Fisk, Interrupted
by tristero
I had heard that the Forbes evolution issue was bad, that it gave succor to christianist arguments against science. But I had no idea it was this bad. I started in and quickly reached this atrocity:The evolution of evolutionary theory is no exception. Heated arguments between its advocates and those who believe in creationism or intelligent design are but blips in a massive, craggy landscape of controversy that has accumulated over two centuries.
Totally incompetent bullshit. First of all, intelligent design is creationism. That is what Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District demonstrated. Secondly, there is no scientific controversy over the fact of evolution and hasn't been since shortly after the publication of The Origin of Species. (There is much healthy disputation within the field of evolutionary biology, of course.) And third, the only controversies that have ever raged about evolution are the social/cultural rightwing attacks which use the same tired arguments Darwin debunked 150 years ago. More questions than we'd like were raised long ago, and remain unanswered [What you mean, "we," Hana?]. Two of the biggest: If humans are no different than animals, what is the status of free will, of morality borne from the brain, not the body? Can and should we apply ideas about the "survival of the fittest" to economics, to population control, to law, to love?
Alright, that's it. I've had it. There aren't enough billions of years left in the universe to address this hapless writier's seemingly bottomless ignorance. Evolution has nothing to do with concepts of free will. Evolution is biology, free will is, what? Philosophy? Theology? Obsolete, oversimplified poppycock that predates modern theories of mind and volition? Whatever it is, it ain't biology. I have no idea what the fuck "morality borne from the brain, not the body" could mean. The last time I checked in with my pancreas, it told me it had no moral sense at all, either good or bad. And how many times must those of us who understand evolution reply that "survival of the fittest" is a caricature that so grossly distorts an incredibly simple idea so that it ends up meaning nothing? And what is this nonsense about "applying" Darwin's evolutionary ideas, which are deeply rooted in biology, to economics? Why not use the theories behind TCP/IPinstead? That'd make just as much sense. And let's not neglect to mention the writers malicious, stupidly inaccurate reference to eugenics. "Population control..." yeah, whatever.
I skimmed through the rest of the pieces. Mixed in with occasional commentary from knowledgeable folks like Michael Shermer is sheer garbage from nutcases like Jonathan Wells and Ken Ham. Ken "Creation Museum" Ham? Yes, Forbes Magazine has absolutely no shame whatsoever. My advice: Don't bother reading any of it. The little good in here doesn't seem worth the effort. Instead, just pick up a copy of Darwin's thoroughly readable book and enjoy yourself.
Enuf.