Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?

How do you know that? I know at least one developmental biologist who is a creationist, and I don't mean Jonathan (Wellington) Wells.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-Apr-2006 07:42 PM

Only in as much as they have been forced to accept what is scientifically observable.Let's not forget it wasn't long ago they rejected speciation as biologically possible. Now, in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is happening all around us, they have retreated to some higher order taxa ('kind') that is completely undefinable and, ergo, unassailable with evidence. What a cop-out. They consider themselves on safe ground because divergence of higher order taxa can never be directly observed - but it can be safely inferred from the evidence. They just choose to reject these inferences.Unfortunately, most of the 'beneficial' contributions of evolutionary biology do not, as you and Percy have recognized, hinge on much more than inferences that can be termed 'microevolutionary' in nature (anitbiotic resistance, etc). Creationists can try and say that such processes are acceptable within their frame of thinking because they don't break the (invisible) barrier of 'kind', but that is just another cop out. All the rich detail of evolutionary change begins at the microEv level and then ultimately carries over into the larger differences evident between higher taxa. The barrier creationists want to erect between 'micro' and 'macro' is an artificial one that rests on no evidence or logic. MacroEv is simply a large scale consequence of many microEv events with some additional twists added by environmental stochasticity once gene pools are separate.So *mechanistic evolutionary reasoning* about how living things work has provided inferences instrumental to the realization of many benefits to mankind, whether the full extrapolation of evolutionary theory was essential for them or not.
For example, the recomendations we develop for insecticide rotation are based on our expectations of resistance evolution under a regime of constant directional selection (use of only one insecticide). Without an evolutionarily-derived strategy for resistance prevention, we wouldn't have pesticides that lasted very long to protect our crops and we would all pay a lot more for whatever food the insects left us.So I think the question needs to be reversed.
Ask not what evolutionary theory has done for mankind,
but rather what creationist thinking has managed to produce that is useful. Anything? I've got a big zero. Possibly not, but I would argue that evolutionary understanding has been greatly enhanced by our understanding of genetics, and everything we have discovered about genetics makes sense ONLY in the context of evolutionary thinking.(title changed by edit)This message has been edited by EZscience, 04-05-2006 01:55 PM

I think it may be a bit of overgeneralization to say "all these benefits were developed by scientists who accept the theory of evolution", or "creationists don't make any contributions to science".As much as anyone may dislike AiG (myself included, at least in part), they do have a list of 181 current Young-Earth Scientists, as well as historical YEC's. I realize this is a small list, and I have no wish to begin an off-topic argument here. I just ask that we not make unfounded generalizations to support our positions.Note to self: Try not to make any more distinctions between micro and macro anything or your thread may go way off-topic.This message has been edited by Dierotao, 04-05-2006 03:02 PM

quote:

---

Only in as much as they have been forced to accept what is scientifically observable.

---

And it has actually been useful to creationists as well. When creationists opposed speciation, they would have had no way of explaining how Noah could have fit the millions of species of animals into his ark. But once forced (as you so accurately put it) to at least recognize "microevolution", they could then figure out a solution; namely the idea that Noah only brought on board a relatively few "kinds" that then "microevolved" into the observed diversity that we see post-flood.Ironically, it was evolutionary biologists that provided a solution to a creationist problem.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Perhaps we could depersonalize the discussion by refering to the relative usefulness of 'evolutionary reasoning' versus 'creationist reasoning'.That way we can avoid crediting 'creation science' for actual scientific advances made by 'creation scientists' using the scientific method that had nothing to do with 'creationist reasoning'. (edited for clarity)This message has been edited by EZscience, 04-05-2006 02:01 PM

A question, though, is how many of these scientists are actually engaged in scientific research (as opposed to publishing "critiques" of evolutionary papers or other apologetics essays)?Of the research that is being done, how much of it is actually an advancement of human knowledge, and can be replicated by other scientists?Finally, how much of this research is based on the creationist paradigm?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

All it has done is undermine Christianity

---

Some more militant atheists might see this as a benefit of Evolutionary Theory. Not necessarily me, though. It all depends on which side of the fence you fall on, and that is a whole new discussion.

There is nothing related to Evolution that undermines Christianity in any way. That's why so many Christian Churches and Christian Clergy not only accept the TOE but in fact oppose Biblical Creationism and YEC.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wow! I'm a subheading!There's a little reply button beneath each message. Use that if you want to reply to a specific message.You're right, you don't want to lose sight of your own topic, so I'll just withdraw the comment. But if someone wants to open a new topic to discuss creationist contributions to science it could be fun. If you look at the AIG list of creationist scientists you'll see that it includes Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, Duane Gish, Werner Gitt, Russell Humphreys, John Morris, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling and Kurt Wise. Interestingly, Michael Behe is not on the list.What you're looking for is benefits that depend upon acceptance of macroevolution. Seems like it would be a very short list.--Percy

For the umpteenth time, the ToE has absolutely nothing to do with such practical science. The illusion that it does is one of the saddest things imaginable.

Genetics is not dependent on the ToE and could have thrived quite usefully without it.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 03:52 PM

All he could do is the usual: point out that the way one develops vaccinations is by taking into account the rapid "mutation" of the organism targeted, which is now called speciation with macro implications, but is in fact speciation in the micro sense, business as usual.

Well, here's a thought about why. There aren't many of them, and they are engaged in trying to answer evolutionism. The vast majority of scientists simply accept evolution because that's what they were taught, and they just go about their scientific business without having to get involved in the dispute. Yes, I agree.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:06 PM

Hi Faith,I'm responding to your last several messages. We know your views contrast dramatically with evolutionists, but please try to keep them from diverting a thread from its topic. This thread isn't about whether the theory of evolution is dependent upon genetics. It isn't about your opinion that evolutionists have changed the definition of species. It's about whether the theory of evolution has benefited mankind.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is a complete falsification which has been answered many times. All that was rejected was the way the term "speciation" is used by evos, to mean macroevolution. It's a semantic headache and a big one, but that's all it is.The concept itself has never been a problem to creationists, it's the most mundane observation in biology that variations occur all the time and some are rather dramatic. This whole problem is strictly the result of how evolution has co-opted the language of biology to suit its own presuppositions, and forced creationists to sort it all out in order even to discuss their own point of view.The terms have so many meanings it is understandable there has been a lot of confusion, but your way of spinning this is simply wrong and unfair.