Todd Akin, now on evolution!

I see Missouri's GOP Senate candidate, Todd Akin, is now holding forth on evolution:

I don’t see it as even a matter of science because I don’t know that you can prove one or the other.

Todd, your opinion would be incontestable if it weren't for just one little snag: the proven, undisputed science of evolution, upon which all life sciences are based. It's a minor counterargument, Todd, but one which even fruit flies understand; which, in comparative relation to the modern Republican Party, kinda proves the whole evolutionary ladder thing.

What's peculiar about Todd's, I'm sure, considered opinion is that they don't come any more Socially Darwinistic than Rep. Todd Akin. In every socioeconomic aspect of life Todd is right there, cheering on the fittest survivors--any who can slash, burn, or crush their way to the top, free from the fussy fetters of an opportunity-equalizing government.

Yet Todd's rejection of the higher-ordered idea that group cooperation might advance the species is, again, but conclusive evidence of evolution: the lower orders do, quite naturally, linger a while, until their extinction.

Comments

[Botelho]

Though we frequently see "evolutionary biology" referenced, evolution itself isn't really a science, Phil. It's a biological phenomenon (or ubiquitous collection of phenomena), observed and verified countless times by countless biologists; in other words, a "fact" as solid as any observed phenomenon can be. There are various theories which attempt to explain the processes and mechanisms through which evolution occurs, and those are the conceptual propositions friend Akin identifies as "evolution" (emphasis on the "evil") and finds beyond the reach of his -and by implication, anyone's- intellectual certitude.

But of course, there's the pit into which Mr. Akin falls, as these scientific theories are *called* "scientific" because they are all based on sets of falsifiable hypotheses. If they were, indeed, unprovable, they'd be called bunk or nonsense, just like the supposed sources for the Congressman's "knowledge" of biology.

[Peter G]

The other problem with Mr Akin's study of evolution is that he missed a fundamental point about it and that is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life. It does not speak to that issue.