Evolution is irrelevant so why is it politically essential?

[mindlight]

There are endless debates to be had as to whether abiogentic, macroevolutionary descriptions of our origins are true or not. But setting that aside for just one moment what real tangible benefits has evolutionary theory brought us.

The major advances of the last 300 years in industrial, military, medical , mining technologies owe nothing to evolutionary theory. Trained forensic scientists , or drug researchers, or oil experts do not need to subscribe to the theory to do their jobs.

So if the theory is irrelevant to most beneficial human activity why it considered so important by the political authorities that we teach it to our kids, that we vet our scientists and teachers by whether they subscribe to its teachings. Is home schooling considered so horrific here in Germany for fear that religious parents might teach their kids creationism and break the mould. Indeed America has accepted asylum seekers from Germany over such an issue.

Under Soviet Communism evolution was considered the scientific equivalent of dialectical materialism and useful for breaking the hold of Russian Tsars and Orthodoxy on the soul of the nation.

Under Mao evolution was seen for similar reasons as a way to break the tyranny of heaven and old Chinese superstitions.

Under the Nazis it was used as a way of scientifically demonstrating the necessity of exterminating less evolved and weaker races.

But in modern liberal society what is evolutions value to the political elites of Europe and the Democrat party in the USA. Since it adds no value to society what is it political purpose today?

 

[Silmarien]

Microevolution is a pretty crucial concept when it comes to seasonal flu vaccinations, at the very least.

I haven't seen many people try to deny that exists, but every so often you come across someone committed to the view that the word "evolution" itself is blasphemous.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

There are endless debates to be had as to whether abiogentic, macroevolutionary descriptions of our origins are true or not. But setting that aside for just one moment what real tangible benefits has evolutionary theory brought us.

The major advances of the last 300 years in industrial, military, medical , mining technologies owe nothing to evolutionary theory. Trained forensic scientists , or drug researchers, or oil experts do not need to subscribe to the theory to do their jobs.

So if the theory is irrelevant to most beneficial human activity why it considered so important by the political authorities that we teach it to our kids, that we vet our scientists and teachers by whether they subscribe to its teachings. Is home schooling considered so horrific here in Germany for fear that religious parents might teach their kids creationism and break the mould. Indeed America has accepted asylum seekers from Germany over such an issue.

Under Soviet Communism evolution was considered the scientific equivalent of dialectical materialism and useful for breaking the hold of Russian Tsars and Orthodoxy on the soul of the nation.

Under Mao evolution was seen for similar reasons as a way to break the tyranny of heaven and old Chinese superstitions.

Under the Nazis it was used as a way of scientifically demonstrating the necessity of exterminating less evolved and weaker races.

But in modern liberal society what is evolutions value to the political elites of Europe and the Democrat party in the USA. Since it adds no value to society what is it political purpose today?

The value to the world system though is that it would disproves the creation account if everyone believed it. The devil is behind denying God's word because he wants to be worshiped as God, and knows his time keeps getting shorter. Remember, did God really said------

 

[Motherofkittens]

It is important. Perhaps you are ignorant of what it does and has done, in a magnitude of multiple fields. It has made millions of people's lives better.

Anyway, in most western countries, Mexico , central America, South America and large parts of Asia and other places it is not "controversial ".

That outcry comes mostly from a tiny American Christian community and Christians and Muslims from "under developed countries. "

Most people, especially the more educated they are, are okay with facts that may contradict their personal interpretation of their holy books. Facts trump belief.

 

[Paidiske]

Off the top of my head, it occurs to me that it's very important to environmental questions.

It's evolutionary theory which explains the importance of genetic diversity, both within a species, and in terms of a rich variety of species. The loss of biodiversity would be less of a problem viewed through a creationist lens. (That's just one example).

But I think the political purpose is actually one step back from the question of "usefulness." The political purpose is about teaching people to think critically, to evaluate their sources, the claims made and evidence provided, that sort of thing. A society which says "evolution doesn't matter," would, in effect, be saying "critical thinking doesn't matter."

 

[redleghunter]

It is important. Perhaps you are ignorant of what it does and has done, in a magnitude of multiple fields. It has made millions of people's lives better.

Anyway, in most western countries, Mexico , central America, South America and large parts of Asia and other places it is not "controversial ".

That outcry comes mostly from a tiny American Christian community and Christians and Muslims from "under developed countries. "

Most people, especially the more educated they are, are okay with facts that may contradict their personal interpretation of their holy books. Facts trump belief.

The OP is about the political necessity.

The OP clearly pointed out regimes as in Marxist or fascist used the theory of evolution to shape their regimes and their societies to the point of genocide and oppression.

Perhaps the education level and intelligence of Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot was higher than most, but such was not beneficial to those they killed and subdued.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

There are endless debates to be had as to whether abiogentic, macroevolutionary descriptions of our origins are true or not. But setting that aside for just one moment what real tangible benefits has evolutionary theory brought us.

The major advances of the last 300 years in industrial, military, medical , mining technologies owe nothing to evolutionary theory. Trained forensic scientists , or drug researchers, or oil experts do not need to subscribe to the theory to do their jobs.

So if the theory is irrelevant to most beneficial human activity why it considered so important by the political authorities that we teach it to our kids, that we vet our scientists and teachers by whether they subscribe to its teachings. Is home schooling considered so horrific here in Germany for fear that religious parents might teach their kids creationism and break the mould. Indeed America has accepted asylum seekers from Germany over such an issue.

Under Soviet Communism evolution was considered the scientific equivalent of dialectical materialism and useful for breaking the hold of Russian Tsars and Orthodoxy on the soul of the nation.

Under Mao evolution was seen for similar reasons as a way to break the tyranny of heaven and old Chinese superstitions.

Under the Nazis it was used as a way of scientifically demonstrating the necessity of exterminating less evolved and weaker races.

But in modern liberal society what is evolutions value to the political elites of Europe and the Democrat party in the USA. Since it adds no value to society what is it political purpose today?

Evolution is essential to biology. So if a biology is to be taught then teaching evolution is a necessity. But the main job of science teachers are to teach the state of the scientific consensus at the time and evolution is the consensus. Evolution is considered the closest thing you can get to a fact among scientists and it underpins our understanding of a wide range of other fields than just biology.

Since you brought up the Nazi's I have to say that just because a scientific theory can be used to do bad things does not make the theory false. Secondly eugenics is not the same thing as evolution. The Nazi's tried to use a form of artificial selection where they tried to "breed" out what they saw as weak. This concept of selective breeding has been around for a lot longer than the theory of evolution. And the Nazi application was a complete misunderstanding on how evolution works anyway. If they wanted to engineer a "superior" people then they would have encouraged more diversity. The more diverse a population is the better the chance of it's long term survival.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_06

https://www.faseb.org/portals/2/PDFs/opa/Why is it important to teach evolution.pdf

 

[redleghunter]

It's evolutionary theory which explains the importance of genetic diversity, both within a species, and in terms of a rich variety of species. The loss of biodiversity would be less of a problem viewed through a creationist lens. (That's just one example).

In keeping with the OP, Hitler widely promoted animal conservation and bio diversity. Just not for humans.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Microevolution is a pretty crucial concept when it comes to seasonal flu vaccinations, at the very least.

I haven't seen many people try to deny that exists, but every so often you come across someone committed to the view that the word "evolution" itself is blasphemous.

Just going to point out that "micro" and "macro" evolution are artificial distinctions. "Macro" evolution is just "micro" evolution seen over a large period of time.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

The main reason why intelligent design and creationism aren't taught in science is, aside from the religious aspect, that they are not testable or falsifiable. Science teachers are mainly focused on teaching the scientific method. ID or creationism don't offer much to explore. It's simply replacing one unknown with another. There is no evidence to point to a creator that we can observe or test so as it stands ID and creationism are not scientific ideas but rather philosophical ones. Lastly evolution is not about how non-life became life but how it changed after it was already life. There are different ideas about the origin of life itself but is not something we know.

 

[DaisyDay]

The TOE has been and continues to be important in medicine.

 

[Gene2memE]

There are endless debates to be had as to whether abiogentic, macroevolutionary descriptions of our origins are true or not. But setting that aside for just one moment what real tangible benefits has evolutionary theory brought us.

It helps us understand the natural world better than all other competing theories. It provides insight into why we are the way we are - physically, psychologically and socially.

The major advances of the last 300 years in industrial, military, medical , mining technologies owe nothing to evolutionary theory.

There are literally THOUSANDS of medical break-throughs that have occurred thanks to our understanding of biology brought about through investigation of evolution. In fact, there is an entire branch of medicine - evolutionary medicine - that looks at the evolutionary reasons why we have certain diseases and afflictions and develops solutions in light of this.

Trained forensic scientists , or drug researchers, or oil experts do not need to subscribe to the theory to do their jobs.

Drug researches use evolutionary theory extensively, in computer-aided molecular design and in genetic algorithm appoaches. Materials researchers and engineers also use evolutionary algorithms in their work - I've been tangentially involved in a project that used computer programmes originally developed to investigate speciation which is now being applied to looking at applications of nanoparticles to create better heat resistence in aerospace-grade aluminium alloys.

So if the theory is irrelevant to most beneficial human activity why it considered so important by the political authorities that we teach it to our kids, that we vet our scientists and teachers by whether they subscribe to its teachings.

Because it provides the best, most accurate and least biased understanding of the natural world, our place in it and its development.

Under Soviet Communism evolution was considered the scientific equivalent of dialectical materialism and useful for breaking the hold of Russian Tsars and Orthodoxy on the soul of the nation.

Citation needed.

The Soviet Union embraced Lysenkoism (essentially modified Lamarkianism) over classical evolutionary biology from at least the very early 1920s, and did so until the mid 1960s. Beyond that, the Soviet Union gradually readjusted to Mendellian genetics and classical evolutionary biology.

Under Mao evolution was seen for similar reasons as a way to break the tyranny of heaven and old Chinese superstitions.

Citation needed.

Also - ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.

Read Biology and Revolution in Twentieth-Century China by Laurence Schneider. Just the opening chapter alone will tell you how much baloney is in that sentence you've written.

Under the Nazis it was used as a way of scientifically demonstrating the necessity of exterminating less evolved and weaker races.

Again - ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. The words necessary to properly describe just how badly this mangles history would get me kick off the forum for obscenities.

I challenge you to look up the list of books banned under the German library laws of 1935. Darwinist literature is an outlawed CLASSIFICATION.

Seriously, whatever creationist rubbish you're reading that tries to discredit Darwin and evolutionary biology with Nazism and Communism - I urge you to stop, for the sake of your own mind.

But in modern liberal society what is evolutions value to the political elites of Europe and the Democrat party in the USA. Since it adds no value to society what is it political purpose today?

An educated public is the cornerstone of an informed democracy. It is impossible to call someone properly educated unless they are knowledgeable about the natural world - Evolutionary biology is the building block on which the entire scientific description of nature is built.

Also, evolution's value to the "political elites" of Europe and the Democrats is that it DESCRIBES THE WORLD AS IT ACTUALLY IS. Instead of describing the world by forcing it to conform to the mythical creation account of Semitic peoples from the early to mid part of the first millennia BC.


What an absolute rubbish post that was...

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Microevolution is a pretty crucial concept when it comes to seasonal flu vaccinations, at the very least.

I haven't seen many people try to deny that exists, but every so often you come across someone committed to the view that the word "evolution" itself is blasphemous.

It's also integral to the development of a HIV vaccine:
TSRI gets $27 million for HIV center

An HIV research center at The Scripps Research Institute has been awarded a federal grant worth nearly $27 million to continue studying the AIDS-causing virus.

The HIV Interactions in Viral Evolution, or HIVE, got the five-year award from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health. It enables HIVE to continue studying HIV’s function at the atomic level.

HIVE’s is one of five centers funded by the institute to discover how HIV functions in immune cells, and uses features of these cells to evolve, adapt and mutate to escape treatment.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The TOE has been and continues to be important in medicine.

Absolutely. For the sake of economizing time, I'm copying and pasting a post I wrote to someone else here claimed that evolution was irrelevant:

The Dean of Harvard Medical School as well as 13 of his colleagues who are all physicians and professors at elite medical schools vehemently disagree with your opinion that evolution is irrelevant to medicine, which is why they coauthored the paper Making evolutionary biology a basic science for medicine.

Excerpt of their paper's abstract:

Our general conclusion is that evolutionary biology is a crucial basic science for medicine. In addition to looking at established evolutionary methods and topics, such as population genetics and pathogen evolution, we highlight questions about why natural selection leaves bodies vulnerable to disease. Knowledge about evolution provides physicians with an integrative framework that links otherwise disparate bits of knowledge. It replaces the prevalent view of bodies as machines with a biological view of bodies shaped by evolutionary processes. Like other basic sciences, evolutionary biology needs to be taught both before and during medical school. Most introductory biology courses are insufficient to establish competency in evolutionary biology. Premedical students need evolution courses, possibly ones that emphasize medically relevant aspects. In medical school, evolutionary biology should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences. This will require a course that reviews basic principles and specific medical applications, followed by an integrated presentation of evolutionary aspects that apply to each disease and organ system. Evolutionary biology is not just another topic vying for inclusion in the curriculum; it is an essential foundation for a biological understanding of health and disease.

Several medical schools not only teach evolution but have programs specifically devoted to evolutionary medicine. If you actually are affiliated with UC Davis in any way then it's surprising you didn't already know this because two of those schools are fellow UCs (UCLA and UCSF). Even those who do not emphasize evolution as part of their medical education curriculum generally expect competent knowledge about evolution from their applicants. The MCAT was revised this year to include more questions about evolution. The AP Biology exam was also updated to include more questions on evolution because many of the high school students intend to pursue degrees in science and medicine.

The AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) posted this article Origin of Change: Evolutionary Thinking Gains Traction in Medical Education on their site last year: AAMCNews

And on a personal note my dad is a oncologist who also works in venture capitalism for biotech, my stepsister is a physician working in immunology at Harvard, and my brother is a recent college grad working for a biotech company for two years before med school, and I know evolution is vitally important to their work and endeavors.

 

[Silmarien]

Just going to point out that "micro" and "macro" evolution are artificial distinctions. "Macro" evolution is just "micro" evolution seen over a large period of time.

To be fair, when it comes to speciation, all distinctions are artificial. At what point is a dog no longer a wolf, after all. There are no genera and species out in the natural world; the categories are a human construct.

 

[Paidiske]

I thought the species boundary was supposed to be when two populations could no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring?

 

[Gene2memE]

I thought the species boundary was supposed to be when two populations could no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring?

That's one definition - there are others. What makes up a species is a complicated topic when you get down to it. Nature cares not a whit for the artificial classification systems we attempt to impose on it.

For example, we tend to think of ourselves (homo sapiens) as being a distinct species from Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) and Denisovans (Denisova hominin). However, the genetic evidence shows that we interbred with both. If you're of European origin, you're likely to have a higher proportion of Neanderthal DNA (about 1% to2%). If you're of South Asia or Southeast Asian origin, you're likely to have a higher proportion of Denisovan DNA (about 1% to 4%), or possibly DNA of another hominid - as yet undiscovered - that lived at the same time as your ancient ancestors.

 

[Silmarien]

I thought the species boundary was supposed to be when two populations could no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring?

Theoretically, but within the tropical fish industry, there are hybrids like the flowerhorn cichlid that are fertile.

 

[RDKirk]

Off the top of my head, it occurs to me that it's very important to environmental questions.

It's evolutionary theory which explains the importance of genetic diversity, both within a species, and in terms of a rich variety of species. The loss of biodiversity would be less of a problem viewed through a creationist lens. (That's just one example).

But I think the political purpose is actually one step back from the question of "usefulness." The political purpose is about teaching people to think critically, to evaluate their sources, the claims made and evidence provided, that sort of thing. A society which says "evolution doesn't matter," would, in effect, be saying "critical thinking doesn't matter."

Teaching how to design a jet engine takes critical thinking, but I'd deny jet engine design engineers needed to have studied evolution (or biology in general) to develop the critical thinking necessary to design a jet engine.

The ancient Greeks didn't need it, and they invented critical thinking in the West.

 

[mindlight]

Microevolution is a pretty crucial concept when it comes to seasonal flu vaccinations, at the very least.

I haven't seen many people try to deny that exists, but every so often you come across someone committed to the view that the word "evolution" itself is blasphemous.

Microevolution is not in question here. However you would not even need an understanding of this to create a flu vaccine. What they do to create a vaccine in practice is get a sample of the virus. Then then inject that into chicken eggs to infect the eggs. Then they kill the virus in the egg with a variety of possible techniques.

1) UV Light
2) Acid
3) Solvent /Detergent
4) Pasteurisation - heat the egg over 60C

Then they extract the dead and broken bits of the virus. Bits which cannot possibly infect a person. They then inject these into the person to be vaccinated. The body then builds its own immune defence against the now harmless virus. So when a live version comes along the body already has a defence in place.

So we could create flu vaccines with no knowledge of evolution.