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

[<1/1,000,000th%]

How can you misquote somebody when you include the quote in your post?

His words were:

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits.

Were you expecting some sort of new refrigerator? Or a new line of action figures? Cosmology hasn't had any practical or commercial benefits either. Neither has General Relativity.

This is why creationists have such a hard time gaining credibility. They don't know enough about science to understand that the correctness of a theory is not judged by it's sales numbers.

On the other hand, when the kids were little we had a lot of fun with Captain Planet action figures, but I think that's a different topic. In fact, my oldest daughter could sing the theme song from the cartoon in German. It was popular over there.

"Water!"

[muawiyah]

How absolutely "strange" of you. Obviously you did not read all the posts on this thread.

You and I have probably not gone over this material before ~ this time I didn't attack the evolutionists for being nice little true believers who posit the existence of a supernatural being called Natural Selection.

Probably because they were behaving themselves this time and only once screwed up and said the genome can be changed by "Environmental Pressure" ~ again, another supernatural being.

The genome changes, and critters live or die in greater or lesser numbers in comfort or not. The external environment might have something to do with how well they dine, but it's not tinkering directly with the gearworks in the little machines inside!

[Quark2005]

True, if one is not curious. But KNOWING which it is could greatly impact our understanding of the physical universe and how it works. And the more we know about it, the more we can manipulate it.

With all due respect, I don't think you're getting the point, here. Gravity is a force, which can be defined as either a 'push' or a 'pull', depending on how one chooses to define you +/- signs. The difference is a matter of convention. Newton's theory says it's an attractive force. That's as specific as it (or any other field theory) can get.

[RobRoy]

I don't think I was getting the point. I think you are correct.

My point, however, is that we don't know what we don't know, and finding out whether it is push or pull could have ramifications of which we are not aware - yet.

[Quark2005]

My point, however, is that we don't know what we don't know...

There's something I think we can all agree on!

[RobRoy]

;)

[Wicket]

Good comments. You basically have confirmed the distinction between micro and macro evolution. It is obvious that viruses mutate, dog breeds change over time (both random and selectively), animals go extinct or increase/change based on conditions. Creationists don't deny that.

What creationists do debate evolutionists about is in your last paragraph - was man made specifically and for a higher purpose than animals, is our life here random chance, how did such vast, complex and intricately related environment of earth come to be.

Also, the subjective beliefs of inventors/researchers are relevant. If you believe that the world/the universe operates on an unpredictable basis, you won't try to figure out how a process "works" or a bacterium is put togehter, as you wouldn't expect the design to be consistently replicated. And if you think that humanity was placed here by space aliens, you might be inclined to research the space aliens and what they intended to accomplish.

It also makes a huge difference in the importance you place in the questions you ask, the research you do. Should there be equal resouces extended to understanding of human activity or fighting human disease, ailments, accidental or intentional deaths and that of other species of animals (plants?) Is the life and death of a human of more import than that of a hamster?

[stultorum]

They're = their. LOL!

"The ultimate goal of science is discovering the truth..."

I was talking about Darwinists' ultimate goals, not science's. I do not consider evolution science, nor Darwinists scientists as in the sense of hard science scientists.

"Science just happens not to care about political correctness, religious correctness, or anybody's personal feelings, for that matter."

True. And, since evolution is not science (either soft or hard), they may care about those attributes. In fact, for the most part, evolution revolves around those and other pseudo, intangible concepts to make their shoe fit.

[stultorum]

"Who's ultimate goal?

Darwinists'.

I thought that was clear.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

Agreed.

[balrog666]

A veritable treasure trove of hilarious ignorance, stupidity, and mendacity. Placemarker.

[Quark2005]

And, since evolution is not science...

On whose decree, yours? The decree of "Lone Rangers of Science" that publish their own (frequently flawed) opinions on websites? Funny that just about all biological scientists fail to see it your way. Peer-reviewed literature and field research tells quite a different story.

Is Evolution Science?

Before people become speakers as to what is science and what isn't, they should first spend some time in the audience.

[stultorum]

"Then let me not stand open to puerile accusations of subterfuge: We descend from monkeys. The only way that statement can be construed as untrue is to take the position that we are still a species of monkey. There is merit in that view. But then this statement is irrefutable: We descended to monkeys."

Seems to me that the two above declarative statements, We descend from monkeys and We descended to monkeys. contradict each others. If we descended TO monkeys, it follows that we must have been something other than monkeys. Iow, we did not descend FROM monkeys to begin with since we were other than monkeys, but through passage of time descended TO monkeys.

No matter how you slice it, it doesnt' fit, unless one forces to make it fit. The shoe doesn't fit.

[stultorum]

"On whose decree, yours? "

Yes, mine, and countless scientists.

Evolution is more of a phylosophy, a faith or belief. More akin to pseudo science, but definitively not a science.

[atlaw]

Darwinists? Who are they? Do you mean biologists who work with, and expand on, the theory of evolution?

[Elsie]

This is thread stalking, and it is against FR rules.

It is?

I didn't read this in the rules. Can you point me to it?

[Virginia-American]

Beware of those of the 29+ evidences that rely on bootstrapping or other resampling techniques. They really prove nothing other than the biases of those who use them.

Please be more specific. What's wrong with which of them?

.... But to be fair to creationists, it should be acknowledged that evolution is a theory that has been evolving. It's rather difficult to critique a theory that morphs into something else before one's eyes.

What on earth are you talking about? The most famous "change" in the theory in the last 20-odd years is punctuated equilibrium - except this is already in "Origin", so it's not much of a change. There's certainly more fossil and genetic data, but the theory itself hasn't changed much since DNA was discovered - gotten more detailed, sure, but not really changed.

[Elsie]

I didn't realize that folks were sacrificing children to Ba'al at that late date.

One man's Baal is anothers CHOICE.

[Elsie]

I'd put a stop to it if they'd not stick me in prison for it.

Is this all that stopping you?!

[hosepipe]

Back when I was a Primate, before I evolved(born again), I believed in evolution as taught in the schools(nonsense).. Now I believe in evolution taught in the Bible.. Primates do indeed need to evolve.. into different creatures d;-)~',',.....