Evolution: the Biosphere and the Shopping Mall

Some of our readers get upset whenever we discuss free markets and free enterprise; but that’s okay, we’re tolerant. Hey — someone has to say these things, and a slow news day like today is the ideal time. For examples of our prior posts on this topic, see Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Barack Obama, and also Someone Else Understands Darwin & Economics.

So that you’ll know what you’re getting into before you read too far, here’s a quote from Ronald Bailey that we included in one of those earlier posts:

Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.

Now that you know where we’re going, we’ll discuss the same topic, this time in the context of something with which you’re all familiar. Consider the modern shopping mall — or shopping center as it’s also known. It’s a wonderland of merchandise, to which customers voluntary go and where they voluntarily spend their money, purchasing goods that they decide they want, at prices they willingly choose to pay. And it’s all done without coercion.

Okay, that’s very nice, but such a finely-tuned, beautifully functioning thing must have had an intelligent designer, right?

Actually, no. As with any successful organism — no one designed it. Oh sure, a developer built the place — so in that sense our analogy isn’t perfect, but analogies are never perfect. However, developers sometimes build bad malls, or they build them in poorly-chosen locations. Those are swiftly bulldozed away, which is analogous to organisms with unsuccessful mutations or that can’t cope with their environment.

Malls have been built at least as far back as Trajan’s Market in 100 AD. But they’ve evolved considerably since then. Trajan wouldn’t recognize the enclosed, air-conditioned, suburban mall you visit today.

Aside from the mall itself, who planned the assembly of all the individual stores, with all the wares they display? No mall developer could possibly design all that. Even if he started out with a few chain stores in mind as tenants, the roster of retailers currently at the mall is probably quite different from the original tenants, many of whom may have gone out of business and were replaced by new retailers. Not only do the stores gradually change over time, but the goods being sold are probably different from those that were originally on display. In the space of a decade or two, virtually everything is different.

Our point, dear reader, is this: The mall you see today — even if it’s been there for decades — is nothing like the mall in that same location that your mother visited to buy your baby carriage. It’s a whole new organism, as it were, and it wasn’t planned. It’s the result of the work of hundreds of ever-changing store managers over several years, each seeking to improve his performance.

The more astute among you can see the analogy to species scurrying around in their environments, each trying to get food and mates, doing his best to get along. The result can be a flourishing ecosystem that may appear to be marvelously designed — but it wasn’t. The similarity of this economic natural selection and Adam Smith’s invisible hand to Darwin’s theory is so obvious that it’s difficult to miss. We’ve discussed that before too — see Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand and Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection. Looking that one over, we’ll have to quote ourselves again:

It has often been remarked that the theory of evolution, according to which life on earth evolves without the guidance of a designer, is remarkably similar to the way a free-enterprise economy develops, with each enterprise doing its best to prosper, yet without the “benefit” of a centralized planner.

We don’t want to spend too much time repeating what we’ve said so often before, so we won’t go on much longer — only enough to annoy some of you. But we want to remind you of this — the next time you visit the mall, take a look — a good look. The structure has been evolving for at least 2,000 years, and the component parts (the stores) have been evolving far longer than that. The overall result, which no one designed, works without a central planning authority. If there were such, then going there would be like shopping in Moscow in the days of the old Soviet Union — where nothing you wanted was ever available.

Free markets work — not perfectly, but far better than any un-free alternative. And please, don’t bother to rant about freakish outliers like Bernard Madoff. He was a crook, and we favor laws against such things; but that’s not the same thing as centralized planning. Those who think the state should control the economy have more in common with the proponents of intelligent design than they realize. Things that work well, albeit not perfectly, may seem to have been designed, but it ain’t necessarily so.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Springboro School Board Wants Creationism

These things probably happen all over the country, but they don’t often come to our attention. We learned of this one at the website of WHIO-TV in Dayton, Ohio, of which Springboro is a suburb.

The news story, Creationism discussion slated in Springboro, says that the topic of including creationism in classroom instruction will come up at a meeting of the School Board tonight. We found their website here, and it indicates that they’re having a meeting on 23 May, but there’s no link to an agenda.

The news article says: “Several school board members want to include creationism in classroom instruction.” That’s pretty raw — they’re not even going stealth by calling it Intelligent Design. Among those who want this new policy is board President Kelly Kohls. We checked her out at the board’s website and she’s a professional nutritionist — besides being a creationist, of course.

The news story also says the board has received a warning letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, but they plan to go ahead anyway. This may be bad for the kiddies, but it’ll be fun for us. We’re also told that:

Sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change and sustainable development also would be issues deemed appropriate for discussion in Springboro classrooms, according to the proposed policy.

How very stylish! With all of that going on, when will the kiddies learn anything useful? You know, stuff like math, science, history, maybe even some things like grammar and English composition. Does any of that get taught in Springboro?

Only one member of the Board, Don Miller, has said he opposes the proposed policy. He’s a financial analyst. Looking at the Board’s website, we see that the other Board members are David Petroni, who works for a real estate developer, and Wendy Kull, who has some kind of job in mortgage lending. There’s also Jim Rigano, who has a degree in Chemical Engineering. On paper they don’t look like a bunch of creationists, but that seems to be what they are.

Rigano is quoted as saying that the proposal is “an attempt to ensure we’re not indoctrinating one point of view or another.” Right — gotta teach creationism so the kiddies don’t get indoctrinated.

The article also quotes the Board’s attorney, Hollie Reedy. We don’t know what cases she’s been reading, but they quote her as saying: “Schools may teach about controversial topics and may debate controversial topics in classrooms. Currently, though, Ohio’s science standards teach evolution.”

With advice like that, what could go wrong? If we find any news about what happened at tonight’s meeting, we’ll let you know.

Correction: Hollie says she’s not the Board’s attorney. That being the case, we don’t know why the news story quoted her. But someone is advising the Board, and if that person is doing a good job, it doesn’t look like the Board is paying attention.

Update: According to this, Springboro parents weigh in on creationism debate, most parents at the meeting opposed creationism, and so did teachers. The creationism proposal wasn’t adopted. But the Board president says she’ll bring the subject up again in the future.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #332: The Rabbi

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in Chicago Tribune. It’s titled Everything, including evolution, flows from God. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city.

This seems to be some kind of “Dear Abby” feature that we’ve never seen before, conducted by something called “The God Squad.” Today the Rabbi answers two questions, but we’re concerned only with the first. Okay, here we go:

[Question:] In our newspaper’s “letters to the editor” section, we often read letters from people who believe literally what the Bible has to say (Creationists, those who embrace Intelligent Design, and readers who reject the theory of evolution). They seem so “hidebound” in their beliefs that they refuse to even consider the other side of the argument. The truth of evolution is obvious, but it does seem to me there must be a guiding force behind it all. Doesn’t it seem obvious that both sides should be considered?

Ah yes, shouldn’t both sides be considered? What follows is the Rabbi’s answer:

In the case of creationism vs. evolution, I’ve never understood the nature of the conflict. I believe God could have used, and probably did use, evolution as the mechanism for adapting life to the world God created. I also believe that the brilliant design of life in all its forms is the most eloquent possible evidence of Intelligent Design.

The Rabbi is not only a theistic evolutionist, but he also endorses ID. Well, at least he’s not coy about the identity of the designer. Let’s read on:

On both sides of the debate, I try to ask sympathetic but probing questions. When talking with evolutionary fundamentalists, I urge them to reflect on the impossibly long odds of mere random selection producing, let us say, Shakespeare.

Nice going, Rabbi — “evolutionary fundamentalists.” That phrase didn’t score too many points with those on the science side of things. As for his rather primitive argument about the “long odds,” we’ve discussed that many times before — see, for example: Creationism’s Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment. It’s also mentioned in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. The Rabbi continues:

In the case of biblical fundamentalists, I try to remind them that a 7-day creation week could not have been comprised of seven 24-hour days because a day is defined by the sun, and the sun, according to Genesis 1:14-19, was not created until the fourth day.

That’s his best argument against the scientific accuracy of Genesis? Here’s the rest of his answer:

Taken together, these two observations have helped me to believe, with Einstein, that our job in both science and religion is to “trace the lines that flow from God.”

Einstein said that? It doesn’t sound like him. We Googled around and found several references to it, but we can’t find the source. The Rabbi quoted the same thing last year in a column in the same newspaper, here: The real question is, who created The God Particle?

So there you are, dear reader. Ponder the implications carefully.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Discovery Institute Redefines Evolution

We have already told you about the Discoveroids’ new book for teaching teaching intelligent design. If you missed it, see Hey Louisiana — Here It Is!

Since then (it was only yesterday) they’ve already posted twice more about the book, which is by Casey Luskin (now the Discoveroids’ “research coordinator”) and two lesser-known intellects, Gary and Hallie Kemper (described as “home school educators”). The Discoveroids’ latest post is From Discovering Intelligent Design: Define Your Terms. They start out by saying that what follows is excerpted from their new book.

This is exciting! We get to see a preview of what Casey’s masterpiece contains. Here it comes, and all the bold font is in their post:

When terms are not carefully defined, miscommunication and false leaps of logic can result. For instance, when you see the word “evolution,” you should ask, “Which definition is being used?” Typically, there are three common meanings.

You didn’t know there were so many confusing definitions of evolution, did you? Stay with us, and your thinking will be clarified:

Evolution #1: Microevolution (defined earlier): Small-scale changes in a population of organisms.

Ah yes — microevolution. We haven’t seen the book’s definition, but as we understand it, what creationists call microevolution is all there is to evolution, so that species always remain as they are. Tiny genetic changes from one generation to the next can’t accumulate over thousands of generations to eventually result in large-scale changes. Why not? Because all creatures reproduce according to their “kind.” Beavers don’t give birth to chipmunks.

That’s obviously true from one single generation to the next, and that’s where creationists draw the line. They insist that mutations don’t accumulate because there’s some mysterious Barrier which prevents that from ever happening, but which the magic designer is able to overcome. Only the designer — blessed be he! — can create a new species. So now you understand microevolution.

Then, for your further edification, the Discoveroids’ wondrous new book tells us about another meaning of “evolution,” which is:

Macroevolution (also defined earlier) can be divided into two parts.

Wow! We always thought that what creationists call “macroevolution” was just the accumulated results over time of a long series of tiny changes that occur from one generation to the next. We never realized there are two parts to macroevolution. Let’s read on:

Evolution #2: Universal Common Descent: The view that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor.

Huh? That’s not a definition — it’s a conclusion. But what do we know, compared to Casey and his team? They say that’s one part of macroevolution. Here’s the other:

Evolution #3: Natural Selection: The view that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation has been the primary mechanism driving the evolution of life.

They say that “definition” is another part of macroevolution. Your Curmudgeon has been a fool! We always thought natural selection was a mechanism which, along with mutations, drives the process of evolution. Casey has really cleared things up for us.

By now you must be wondering: Where does Casey’s book go with these definitions? That’s explained in the final paragraph:

Sometimes evolutionists purposefully confuse these definitions, hoping you won’t notice that they overstated their case. It’s not uncommon for an evolutionist to take evidence for microevolution (evolution #1), and claim it supports common descent (evolution #2) or development solely through unguided mechanisms (evolution #3).

All clear now? Good. At the end is a sales pitch for the new Discoveroid book. We know that you must be trembling with desire to order one, so go ahead. It’s certain to be a grand reading experience.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article