Evolution is unpleasant
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
The allegation the evolution is unpleasant is used as an argument against it by some creationists.
[edit] Example
"Evolution is a cruel and wasteful process. The Bible is the true and accurate history book of the universe." [1]
[edit] Discussion
This argument would hold no weight unless we could argue that nothing cruel or wasteful exists in nature. This is simply not so.
If we examine what, in particular, seems to be cruel or wasteful about evolution, the argument looks sillier still. Let us argue that evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations is cruel and wasteful, and see how far it gets us.
Natural selection would seem to be both cruel and wasteful, for it depends on the fact that, most organisms will not successfully reproduce, which is wasteful; and the specific reasons why involve such factors as starvation, disease, et cetera, which are cruel.
But, if there is no evolution, then it is still true that most organisms will not successfully reproduce; and the reasons why still involve such factors as starvation, disease, predation, et cetera.
The wastefulness and cruelty of the "cruel and wasteful process" would still remain. But if it does not cause evolution, then it is also completely pointless. It would be cruel and wasteful still: but it would no longer constitute a process.
Again, the random mutations on which natural selection acts also seem wasteful: most mutations will be worthless and will be culled by natural selection. But creationists don't deny that mutations take place. They do often deny that any mutation can be beneficial. This would be more wasteful still.
Those creationists who claim that "microevolution" is possible and "macroevolution" is not have further questions to answer if they wish to employ this argument. If a “cruel and wasteful process” can account for events that do not conflict with their religious dogma, then why, save for their prejudices, should it not account for something which does?
