# Evolution, Ecology and Politics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925 "2005-09-22T18:42:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/21 "2005-09-22T22:43:02Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > Although I agree with **John’s** post otherwise, I just can’t agree with this remark. Yes, there are probably people jockeying for political influence in this debate, as there are in many other issues. But there is such a thing as being just plain wrong about the physical world, and that is what creationism is. You don’t have to care about politics in order to sincerely advocate the scientific view of things. But “the dispute” is purely political. There is no dispute in the scientific community about evolution vs creationism. The creationists want to imply that there is a scientific debate (teach both so people can see where the controversy is). The fact is, there is no controversy. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/22 "2005-09-22T23:49:22Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > But what does that matter? Primitive people know nothing about evolution, yet manage to develop adaptive methods of sustainable development and wise use of natural resources. > > Where is the proof that evolutionists will be more successful in protecting the environment and preventing natural and man-made disasters, like wars and hurricanes? Sometimes the primitives do, sometimes they don’t; and when they do, it’s a combination of luck and empiricism, mostly luck. _They don’t know what they are doing._ The ones who guess right survive; the ones who guess wrong starve in a wasteland. As far as “proof” goes, it’s just common sense. The people who know what they are doing tend to do it better. By the way, the proper terms are words like “biologists” and “scientists”; “evolutionist” is creationist slang. It’s an attempt to put themselves on the same level as scientists, by equating creationism and "evolutionism; the “ism” suffix implies a belief like creationism, not a fact like evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/23 "2005-09-23T00:07:57Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Sometimes the primitives do, sometimes they don’t; and when they do, it’s a combination of luck and empiricism, mostly luck. _They don’t know what they are doing._ The ones who guess right survive; the ones who guess wrong starve in a wasteland. There’s always the thrid option, which is they exterminate huge numbers of species and irreversibly alter the ecosyetms into somehting unrecognisable as the did in the Americas, Australia, New Zlealand etc. They then die in droves and the survivors eke out a living in the impoverished remains of what was once there. Primitive people aren’t particularly good at developing sustainable lifestyles. Usually they cause massive extinctions and environmentals changes, and then the population settles down in whatever they have left. This isn’t a devised solution, it’s simply natural selection at work. The people try to get as much food as possible and when they can’t they die. theonlypeople who we can say have developed an actual sustainable environmental solution have been educated industialised people with acces to multiple options including effective birth control. Only then you have an option can you develop solutions to lifestyle created problmes. When you have no choice but do it or starve you can’t really make decisions ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/24 "2005-09-23T01:27:52Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > But what does that matter? Primitive people know nothing about evolution, yet manage to develop adaptive methods of sustainable development and wise use of natural resources. Just from memory here: Native Americans were not only the plain indians, some tribes actually lived in “cities”, one does not hear much about them because those indians had the misfortune of being prime targets of the diseases the Europeans brought to America. But to get to the point: they were not as wise as they are pictured, in fact researchers have shown recently that the indians abused the practice of burning to clear space for farming and hunting. For an extreme case of primitive bone headness, just look at the Sahara and Easter Island. So no, they were not as wise as pictured. > [@](#): > > Where is the proof that evolutionists will be more successful in protecting the environment and preventing natural and man-made disasters, like wars and hurricanes? That reminded me that there was once an atheist that said that what the Middle East really needed was essays of Bertrand Russell dropped en masse over all the fundamentalists out there. (Israelis included) But not all “evolutionists” are atheists! And it was the research on species by the “evolutionists” that is pointing to progress or failure on the environment, one can find hundreds of examples of species wiped out by those “wise” “primitive people” that could have been useful for the new generations. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/25 "2005-09-23T02:10:00Z")
The OP is clearly unaware of the Left’s goals as altered in light of current political reality. Our current goals are: 1 Keeping the Voting Rights Act intact and stop Negro-lynching from once again becoming a popular pasttime in rural America 2 Try to get the American goverment out of the torture business 3 Try to keep the American government from invading other countries “just because.” 4 Get wages to keep pace with … anything. 5 Get our pants up from around our ankles. Evolution and Ecology! We WISH! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/26 "2005-09-23T02:27:38Z")
Evolution isn’t a “cause.” ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/27 "2005-09-23T02:33:53Z")
That sounds like what an Evolutionist would say! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/28 "2005-09-23T03:19:36Z")
Sorry, I’m failing to see the connection between belief in evolution and one’s political persuation. Most of my friends would be considered to be ‘on the right’, and yet I don’t know a single one who’s a creationist. Even many of the religious people I know are pretty enlightened about it. It’s the _religious_ who tend to be creationist, of course. If you’re not religious, you’re not a creationist. If you’re religious, you may or may not be. I think the perception that conservatism and creationism are part of the same impulse comes from the fact that there is a small minority of radical creationists in the U.S. who push their personal beliefs relentlessly into the public square. There are lots of religious people on the left as well. They just aren’t as loud about it. Which is as it should be. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/29 "2005-09-25T08:28:51Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > …the proper terms are words like “biologists” and “scientists”; “evolutionist” is creationist slang. It’s an attempt to put themselves on the same level as scientists, by equating creationism and "evolutionism; the “ism” suffix implies a belief like creationism, not a fact like evolution. Saying that evolution is a fact “implies a belief like creationism”. Acquisition of scientific knowledge is work in progress. “[Evolutionism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism)” precedes Darwin at least by 100 years. There were many theories, most of which appear unscientific nowadays, that described life without divine intervention. > [@](#): > > Gottfried Leibniz in 1714 explained the motion of objects by the “monads” inside them where the monads operated by internal forces, so no outside force was required to make things happen as they did… “monad” or “germ” idea as a characteristic of the typical evolutionism theory from 1700 to 1850; the typical evolutionism theory maintained that “the ‘germs’ of all things have always existed . . . [such that they] contain within themselves an internal principle of development which drives them on through a vast series of metamorphoses” through which they become the geological formations, lifeforms, psychologies, and civilizations of the present > [@](#): > > An early application of an evolutionism theory to biology was Charles Bonnet’s 1762 assertion that each feature of the embryo was preformed in the parts; some of the parts came from the egg and some came from the sperm. Bonnet hypothesized that when the embryo grew, those preformed parts merely expanded, shifted, and rearranged themselves to grow into the adult. > [@](#): > > Lamarck’s own theory of evolution was in fact based on the idea that individuals adapt during their own lifetimes and transmit traits they acquire to their offspring. Offspring then adapt from where the parents left off, enabling evolution to advance. As a mechanism for adaptation, Lamarck proposed that individuals increased specific capabilities by exercising them, while losing others through disuse. Before we scoff, let’s remember those were mighty intellects, foremost scientists of their own age. Their mindsets were evolutionary; they were “evolutionists”; but from our own vantage point we can’t admit their theories about evolution as scientific. Well, perhaps in 200 or 300 hundred years people will look back on us and smile at our science and what we considered “facts”. Our science might become outdated, our theories might be no longer scientific. Also, not all scientists have evolutionary mindsets. [Meet Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.](http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/012/2.42.html) > [@](#): > > I think evolution is a very compelling explanation for the relatedness of living things on this planet. You can’t study DNA without noting the relatedness of the sequences between us and other animals, bacteria, and plants. But I don’t have any problem with putting that together with my belief in God as the Creator of life and in God as one who desires fellowship with humankind. If God decided to use the mechanism of evolution to create human beings, who are we to say that was a bad way to do it? In that regard, I would be called a theistic evolutionist, as are many people who work in biology and who also believe in God. So “evolutionists” proper are those who see the main value of evolution theory in its disposition with any meaningful role for God in this world. Not all of them are scientists, just like not all scientists believe in evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/30 "2005-09-25T08:35:42Z")
**New Iskander** , most of your post is irrelevant because we are talking about the present, not centuries ago. Yoy quote from Francis Collins actually helps prove my point. The term “theistic evolutionist” refers to a belief ( God manipulates evolution ), not a fact ( Evolution itself ). ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/31 "2005-09-25T09:22:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s becoming increasing obvious that primitive cultures just destroy the environment more slowly. The ones we see still in existence today are self-selected-- the ones that destroyed their environments faster died out long ago. I’m not disagreeing with your post, but I just have to ask: how do you “destroy” an environment? Change it, sure, but destroy it? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/32 "2005-09-25T13:32:36Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I think the perception that conservatism and creationism are part of the same impulse comes from the fact that there is a small minority of radical creationists in the U.S. who push their personal beliefs relentlessly into the public square. I agree with most of your post, but this statement is wishful thinking on your part. While the ones who are really, really pushing this may be a minority (although not all that small of one), they have plenty of support from the political party that just happens to dominate all three branches of the federal government at the moment. And, in fact, it seems almost as if a Republican candidate for President has to endorse the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution. Bush, Frist, and even John McCain have done this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/33 "2005-09-25T16:20:45Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Saying that evolution is a fact “implies a belief like creationism”. Acquisition of scientific knowledge is work in progress. “[Evolutionism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism)” precedes Darwin at least by 100 years. There were many theories, most of which appear unscientific nowadays, that described life without divine intervention. > > Before we scoff, let’s remember those were mighty intellects, foremost scientists of their own age. Their mindsets were evolutionary; they were “evolutionists”; but from our own vantage point we can’t admit their theories about evolution as scientific. > > Well, perhaps in 200 or 300 hundred years people will look back on us and smile at our science and what we considered “facts”. Our science might become outdated, our theories might be no longer scientific. Evolutionary theory is not an “ism.” The fact that it was once a hypothesis has no bearing on the strength of the theory today. > [@](#): > > Also, not all scientists have evolutionary mindsets. > > [Meet Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.](http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/012/2.42.html) > > So “evolutionists” proper are those who see the main value of evolution theory in its disposition with any meaningful role for God in this world. Not all of them are scientists, just like not all scientists believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a belief. Any scientist who “doen’t believe in evolution” is either not educated about it (Creationists like to trot out scientists with credentials in unrelated fields of science) or is lying. They also don’t present any alternate theories of their own or subject their “doubts” for peer review. There is no debate in science about evolution. In the example you quoted, Collins does not express any doubt in evolution but only states (correctly) that an acceptance of the theory does not necessarily conflict with a belief in God. A philosophical belief in “theistic evolution” means only that one accepts te evidence for evolution while still believing in God. A Theistic Evolutionist may or may not believe that God intercedes directly in the process but they do not doubt that evolution occurs and they don’t doubt common descent. The “theistic” part of the equation does not affect or conflict with how they evaluate scientific evidence, nor does the science compromise their faith. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/34 "2005-09-25T22:40:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Evolution is a fact, not a belief. Description of evolutionary theories kept changing continuously since at least 1700s. Darwin theory was different from Leibnitz, modern understanding of evolution is different from Darwin’s. Once you state that what we know right now is an absolute **fact** , don’t you put an end to the process of scientific discovery? Don’t you claim perfect knowledge, just like creationists do, and thus paint yourself simply as ‘anti-creationist’ (or ‘evolutionist’)? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/35 "2005-09-25T22:47:30Z")
Evolution is now a confirned fact. Just because it wasn’t _always_ verifiable doesn’t mean that it isn’t known fact _now_. The ancient Greeks had quite a different idea of atomic theory than what we know today. Does that mean we can’t say the existence of the atom is a known fact? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/36 "2005-09-26T06:13:36Z")
If Evolution theory is as firmly established as Atomic theory, why is it perfectly acceptable to use the term [Atomism (and ‘atomist’)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism) but not Evolutionism? I have serious problem with anything in science described as ‘confirmed’ fact. That only leads to dogmatism. Remember how Ptolemaic geocentric model was accepted as fact for so long? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/37 "2005-09-26T06:45:08Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > If Evolution theory is as firmly established as Atomic theory, why is it perfectly acceptable to use the term [Atomism (and ‘atomist’)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism) but not Evolutionism? > > I have serious problem with anything in science described as ‘confirmed’ fact. That only leads to dogmatism. Remember how Ptolemaic geocentric model was accepted as fact for so long? I have never heard of a physicist say he believed in “atomism.” Atoms are a fact, and they are not at all like the ones Democritus guessed at. As for ecology and evolution, even if one believes that God created an ecosystem yesterday, there is no more reason to destroy it than if it evolved without god. They are totally different and disjoint concepts. BTW, calling all those on the right creationists is quite the worst insult to them, far worse than any I have seen those on the left sling. I think you owe Sam an apology. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/38 "2005-09-26T08:21:00Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Well, perhaps in 200 or 300 hundred years people will look back on us and smile at our science and what we considered “facts”. Our science might become outdated, our theories might be no longer scientific. And a few hundred years ago, the Catholic church was condeming Galileo. If creationists have answers which can compete with Evolution, then “Bring it on.” ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/39 "2005-09-26T09:19:10Z")
> [@NI](#): > > Saying that evolution is a fact “implies a belief like creationism”. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Species die out and are replaced by otehrs iwhich weren;t there before\* over **billions** of years. This biological change over time _is_ evolution, and it is a **fact**. The rigorously tested _theory_ of evolution shows how this speciation occurs: copy, vary, select, copy, vary, select, _ad infinitum_ until two groups become genetically isolated by _eg._ occupying geographically isolated environments. > [@](#): > > Remember how Ptolemaic geocentric model was accepted as fact for so long? No, I don’t. The fact was that planets wandered across the sky while the other stars remained set. The Ptolemaic system was an attempt to place that fact within a testable theory, but sadly failed miserably upon proper testing. The Copernican model passed these tests, and thus overturned the previous model just as the Darwinian model overturned other models. As for your OP, I don’t call primitive peoples “wise”: their superstitions are as idiotic as those of transsubstatiation or Hell. But they are in _equilibrium_ with their environment, such that they are not _radically altering_ our common ecosystem to anything like the same extent. That is a different debate. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925/40 "2005-09-26T09:20:28Z")
Coding apologies: Species die out and are replaced by others _which weren’t there before_ over **billions** of years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-ecology-and-politics/322925.md?page=3)