Doesn’t it seem political?

Maybe it’s just me, but for many years I’ve thought there’s a creepy relationship between neo-Darwinian theory and certain political views.  If Republicans, Libertarians, Teabaggers and their ilk weren’t so busy pretending to be religious (and often creationist), they would flock to a theory that’s all about struggle and competition and fitness – a theory that sounds a lot like the fantasy of “free” enterprise.  The concept of “market forces” is much like natural selection – both are given the status of natural laws, but squishy, elusive “laws” that can’t be pinned down well enough to define them.

Economics isn’t really a science (collecting data isn’t enough to make something a science) and markets are things created by humans.  Natural selection was derived from the artificial selection of breeding programs, something else created by humans.  Some decades ago, in a moment of rather stunning honesty, E.O. Wilson wrote a book called Sociobiology.  He took a lot of heat for suggesting that something like social Darwinism was the logical, inexorable result of neo-Darwinian theory, but he was right.  The theory leads to eugenics as well, since eugenics and social Darwinism are pretty much the same thing.  Trouble is, these aren’t the patterns we see in nature.  Contrary to the erroneous ideas that sprang from Ayn Rand’s little Hollywood brain, the true “producers” are the plants – they know how to photosynthesize and we animals don’t.  If you’re a plant there’s an excellent chance that somebody eats you.  Some animals eat plants, some eat other animals, but this flow of matter and energy doesn’t mean life on Earth is nothing but a big, bloody battle about getting your two bits into the gene pool.

It’s a bit like anti-abortion groups versus pro-choice folks – the point is to keep the screaming going for as long as possible, more as a distraction than anything else.  I don’t believe the right wing types have any intention of overturning Roe vs Wade – it’s such a useful tool.  The creation vs evolution “debate” is quite similar, I think – the argument is not over differing evolutionary theories – it’s about creationism (or “intelligent design,” or whatever) versus the neo-Darwinian theory, and only the neo-Darwinian theory, focused solely on natural selection plus mutation.  In many ways, mutation is still a black box to biologists, but this makes it fine camouflage.  Either I’m old and poor because some god-thing hates me for having offended it in some way, or I’m old and poor because I’m not very fit and I’m being properly stomped by that magical force, natural selection.  Either way, the “banksters” win.

This is the wrong debate.  Creationists’ beliefs belong in the comparative religion class.  In the biology class, we should be comparing actual theories of evolution.  I know, Richard Dawkins and his fellow gatekeepers of the holy theory act as if all of this were settled science, but it isn’t.  Just because he’s sold a lot of books over the years doesn’t make it so.  If we got into a real discussion over a theory of evolution based on natural selection compared to one derived from the second law of thermodynamics and its behavior in systems open to the flow of energy, neo-D would lose.  A theory based on the 2nd law offers a vastly more accurate picture of/explanation for what we see in the real world.

The gatekeepers on both sides of the “debate” are powerful, and there is no place for me or the other scientists I write about in More Than the Sum.  But I know there are smart people out there who may have vague misgivings about this “debate,” thoughts they can’t quite articulate.  I want to encourage your skepticism and outline an alternative!

About Kali

I wanted to be a botany professor studying alternative pieces of evolutionary theory contributed by various people and extrapolated from I. Prigogine's expanded 2nd law of thermodynamics - there's a far more accurate causal explanation to be had here than the standard neo-Darwinian explanation based on random mutation and natural selection. But there's no job market - no immediate $$$ to be made for drug or GMO companies! So, I'm working on a book - I put a proposal on and added a blog - I hope to do more on the blog before too long, but I'm old and poor and need to hunt for work!
This entry was posted in Evolution and politics, On science, On theories and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Doesn’t it seem political?

  1. My understanding is that Darwin wasn’t more “neo” than you are. His theory should be read that the most adaptable individuals should be able to reproduce.

    That isn’t the same thing as “struggle and competition and fitness”. That’s only what some of us powerhungry humans want’s to hear.

    You could be strong, but if you couldn’t adapt you are lost.
    The life on Earth tell us also that it’s only the most adaptable who wins.

    • admin says:

      Thanks for your comment! The “neo” in neo-Darwinian refers to genetics – in Darwin’s day quite a lot was understood about inheritance, but not very much about genes or DNA. Neo-Darwinian theory, also known as the “New Synthesis” came along in the 1950s, after Watson and Crick figured out the chemical structure of DNA. Once we discovered a little part of genetic information – that three nucleic acids often provide the information for an amino acid, and from there proteins (including enzymes) can be produced, we thought we had it all figured out. But then we started finding all these other bits of DNA we didn’t understand…and there we still are. Did you read the summary chapters of my book proposal? I’m trying to explain the parts of an alternate theory of evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics (Prigogine’s version), a theory that has been ignored for almost 30 years, though in my opinion it is vastly superior. Of course organisms are adapted! There are no such things as non-adapted organisms – this makes adaptation a conditional statement, not a causal force – to have it both ways takes you into a circular argument. I think it was Waddington who pointed out that if adaptation was all there is to it, nothing would have evolved beyond bacteria, the most perfectly adapted organisms. So, why is increasing complexity a characteristic of evolving life?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *