Is evolution really a lie

Answer 1

[The answer I have given is rather long. The first part deals with whether 'lie' is applicable to such attempts at truth-telling as scientific theories or myths. The next bit deals with what the asker probably wants to know. The question seems to come from a desire to see whether the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection is true or not, or whether or not it is true what some anti-evolution objectors have to say when they say 'Evolution is a lie'.]

The word 'lie' implies a deliberate attempt to mislead or present an untruth as a truth. Evolution just is. In the world of scientific theories (or infant ideas in the forms of hypotheses) you don't have a 'lie'. Theories can be wrong of course, and are occasionally proven wrong. It was wrong to suppose that the Earth was the centre of the Solar System, but that doesn't mean geocentrism was a 'lie'; it simply means it was wrong. On a smaller scale, it is not a 'lie' that Komodo dragons have bacteria-made poisons in their saliva but instead have their own true venom. The saliva-bacteria theory may just be wrong. That's all - wrong.

In the case of the Theory of Evolution (hereafter shortened to 'Evolution'), Evolution is not wrong. It is not a 'lie' either. The Theory of Evolution has masses of evidence, from comparative anatomy to comparative genomics. The similarity of the gene sequences between species show their relationships. Evolution explains the biogeography of species brilliantly. "Why are lemurs found only on Madagascar and lorises in India?" is explained perfectly, as is "Why are marsupials found only in Australia and South America?". Evolution explains human behaviour too such as how and why we think in a world dominated by society - humans are a social species after all. Evolution explains adaptation, why organisms are shaped as they are and why they physiologically function as they do. Evolution explains the matching of organisms with their environments, such as why desert animals have longer kidney tubes (called Loops of Henle) to those that live in moister regions - as a result they reabsorb more water as it is filtered through the kidneys. Another example is why sea-birds have pointy ended eggs and another is why antelope have eyes on the sides of their faces. In the case of the sea-birds, they breed on cliffs. Round eggs would roll off cliffs and so Natural Selection selects those birds born from pointy eggs (which can't roll off cliffs) which are genetically capable of laying pointy eggs themselves and survive the dangers of rolling off a cliff still inside an egg because they can't roll off a cliff still inside their egg. Antelope see a greater scope of surrounding grassland if they have eyes on the sides of their heads. Thus those with these side eyes as opposed to eyes facing forwards are more likely to spot predators and so more likely to flee in time and so more likely to survive to breed. The offspring of the side-eyed antelope will be selected to the point that the population is no longer cabable of producing forward-eyed offspring as the genetic codes coding for forward eyes are now too rare or extinct. The whole sequence of Evolution is demonstrated by fossils and the range of body forms (some simple, some more complex) that have survived to the present. There is a sequence of form from gametophyte-dominant, spore-producing, stemless, leafless mosses to sporophyte-dominant, seed-bearing, stemmed, leafy spermatophytes (angiosperms and gymnosperms), and that sequence is seen in fossils to be the order in which these organismal forms evolved. There is a sequence of form from the two-layered animals (diploblastic) to the three-layered (triploblastic). There is a sequence of form from the sarcopterygian fin to the amphibian leg and a sequence of form from the reptile scale to the avian feather. And there is a sequence of form from the egg-laying monotreme (i.e. echidnas and platypuses) to the viviparous therian (i.e. marsupials and placental mammals). These 'sequences' are confirmed by the fossil record and confirmed by the sequencing of nucleic acids. The sequencing of DNA for example confirms our hypothesis from morphological data, that chimpanzees and gorillas are closer related to humans than orangutans and that humans are indeed mammals, related to apes and monkeys and less closely related to elephants and manatees, tigers, bats, whales and wildebeest. As pointed out by David Attenborough in 'Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life', courts allow the confirmation of fatherhood of a father to a child via genetic evidence. Thus, what should be clear is that nucleic acid sequencing should be able to give us an accurate picture of the relatedness of all life on Earth.

There have always been objectors to the Theory of Evolution. To the religious, the theory violates religious adherence to the idea of how 'special' humans are, that species are not separate from one another but may arise from one another. Creationists have tried to discredit Evolution by positing arguments against it, such as 'Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics' and 'No-one ever saw Evolution taking place'. All Creationist claims against Evolution are incorrect. Evolution does not violate the Second Law. And it should be obvious how useless the second example is, since no human can do time-travelling to visit a live Archaeopteryx (or whatever) to see if it really did arise from coelurosaurs and give rise to birds and thus humans need to find other evidence (eg. fossils, morphology and DNA) to infer such things.

Sometimes I am sure the claim 'Evolution is a lie' does come up in the circles of creationists who are offended by religion or too brought up in religion to be capable of thinking in any way other than creationistically. This itself is most certainly untrue. Evolution is not a lie. Evolution can't be a lie within the context of what I wrote about 'lie' in the first paragraphs. Evolution is a theory and a hugely good one, given the evidence for it and the magnitude of the things it can explain. What motivates creationists to make this claim?

Creationism has disguised itself as 'Creation science' and 'Intelligent Design' to try and get itself taught in classrooms. The claim 'Evolution is a lie' may be used to try and encourage people to think negatively about Evolution (the word 'lie' has negative connotations) and welcome the creationists' ideas of teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design as sciences. The whole phenomenon may stem from offence taken at the idea that Evolution may give that species arise from one another and therefore there seems no need for a Creator to create organisms and thus no need for a Creator to create humans and thus, perhaps, no need for a Creator to exist. It may be that the claim 'Evolution is a 'lie' is a dishonest 'lie' itself, given by someone who prefers a creationistic outlook or someone who wishes to sway people to accept creationistic movements like Intelligent Design. The whole Evolution-Intelligent Design 'controversy' (it is not a controversy among highly educated, scientific circles as Evolution is a good theory and Intelligent Design is factless, politically-involved 'creationism in disguise') has been raging so long that some, religious or not, may think it genuine that 'Evolution is a lie', in which case they have been subject to great quantities of misinformation and have been unable to disinter the facts from the nonsense.

In short, Evolution is not a lie. Evolution is a theory, which has great evidence to support it. Evolution is the baseline of all biological study. In science, a theory cannot survive if it is wrong due to peer-review. In a sense, science has a form of 'Natural' Selection going for it to weed out incorrect theories and, if there be any, 'lies'. Evolution would not have survived if it were incorrect or a 'lie'.

Answer: To some, based on conclusions they've found and gathered which counters sciences' "theory" and "evidence", yes, it is blatant and obvious lie.