Evolution Has Escaped 48% Of Republicans
Definitely not the party of change.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.Noted by The Washington Post's Dana Milbank:
As a matter of political Darwinism, the Republicans’ mutation is not likely to help the GOP’s survival. As the country overall becomes more racially diverse and more secular, Republicans are resolutely white and increasingly devout. If current trends persist, it will be only a couple of decades before they join the dodo and the saber-toothed tiger.
But give Republicans credit for this: They don’t just doubt the theory of evolution; they’re out to prove it wrong. If they believed in the survival of the fittest, they’d be expanding their racial and ideological diversity. Instead, they’re trying to demonstrate that devotion to God can trump the Darwinian rules of politics.
8 comments:
I think Dana Millbanks's last paragraph is quite muddled as I believe the lesson from the theory of evolution is not "survival of the fittest" -- which the GOP certainly seems to be devoted to economically -- but rather 'natural selection,' i.e., those species who survive are those who adapt or who undergo a favorable mutation.
Survival of the fittest IS natural selection, or the survival of those specimens most fit, most adaptable, most adapted. If it's a curved beak or the thickest fur or the most colorful display that is called for, the animal with an edge for finding or eating food, attracting the most mates, seeking shelter or hiding from/fending off predators is the one who will survive long enough to pass the desired trait onto the next generation of its kind.
Survey sez: Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form** since the beginning of time,”
I assume this means white, male dominant, evangelical Christian Republicans? That certainly FEELS as if it's been the model since the beginning of time, at least to those of us who aren't one or several of those things.
Yeah, I think I was wrong about my opinion. I just remember something about a distinction made by a biologist between "natural selection" and the more popular notion of "survival of the fittest." I was certainly wrong not to notice that Mr. Milbank was talking about political Darwinism, and was not suggesting that Republicans do not favor economic Darwinism. Not a great start to my year, here!
Also, if a superior mutation is not allowed to thrive due to say, a more plentiful and vicious, yet inferior species overtaking them, that is natural selection as well. Just because something is superior doesn't mean it survives.
Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213115127.htm
Interesting link, Gareth. As I recall now, for what it is worth, the biologist was making the point that species survival (natural selection) sometimes involves forms of cooperation, as opposed to the popular view of survival (Darwinism) as always depending on cut-throat competition in a "dog-eat-dog" world.
I admit I didn't read Gareth's link (yet, but I will) but you're off on some erroneous tangents, my friends. Natural selection/survival of the fittest/Darwinian theory/evolution has little to do with cut-throat competition or dog-eat-dog, or any idea that one species is "superior" to another. If you know anything about Darwin at all, you know that his Galapagos discoveries were initially centered on the variety of beak shapes on the same bird, but living on different islands: some bird beaks had evolved to eat fruit, some seeds, some insects. The beak adaptations were extremely similar on one island, but different from those on a another island. The birds that were most successful on each of the islands had the beaks best suited for obtaining food that was readily available ON THAT ISLAND. They ate, they lived and they passed on genes for a curved beak, a long beak, or whatever was needed to get that food that was available.
Cooperation with its own species, or even an interdependence on another species is sometimes a form of evolution, to wit, the birds that ride around on hippos and pick the bugs and parasites off the animal. That bird gets food, the animal gets pest control. Fewer pests, less disease, better likelihood that particular hippo gets to pass on his tolerant genes to the young'uns. (And some behavior modeling going on there as well, I'll concede.)
The rabbit/hare can't outrun a fox, coyote or hungry wolf and has no weapons to fight back with if attacked. However, Mr. Bunny can be really, really still, and blend into his background really, really well and every Mr. or Ms. Rabbit who doesn't push the panic button too soon survives long enough to pass on the WAIT gene to Baby Bunny. Rabbits'early sexual maturity (more baby bunnies at early ages) is also a form of evolution--a response to so many rabbit dinners, esp on PBS programs.
"Survival of the fittest" means the most fit, the most adaptable, the most adapted to its environment.
Post a Comment