Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists

London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^ | 04 July 2004 | Times of London Editorial

[PatrickHenry]

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.

[Aquinasfan]

Both, as neither contradicts the other, but rather compliments it.

Punctuated equilibrium complements gradualism? And here I am thinking that they're contradictory...

[VadeRetro]

How many examples do you need to see before you admit that you are wrong?

It's spooky, but some people are never wrong in these discussions, ever. No matter what you catch them saying or doing.

[Junior]

What was wrong with Hitler's idea of weeding out the weaker members of the race?

Because they might not have been weaker. Nature is pretty impartial when weeding out those not up to snuff for their particular environments. Human beings have a tendency to let personal prejudices decide who and who is not "fit" (and the fit usually end up being people who are the most similar to the one making the decision -- regardless of whatever genetic baggage that might entail).

[VadeRetro]

BTW, I'm an ID guy, not a Creationist, although I do believe that God created the universe from nothing, and that the human race derived from Adam and Eve.

I'd say you're exactly the kind of ID guy all the other ID guys are.

[Dimensio]

Do the facts contained in a scholarly book interest you? Or do you normally dismiss facts out of hand?

The "fact" is that no matter what someone says -- whether they're a creationist or a proponent of "Social Darwinism" -- scientific theories do not work as the basis of social policy and the theory of evolution does not suggest that we should round up and exterminate a segment of the human population. It does not suggest that we do anything, it's just a theory to describe natural phenomena. When you try to "apply" the theory to society to determine how best to run it, you're leaving the realm of science.

That would be Hitler and Margaret Sanger, among many others.

Which isn't a refutation of my statements.

What was wrong with Hitler's idea of weeding out the weaker members of the race?

Why do you think that it was "wrong"? Why do most people think that it was "wrong"?

Why wouldn't his genocidal acts be considered a part of the evolutionary process?

They would be a part of the evolutionary process. He was creating an environment that selected certain individuals from the breeding pool. But, as I keep saying over and over again in the vain hope that you will someday understand it, that does not define the actions as "good" or "bad", because evolution theory, just like everything else in science, is not about making moral judgements.

Putting an end to Hitler's regime also changed the environment for human repoduction, which means that it was also a part of the evolutionary process. Evolution is not something that can be "helped", it occurs whether you want it or not. You can try to argue that you're attempting to "guide" evolution to lead to an optimized species, but doing that requires you to make non-scientific ethical judgements and ultimately it's impossible to really determine the "best" mutations because there's really no way to determine what physical and environmental factors may exist in the far future when the fruits of your labors might ultimately be realised.

[AndrewC]

It's spooky, but some people are never wrong in these discussions, ever.

[VadeRetro]

No matter what you catch them saying or doing.

Or how often.

[Sola Veritas]

"Adolph Hitler's plans and actions are not founded in the theory of evolution, not matter what you read or hear from dishonest creationist sources or even from cranks espousing "Social Darwinism" pseudoscience."

You are wrong here my friend. I have seen the NAZI propaganda films from the 1930s where a german "scientist" is explaining to students that only the fitest servive. It was used for justifying getting rid of slavs and jews, etc. Social Darwinism is not something that creationists made up. It was indeed the Sangors and Hitlers(or his minions) that came up with these concepts and spin on Darwin's theories.

Now that being said, this does not negate whether Darwinism is true or not. It simply shows that the theory lends itself well to abuse. However, it must be admitted that every thought or teaching can be abused, as has Christianity.

The real problem with atheistic explainations of the world as it now exists is that it leaves no one accountable for anything. If I don't answer to a creator, then why should I do anything except what best suits me? Other than a short bit of pain by execution, why should I respect any laws of man? Should we all not become socialpaths like Ted Bundy? There is no right or wrong for me except what benefits me or doesn't benefit me? I could appeal to my superior fitness to exist and hunt you down to destroy you and any prodigny, and ensure that only my genes are passed along - you see, it can really get out of hand.

Once again, this doesn't disprove evolution. It just shows how it can be misused - as most religions have been.

[bondserv]

It's spooky, but some people are never wrong in these discussions, ever.

It seems to me your theory of evolution thrives on "wrong". "Wrong" is what propels the theory forward.

If that is wrong, that means we can still pursue what is right, just over the next hill of skulls.

[PatrickHenry]

If evolution leads to Hitler, why wasn't Darwin himself a homicidal maniac? Surely no one was more influenced by "Darwinism" than he was. Why aren't today's biologists running around killing everyone in sight? And why don't these same people who always mention Hitler ever talk about Stalin's early days as a seminary student? Influence is influence, isn't it?

[VadeRetro]

I'm wavering in my faith in science. The latest Discover mag has a story that starts as follows:

In 1610 Galileo pointed his crude spyglass at Saturn and was dumbfounded by what he saw: "The planet Saturn is not alone, but is composed of three, which almost touch one another and never move or change with respect to one another." Worse, the two bulging planets on each side of the main planet had disappeared when he looked again a few months later. "What is to be said concerning such a strange metamorphosis?" he cried. Eventually, the frustrated Galileo decided never to look at Saturn again.

Science is mystified by Saturn. This probably means it's all the action of supernatural beings.

[PatrickHenry]

This probably means it's all the action of supernatural beings.

What else could it mean?
</creationist mode>

[Dimensio]

You are wrong here my friend. I have seen the NAZI propaganda films from the 1930s where a german "scientist" is explaining to students that only the fitest servive. It was used for justifying getting rid of slavs and jews, etc. Social Darwinism is not something that creationists made up. It was indeed the Sangors and Hitlers(or his minions) that came up with these concepts and spin on Darwin's theories.

Which means that they are, at best, founded upon a fundamental lack of understanding (and more likely a deliberate misrepresentation) of Darwin's theory. It's also possible that someone decided that they could spin the theory into a nice justification for what they'd already decided to do.

The real problem with atheistic explainations of the world as it now exists is that it leaves no one accountable for anything.

This isn't a problem. And it's not true. I'm certainly accountable. If I don't complete tasks that I'm given where I work, I'll be fired.

If I don't answer to a creator, then why should I do anything except what best suits me?

You shouldn't. I certainly don't. I just have the ability to understand that satisfying all of my current desires may not ultimately be in my best interests.

Other than a short bit of pain by execution, why should I respect any laws of man?

That's up to you, though there would be more consequences than execution. There's the stay in prison prior to the execution, the fact that you'll be known as a murderer -- some people do care about how others perceive them -- and whether or not you think that you can handle the guilt of taking another human life. Of course, all of that only becomes an issue if you have the desire to take a human life. Do you have any such desire? I certainly don't, apart from a strong desire to put a crowbar into Alan Ralsky's skull (known Internet spammer).

Should we all not become socialpaths like Ted Bundy?

Why would I want to do that? I have no desire to rape and murder women. If I did, I would seek counselling rather than engage in behaviour with such undesirable potential consequences.

There is no right or wrong for me except what benefits me or doesn't benefit me?

Ultimately there is no right or wrong period. It's all defined by human desire.

I could appeal to my superior fitness to exist and hunt you down to destroy you and any prodigny, and ensure that only my genes are passed along - you see, it can really get out of hand.

Yes, you could do that. And in the process you could end up getting killed. You see, I'd kind of like to continue living, and I wouldn't appreciate your efforts to stop that. You'd have to consider that as a possible outcome; while you would ensure that your genes were passed on should you succeed, there's a risk that you will fail and that your genes will never pass on, and if you don't take the risk at all you'll still have a chance to pass your genes on to offspring. Of course, all of that is moot if you don't have the desire to take me out in the first place. I certainly don't feel a need to kill off other people to see that only my genes get passed on to subsequent generations. I see absolutely no benefit in it whatsoever.

Besides, I don't plan on having children.

Once again, this doesn't disprove evolution. It just shows how it can be misused - as most religions have been.

Except that this isn't even misusing evolution. It's a full-on misrepresentation of it.

[Dimensio]

Didn't Earth once orbit Saturn?

[VadeRetro]

Galileo should have consulted some of the older drawings from when Saturn was hovering over the North Pole, yes!

[longshadow]

Didn't Earth once orbit Saturn?

bat guano-stained placemarker

[Junior]

It's also possible that someone decided that they could spin the theory into a nice justification for what they'd already decided to do.

"It is God's will!"

[Doctor Stochastic]

Diapeptics

[Junior]

Yes, but the lightning bolt that made the Grand Canyon flung Earth into a nearly circular (but wildly elliptical, nonetheless) orbit, killed off the dinosaurs (by the sudden increase in gravity) and the mammoths with buttercups in their mouths, formed the asteroid belt, sent Venus ping-ponging across the Solar System (which gave rise to plagues of insects -- originally from Venus, mind you -- in Egypt) before it too came to rest in a nearly circular but wildly elliptical orbit, too.

Did I miss anything?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Did I miss anything?

The magic bullet that killed Kennedy (or maybe it didn't.)