Darwin Stars at the Galaxy, by Universal Pictures
A press release from the European Southern Observatory asks, “Do Galaxies Follow Darwinian Evolution?” One may wonder how stars, which do not bear children, can be considered progeny of Charles Darwin. They explain:
The ‘nature versus nurture’ debate is a hot topic in human psychology. But astronomers too face similar conundrums, in particular when trying to solve a problem that goes to the very heart of cosmological theories: are the galaxies we see today simply the product of the primordial conditions in which they formed, or did experiences in the past change the path of their evolution?
The ESO carried out a survey of 6,500 galaxies that they claim gives a 3-D picture of how galaxies evolved over 9 billion years. The article says nothing about natural selection or survival of the fittest, but just invokes in the E word that made Darwin famous:
This new census reveals a surprising result. The colour-density relation, that describes the relationship between the properties of a galaxy and its environment, was markedly different 7 billion years ago. The astronomers thus found that the galaxies’ luminosity, their initial genetic properties, and the environments they reside in have a profound impact on their evolution.
One of the astronomers also said the study suggests that “galaxies as we see them today are the product of their inherent genetic information, evolved over time, as well as complex interactions with their environments, such as mergers.” The E word or its derivatives were used 11 times in the short release, ending with an analogy: “ just as for humans, galaxies’ relationship and interactions can have a profound impact on their evolution.”
Good grief, stars have nothing to do with Darwinism. No, they don’t have genes, and no, they don’t have nurturing parents. The pure Darwinists are going to get mad for applying natural selection here, to say nothing of confusing it with the controversial notion of niche construction (06/09/2004).
It’s an equivocation fallacy to associate a galaxy’s physical change over time to the kind of evolutionary story Darwin was promoting. What is this, some fawning attempt at name-dropping to score political points by granting further honors to Charles Augustus?