Darwinians can’t have it both ways
Of all the forms of flagrant doublethink in which Darwinians indulge, and without which the Darwinian enterprise would founder, this may be the chief:
Desmond Hatchett, poster boy of Darwinism The contradiction came out in a discussion at VFR last spring. Concerning a black man in Britain, Desmond Hatchett, who has had 21 children by 11 women, I asked, “[I]f Darwinian evolution and sociobiology were true, then how could a society evolve that enables its least intelligent and least competent individuals to produce the most children?” Several commenters told me I didn’t know what the heck I was talking about and obviously didn’t understand evolution, since evolutionary fitness means nothing but reproductive advantage, and therefore in evolutionary terms Desmond Hatchett is the most fit. I replied that I did know what I was talking about and that they didn’t see the contradiction in evolutionary science to which I was pointing, namely that, even as Darwinians deny any direction in evolution toward the better, and reject the very concept of better, they constantly laud and celebrate evolution for leading to all the wonders and grandeurs of the biological universe. If evolution were truly about the survival of that which most reproduces itself, and nothing else, then the only life form on earth would be that ultimate Desmond Hatchett of the biotic realm, bacteria, since, as Stephen Jay Gould once remarked, bacteria are vastly better at reproducing than the “higher” species.
Email entry |