Entry 1004, on 2009-05-06 at 21:11:59 (Rating 3, Religion)
A criticism of evolution I often hear from creationists and other deniers is that evolution has no practical uses. Other science is used to create new technology and improve the world, but evolution gives us nothing, or so they claim.
First I would point out that even if that was true it wouldn't really reflect on whether evolution is true or not, and that is usually what I am debating. The other point is that scientific theories don't have to directly produce a practical benefit because pure science often leads to new technology and other benefits only indirectly. And the pursuit of truth is a worthwhile thing in itself.
This is all irrelevant though, because evolution does have practical outcomes. Yesterday I listened to a podcast which discussed the work of Luther Burbank, who was a well-known botanist who developed many of the modern food and ornamental plants that we have today.
Not only did he follow Darwinian principles in his plant breeding experiments but he was also directly inspired by Darwin himself. If the development of modern crops doesn't qualify as a practical benefit of evolution then I don't know what would.
A fact about modern food crops which a lot of people don't understand is that they aren't anything like the original varieties that grew in the wild. Sometimes the development is the result of genetic engineering in the modern sense - that is direct gene manipulation - and other times it is from more traditional selective breeding (an artificial form of natural selection, in fact).
So modern crops which people refer to as "natural" in fact aren't. They are the result of many years of selective breeding and artificial manipulation.
If most people looked at the original "natural" versions of bananas, citrus fruit, potatoes, or any other crop, they would be very surprised and disappointed. The fact that we have modern crops which give better yields, taste better, are disease resistant, and are more healthy is mostly thanks to Darwin. Thanks again, Charles!
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2018-05-28 at 11:10:12:
Your argument is flawed. Darwinists claim this happens without an intelligence. Your argument requires someone to guide evolution. In this case Luther Burbank did the guiding. Who did the guiding in the natural world?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2018-06-02 at 20:13:16:
In the natural world the "guidance" is through random and inefficient mechanisms, mainly natural selection. There does need to be some form of "guidance" but to doesn't have to be conscious or directed. That was the whole point of Darwin's discovery: that intelligent and deliberate guidance wasn't necessary because natural processes could slowly and inefficiently achieve the same results.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE