Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 08/30/06 | Creation Evolution Headlines

[DannyTN]

Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist    08/30/2006  
Supporters of evolution often tout its many benefits.  They claim it helps research in agriculture, conservation and medicine (e.g., 01/13/2003, 06/25/2003).  A new book by David Mindell, The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life (Harvard, 2006) emphasizes these practical benefits in hopes of making evolution more palatable to a skeptical society.  Jerry Coyne, a staunch evolutionist and anti-creationist, enjoyed the book in his review in Nature,¹ but thought that Mindell went overboard on “Selling Darwin” with appeals to pragmatics:

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits.  Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say.  Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably.  But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding?  Not very much.  Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’.  Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties.  Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

Coyne further describes how the goods and services advertised by Mindell are irrelevant for potential customers, anyway:

One reason why Mindell might fail to sell Darwin to the critics is that his examples all involve microevolution, which most modern creationists (including advocates of intelligent design) accept.  It is macroevolution – the evolutionary transitions between very different kinds of organism – that creationists claim does not occur.  But in any case, few people actually oppose evolution because of its lack of practical use.... they oppose it because they see it as undercutting moral values.

Coyne fails to offer a salve for that wound.  Instead, to explain why macroevolution has not been observed, he presents an analogy .  For critics out to debunk macroevolution because no one has seen a new species appear, he compares the origin of species with the origin of language: “We haven’t seen one language change into another either, but any reasonable creationist (an oxymoron?) must accept the clear historical evidence for linguistic evolution,” he says, adding a jab for effect. “And we have far more fossil species than we have fossil languages” (but see 04/23/2006).  It seems to escape his notice that language is a tool manipulated by intelligent agents, not random mutations.  In any case, his main point is that evolution shines not because of any hyped commercial value, but because of its explanatory power:

In the end, the true value of evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory.  It answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: “How did we get here?”  It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth.  It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes.  And that, after all, is quite an accomplishment.

See also Evolution News analysis of this book review, focusing on Coyne’s stereotyping of creationists.  Compare also our 02/10/2006 and 12/21/2005 stories on marketing Darwinism to the masses.

---

¹Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin,” Nature 442, 983-984(31 August 2006) | doi:10.1038/442983a; Published online 30 August 2006.

You heard it right here.  We didn’t have to say it.  One of Darwin’s own bulldogs said it for us: evolutionary theory is useless.  Oh, this is rich.  Don’t let anyone tell you that evolution is the key to biology, and without it we would fall behind in science and technology and lose our lead in the world.  He just said that most real progress in biology was done before evolutionary theory arrived, and that modern-day advances owe little or nothing to the Grand Materialist Myth.  Darwin is dead, and except for providing plot lines for storytellers, the theory that took root out of Charlie’s grave bears no fruit (but a lot of poisonous thorns: see 08/27/2006).
    To be sure, many things in science do not have practical value.  Black holes are useless, too, and so is the cosmic microwave background.  It is the Darwin Party itself, however, that has hyped evolution for its value to society.  With this selling point gone, what’s left?  The only thing Coyne believes evolution can advertise now is a substitute theology to answer the big questions.  Instead of an omniscient, omnipotent God, he offers the cult of Tinker Bell and her mutation wand as an explanation for endless forms most beautiful.  Evolution allows us to play connect-the-dot games between frogs and fleas.  It allows us to water down a complex world into simplistic, “easily grasped” generalities.  Such things are priceless, he thinks.  He’s right.  It costs nothing to produce speculation about things that cannot be observed, and nobody should consider such products worth a dime.
    We can get along just fine in life without the Darwin Party catalog.  Thanks to Jerry Coyne for providing inside information on the negative earnings in the Darwin & Co. financial report.  Sell your evolution stock now before the bottom falls out.
Next headline on:  Evolutionary Theory

[Physicist]

Does the fact that there are few practical applications of astronomy mean that it is invalid?

[vetsvette]

"Evolution is a scientific theory"

Actually, evolution is a pseudo-scientific fairy tale. It gives real scientific theory a bad name.

Darwin makes a bunch of observations of living beings; then observes that X looks like it might have evolved from Y; then argues that, while he can provide no evidence that it really happened that way, if you can't prove it didn't you must accept his fairy tale as fact.

He was probably a Dummie.

[jude24]

What does evolution have to do with influenza vaccinations? The first vaccines were invented by a Creationist.

That's specious reasoning if ever I saw any. The subjective beliefs of the inventors of techniques are irrelevant - the truth or falsity of the double-helix model of DNA is not affected by nor does it lend credence to Francis Crick's theory that man was deposited on earth by space aliens.

But, to answer your first question, the reason why inflenza vaccines are needed annually are because the influenza virus mutates, and so a different strain arises every year. It's a simple, readily-observable form of evolution we see every year.

Now, whether evolution alone is an adequate mechanism which can explain the diversity of life, or even its very existence, is another question entirely. But that the evolutionary mechanism exists, and that it is a very powerful driving force in the biological world is pretty much undeniable.

[Suzy Quzy]

I think you are a Jewish man...I am a Catholic girl....I believe that God created everything just the way he wanted it...he made NO mistakes....and besides, there is NO evidence of the process of evolving....anywhere.

IF there was evolution there would be a CLEAR process that could be shown in any and every Natural History Museum. I have been to many and haven't seen such things.

[mysterio]

The scientist in question admits microevolution. Microevolution X 3 billion years = macroevolution.

[Suzy Quzy]

Thank you....you said it MUCH better than I did!!

[RobRoy]

>>By the same reason, studying history is useless. <<

If it is false history, then it is.

Studying the B-29 was not useless for the Soviets, and they KNEW it was designed.

[RadioAstronomer]

Perhaps, but if evolution's only practical effect it to explain where we came from... And to many, that explanation doesn't fit the data as well as a Creator.

As I stated above, evolution does not address a creator.

One really has to question, is exclusion of God a form of negatively addressing God.

I don't address God when I am designing a new Hydrogen Maser (except possibly praying it will work as designed! LOL!). Is that then being negative?

[jude24]

Evolution is a scientific theory and does not address God in any way shape or form.

To be more accurate, evolution is a mechanism of biological change. Evolution may be seized upon by secularists seeking to rationalize their philosophies, but that does not invalidate the biological mechanism.

[RobRoy]

I haven't had an influenza vaccination in over 15 years.

[Suzy Quzy]

After re-reading your post, you sound a little anti-Christian there Physicist. Sure you want to leave that impression??

[PC99]

Even if evolution theory is totally wrong, the automatic default setting is not "God did it" (although that answer sure would make getting 100% on science tests easy). Leave the medieval thinking to the Taliban and the Jihadists.

[RobRoy]

Don't tell me birds cannot evolve!

The Ford Falcon evolved into the Mustang!

[RobRoy]

>>Evolution is a scientific theory and does not address God in any way shape or form.<<

You use the phrase "scientific theory" rather loosely. I always thought of science as being fairly exact. The word "evolution" is anything but.

[muawiyah]

My Mustang was assembled on a GM line and had Cadillac brakes. There were other strange parts on it.

I'd say it was more a "melding" of the Falcon with the Caddy, with the bad features of both.

Cats into dogs.

Dogs into cats.

[ml/nj]

Even if evolution theory is totally wrong, the automatic default setting is not "God did it"

Why are you addressing this remark to me? Does it contradict, or add to, the comment I made?

ML/NJ

[DannyTN]

Even though I think Darwinian evolution is completely bogus, I think this is a silly point to make. It hardly invalidates the concept.

It's not silly, if only because many FREVO's do indeed make the claim that our nation will fall behind in science and technology if evolution is allowed to be questioned. They have even claimed we would go backwards into the dark ages.

Saturn has rings. This knowledge has thus far been completely useless to mankind; but it's still true.

I agree that scientific hypotheses or knowledge shouldn't be discarded simply because they haven't yet proved useful in a practical way.

But again, the point isn't that evolution as a theory shouldn't be considered. The point is that evolution isn't the lynchpin of all modern science as some Evo's try to claim for it.

[corkoman]

What does evolution have to do with influenza vaccinations? The first vaccines were invented by a Creationist.

Let me explain it to you and then you can ignore it and conitnue with your non-sequitors.

Microbes evolve in the same way most species - those that survive being killed off pass thier genes, the ones that provided the survival traits, to their progeny. The mutational shifts can be tracked and for influenza there is a pattern to the shifts. These can be anticipated as the CDC has been doing for many years. They induce these shifts into strains of influenza that are maintained in the CDC labs. They use these induced strains to make vaccines that are rushed in the Fall of every year to clinicians who administed them to patients at risk. It is not a perfect system but considered better than doing nothing.

Now regarding your comment about a creationist "inventing" vaccines - would it be any different to you if they were invented by an evolutionist? Would you withold them from your young children if this was the case?

[RadioAstronomer]

There is far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution (and indeed it is a scientific theory) than gravitational theory.

Do you deny that gravity exists?

[muawiyah]

Saturn's "rings" were earlier seen as "horns", and because of that Saturn and his counterparts (Ba'al), became the god to whom children were sacrificed.