Culture Darwinism News

When Darwin’s followers decide to be cute

Spread the love

… as opposed to wrecking careers

The Darwinian model of evolution is so durable culturally that Darwin’s followers can afford to be cute. They can indulge themselves in phrases like “Go home, evolution, you’re drunk,” (which turns up as the title of this interesting thread at Facebook).

They can do so without any apparatchik caring, and certainly not daring, to wonder if that means the followers have just plain got it wrong.

It’s the same way that people casually admit to political corruption when it is beyond remedy. The one person most of us don’t want to be is the person who calls for reform. Because it’s not the big thug whose opposition we must worry about, but the armies of apparatchiks defending their pay for enforcing and promoting the indefensible.

The “blobfish” (vid below) associated with the phrase “Go home, evolution, you’re drunk” offers a good example of the corruption. It looks weird to humans because its body form happens to seem like a corruption of the human face, to humans. But does the fish, or any other fish, know this or care? Is there anything the matter with it at all?

More critically, should that matter in any way in the undesigned world Darwin’s followers proclaim, where our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth? So it is only accidental that we notice it?

Darwin’s modern followers shamelessly work both sides and trade on richer intellectual traditions to promote their message (when they are not burdening the taxpayers with it and enforcing it through the courts). Working both sides is key to their success.  In North America, they depend heavily on nice people who don’t ask questions and energetic Christians for Darwin/naturalism.

Note: The Science abstract that sparked the thread was

Penicillin may have saved more human lives than any other drug. Yet, almost as soon as it was introduced in the 1940s, researchers found that the antibiotic could not completely sterilize a culture of a Staphylococcus aureus strain sensitive to the drug (1). Shortly thereafter, Joseph Bigger showed that when the few cells that had survived an initial treatment were regrown in the absence of penicillin and then exposed again to the antibiotic, the proportion of survivors was similar to that found after the first treatment (see the first figure). Therefore, the survivors were not stable drug-resistant mutants, but transient drug-tolerant persisters (2). In the past decade, a resurgence of interest in persisters has revealed some of the molecular mechanisms that stimulate their formation. It has become clear that intracellular toxins present in virtually all bacteria control reversible bacterial growth arrest, explaining their antibiotic tolerance. (paywall)

5 Replies to “When Darwin’s followers decide to be cute

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Was ESPN’s Dave Pasch fired for admitting he was a creationist? If not, how was his career wrecked by “Darwinists”?

    As for the old canard of our brains being shaped for “fitness not for truth” it’s blindingly obvious that anyone whose mental models of how the world works are way off the mark is not going to last long. Saying “Here, kitty, kitty!” to a hungry tiger is a good way of becoming a short-lived bowl of kibble rather than living to a ripe old age. Or as W V O Quine put it so pithily:

    Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind

    And exactly how does that Science paper undermine evolution? Drug-resistant strains of bacteria still emerge when challenged by antibiotics as would be expected according to the theory. This paper doesn’t change that.

    How much of all this is actual, factual news and how much of this is anti-evolution propaganda?

  2. 2
    ppolish says:

    “Persisting” is not realy “emerging” is it? Persistent is not innovative. Persistent is not creative. Persistent is Dawinian though. Survival of the survivors.

    Bacteria did not “evolve drug resistance”. They just persisted.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: “Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind”

    Hmmm could that be why atheists have such a higher ‘praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind’ than theists do???

    ‘Believers’ gene’ will spread religion , says academic – January 2011
    Excerpt: The World Values Survey, which covered 82 nations from 1981 to 2004, found that adults who attended religious services more than once a week had 2.5 children on average; while those who went once a month had two; and those who never attended had 1.67.
    Prof Rowthorn wrote: “The more devout people are, the more children they are likely to have.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci.....demic.html

    Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Study Says – Group presents data showing those who go to church weekly have most frequent, enjoyable sex – By Elizabeth Flock – July 17, 2013
    http://www.usnews.com/news/art.....better-sex

    Why do atheists have such a low retention rate? – July 2012
    Excerpt: Only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults. This “retention rate” was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....tion-rate/

    Atheism and health
    A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5]
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health

    Children are born believers in God, academic claims – Telegraph – November 2008
    Excerpt: “The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose,”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....laims.html

    More Studies Show Children Are Wired for Religious Belief: A Brief Literature Review – Casey Luskin August 7, 2014
    Excerpt: We see, then, multiple studies converging on a single conclusion: the innate predisposition of the human mind to believe that there is some kind of an intelligent creator God. Perhaps as we get older we may override this programming, but our fundamental constitution appears oriented to religious belief.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....88551.html

  4. 4
    mahuna says:

    As long as you’re not serious about it, there’s no downside to railing against “corruption”. It gets you invited to speak at Women’s Clubs and junk.

    In politics, “corrupt” government simply provides under the table benefits to voters. Whereas “good” government always provides benefits to big business, often quite openly.

    It’s government itself that is bad. And the more money and power it has to redistribute to its friends, the worse it is.

  5. 5
    CalvinsBulldog says:

    “As for the old canard of our brains being shaped for “fitness not for truth” it’s blindingly obvious that anyone whose mental models of how the world works are way off the mark is not going to last long… Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind… ”

    It never ceases to amaze me the irrational circularity of Darwinist thinking. Consider what is being said here.

    What determines whether something survives? That it makes correct inductions about the world. How do we know it has made correct inductions? Because it survives.

    This is obviously false, as I shall explain in a moment. Moreover, this is also irrelevant to whether something is true. All it tells us is that animals do what WORKS, not that their estimation of the world – or their mental models of the world – are correct ones.

    Some animals, for instance, are so flighty, they will run away from anything, regardless of whether it is carnivorous, herbivorous, large or small. These animals have not made “correct inductions” about the world. They simply manifest behaviour that works.

    I have several dogs. One is a Jack Russell, of which I am enormously fond. Jack Russell dogs, as a breed, are notoriously aggressive and mine is no different. Despite standing no taller than my upper ankle, he has attacked a great many animals that are much larger than himself – including a full grown, two metre high, male kangaroo who, had it attacked back, would have painfully killed the dog in a matter of seconds.

    This aggressive quality, unfortunately, tends to be latent in the breed and I would not describe it as behaviour that significantly helps the animal’s survival. Obviously being domesticated the usual forces of natural selection are not entirely at work, but I use this example to emblemise the animals who exhibit similar traits in the wild.

    To say, “Well, the animal survives, therefore the animal has made a correct induction\has a correct model of the world” is so bizarre in the light of how animals actually function as to give the impression of speaking from another planet.

    Animals survive because what they do works. What works for an animal, however, says nothing whatsoever about the accuracy of the inductions of the animal, or the model of the world they possess. There are so many examples – I can think of dozens – where animals clearly make fundamentally false assumptions that the premise is invalidated in about five seconds of thought.

Leave a Reply