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

[muawiyah]

It's a play on words taken from a supposed "mob saying" ~ to wit "we know where you live". It means, "we know where you are and you can't get away", "we know how to hurt you", and so forth.

Ergo, it is a joke ~ not to be taken all that seriously, but in the case of the post to which I was responding, quite appropriate as a double entendre.

Most people rally never think of their carrier as a potential threat (as a mobster would be) even though they think they understand the expression "going postal".

[muawiyah]

Muawiyah is not required to know anything about "evolution". On the other hand, he does recognize a "political scientist" when he encounters one.

Now, tell me why you are defending this Futuyama so vigorously? Certainly he's a big boy ~ even publishes books denouncing fundies ~ certainly gotta' be world's smartest man to do that.

[caffe]

last word - evolutionary philosophy has nothing in common with hard science - and population genetics is not a science............11111111111111111

[caffe]

take it then that you do not disagree with a ~4.3 billion year old Earth? Or the dating of the fossils we find? Or the relative sequence of those same fossils?

If you consider Physics to be a true science I suspect you also consider chemistry to be a true science. Is this corre


The age of the earth has never been scientifically proven. Just check out all your science books and note how the earth keeps getting older and older in order to fit into "new" evolutionary theories.

Obviously, i don't agree with the dating of the fossils as those times keep changing and are based again on evolutionary fiction. Uniform theory of geology has about as many problems as the democrats.
of course, chemistry is a true science until the evolutionists distort it .

[andysandmikesmom]

I see...I know exactly what the mob saying is, just was wondering if that was how you meant it...

My hubby was not a carrier, many postal employees other than carriers, know where folks live...

[Dimensio]

The age of the earth has never been scientifically proven. Just check out all your science books and note how the earth keeps getting older and older in order to fit into "new" evolutionary theories.

Please provide a reference to a date determined for the age of the earth based upon the theory of evolution. Note that the currently accepted age of the earth has not changed since 1956.

[DannyTN]

"We managed well over 500 years without people fearing or wanting to suppress knowledge."

It's the evolutionists that want to suppress competing ideas like intelligent design.

This article is not about suppressing knowledge. It's about disputing the claim made by evolutionists that evolution is a bedrock of science and all science depends on it.

There are a lot of people who just don't believe evolution is a good fit with the observations. In other words, we don't think evolution is good science. And we want to see science open up to other ideas, instead of holding onto darwinistic dogma.

[wyattearp]

Please explain how Intelligent Design is "good science". Actually, please explain how it is scientific at all. These are questions that have been asked repeatedly, and they have never been answered.

[Coyoteman]

There are a lot of people who just don't believe evolution is a good fit with the observations. In other words, we don't think evolution is good science. And we want to see science open up to other ideas, instead of holding onto darwinistic dogma.

More like, you want science to conform to your religious beliefs. You don't know whether evolution is good science or bad science, but to you its not good theology, so it must be suppressed.

This ID stuff is so transparent; its creation "science" repackaged after a Supreme Court decision blew that out of the water. Even without The Wedge Strategy the ID scam would be easy to figure out for any reasonably intelligent 4th grader.

[RunningWolf]

When it comes to the evos, bl-triple6 ranks in top of their heavyweight intellectual echelon. It is said among the ping list that he has a stuned beeber look about him and is consider to be series and hugh.

However in the real world, bl-triple carries about as much weight and relevance to that real world as the quintessential bunny with a rabbit on his head. A veritable 'snoopy red baron' you have posting at you there muawiyah.

W.

[RunningWolf]

If you look hard enough at any question, you find new answers.

This is a conundrum of physics and other sciences. for when you look hard enough at any answer, you find new questions.

W.

[RunningWolf]

From the looks of it your post was not even the origin of 'post office geek' on this thread, but is where the offense is taken from.

Oh well..., You know, I really have to hand it to that evo ping list /darwin central.org>. and those cats hang together hard tough and stiff.

You should what she says about people, believe me I know! And you have a long long way to go before you ever crack the 'aamm' level of vitriol LOL

W.

[ReignOfError]

If you look hard enough at any question, you find new answers.

---

This is a conundrum of physics and other sciences. for when you look hard enough at any answer, you find new questions.

Certainly true. It ain't easy, which is why I suspect so many people look for something simpler.

[RunningWolf]

Not sure which 'it' it is you speak of. Nor is the simple necessarily easy.

I find the latest/most popular ideas in physics very intriguing. But what will be the consequences if and when string theory is jettisoned in 20 years? Well certainly I don't think the universe is going to collapse, nor will the conceptual work be all in vain either, even if it did not lead to the reality of 'string'.

Indeed, just look at history to see all the advances made on scientific theories later proved wrong.

W.

[js1138]

1. Futuyma is considered an authority on evolution by the community of biologists: yes or no.
2. Ernst Mayr is considered an authority on evolution by the community of biologists: yes or no.
3. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes are authors of a biology textbook: yes or no.
4. All of these people have used the word "change" as a rough synonym for evolution (for example: In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change... or Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations... or evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.): yes or no.
5. Muawiyah has said:(NOWHERE is anyone, not even biologists, using the word "evolve" to mean the word "change.): yes or no.
6. Muawiyah knows more about evolution than Futuyma: yes or no.
7. Muawiyah knows more about evolution than Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes: yes or no.
8. Muawiyah knows more about evolution than Ernst Mayr: yes or no.

[js1138]

In fact, all those "Post Office Geeks" you think can be so readily dismissed do, in fact, know where you live.

We are beginning to understand the word "postal".

[muawiyah]

Yes, and that is to be commended.

[muawiyah]

That was a district court judge wasn't it? But a careful reading of the decision will reveal that his big concern was it didn't match the standards set in his Sunday school class, so it was not necessarily "scientifically wrong", but certainly "theologically in error".

Gotta'watch what these judges really say ~ some of them are kooks.

Sorry you'all got taken in by this guy.

[js1138]

What does The Wedge Strategy have to do with judges?

[muawiyah]

That's true. In fact, postal workers are the very bedrock of any effective national emergency relief operation. Without them this country'd be lost ~ just wandering around in the fields ~ not knowing where to go, who to see, where the roads might be.

This is common knowledge within the postal community and deviations from it are met with stoney silence and hard stares. So, anyone wanting to question this should be prepared for many decades of their welfare checks being "lost in the mail".