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

[Suzy Quzy]

As I just said...you show me the evidence. You can hut this down now...show me the evidence instead of name calling.

[MineralMan]

"Do you guys run in packs?
"

No, do you guys?

[Pablo64]

Who said I had no interest in the topic? I just don't get all foaming at the mouth about it.

[stultorum]

"Oh well, a closed mind gathers no thought.

They say a closed mind is like a parachute - it works best when open.

[js1138]

The evidence is in plain sight.

However, I think you are willfully ignorant.

If you wish to challenge me on this, then state the basic principles of evolution in a couple of sentences, without looking it up. Show me you understand the thing you oppose.

[jwalsh07]

Evolutionary theory is foundational to our modern understanding of biology.

Not really. Biochemistry is the foundation of modern biology. Darwinism gives historical context but it is no longer the foundation. Times, they are changing. Darwinism plays little role in applied science since Darwinism is not predictable by definition. Intelligent design based on biochemistry is the new paradigm, as a mechanism that can be applied by science, roaring into Dodge like the old freight trains. Such is life.

[PatrickHenry]

Clicked on your The List-O-Links and that's a lot of stuff to learn in one evening. Me think it's gonna take me a whole month to read, study and absorb and retain all that stuff. Thanks for the hard work you put into it.

Another service of
Darwin Central
The conspiracy that cares

[js1138]

Intelligent design based on biochemistry is the new paradigm, as a mechanism that can be applied by science, roaring into Dodge like the old freight trains.

Full of sound a fury since 1802, but still signifying nothing.

[MineralMan]

"On the other hand, you really can't defend science by calling taxpayers (who fund so terribly much of it) names."

Uh, I suspect that everyone on this thread is a taxpayer. I know I am. Your point is not made.

[My2Cents]

OK, tell me this: What are all those links and drawings suppose to prove? Boil it down to one sentence. Tell me what it's all suppose to prove. Man's ascent from slimemold? Tell me the bottom line, then I'll look at your links, and tell you whether you've proven your point.

Willful ignorance is NOT a Conservative value.

BTW, what has blind adherence to evolution got to do with conservatism? Your social allies seem to be the leftist mainstream media, and you legal ally seems to be the ACLU.

[jwalsh07]

Very funny.

[js1138]

Having trouble finding a brief definition of evolution to plagiarize?

[indcons]

Pot, meet kettle.

[My2Cents]

I've seen your posts on all these threads, and if you ever appealed in a civil way for you position, people might actually pay attention to you.

Since that's not you style, here's your sign --

[Liberal Classic]

Sorry, but you're incorrect. The modern synthesis theory, comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritence, and discoveries in molecular biology since the identification of the DNA molecule by Watson, Crick, et al, is our theortical foundation for biological science. That you would prefer intelligent design/creationism to supplant the modern synthesis theory is clear, but it is not happening.

[stands2reason]

Who is "They"?

[Dark Knight]

In addition to medicine and agriculture, evolutionary theory has found use in the prospecting for fossil fuels. Drilling for oil is expensive, and involves a degree of risk. The more you understand about the ancient climate at the time the strata was laid down, the better your chance of identifying a possible crude oil reservoir. Modern oil exploration makes heavy use of micropaleontology, or the study of microscopic fossil life, such as algaes and diatoms. Combined with stratigraphy, geologists paint a picture of the ancient climate in order to drill fewer dry holes. In this way, geology and evolutionary theory combine into the applied science of petroleum engineering.<<

So can you cite a class for future petroleum engineers on applied evolutionary theory for geologists?

Or is this just another thought experiment to "broaden" the usefulness of the theory?

DK

[js1138]

Tell me what research has been inspired by intelligent design. What great beast is roaring into the station?

[stands2reason]

Evolution is for people who can not only accept reality, but refuse to dictate God's methods to Him.

[Liberal Classic]

BTW, what has blind adherence to evolution got to do with conservatism? Your social allies seem to be the leftist mainstream media, and you legal ally seems to be the ACLU.

This topic is important to many of us because we believe that modern conservatism, as a reality-based political position, should be stongly on the side of science.

As Barry Goldwater put it:

I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.

We feel this issue is critical to future national compeditiveness, and we object to anti-science notions becoming associated with conservative politics.

Furthermore, many of us believe that creationism/intelligent design is not only bad science, but bad theology as well.