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

[Coyoteman]

But, again, if you wish to run circles around the scientists that understand evolution, I really wish that you would get on with it, because I have yet to see it.

I've done it for years in Evolution forums, and finally came to realize that it was a waste of time, that those who rejected the Word of God were not interested in the truth. Period.

As an ex-Evolutionist I have seen both sides of this debate.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7; emphasis added].

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.

[Jorge]

I haven't seen any of your arguments, I have no idea what you have for proof.

I understand. And I have CD's full of these arguments, and could post them for weeks and months on these boards.

But I've learned that it is useless with unbelievers. They couldn't recognize the truth if it hit them in the face because the are so delusional intellectually.

I refuse to waste my time anymore.

[Jorge]

Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose or what?

[Liberal Classic]

They couldn't recognize the truth if it hit them in the face because the are so delusional intellectually.

I must be delusional because I don't share your theological positions.

[Jorge]

I must be delusional because I don't share your theological positions.

You said it, not me :)

[Liberal Classic]

So, anyone who does not share your theology is delusional. Lovely.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Ahh, I thought you were taking a class in biology, not physics, my apologies.

Physics is a whole different animal then evolution, but at the same time, your professor was right, and you are scientifically wrong.

Religiously, it doesn't matter to me, what you believe, but your beliefs, do not belong in science, and thank goodness, serious scientists, will not take your beliefs seriously in their scientific endeavors.

[Jorge]

Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Right. So Cristians should abandon the teachings of God's Word on Creation and adopt the theory of Evolution for fear somebody might "laugh" at them.

Incredible.

[gitmo]

I disagree with the author on the value of evolution. It provides the only practical framework for a taxonomic structure, allowing a systematic study or a confusing collection of species.

But that's about it.

[Coyoteman]

Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose or what?

You can laugh if you choose.

However, many on these threads would do well to observe the warning of the good saint.

We have been treated to some prime examples just on this thread alone.

[Jorge]

So, anyone who does not share your theology is delusional. Lovely.

Well let me see....either I believe God's Word OR I DON'T BELIEVE IT.

The idea that I should "halfway" believe it and ALSO accept theology that opposes it is just rediculous.

If you REALLY believe something then you consider anything else delusional.

What else would you consider it?

[Jorge]

However, many on these threads would do well to observe the warning of the good saint.

What garbage.

Learn to tell the truth and then lecture me on what does or doesn't make a good saint.

[Quark2005]

Right. So Cristians should abandon the teachings of God's Word on Creation and adopt the theory of Evolution for fear somebody might "laugh" at them.

No, but perhaps you should realize some parts of the Bible were meant to be taken allegorically, rather than literally. (Trees with fruit that imparts knowledge upon ingestion sort of screams "allegory!!", doesn't it?)

I assume you don't take the rest of the Bible literally; why do you take the Creation story literally (especially when it contradicts everything we now know about science?)

[Jorge]

Ahh, I thought you were taking a class in biology, not physics, my apologies.

Don't apologize, I also aced my biology classes.

[wyattearp]

Just my $.02. Well, actually, it was Solomon...

Proverbs 12:
1) Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.
15) The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

[Jorge]

No, but perhaps you should realize some parts of the Bible were meant to be taken allegorically, rather than literally.

Oh please. The only thing worse than outright denial of the scriptures is the attempts to redefine it as meaning something other than it actually says.

The parts that were meant to be taken allegorically are obviuous enough.

[Liberal Classic]

You realize, of course, that people may have different opinions than you do on theological issues, and not be insane?

[Ichneumon]

I've done it for years in Evolution forums, and finally came to realize that it was a waste of time, that those who rejected the Word of God were not interested in the truth. Period.

Do you realize how ignorant that makes you sound? Clue for the clueless: Of all the Americans who accept hte validity of evolution, the *majority* of them happen to be Christians.

Now, please explain to us just how a "straight A" whiz kid like yourself managed to make such a stupid and boneheaded error in logic as to falsely presume that being an "evolutionist" was equivalent to "rejecting God" (*and* that becoming "born again" somehow requires one to suddenly reject evolutionary biology).

Jorge, you haven't the first clue whatsoever on this topic, yet you keep beating your chest trying to convince us all that you've been intimately familiar with it from all sides.

You're a really, really bad bluffer. You keep revealing your total ignorance on this topic every time you open your mouth, which belies your frequent boasts about how you could win debates if only you deigned to do so...

You're just a cheap poseur who has to repeatedly boast about his alleged "offline glories" in order to try to impress us, because you have nothing whatsoever to actually offer here and in the present that is likely to garner any respect.

[hosepipe]

[ If there are Protestants, why are there still Catholics? ]

The flesh...

[Jorge]

Thank you!