It is an error to think that our medical and biochemical sciences rest in any way upon evolutionary theory. In the field of agriculture, we were using selective breeding thousands of years prior to anyone conceived of the theory of natural selection. Advances in these fields have nothing to do with any theory of origins. But don't take my word for it. Here's Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, writing in 'What Mad Pursuit, 1988:
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much."
Richard Dawkins agrees that knowledge of evolution is of little practical use (from his forward to The Theory of Evolution by John Maynard Smith, 2000:
"Knowledge of evolution may not be strictly useful in everyday commerce."
Knowledge of evolution is important, he says, mainly to explain why we are here - usually regarded as a religious issue:
"But if, before you die, you want to understand why you lived in the first place, Darwinism is the one subject that you must study."
Evolution has produced results in some fields of "science", though - namely the "science of eugenics", "social Darwinism", and the "racial science" of the Nazis and others. These "scientific" movements can be traced directly back to Darwin, in particular his book, 'The Descent of Man'. |
