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

[Ichneumon]

I know from your history on this board that you are just furious with anybody who ignores your rantings. I was where you're at 30 years ago as a foolish teen. Nothing you post can surprise me. In fact you are way to predictable. And boring.

Translation: "I'm *still* scared to death to actually discuss the topic I just spouted off about, so I'm going to keep making pathetic posts that I hope I can make so emptily condescending that someone might mistake them for actual confidence or competence."

Look, Jorge, if you're that scared to support your claims, just silently vanish, at least that why some people might assume you did so because you got involved in other things. But your current tactic just makes blatantly obvious the fact that you have all the time in the world to bluster and get snotty, but no inclination or ability to back up your mouth with substance.

Run along, kid, I've seen your kind way too often to be even annoyed or surprised by it, much less "furious". Hell, I even sardonically *predicted* what you'd do and you couldn't help doing it anyway. "Furious"? I'm laughing my ass off.

[GourmetDan]

Actually, I think it's *your* ignorance that is showing.

I know about the 5' to 3' problem and the difference between head-to-head chromosome fusions and observed chromosome fusions and you don't.

I also see evos do that all the time and it doesn't impress me either.

[ml1954]

Ichy, the problem is you have a bad attitude and are unwilling to "teach" or "discuss". Your approach to these threads reminds me of the old mullah who sits there in the masdrah and smacks kids with the whip on the long stick.

No doubt you have something to contribute, but I think I'd much prefer a modern, Western classroom setting.

IOW, you have nothing left but personal attacks. LOL.

[Jorge]

...if you're that scared to support your claims, just silently vanish, at least that why some people might assume you did so because you got involved in other things.

This is exactly the kind of insults I used to spout at Christians when I was an evolutionist.

You don't have a clue how ugly and arrogant your posts make you look. I feel sorry for you.

[Ichneumon]

If people don't believe God's Word then they can just make up any "truth" they want to replace it.

...and yet oddly enough, it's the creationists who keep getting caught spewing endless falsehoods on this subject, while it's the "evolutionists" who keep going through a great deal of time and trouble to double-check their conclusions against reality (you know, that "science" stuff you may have heard about on the Cartoon Network).

Yet again, perhaps you don't know what in the heck you're talking about. Or maybe you're just making it as you go along because you think any false slander is justified when fighting that "evilution", eh?

Pathetic.

[Physicist]

...she said, with her hands clasped tightly over her eyes and ears as she sings "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...

Let's represent that visually, shall we?

That's better. But my guess is that your interlocutor is a male; dedicated female trolls are as rare as hen's teeth.

The giveaway was that he/she claims to be Catholic, but then pretends to cling fanatically to concepts that fly directly into the face of Catholic doctrine. One cannot be dogmatic and heterodox at the same time.

[ml1954]

Please, please, please, Dan, tell us all again about how the earth is the center of the universe. It's so fascinating.

[Jorge]

There is only one.

[Coyoteman]

IOW, you have nothing left but personal attacks. LOL.

Right. I'm being attacked too for declining to debate an issue I know nothing about.

I guess among creationists, a lack of scientific knowledge is not a sufficient reason to sit back and listen, and perhaps learn.

[GourmetDan]

Please m, tell us again what the unique evidence is that proves that the earth orbits the sun which orbits the Milky Way which orbits the ?

Wouldn't be Michelson-Morley, that gave a null result.

Wouldn't be Airey's Failure, that gave a null result also.

Wouldn't be Foucalt Pendulum, that would require different effects for the opposing models.

Wouldn't be stellar parallax, that is the evidence that the stars are centered on the sun for the required gravitational offset.

Hmmm, what could it be...?

[Liberal Classic]

Jaguarbhzrd wrote:
90% of Christians do not believe in a literal creations, does this also make them turned away from God?

To which Jorge replied:
I don't agree with your 90% number, but yes it is absolutely turning away from God.

If people don't believe God's Word then they can just make up any "truth" they want to replace it.

Most of the people that I have personally known from working in biology and geosciences fields are not atheists. Contrary to popular notions on these threads, many of them are church (or synagogue) going people, and most of them have some measure of religious faith. None of them believes that evolutionary theory, or other scientific theories such as plate tectonic theory, is necessarily in conflict with their religion.

What we are seeing in these threads, then, is not a conflict between science and religion. For most people, including most religious people, science and faith are not opposed to one another. What we are experiencing is a sectarian conflict. This conflict exists between those with a certain highly literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter and people who hold more mainstream viewpoints. The theological position of mainstream Judaism and Christianity (including conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists) is that the Lord exists beyond scientific scrutiny. However, when the scientific evidence does not square with some people's theological positions, it is the evidence and scientific method that become suspect.

The result is the hostility demonstrated on these threads towards modern biology and science in general. Notice the desire among some people to demonstrate that evolution is useless -- that it has no practical application. Observe the rejection of modern oil exploration techniques. Notice also the advancement of the idea that our understanding of fossil fuels is totally wrong, that our understanding of geology and geologic time is suspect.

How many times in these threads have I heard people say "you can't be a Christian if you believe in evolution" and the like? This is a sectarian conflict. It isn't science versus Christianity at all. In actuality, this conflict is about some people seeking to elevate their theological position above the theological positions of others.

[muawiyah]

Teaching technique is always worthy of a critique in any venue.

Free crits are a way of life.

[Ichneumon]

[...if you're that scared to support your claims, just silently vanish, at least that why some people might assume you did so because you got involved in other things.]

This is exactly the kind of insults I used to spout at Christians when I was an evolutionist.

...and that's exactly the kind of retort I'd use if I was frightened to death of supporting the false slanders I made, if I were the type to actually make empty attacks I knew I couldn't justify when asked to do so.

I'd also falsely claim to have once been an "evolutionist", so as to try to fake a condescension to cover my cowardice.

But then, *I'm* not like that.

You don't have a clue how ugly and arrogant your posts make you look.

Yes, how *DARE* I point out that you're unable and unwilling to ever support your slanders! How *rude* of me!! How arrogant to ask you to support or retract your insults! How ugly it is to point out that you consistently behave like the kind of vitriolic, evasive, intellectually dishonest Christian that gives a bad name to all the good ones! Gosh, what a meanie I am!

Pssst, Jorge -- why do you ignorantly and belligerently assume I am not a Christian myself? This should be *really* funny...

I feel sorry for you.

That's just a case of projection.

[GourmetDan]

LOL!

You aren't being *attacked*.

Merely corrected for calling someone else ignorant when you are clearly the one who is ignorant.

You think that's being attacked?

[Coyoteman]

Please m, tell us again what the unique evidence is that proves that the earth orbits the sun...

How do you feel about flat earth and phlogiston chemistry?

[Ichneumon]

Please m, tell us again what the unique evidence is that proves that the earth orbits the sun

The fact that the distance between the Earth and the Sun varies over the course of the year in exact accordance with the scenario of the Earth orbiting the Sun instead of vice versa.

Oh, PLEASE tell me that not only are you stupid enough to be an anti-evolutionist, you're also stupid enough to be a geocentrist...?

[GourmetDan]

Feel?

I can't say that I have any feelings for them at all.

You?

[muawiyah]

,,,,954, just what are you arguing about?

There are current articles in popular science journals and peer reviewed journals concerning the "shape" of the universe that suggest it has no edge, and no center.

Are you going to tell us you know where the center is?

[GourmetDan]

And how would the fact that the distance varies uniquely support heliocentrism over geocentrism?

Surely you know.

[elkfersupper]

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

I am truly puzzled by the fairly recent resurgence of this phenomenon.

Somebody, please help me understand what is the impetus.

I am at a loss, and nearly speechless in wonderment.