Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists

Professor Ernst Mayr, the scientist renowned as the father of modern biology, will celebrate his 100th birthday tomorrow by leading a scathing attack on creationism.

The evolutionary biologist, who is already acclaimed as one of the most prolific researchers of all time, has no intention of retiring and is shortly to publish new research that dismantles the fashionable creationist doctrine of “intelligent design”.

Although he has reluctantly cut his workload since a serious bout of pneumonia 18 months ago, Prof. Mayr has remained an active scientist at Harvard University throughout his 90s. He has written five books since his 90th birthday and is researching five academic papers. One of these, scheduled to appear later this year, will examine how “intelligent design” — the latest way in which creationists have sought to present a divine origin of the world — was thoroughly refuted by Charles Darwin a century and a half ago.

His work is motivated in part by a sense of exasperation at the re-emergence of creationism in the USA, which he compares unfavourably with the widespread acceptance of evolution that he encountered while growing up in early 20th-century Germany.

The states of Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky and Oklahoma currently omit the word “evolution” from their curriculums. The Alabama state board of education has voted to include disclaimers in textbooks describing evolution as a theory. In Georgia, the word “evolution” was banned from the science curriculum after the state’s schools superintendent described it as a “controversial buzzword”.

Fierce protest, including criticism from Jimmy Carter, the former President, reversed this.

Prof. Mayr, who will celebrate his 100th birthday at his holiday home in New Hampshire with his two daughters, five grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren, was born on 5 July 1905 in Kempten, Germany. He took a PhD in zoology at the University of Berlin, before travelling to New Guinea in 1928 to study its diverse bird life. On his return in 1930 he emigrated to the USA. His most famous work, Systematics and the Origin of Species, was published in 1942 and is regarded still as a canonical work of biology.

It effectively founded the modern discipline by combining Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel’s genetics, showing how the two were compatible. Prof. Mayr redefined what scientists mean by a species, using interbreeding as a guide. If two varieties of duck or vole do not interbreed, they cannot be the same species.

Prof. Mayr has won all three of the awards sometimes termed the “triple crown” of biology — the Balzan Prize, the Crafoord Prize and the International Prize for Biology. Although he formally retired in 1975, he has been active as an Emeritus Professor ever since and has recently written extensively on the philosophy of biology.

Who survived, the Jews or Hitler?

Jews are still around. Hitler isn't and hasn't been for some time. Let me think about this for a moment.

What would you have answered in 1944? What would evolutionary theory have had to say then?

At what time do you determine that a group has survived and another hasn't?

Which group is more "fit"?

Invalid comparison of a group to an individual. Groups tend to last longer than individuals.

In 1944, Hitler had lasted longer than 6 million Jews. But why don't we say, for the sake of argument, that the Aryans had lasted longer than the Jews.

Groups can sustain themselves by having the members reproduce. Individals don't do that.

Define 'group.' Define 'species.'

What would you have answered in 1944?

In 1944 both Jews and Hitler were still around. Jews weren't faring too well in much of Europe, but I don't recall reading about them being put into camps here in the US.

What would evolutionary theory have had to say then?

If anything (and it might not have had anything to say at all) it would have said that the environment in much of eruope -- which had been created by the Third Reich -- was detrimental to the survival of the Jews. That is, it could say that if the Jews were linked solely through genetics. Which they weren't. So it really can't say much of anything.

In 1944, Hitler had lasted longer than 6 million Jews. But why don't we say, for the sake of argument, that the Aryans had lasted longer than the Jews.

Okay. What about this hypothetical scenario? Why introduce it, did you realise that your initial queries were meaningless? I'm sorry, but I don't see any additional meaning in this question.

Define 'group.'

A collection of entities that share at least one common trait that defines the group.

Define 'species.'

I did a little search and found a definition that seems to work well: "a species is a group of interbreeding populations that does not *effectively* interbreed with other such groups".

Under evolutionary theory, the creatures or species that survive the battle for survival are superior to those that do not.

Wrong.

Then under evolutionary theory it is neither better or worse for a species to survive?

The creatures that survive are simply the creatures that are best adapted for an environment.

OK, "creatures that survive" are "better adapted" than other creatures. In other words, they are superior to other creatures in their adaptation.

Had the enfironment been different, a different species might have survived and the current "superior" species might have died out.

There is no futurabilia in the deterministic universe of evolutionary theory. Everything must occur the way that it does. The species that survives must be better adapted than the species that don't survive. Period.

Superiority only goes as far as the environmental factors. It's all relative.

The species that survives is superior. This isn't a relativistic statement, it is a definition at the core of evolutionary theory.

"Superior" only in that they survived, which is a tautology.

No, this is a very particular definition. "Superior" in this case (evolutionary theory) refers to creatures who survive. The term in everyday language is used much more broadly.

Therefore, those who practice genocide are superior to those who are victims of it.

Not if those who practice genocide find themselves getting executed for their crimes.

Before their execution, they are superior. After their execution, they aren't superior. So survival superiority is dependent upon chronology. In fact, survival superiority is so dependent upon time that it is meaningless, except in cases of complete extinction of a species. And then, who's to say that, under evolutionary theory, that the extinct species will not arise again?

And again, this only defines superiorty through those who survive. Genetics doesn't even play into it...

How does genetics "play into it"?

...you just kill a group of people and call yourself "superior" simply because you didn't end up dead. That's not evolution, that's just mass-murder.

Lions wipe out a species of deer and this is called evolution. One race of people wipes out another race of people and this is called "mass-murder." Yet people are also supposed to have evolved, just like deer and lions. This is a contradiction.

When biologists use the term "fit" it means within a specific environment.

Was Nazi Germany a specific environment?

Selection is done by nature, not by man.

Is man part of nature?

Yes, the Nazis eliminated a large chunk of the gene pool; however it was only based upon their definition of "fit" and not the way nature sees it.

You're anthropomorphizing nature. Nature sees nothing. Nature is blind chance, matter in motion. Remember? So Hitler's acts must be just as much a case of matter in motion as any other natural phenomenon.

The Nazis, in their zeal, could have eliminated whole genetic traits the species would find useful in situations wherein the species comes under environmental stress

So? Who cares? Nature sure doesn't. The Nazis survived longer than the Jews, and under evolutionary theory they must be superior to the Jews.

Then under evolutionary theory it is neither better or worse for a species to survive?

Correct! I've said this before! Evolution does not assign moral value. Evolution does not care whether species thrive or face extinction. It's just a descriptor for a process!

Does an explanation of how rain occurs state whether it is good or bad for you to get wet? Does it state whether flooding is a good or a bad thing? Does it state whether it's good or bad for crops to dry out and die during a drought?

OK, "creatures that survive" are "better adapted" than other creatures. In other words, they are superior to other creatures in their adaptation.

Yes, but only for their given environment. Change the environmental factors and you can drastically change which species are "superior" and which ones are history.

There is no futurabilia in the deterministic universe of evolutionary theory. Everything must occur the way that it does. The species that survives must be better adapted than the species that don't survive. Period.

1) Evolution does not postulate a deterministic universe.

2) The species that survives does so because it is able to survive in its given environment. This is typically because it has physical traits that give it an advantage in finding food and reproducing. But this only works so long as the environment remains favourable to their physical makeup. Environments can change, and when they change, the species that were well-adapted for the previous environment might not be so fortunate in the new one. Stop introducing the absolute concept of a "perfect" species. Evolution speaks of no such thing. Sharks do quite well in the ocean, and chimpanzees do quite well in trees. They are thus well adapted for their environments, but neither would survive at all in the other's environment. Given that fact, you cannot say that one is "better" than the other from the standpoint of evolution.

The species that survives is superior. This isn't a relativistic statement, it is a definition at the core of evolutionary theory.

It is relativistic. I think that I've explained this clearly enough that your refusal to accept it without even attempting to explain why you dismiss it is bordering on dishonesty.

The species that survives is "superior" for a given environment. Change the environment, and they might not be as able to survive. Sharks are the 'king' of the oceans. In an oceanic environment, chimpanzees would die out. Are sharks therefore superior to chimpanzees? What happens if you put sharks in the environment of the chimpanzee? How can it make sense that two species would have different comparable survival rates in different environments if you already defined one of them as "superior" to the other?

No, this is a very particular definition. "Superior" in this case (evolutionary theory) refers to creatures who survive.

It refers to creatures who survive in a given environment. There are multiple, wildly varying, types of environments out there. Superiority in one might well be inferiority in another.

Before their execution, they are superior. After their execution, they aren't superior.

Which means that, in the long run, they lose out. That's really all that counts.

So survival superiority is dependent upon chronology.

It's dependent on environmental factors. Environments can change over time. A species that creates a situation that causes the environment to change to their detriment is ultimately not going to survive. Genocidal maniacs tend to work to create an environment where ultimately they are overthrown and executed, therefore genocidal maniacs tend to behave in a fashion that is ultimately detrimental for their survival.

In fact, survival superiority is so dependent upon time that it is meaningless, except in cases of complete extinction of a species. And then, who's to say that, under evolutionary theory, that the extinct species will not arise again?

Evolution theory doesn't say that extinct species will not rise again. Genetics suggests that such things are unlikely, however.

How does genetics "play into it"?

I just said that genetics doesn't play into it.

Lions wipe out a species of deer and this is called evolution.

That's not evolution. That's the removal of a species. For evolution to occur, alelle frequencies must change over time. If the species is wiped out, that won't be happening.

One race of people wipes out another race of people and this is called "mass-murder."

Do you not like this definition?

Yet people are also supposed to have evolved, just like deer and lions. This is a contradiction.

You've not explained how one group of people deliberately wiping out another group of people is evolution. You've also not explained what your ultimate point is.

Was Nazi Germany a specific environment?

Yes, it was. It was created by the Nazis.

The Nazis survived longer than the Jews, and under evolutionary theory they must be superior to the Jews.

No, the Nazis survived longer than the Jews in a specific, Nazi-created environment. You are deliberately ignoring the fact that survival is dependent on environmental conditions, and thus it is completely relative because you have this boneheaded notion that evolution can be blamed for the holocaust and you ignore any factors that don't support your conclusion. Yes, there was an environment that selected Nazis over Jews. That environment was deliberately created by the Nazis. That environment no longer exists, it was destroyed as a result of reaction to the actions of the Nazis. Ultimately, while the Nazis managed a short-term environmental change that was detrimental to the Jews, their actions resulted in other coming in and deliberately changing the environment into a Nazi-hostile one. Nazis now do not survive as well as Jews. Therefore Jews are now superior to Nazis in the current environment.

If you really want to bring evolution into it, you would have to ultimately conclude that the Jews were superior to the Nazis, as the Jews are still around today, while the Nazis are not.

I could organize an effort to round up all Christians, put them into death camps and have them executed. That would make an environment hostile to Christians. Would that make non-Christians superior? What if Christians decided to round up all non-Christians, put them in death camps and have them executed? That would create an environment hostile to non-Christians. Would that make Christians superior?

Evolution is not a plan for living your life or a plan for structuring a society. It's just a descriptor. It explains what happens. It doesn't say that things should be made to happen.

but genocide can cite darwin as an acceptable support.

No it can't.

the s felt they were the "strong", so they were to kill the "weak" so they could have a "more pure" environment.

Which isn't something that evolution supports. Evolution states that the less able will not survive to reproduce. It does not say that the more physically able should eliminate the less able, it simply says that the less able won't reproduce by virtue of not being able to reproduce in their given environment.

pack animals kill the young of rival males to ensure it is only their that continues.

Which is an instintive competitive response. Which is part of the environmental conditions. But evolution does not state that we should emulate such behaviour.

this is the reasoning the 's made. they viewed their race as supperior, thus being racists... but they used "survival of the fittest" to reason it, thus making them darwinesque.

So they assumed that they had to kill off the less 'fit' so that the less 'fit' would not survive and reproduce. Excpet that evolution predicts that the less fit won't survive and reproduce simply because they're not able to survive. Sounds to me like the Nazis didn't really believe the theory and thought that they had to intervene.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.