A brief post on the idea of the evolutionary arms race.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'An interdisciplinary team at the University of Miami got their heads together and appealed to an evolutionary notion called the “Red Queen” hypothesis, and claimed it provides a “Pattern in Escalations in Insurgent and Terrorist Activity” that is neutral regarding the good guys and the bad guys. It resembles, they argue, how pedators and prey evolve in nature. [1.]
- I see no evidence of the 'arms race' that is supposed to be going on. What we really see in most species is stasis. How anyone can hold to the arms race idea in the face of all the evidence for stasis I don't know. If an animal (insect, etc.) doesn't change in tens of millions of years, how can there have been an arms race going on?
The authors are basing their theory on a theory in other words. They're not dealing with the real world, but with textbooks. What passes for science here is a theory based on a myth. (I guess we could call it myth science.) I see no evidence this theory is correct. I see no directional movement in how big or fast animals are. e.g. We see evidence in fossils that animals in the past were generally larger than animals now. I see no compelling evidence they were slower. I see no more than trivial (and temporary) effects of predator on prey or vice versa.
2. ''The authors realized that human armies are much more complex, but chose to omit all the factors involving human intellect, choice and planning, and make their theory completely amoral...'
- They give us an amoral theory of a moral phenomenon. I can't see how that is going to work. Treating human beings like things is the essence of scientism, and there is no reason to think it will ever produce true knowledge. True science does not treat men like machines or like numbers.
Summary;
The alleged arms race is about as real as the Red Queen. Let's call it jabberwocky.
Notes;
1. Can evolutionary theory explain terrorism? Creation/Evolution Headlines July 02
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
