February 18, 2009
Science Department
Stupidity and Darwin and Liberals and Molotov Mitchell
In another post, I mentioned that I was worried that I might write something that was so bad it wasn't even wrong. I borrowed that phrase from Steven Pinker (who borrowed it from someone else), and since saying that, I've been concerned that people might not understand what I mean. I'm talking about a level of level of misunderstanding so profound that it's difficult to evaluate because it has no logical connection to the subject under discussion.
On a completely unrelated subject, Eric M. Wallace at Illinois Review has just posted this video of World Net Daily commentator Jason "Molotov" Mitchell talking about "Darwin vs. Liberals":
It's hard to know where to begin, but let me see if I can give it a shot.
I guess I'll start with the misconception about the purpose of the theory of evolution. It's not a normative theory. It doesn't say how things should work, it just describes how things do work. In a soundbyte: IS, not OUGHT.
So when Mitchell says "I thought that the struggle is supposed to build a better breed of human," he's way off the mark. The struggle for survival isn't supposed to build a better breed of human, it just does. But it's not a moral system. There's no reason we should bow down to evolution and let it rule our lives. We're smarter than it is. We can control our lives on our own terms.
While I'm at it, the reason for believing in evolution isn't "hiding behind evolution" to escape "moral responsibility." It's because evolution is a scientific theory that explains a lot of things about the world. People believe in evolution because it works.
Then there's the whole bit about England. Based on a few incidents with some Islamic protestors, Mitchell declares that the United Kingdom will be under Sharia law within 10 years. He then claims this proves the superiority of the god-believing Muslims, even though his "proof" is something he totally made up in his head.
Our cousins in the U.K. are definitely acting a little screwy these days, but they still have a far higher standard of living than in Muslim countries. With a population of 60 million, the U.K. has more than twice the GDP of any Islamic nation, and nearly 2/3 the GDP of Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and all the -stans combined, despite their vast oil wealth and a combined population of over half a billion people. On a per-capita basis, only a few of the small oil kingdoms have a better standard of living.
And if economics doesn't convince you, how about the Brits' kickass special forces, blue-water Navy, and arsenal of nuclear weapons?
Getting back to the main point, although evolution and capitalism both feature competition and failure to survive as key concepts, they aren't quite the same thing. I'm sure someone has done a point-by-point comparison of the logical structure of evolution and capitalism, but basically, economic entities don't survive and grow like reproducing organisms, and reproducing organisms don't have intelligent managers guiding their development.
Besides, if evolution and capitalism go together, shouldn't believers in God be socialists?
Finally, there's the gay rights v.s. evolution issue. There's no need to re-hash my speculation about gayness in evolutionary theory to explain why Mitchell's argument is so stupid. For one thing, it's enough to point out that Larmarck's theories about inheriting acquired characteristics were discredited long ago. Discouraging gay behavior will not eliminate gayness from the human species because you can't change people's genetics by changing their behavior. It would be like getting yourself hair implants in the hope that it would keep your children from going bald.
Further, there's a real logical disconnect in saying that gays are harming the human species because they don't reproduce. People who don't reproduce can't possibly affect the genetic composition of future generations because they don't have future generations.
I know, I know, I've wasted a lot of time on this idiotic video. It would be easy to just call it "stupid" and move on. Sometimes, however, I just get the urge to point out that idiocy is not always about bad ideas or bad values. Often it's about factual, objective errors. Sometimes stupid stuff is stupid for a reason.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
.
Liberal wussietards are strong belivers in this evoltution poppycock bull kaka
Thank you for that comment. You are, no doubt, a fine example of your kind.
Mark, a rather thoughtful article, but from an outsider's view there appears to be a few holes in your logic.
First, you start out making this statement about evolution: "It doesn't say how things should work, it just describes how things do work."
Having a college background in chemistry and loving science, I also love facts but a theory is about how things should work, not facts; a scientific principle on the other hand, describes how things do work.
I think you would agree with those statements. If so, that brings up your later statement that contradicts your previous premise: "It's because evolution is a scientific THEORY that explains a lot of things about the world. People believe in evolution because it works.".
In other words, if the science is so settled, why is it still called a "Theory" and not something akin to the Law of Gravity? Shouldn't it be called "The Law of Evolution" or "The Principle of Evolving Organisms"?
Personally, I don't believe it has to be creation vs evolution, because both are theories that need much more investigation. There are many holes in what is correctly labeled the "Theory of Evolution" and some new ones the scientific establishment doesn't want to deal with so they just ignore them.
As a for instance, on the Pulaski River in TX there was a discovery so out of the ball park in terms of blowing holes in our present understanding of evolutionary time periods that those who made the discovery invited many prominent scientists to see for themselves. Furthermore, since the discovery involved fossil imprints in rock, and others might question whether they were original to this river bed, now that they had been removed, the original discoverers proceeded to re-route the river temporarily in the hope that what they discovered previously was there beneath other sections of river. They did this with cameras rolling and those scientists in attendance so it was a huge gamble.
What did they discover that the scientists saw them excavate from the river bed? Dinosaur footprints AND human footprints, not only in the same strata of rock, but one top of one another!
And an amazing thing happened. Most of the scientists refused to believe their own eyes, refused to accept this as something requiring further investigation. They even refused to accept the possibility that what they were seeing might require a re-examination of their present theories. Well, all but one. One guy realized this find could turn our present science on its head.
History is littered with scientists who hold to the latest status quo because they are making their living off those models. They write books based on the previous theories. Take the discovery of Sister Kenney in Australia (they call their nurses "Sisters"). She discovered how to reverse the effectes of paralysis and cure patients who were unable to walk. This was 35 years before Jonas Salk. She would take the patients of doctors who had given up on their young patients. They were totally crippled. But with extremely hot compresses using woolen blankets (which prevent the skin from scalding) and then using her physical therapy techniques, she was able to relax and retrain the muscles until the person re-learned how to walk. Yet she was run out of country after country as a charlatan by the established medical profession that made such erudite statements as "she's a nurse, not a doctor" (and therefore incapable of discovering anything) and something along the line of "It's not in any of our textbooks and those textbooks are written by the smartest minds in medicine".
So you see, you're in good company with all those naysaying scientists who refuse to accept other theories and don't want to rock the boat where everyone says, "Look at how many really smart people believe like we do, so we must be right"! Unfortunately, history is littered with great minds that refuse to question what has already been given the scientific community's stamp of approval. Yes, you're in great company, but you and they are wrong to lock out creationism, intelligent design, and other emerging theories of life on earth.
I recommend taking a look at "Priviledged Planet", a truly awesome video documentary that touches on some of these issues and which includes some amazing science facts to back up their theories.
Leroy, thank you for commenting. I think you place too much emphasis on the distinction between scientific "Theory" on the one hand and scientific "Law" or "Principle" on the other. Scientists may refer to some of the older or more reliable theories as "laws" or "principles," but they're all theories. Some theories are better than others -- because they've been tested more and survived more -- but no general statement about the behavior of the universe can ever be fully tested, so theories are the best we can do.