Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Re: Stein's Decline   [John Derbyshire]

I agree that Ben Stein's a clever talent, Kathryn (and one of the funniest deadpan comic actors ever), but that promo is low-grade stuff, even by Creationist standards.

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others …

If that's what "Darwinism" (he means: modern biology) is, how does it happen that there are any meek, un-hardy creatures in the world? Yet in fact "hardy" … "stronger" … "dominant" describe only a tiny proportion of species. How is it that all those wimp species are still around after three billion years? Wouldn't the "dominant" ones have eaten them all? Oh, but wait a minute … then the dominants would have eliminated their own food supply … um …

But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was "owned" (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out —

Ben Stein is a Dennis Kucunich voter? Who knew? As for the strong wiping out the weak, see above.

Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.

So a nation that has shucked off imperial aggression or rule — China, say, or India, or, oh, the U.S.A. will have no truck with "Darwinism." Goes without saying.

In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and background of the writer.

So any scientific theory is just a creature of its time, like cuffs on men's trousers, and ought to be discarded when the times change. Care to go into detail about how this applies to, say, Newtonian Mechanics, or the circulation of the blood, or Plate Tectonics, or the bacterial theory of disease transmission?

Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

"Darwinism" does not claim to explain life. It claims to explain the origin of species — why there are so many kinds of living things in the world, not why there are living things at all, a thing we currently do not know and have no testable theories for. Celestial Mechanics explains the motions of matter in the universe, not matter's origins. That would be cosmology.

Maybe we would have a new theory …

If someone comes up with one, one that accommodates all the known facts, biologists will give it serious attention. Until someone does, we'll stick with the best theory we've got. NB: "Darwin was a horrible person!"   "Darwinism is bunk!"   and  "Hitler heart Darwin!" are not theories, only expostulations. And on that last one I will give the warning I always give: If guilt by association is the game you want to play, take a look at some devout Creationists.

Look, the only issue of any political importance here is: What should we teach kids in public schools? The only answer that makes sense to me is: We should teach them consensus science. If you want your kid to be taught Hollow Earth Theory, Orgonomics, Astrology, Great Pyramid Numerology, or Transcendental Meditation, I'm fine with it — but not on my dollar, please.

02/12 09:16 AMShare