Summations Only

I have no doubt that you could. My brother is a competent veterinarian and is also a YEC, but he certainly accepts the evolution of resistance and disease. One of my lab mates is a YEC and I believe he will make a competent scientist... however, when we talk about the phylogeny of the organism he works with and determining its evolutionary history in the context of disease management and detection, he is right on board.Of course, Creationists/ IDists will argue that those issues are completely compatible with their hypothesis (which ever particular brand it may be) and represent "microevolution" or some other definition that attempts to downplay the significance of the contribution of evolutionary biology, but that completely misses the point. It is evolutionary biology that developed those ideas not "creation theory." Creationists accept evolutionary theory up to a point and object to certain aspects which they perceive as objectionable such as universal common descent and non-teleological origins. So creationists/ IDists try to redefine words and concepts so that they can keep the parts that work and reject the parts they find objectionable.For example, one of the creationists here recently stated that the modern Felidae species descended from a common ancestor that had been preserved on the ark. But... that this is an example of "microevolution," which is, quite frankly, very dumb... an entire family of very diverse species descending from a common ancestor is clearly, by definition, "macroevolution." So creationists accept "macroevolution" but don't want to admit it so they change the definitions.Another example is including universal common descent in the definition of evolution. Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection (or descent with modification). It is the process by which different organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. NOTE: the word "process" in that second part of the definition! Evolution or the ToE is the process of diversification not the diversification itself.So let's accept that the entire family Felidae descended from a common ancestor. What was the process by which that happened? Evolution. Evolution is the process that scientists study and understand fairly well (there is still a lot yet to learn) and think it explains the diversification of the Felidae. So it is inconsequential to the theory or to the definition of evolution if Felidae and Canidae are related by common ancestry or not (maybe both "kinds" began through an act of special creation). Either way, the theory is supposed to explain the diversification of those groups.Now, what we need to recognize is that if a pair of felines did survive on the ark and founded the current population of Felidae a mere 4,400 years ago, that would be, for the most part, incompatible with the ToE. An alternate model for diversification would need to be put forward. The closest answer to that I have seen is the idea that all the diversity was "built in" to the original pair. But I don't see that model as being compatible with the data and at this point, it is pretty much unworkable. This obsession with Darwin is a creationist phenomenon, not an evolutionary religious tradition. Darwin is mentioned on the first day of Evolutionary Biology courses for about 5 minutes and then the discussion moves on to other historical figures. While Darwin was generally correct in his theory, and he deserves recognition as the grandfather of evolutionary theory, we pretty much don't study Darwinian evolution any more, we have moved way beyond the topics that Darwin discussed. Darwin is not the "evolutionist's patron saint," it is creationists that are obsessed with Darwin.Personally, I accept that life was "intelligently designed" and I accept and believe that the God of the Bible is the Creator of all seen and unseen. Yet I believe that evolution is the process that God used to create. I would say, form a personal position, that God "causes" a flower to grow and bloom, and yet that is not the process he uses to do so. The process by which flowers develop and bloom can be explored and understood. This does not diminish my belief that God is the ultimate "cause" but my belief that God is the "cause" does not create a roadblock to my scientific curiosity and investigation. They are two separate but yet also inseparable things, if that makes sense...ID and creation science do not offer any alternative to evolutionary theory, they only try to pick apart the theory and assume their premise (intelligent design or special creation) is true by default if evolution is false. In my mind, all they do is create a false dichotomy that does nothing to promote understand in biology. Science is the study of natural processes, such as flower development and evolutionary development. Creationist's and IDist's rhetoric places road blocks to understanding those processes.It's quite OK to object to particular aspects, such as universal common descent and non-teleological origins, but changing and manipulating the definitions doesn't help your case at all.HBD

I especially like this statement ------- When discussing science with creationists, about 90% of the time is spent on definitions (attempts to change them or misunderstandings of them) and logical fallacies (both their accusations of logical fallacies and their own implementation of logical fallacies). Yawn... rarely a robust discussion of science.HBD

Says three persons who do not work in any biological field nor have biological training, which is in direct opposition to what people say who actually work in the field and have advanced training.HBD

Here you argue that variation was confined to species, and in your addendum you argue that the immutability of species was a "wrong idea." This is exactly the type of word play I am talking about. Which is it? Is Felidae all one species or does the family consist of numerous species?If it is all one species, then you are manipulating the definition of "species" that was recognized prior to Darwin by taxonomists like Linnaeus.If it is multiple species, then you are manipulating the definition of "macroevolution" that was coined by an evolutionary biologist, not creationists. So Felidae IS all one species. OK then, it is you who are insisting on a definition that has nothing to do with reality.The point is, Faith. Instead of arguing definitions (which you have demonstrated my point that 90% of discussions with creationists focus on definitions) argue mechanisms. Argue processes. So what if Felidae is an example of macroevolution, what you are concerned about is that it does not connect or share an evolutionary history with any other family. Can you demonstrate that without resorting to definitional manipulation?Sure you have proposed some ideas about genetic variation and how speciation occurs, but they are not very convincing to those of us who have actually studied genetics and biological variation. Of course, you can fall back to the accusation that I am deceived and that I am a false Christian and the myriad of other accusations that negate my experience, but ultimately I have to put biological principals to the test and use them to solve problems. You don't. You just get to sit there and accuse and speculate.Have you come up with a research approach to the problem I presented? No. You only accuse me of doing something deceitful and manipulative. But those are the kinds of problems I have to work at solving, they are real biological issues with real world applications.I challenge you to come up with a viable solution using only creationist principals and not employing principals that were derived from evolutionary biology research.HBD

Well, I've heard there is no transitionals between ANY two "kinds" of animals. If this is true, then why do you need to ask specifically about invertebrates and vertebrates?HBD

hhhmm?? What is it YOU are on about? The way creationists could prove they are not anti-science is to follow the evidence where ever it leads. They can't though. They MUST start with a conclusion and shoehorn the evidence to fit. Which is clearly anti-science.HBD

This is what is crap! I do believe what God says! What I don't believe is what Faith says, or Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind, or ANY if these creationists who have to make up stuff to support their personal views.So Blech! yourself.HBD

It becomes circular reasoning if you consider those evidences to be self-evident. In reality, those statements are the premises, they can't then be evidence of themselves.Jesus Christ is risen! is the premise. What is the evidence of that? He lives in me. He is active in my life. Of course, that evidence is not "scientific" but so what, I am convinced it's true... He has changed me. Thousands of people who have accepted Christ as their savior are convinced that HE lives in them. To pretend that evidence is scientific or that there IS scientific evidence of any of that simply cheapens the faith, and in fact is no faith at all. You're the one lecturing me.The problems I have with creationists, and YEC in particular, are two fold:1) By their insistence that the Bible is absolutely, literally true, they actually make God's word out to be a lie. Statements that not only require the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be literally true but also require all the extraneous "scientific" claims about it to be true as well (such as the flood laid down the entire geological column in less than one year) - in order for the rest of the Bible to be true, in order for the message to be true, in order for God to be real, do nothing but cause people to unnecessarily reject the entirety of the Bible as untrue. I am so glad I was convinced of God's power in my life and the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ before I began investigating young earth creationist claims. YEC destroys people's faith, it almost destroyed mine (because of point #2)2) Creationist use misrepresentations and falsehoods, almost exclusively, to support their position. Creationist literature is chocked full of deceptive and dishonest material. If the Bible is indeed literally true, there should be no reason to misrepresent the facts and present the facts in dishonest ways. This is what almost destroyed my faith... almost destroyed my confidence in the Word of God. Should we tell lies to in order to defend the Bible??? God forbid! I WILL NOT do it. I will not use arguments that I know to be false to defend the truth of the Bible. And what I have learned in the last 7 years of study is that the vast majority of creationist claims are either flat out false or blatant misrepresentations. For the sake of TRUTH, I had, had, HAD to abandon young earth creationism. For the SAKE of truth! There was really no choice for me, I chose truth. So this is not about rejecting the Bible - it's about rejecting creationISM.I know you don't care about the opinions of "worthless" people (which is anyone who disagrees with you), but I am just trying to explain why I have come to the conclusion I have come to. I don't need or want your judgement. I only ask for understanding. Science has a very specific meaning and that meaning involves a very specific process of investigating the natural world. I (we) have every right to call you out when the process you use does not fit that specific definition. You have every right to argue the things you argue, and often they present interesting perspectives, but when the process involves stating your premise as the evidence that the premise is true, that is unscientific. When the details of an argument indicate that your position is wrong (I know, I know... no one has EVER shown any of your ideas to be wrong), it is unscientific to ignore those details. When the mechanisms involved in your explanation are unrealistic or go against know physical laws, it is unscientific to insist those explanations are right none-the-less.At best, you are trying to provide natural explanations for supernatural phenomenon. But that's not exactly science.HBD

My, what a lovely person you are this morning... True. None of your explanations are natural. They are imaginary. Think you could do the same?If you notice, I didn't direct my original comment to you, it was to Dredge. I have been trying to avoid direct conversations with you since they are so entirely fruitless. Yes, thank you for valuing me so highly. So angry... So emotional. You expect me to take you serious as a model Christian?HBD

Sorry, but this is likely to be a drive-by, as I have many personal things pressing on me right now and won't likely have time to have a lengthy discussion... but I wanted to throw this out there for your consideration.You keep going on about "good" science having a "practical" use, while "useless" science is just the acquisition of knowledge just for the sake of knowledge. It seems you are confusing science and technology. Science IS the acquisition of knowledge and that knowledge need not have an immediate practical application to be "good" science. Technology is the application of scientific knowledge to create products that benefit human civilization. Here is a good explanation of the differences between science and technology with some good comparative charts.

quote:

---

Science:
The word science is explained as a system of obtaining knowledge, through experimentation and observation, so as to elucidate natural phenomena. It is a methodical and rational approach to exploring,

​

Technology:
Technology is a combination of technique, skills, processes, design, products, etc. which is dedicated to creating instruments or gadgets or to complete scientific investigation. It is a set of knowledge that has practical application in the creation, designing and utilisation of products for industrial, commercial or everyday use.

---

You are referring to technology rather than science when you describe "usefulness."I think part of the problem is we talk about "basic science" and "applied science" and the two are often thought of as mutually exclusive. In reality, they are on a continuum; some questions are very fundamental such as "how do single celled organisms use the assembly and disassembly of actin filaments to produce motility?" to very applied questions such as "which fungicide is most efficacious against a particular fungus on a particular crop type?" My personal research interests fall somewhere in the middle of those extremes. Although we tend to categorize scientific questions into these two categories, it is not really accurate to think of a research question as one or the other.The other point is that while fundamental research may not have an immediate, obvious application, it can produce answers and raise new questions that do have very important applications for human civilization. For example, the actin filaments question above would seemingly have no real world application, especially since researchers were studying the system in amoeboids. However, with the answers that came from that work and the new directions of research that it produced we are now exploring how we can target actin filaments in cancer cells to help limit their growth and spread. Now that the research has a practical application it is "good," but prior to that you would disparage the principles?Science is a systematic methodology of acquiring knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. The perceived usefulness of that knowledge is irrelevant. Science is designed to build on previous knowledge, to make discoveries on the backs on the 1000's of scientists that came before you. While the primary purpose of scientific literature is to disseminate scientific discoveries/knowledge, there is a second, almost equally important function that is typically overlooked; and that is to tie your work into the greater body of knowledge. Not only do you need to recognize the work that others did that laid the foundation for your work, but you need to describe how your work fits into the bigger picture and what questions and research possibilities your work raises. No scientific discover/knowledge is an island, but a part of an interconnected web of knowledge.Your continued mantra about applied science being practical and therefore somehow "better" is akin to the nonsense distinction between operational and historic science. What you should be arguing is methodologies; that's what scientist care about. If you could show that the methodologies used are insufficient to produce reliable results, you may gain some traction. But this is how creationists usually argue methodologies: "Where you there???" And now you are going on about "Is there a practical application?"As a research scientist myself, those arguments have so little merit as to be laughable. Those that make those types of arguments demonstrate that have little to no understanding of the scientific process or how we approach scientific questions, and as such, those arguments are of no use to practicing scientists... fundamental or applied.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Exactly, when a hypothesis grows up it becomes a conclusion... not a theory.Just goes to show that those that argue so vehemently against scientific fields know so little about them.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : added quote boxes

I do believe that the average creationist is well-meaning and sincerely believes they are being honest. Its the leaders and "experts" that are dishonest and deceptive. Do you really consider Kent Hovind to be an honest, truthful advocate for creationism? Ken Ham? These men are shysters, snake-oil salesmen. Is that how the "truth" is advanced? God forbid! This quoting-out-of-context is the rule rather than the exception. When quotes from scientists are taken out of context and used to mean something different than they were intended to mean... is that honest? Notice the quotes being used are not data or observations; but conclusions, assessments or opinions... the former can be reinterpreted without impunity, the latter need context. It seems obvious to me that manipulating someone else's words is dishonest.When evidence is misrepresented and conflicting evidence is omitted, is that honest? This is standard creation science operating procedure. Give just the evidence that supports a premise. The details and conflicting evidence are either irrelevant or inconsequential since the evidence presented provides the "correct" answer.What ends up happening is... the average creationist starts out with the belief that the earth is young and was created in 6 literal days... that is the "truth" and that is the starting point. It then is irrelevant how evidence is collected and interpreted as long as the answer is that the earth is young and was created in 6 literal days. If the answer is right... it doesn't matter how you come up with it.Is that really honest?When a claim is demonstrated to be wrong and it is continued to be put forth as evidence, is that honest?Is it honest to repeat claims that are lies or just plain wrong even if you don't know they are wrong? And that, Dredge, is why I abandoned creationism and am passionately opposed to creation science... creation science is not an honest endeavor, despite the general honesty and good intention of the average creationist. If I have to lie and manipulate evidence to support my beliefs, they are just not worth having.I would encourage you to truly examine the claims of creation science and see if they are really honest claims or do they just come to the right conclusion?And BTW, rejection of creationism does not equal atheism. Acceptance of evolution does not equal atheism. Despite the lies that the creation science leaders tell you.HBD

Lol... Try using a calculator instead of doing all your calculations on the chalkboard like Einstein did.HBD

You fundamentalists just love your false dichotomies don't you? They rank right up there with your love of definitions and logical fallacies (pointing out others supposed fallacies whilst ignoring your own, of course)Most of the book of Genesis is obviously stories that were passed down orally for generations and generations. They are likely based on real events but then, over time, they developed into what has been recorded in Genesis. Just because they are not historically accurate doesn't mean they are allegory or even that they are false. They are stories that have a lesson, a lesson about God, humans and relationships. Just because the stories are not absolutely, literally, historically true doesn't mean they are absolutely false. That is a false dichotomy (unless the whole of the issue is historical accuracy - then they are either historically true or historically false). But I don't believe that is the central issue, nor what literalists insist on.This is what literalists do... they force people to choose between absolutely historically true and absolutely theologically false. In fact we could have several options: a) historically true, theologically true; b) historically true, theologically false; c) historically false, theologically false; d) historically false, theologically true. Literalists force people to choose between a) and c); choices b) and d) aren't even on the table...How do you expect people who are skeptical to accept the theological lessons and truths of the Bible when you force them to choose between absolutely historically true and absolutely theologically false? Fundamentalists/literalists think they are upholding the sovereignty/authority of the Bible, but all they really do is "tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders..."Do you really expect to convince people of the truth by forcing them to accept untruth? by bearing false witness?HBD

So... you think God created some species of animal and it thrived for a time and then died out so God created a new species that was very similar to the original species but had some modifications, but that also died out after a number of years, so God tried again... and again... and again... until he finally hit upon a suitable design - and those are our modern species.Unless this this the scenario you are imagining, "sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record" is hardly evidence of creation. The "sudden appearance and stasis" that we do observe in the fossil record sure doesn't line up with the account given in Genesis. Sudden appearance of all forms of life at one point in time and then stasis and/or rapid evolution from original forms into to modern forms. How about not "making a case" for any preconceived notion, but honestly examining the evidence and seeing where it leads. But that is dangerous... it might lead somewhere you don't want to go.HBDNote: I put "sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record" in quotation marks because I don't agree that is really a valid description of our overall observation of the fossil record. Nor do I think that observations of "sudden appearance" or "stasis" in the fossil record are all that surprising.