What you need to know?

I have recently obtained a brochure written by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. The brochure is 'Creation vs. Evolution: What you need to know' (quick reference guide).In reading through this guide the author makes the following statement:
Evolutionists Claim #20 The theory of evolution has been a great boon to scientific progress.
The Scientific Facts Declare #20Whatever its limited scientific benefits, evolutionary theory has hindered the progress of science in numerous ways and been more destructive to the welfare of science"Since the author gives no examples of this, my question is how has ToE hindered the progress of science?

Well , you know that dang theory led Medel to research allele combinations in plants, hereditary traits ect . Course, science progressed, in the fifties, searching for the mechanism for passing on hereditary traits ( as required and predicited by TOE) , scientists found the amazing bundle of chemicals called DNA. Hmmmm, course, not like understanding how DNA works, or the mapping of the human genome is important. And those are merely some of the plethora of wrong headed avenues of research that science has gone down due to that blasted theory of evolution.
I could think up of more reasons why TOE is harmfull to science (like almost all of modern biology), but I must say that whole genetics thing seems to be the worst.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by no2creation:
Since the author gives no examples of this, my question is how has ToE hindered the progress of science?
[/B][/QUOTE]JM: Well, to begin with, evolution started two world wars because it teaches we are all animals. Hitler, because he believed in evolution, wiped out countless numbers of jews and tried to conquer the world. Who knows how many scientists were killed in those wars? Evolution has led to abortion (who knows how many brilliant scientists were aborted?). Evolution leads to drug use and promiscuity. How many great scientists blew their minds before producing great works. Make no mistake about it, evolution has done irreparable harm to science....or so they might say CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Well, to begin with, evolution started two world wars because it teaches we are all animals. Hitler, because he believed in evolution, wiped out countless numbers of jews and tried to conquer the world. Who knows how many scientists were killed in those wars? Evolution has led to abortion (who knows how many brilliant scientists were aborted?). Evolution leads to drug use and promiscuity. How many great scientists blew their minds before producing great works. Make no mistake about it, evolution has done irreparable harm to science....or so they might say

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Does ... does the smily refer to the whole of this post ...
please say yes!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Does ... does the smily refer to the whole of this post ...
please say yes!!!!!!

---

But, of course! I am using Hovind's arguments in jest. I am a dyed-in-the-wool, atheistic evolutionist old-earth geologist!CheersJoe Meert

"JM: Well, to begin with, evolution started two world wars because it teaches we are all animals. Hitler, because he believed in evolution, wiped out countless numbers of jews and tried to conquer the world. Who knows how many scientists were killed in those wars? Evolution has led to abortion (who knows how many brilliant scientists were aborted?). Evolution leads to drug use and promiscuity. How many great scientists blew their minds before producing great works. Make no mistake about it, evolution has done irreparable harm to science....or so they might say "
--Thats the way half the kids at my school look at it unfortunatelly.------------------

[QUOTE][b]--Thats the way half the kids at my school look at it unfortunatelly.[/QUOTE][/b]Not that I'm surprised TC, but I'm glad that you separate the validity of a concept of the natural world from the way it has been interpreted by people, or in this case, how its detractors think other people interpreted it as instructing them to do bad things ("Evolution made me do it!") and believed it was the cause of some great atrocities.To their reasoning, the presence of nuclear proliferation would make most of physics empirically wrong and germ warfare would invalidate the field of microbiology.Sadly, this is not a misconception that just crops up on its own, it is being systematically and shamelessly propagated by leading Creationist organizations. These are the same groups that believe that "Scientific" Creationism should be taught as a "scientific equal" to evolution in public schools, but then these orgs issue articles about evolution being the cause of most of what has gone wrong morally since the nineteenth century.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
Sadly, this is not a misconception that just crops up on its own, it is being systematically and shamelessly propagated by leading Creationist organizations. These are the same groups that believe that "Scientific" Creationism should be taught as a "scientific equal" to evolution in public schools, but then these orgs issue articles about evolution being the cause of most of what has gone wrong morally since the nineteenth century.[/B][/QUOTE]I also find it interesting that these same creationists who say that it is the fault of the theory, and not the possible misapplication of it ie social darwinians, get very irrate when people bring up the same type of destructive actions which have been taken in the name of religion. They say, "Oh, well those people were not really religious" or "But they were misusing scripture" or some other reason, they really do not get that they are making the same explaination that the is used to show that ToE did not cause the events that they describe.Now, here is a really amusing thing. Did you know that many of these sef same creationists are breaking the commandment concerning False Witness. People at the ICR are infamous for misquoting scientists or quoting them out of context. And these are the people who are trying to lead us back into morality ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

"Not that I'm surprised TC, but I'm glad that you separate the validity of a concept of the natural world from the way it has been interpreted by people, or in this case, how its detractors think other people interpreted it as instructing them to do bad things ("Evolution made me do it!") and believed it was the cause of some great atrocities.To their reasoning, the presence of nuclear proliferation would make most of physics empirically wrong and germ warfare would invalidate the field of microbiology.Sadly, this is not a misconception that just crops up on its own, it is being systematically and shamelessly propagated by leading Creationist organizations. These are the same groups that believe that "Scientific" Creationism should be taught as a "scientific equal" to evolution in public schools, but then these orgs issue articles about evolution being the cause of most of what has gone wrong morally since the nineteenth century."
--Well lets see what have seen concerning Evolution, its effects on the majority of society, and the creationists organizations say about it.
--The first point I would like to make is that there are two paths of missinterpretation. That is that either the teacher will missrepresent the theory, or the person being shown the theory missinterprets it as if it is an alternative to the existance of God, this one by far is extreamly apparent and wide-spread. Both of these prospects very much should be dealt with well. I have had numerous experiences when God or the Bible is brought up in a conversation and someone pops up and says their an Athiest and they don't believe in all of that non-scence. Then wouldn't you know it, thier response to why they are is 'havent you ever heard of Evolution?'. Its quite sad.
--My view on Evolution's effect on society in some ways branches off of the missrepresentation as shown in my previous point. There is a negative drop-off attitude that can be entertained by this interpretation. Examples such as Hitler or other people of that likeness.
--What the creationist organizations have to say about all this, they basically wan't to thrash it many of them, others are a bit less stressful and would rather see it brought down on a more calm ground. As for myself, I haven't met such a conclusive interpretation on the teaching of Evolution, though, currently I havent a problem with it, though the above must greatly be dealt with. I see the debate as a rather entertaining intrest, whether the earth is old or young is rather irrelevant towards salvation. However, of course, I wouldn't mind seeing the Young Earth shown as equally plausable.-------------------

[QUOTE][b]Then wouldn't you know it, thier response to why they are is 'havent you ever heard of Evolution?'[/QUOTE][/b]A person who would base their opinion of the presence or non-presence of God on evolution knows little of evolution or religion. I'd rather talk to a Creationist than an Atheist with that little justification for their position.

TC, you realize that most of the people who accept TOE are religious? I think that perhaps the most offensive thing I have heard from some creationists is that if someone accepts the evidence for TOE, the must not be a good christian. (Hovind did that repeatidly in his sermons that I watched.) There are alot of people who aren't christians that accept TOE, but there are also alot of christians who accept TOE as well. Seems the stumbling block here isn't relgion, but a literal interpretation of the bible.

"A person who would base their opinion of the presence or non-presence of God on evolution knows little of evolution or religion. I'd rather talk to a Creationist than an Atheist with that little justification for their position."
--Exactly, thats the point I was pointing out, personally, I think that that shows that there should be a bit of something to clear that up within the teaching of Evolution.------------------

TC, did you teacher in highschool tell you there was no god because of TOE? If so, that teacher should be fired. However, in the biology classes I have taken in both highschool and and college, there was never a discussion or opionon of religion brought up in class. The only thing we discussed in talking about TOE was the evidence for it, its impact and influence on biology, and how those effects have influences on genetics.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I think that that shows that there should be a bit of something to clear that up within the teaching of Evolution.[/B][/QUOTE]Then this shows that you really do not understand either evolution or basic science in general. Science may be able to disprove certian literal readings of the bible but no field within science can either prove or disprove god (or God). It falls outside of the perview of science.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

"TC, did you teacher in highschool tell you there was no god because of TOE?"
--No, the listeners will come to the conclusion that their interpretation that Evolution is an alternative toward a God, namely the Biblical one."If so, that teacher should be fired."
--I would certainly do so."However, in the biology classes I have taken in both highschool and and college, there was never a discussion or opionon of religion brought up in class."
--Wouldn't think there would be, though in my High school there are a couple who do speak up."The only thing we discussed in talking about TOE was the evidence for it, its impact and influence on biology, and how those effects have influences on genetics."
--Sounds fun to me.------------------