Darwin Defense De-Balonied

Some reporters are saying
Darwinism is not all bad.
Wrong. Here’s why.

 

The authors of an editorial in New Scientist seem to be smarting from criticisms of Darwinism by websites like ours. But can their arguments in defense of evolutionary theory hold up to scrutiny?

The theory of evolution can evolve without rejecting Darwinism (4 Dec 2024, New Scientist). Below a big photo of a marquee shouting EVOLUTION is this anonymous editorial defending Charley’s Stuff Happens Law. It starts by acknowledging that critics have long been poking holes at Darwin’s myth.

Darwinian thinking has been challenged many times, starting with co-discoverer of natural selection Alfred Russel Wallace, who disagreed with some aspects of Charles Darwin’s arguments, but was eventually proved wrong on most of them. The US botanist Liberty Hyde Bailey published a paper in 1894 pondering whether the formulation of neo-Darwinism, the mainstream version of evolutionary theory, needed extending (it didn’t); in the 1980s the palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould pursued a similar line.

Our De-Balonification of this article begins by pointing out some Big Lies. Wallace was not “proved wrong” (source) nor were critics like Bailey and Gould wrong for thinking that the “mainstream version of evolutionary theory” needed extending. The argument by assertion “it didn’t” contradicts routine and ongoing criticisms by prominent thinkers and scientists. The article also commits card stacking by listing only a few challengers, all of whom were evolutionists.

We note in passing that the article treats evolution and Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) as essentially synonymous. This contradicts some of our critics who argue that only creationists use the term “Darwinism” and that evolutionary theory has moved on beyond Darwin.

The article mentions one other challenger, then tries its hand at baloney detecting.

Some say this is a straw man argument, as it takes issue with old-fashioned ideas about evolutionary biology, whereas modern thinking is broad enough to encompass all the new aspects we are learning about, from developmental biology, cultural evolution and symbiosis, when two different species live together intimately.

Watch those loaded words: old-fashioned and modern. Don’t be influenced by what the authors consider antiquated and hip. The real problem with this sentence, however, concerns the philosophy of science. A theory “broad enough” to explain everything explains nothing. That’s the folly of the Stuff Happens Law. It is unfalsifiable, because it tries to explain opposite outcomes with the same theory (see 13 Oct 2018, “The Story of Evolution”).

Stuff happens to evolutionary theory, too: it evolves itself! The authors think this is a benefit. But is it?

Over the years, the theory of evolution by natural selection has itself evolved, absorbing new findings about genes, DNA, population genetics and epigenetics, all of which weren’t available in Darwin’s time.

Genetics (finding a code and translation system) should have been the death of Darwinism, and epigenetics should have buried it. Instead, its supporters incorporated genetics and epigenetics into their web of belief, strengthening the web against increasingly damaging attacks, using Darwin Flubber to keep it unfalsifiable (see 12 March 2014 and 8 June 2017).

The authors make a strange claim that “identifying evolutionary drivers is essential” for (1) preventing a bird flu pandemic and (2) learning how species will respond to climate change. Is that true? Some would argue that using evolutionary theory to explain the Covid pandemic was a cover-up for the more probable origin from a lab leak (see Congressional report)—a cause involving both intelligent design (gain-of-function research) and human recklessness. Either way, Darwinism cannot claim to be essential since most doctors and medical researchers have little use for it (Bergman, 7 Oct 2024), and medical research has gotten along and continues to do fine without it.

Creepy! Be Very Afraid!

After another argument by assertion, the authors commit their own straw man argument mixed with the either-or fallacy and fear-mongering:

Whether we need to add to the rule book evolutionary biologists already have at their disposal is debatable. There is a danger of allowing a “god of the gaps” argument to creep in, where apparent shortcomings in evolutionary theory are exploited by those who point to non-scientific explanations.

It would be hard to pack more fallacies into two sentences than the authors do here. Evolutionists have a rule book? Sure: censor creationists and Darwin skeptics! That’s hardly something for scientists to brag about. Adding new rules “is debatable,” they say. OK, let’s debate! Eminent chemist Dr James Tour tried that on chemical evolution experts, and they all folded.

Notice all their tightly-packed fear words. Danger! Non-scientists are creeping in to exploit shortcomings in evolutionary theory (which are only “apparent”). Let’s turn the table on the old gaps argument. Any anomaly discovered by the Darwin Party is bandaged over by a Darwin-of-the-gaps tactic (14 Dec 2018), because their god, the Bearded Buddha, must not be blasphemed.

Fake Tolerance

In their last paragraph, the Darwin defenders pretend that they are open to criticism of their idol.

All theories need to be challenged, and assessing modern evolutionary biology brings to the fore many aspects of life that might not be well appreciated. Darwin’s explanation has survived for more than 160 years because it is broadly correct and robust enough to absorb new discoveries. The impact of Lala’s approach is therefore not yet clear – but its scrutiny of neglected aspects of life is to be welcomed.

Try your hand at de-balonifying this paragraph, then scroll down to compare your ideas with ours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stuff Happens is not a theory.

“Has survived”: best-in-field fallacy (but only when critics are censored). Non-sequitur to consider survival a measure of validity. Other false ideas, like geocentrism and spontaneous generation, survived for centuries.

“Aspects of life that might not be well appreciated” – such as? Vague wording (sidestepping, generalities).

In Darwinism, expressions of appreciation are merely a survival tactic. This implies that the authors do not mean what they wrote, because they themselves are creatures of selection (see self-refuting fallacy).

“Is broadly correct” – argument by assertion.

“Robust enough to absorb new discoveries” – see above comments about falsification.

“Scrutiny… is to be welcomed” – fake open-mindedness. If you welcome scrutiny, stop censoring!