to do with Darwin in the above article. “Darwinism” is not synonymous with “evolution”, that was part of the point of the article. So it seems you are directing your attack at the wrong target, which is a common error made by essentialists (which is what your comment seems to suggest you are).

      Just as a matter of interest, what would you call the process through which the language in which we’re currently communicating changed from something similar to Friesian, 1500 years ago, into Anglo-Saxon and eventually (via the influx of Latin and myriad other “….” processes) into modern English? We have a word for such a process in that very language (don’t you love recursivity?), the consensus definition of which is “descent with modification”, but apparently you don’t like that word/definition….? Or perhaps you think that descent with modification never occurred in the language, just as you apparently deny it ever having occurred in other biological systems? I’m just trying to clarify your position.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s