A good answer to a bad question
In a startling display of synchronicity, New Scientist staff writer Michael Le Page answers a silly question that came up in the biblicablogosphere on the same day. Duane and Drew answered it too, but then, they knew the question had been asked, so their very fine answers don’t count as Jungian synchronous events. Le Page busts open the anti-evolution myth that “‘survival of the fittest’ justifies ‘everyone for themselves.’” The teaser to the article reads:
The “fittest” can be the most loving and selfless, not the most aggressive and violent. In any case, what happens in nature does not justify people behaving in the same way
Please read the full article if you have any lingering suspicions that evolutionary biology really supports “man’s inhumanity to man.” It’s short, sweet, and to the point.
10 comments Christopher Heard | religion and science
[...] 17, 2008 by Jim Exhibit 1. He can’t believe it’s a silly question else he wouldn’t bother addressing [...]
Nice article. I have read a lot of early 20th century material that references Herbert Spencer as well. William James speaks fondly of him, although he dislikes Spencer’s hard-core empiricism.
Social constructionism has a lot to say against the every person for themselves myth as well. The only evidence related to the hypothesis disproves it.
It’s not so much a silly question as an old and tired one. But as I am learning, all of the questions/assertions of the atheists versus creationists today are all also old and tired. Yet we keep after them like moths to flame…
the problem is the premise: it’s not “survival of the fittest.” it’s “survival of all but the least fit.”
as a species, protecting the weaker members can be very good evolutionarily — more genes to go around and higher rate of survival means you’ll last longer, obviously. in fact, herd and social animals (such as us!) evolved to do just that — basically what he says. cooperation is a very powerful advantage.
I disagree with this point Le Page made:
“Just about every kind of behaviour that most of us regard as ‘unnatural’ turns out to be perfectly natural in some nook or cranny of the animal kingdom.”
I don’t believe the anomalous animal-behaviors he cited are natural. They may occur frequently by a particular species, but just because an act occurs in nature doesn’t mean it’s beneficial, justifiable, or condoned by the Righteous Designer. A physically strong student can’t go to school, start strangling everyone who’s weaker, then expect to walk away free claiming that what they’ve done is “perfectly natural”.
The concept of “survival of the fittest” is just a concept with no useful, substantive meaning, except possibly to confuse impressionable young minds in taxpayer-dollar funded Science classrooms.
Neither Einstein nor Ghandi survived. They’re both dead. There were intelligent/wise people before them, & there have continued to be more after them.
Evolutionism, or as you affectionately call it, “evolutionary biology”, really does support “man’s inhumanity to man” because it (as it’s taught in schools) seeks to eliminate the judicious Creator of the world, & replace God with a non-falsifiable hypothesis that everything happened on its own accord, & that everything is ultimately meaningless. That’s the real “evolutionary biology”–not the loving/purposeful kind that you conjure up in your mind.
P.S. I’m ticked off at you for camouflaging a link to Dr. tWist’s site. Can’t you at least show a little courtesy by including a parenthetical warning to his links in the future? Have you no sense of concern for your fellow man, or is it every man for himself, & the fittest survives?
Drew, your “tired,” may very well be superior to my original “silly.” I tried out several different adjectives and wasn’t terribly happy with any of them; perhaps I should have foregone any adjective at all. “Problematic” would be more accurate as well, but far less colorful.
Why, G.M., it’s more like surfival of the fittest. ;-)
I see that Jim West has just thrown another fit. What a baby . . .
Right, problematic lacks color. But look at how much attention “silly” got you! :-)
G.M.,
Two major problems with your post in words alone:
1) “Evolutionism” is made up. No evolutionary biologist worth their scientific salt is proposing an ideology. they are proposing a theory which means that it has met the challenge of empirical evidence. That’s why it’s a theory. It is falsifiable if you can offer empirical evidence that would advance an empirically credible alternative theory. No one has done this yet. ID does not fit since it proposes an non-empirical alternative.
2) Nowhere in Scripture is “Righteous Designer” a description for God.
Stop makin’ stuff up. This is like the “Rapture” for scientists and as true.
“Surfival” … I like that! Cute! (Not Christina Ricci cute, but cute nonetheless.)
Drew, “challenge of empirical evidence”??? Now that is problematic. Evolutionists look through a microscope, & say it all looks like it happened randomly, getting progressively more complex over a long period of time. Creationists peer into the same microscope, & marvel at God’s handiwork. Neither one has met any challenge, but at least the creationists ain’t kidding themselves like you are.
“It is falsifiable if you can offer empirical evidence that would advance an empirically credible alternative theory.”
Sorry, Drew, but it’s only falsifiable if it can be falsified, & it can’t. Find me a single credible Science publication that explains how Evolutionism can be falsified (& I have to add the -ism to distinguish the macro brand from the micro brand since everybody knows that plants & animals evolve in smalls ways over time, which anyone can observe at their nearest pet shop).
You can’t falsify superstition, & that’s what Evolutionism is: a belief based on ignorance. Go see “Expelled”. Evolutionism’s best proponents freely admit nobody knows how Life began, or how it can become progressively more complex. All they can say is, “It just happened.” Creationists say, “God did it.” Equivalent levels of ignorance, but Evolutionism requires a higher level of arrogance, whereas Creationism requires a higher level of humility.
I never claimed the name Righteous Designer was in Scripture, so I don’t understand your 2nd point. It’s painfully obvious from Scripture that God is a designer (if from nothing else, from the potter analogies) & is righteous. I’m an engineer; I get paid for “making’ stuff up”. (Though if you’re willing to pay me more to stop makin’ stuff up, please contact me offline.)