BBC writer undermines own argument here:
First, when talking about evolution, author Chris Baraniuk chooses to defend precisely the theory of evolution that is most under fire just now, in serious intellectual terms: Darwinism
Darwin’s theory of evolution says that each new organism is subtly different from its parents, and these differences can sometimes help the offspring or impede it. As organisms compete for food and mates, those with the advantageous traits produce more offspring, while those with unhelpful traits may not produce any. So within a given population, advantageous traits become common and unhelpful ones disappear.
The problem is, in a constantly changing environment, “helpful” and “unhelpful” might not mean anything for long. So the theory amounts to “the survivors survive.”
That is a self-evident statement, not a mechanism.
Given enough time, these changes mount up and lead to the appearance of new species and new types of organism, one small change at a time. Step by step, worms became fish, fish came onto land and developed four legs, those four-legged animals grew hair and – eventually – some of them started walking around on two legs, called themselves “humans” and discovered evolution.
This can be hard to believe
It sure can. The rest of the article is about comparatively trivial changes that we are asked to believe demonstrate big changes (although human breeding can certainly make some dogs look weird. If nature teaches anything, it is that such oddities would not last long in the wilderness).
That has always been the problem with Darwinism. Darwinism seems like a fraudulent attempt to leave out the importance of the massive information inputs required for big changes. See Being as Communion.
By the way, why do Brits pay taxes for the BBC? Do they still need such government behemoths for anything, in the age of the Internet?
If Brits have money to burn, why aren’t they paying taxes for the support of cavalry horses as well?
Note: We face the same problem with the government broadcaster, the CBC, in Canada. There are signs around my own neighbourhood urging everyone to “support” the CBC, in this election year.
In the days when media behemoths were often useful, nobody put up a sign saying, “Support the weather forecast!” The Save the CBC campaign itself shows how much has changed.
Unnecessary institutions are often homes for out-of-date, never challenged, politically correct ideas that any mediocrity can make money off. They tend to retard, rather than advance, discussion by fronting out-of-date “truths” to the public.
I am sure glad evolution isn’t key current news. Some issues are, and are probably treated the same way.
Look, I (O’Leary for News) am not disputing evolution happens. Dam, I owe one of my editors another column on the subject. It’ll be on horizontal gene transfer, which is, I am glad to say, demonstrable.
See also: Evolution: The fossils speak, but hardly with one voice
and Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?
Follow UD News at Twitter!