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

[Jorge]

So, not only were you able to turn your brain off, you were also able to turn off your new found principles as well. God must be pleased with you.

So you consider getting straight A's and perfect 4.0 GPA to be "turning your brain off"?

And being at the top of your class contradictory to God's principles?

You think God wants losers and failures as followers?

One reason I never let an evolutionists lecture me on morals or God's principles.

God and His people can run circles around evolutionists on their own turf.

[Quark2005]

You will learn one day. Just as I did.

If you think evolution is some half-cocked idea dreamed up by crazy scientists to discredit God, you haven't learned squat.

Try reading a science book. A real one.

[Jorge]

If you think evolution is some half-cocked idea dreamed up by crazy scientists to discredit God, you haven't learned squat.

I KNOW it is. And I promise you that one day you will learn the truth.

And this is coming from a committed X-evolutionist.

[Liberal Classic]

Quark2005 wrote:
If you think evolution is some half-cocked idea dreamed up by crazy scientists to discredit God, you haven't learned squat.

To which you replied:
I KNOW it is. And I promise you that one day you will learn the truth.

And this is coming from a committed X-evolutionist.

You realize, of course, that is a theological position that not everyone shares with you.

[muawiyah]

Not my theory. But your answer is directed at a totally different concept ~ namely "primordial oil" ~

I was thinking more of extremophiles having "converted" other, lighter, hydrocarbon sources in the early Earth into munchies for later critters (diatoms, etc.).

This makes the critters with the munchies coincidental with the existence of short chain hydrocarbons, not the primary source.

We also have an incredibly large biomass contained directly in rocks in the crust that, if squeezed out, would undoubtedly deliver something useful to burn.

Now, the question of what you are pointing to, I think it's the idea that quite ordinary bacteria, diatoms, etc. are the final source for fosil oils, with them having cruched it out of hydrogen (from water), and carbon from ?

So, where do they get the carbon?

[Jorge]

You realize, of course, that is a theological position that not everyone shares with you.

Uh, I post on FR. Of course I know this :)

[Jaguarbhzrd]

As a christian, you are not supposed to lie, even to yourself.

Now, a Fundamentalist Muslim, that's a whole other story.

So, you weren't actually lying? Because I believe you were. Listening to infidels, and lying to them by faking to understand what they were teaching is lying, therefore, you must not be a Christian, you must be a Muslim, because Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers.

[Liberal Classic]

Not my theory.

Here's one thing I know ~ other than finding buried reefs, under which heavy hydrocarbons can get trapped, I fail to see where any understanding of biological processes would be needed to find oil.

[Quark2005]

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

Good Lord in Heaven, you have got to be kidding me...

[Jorge]

So, you weren't actually lying? Because I believe you were.

How would you know?

Tell me ONE SINGLE thing you have evidence I lied about.

You can't because I didn't.

Of course I understand why an evolutionist wouldn't believe anybody has integrity...

[Liberal Classic]

I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

God and His people can run circles around evolutionists on their own turf.


Really? Then why don't they?

In order to refute science, you need to use science, but first you must understand the science.

You have so far proven that you can do none of these things.

You claim to have believed in evolution, there is no belief in evolution, either you understand the theory, or you don't, there is no belief.

It is a scientific theory, not a religion.

Did God leave all of this evidence to fool us, and take us away from him? Did he give us our powerful brains and logical thinking skills in order that we would discover his trickery, and therefore be taken from him?

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for one minute, unless of course you believe that Satan is strong enough to leave such evidence himself.

I do get confused by Creationists sometimes, the evidence exists, there is no refuting it, I mean, it's there.

If God did not mean for us to find it and figure it out, why does it exist? and if he did not create it and is not the trickster, then you are saying that Satan is powerful enough to leave that evidence.

You have me royally confused.

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.

[muawiyah]

You are mixing apples and oranges.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

You said that you took the classes, yet did not believe what your teachers were teaching, yet were able to get straight A's.

You were lying, because taking those classes went against your newfound religious principles.

Why is that confusing to you?

Just admit it, you lied to your teachers, by pretending to understand what they were teaching.

For self interest, you pretended, which is just another way of lying.

Don't get me wrong, I think that children pretending is good for them, but an adult pretending is lying, because you know better, especially in that context.

[Quark2005]

I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

Laugh. Definitely laugh.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Laugh LC, just laugh, because such ignorance really is hilarious. The knowledge is out there, all they have to do is have an interest in finding it.

So yes, it is funny.

Laugh.

[Jorge]

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.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Well, then, what good does that do me?

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

You claim that you have such proof, but I haven't seen it.

Share it with the newby.

I am very interested in seeing this socalled scientific evidence that will disprove the theory of Evolution, that you claim you have.

I have a very open mind, but also remember that I have a very objective mind, and will ask for full accounting for what you claim.

Please, share your enlightened scientific evidence with me, it is scientific, is it not?

If it's not, don't bother, but if it is, please, share it with me.

[balrog666]

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.

They're stupid, ignorant, and frightened. And they find similarly afflicted people over the internet and form a herd of like minded sheep to bleat at the prospects of the future.

[Jorge]

You said that you took the classes, yet did not believe what your teachers were teaching, yet were able to get straight A's. You were lying, because taking those classes went against your newfound religious principles. Why is that confusing to you?

No, you're the one who's confused.

The underlying principles of Physics neither supported nor denied Evolution.

There was NOTHING dishonest about my being able to learn Physics and get straight A's on my tests and assignments, regardless of the fact my professor interpreted these same principles as supporting evolution.

I don't have to agree with his conclusions at all, but he could not deny my an "A" for excelling in his class.

NOTHING the least bit dishonest about that.