Negative Impacts on Society

quote:

---

Now I wonder, if evolution is credible and well-documented, then why should creationism be shunned from discussion--if nothing else--in the classrooms (I mean, neoDarwinists should have nothing to fear or get angry by if they know that their theory is so well-supported that creationism won't stand up if presented in public school science classrooms)?

---

Creationism is dangerous because of the way it distorts scientific findings. It is the same reason White Supremists are not allowed to talk about the scientific basis for the genetic superiority of the aryan race. Would you want this discussed in a high school classroom, knowing it was based on distorted data, out of context quotes, and some outright lies? I sure wouldn't. This is how educators look at creationism.If creationists would follow strict scientific methodologies in their own research, and did not distort data or misquote scientists, then there would be nothing to present except the motto "God did it, and my proof is my faith." And by strict scientific methodologies, I mean collected data that is interpreted so that there are no inconsistencies with other measurements. An interpretation of the data must be corroborated with other independent measurements, as has been done with measurements leading to the conclusion of and old earth and billions of years of evolving life. What you would be teaching students, by allowing creationism into schools, is that science can be manipulated to fit any preconception. This is something that science has been fighting against for centuries, and is the reason that the current reliance on naturlistic methodology is so important.

There is a thread on that. Creation DOES need to be taught with evolutionI think that is one where I agreed it should be taught. It would be torn to pieces. But the political stink would be huge.Would creationists really like to see the issues in Dates and Dating discussed in detail? Would they like the errors of their material gone over in detail?I doubt it.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-29-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-29-2004]

that very point has puzzled me for some time.

Every debate that I have been to between evolutionists and creationists, the evolutionists always make the creationists look like a bunch of "C" average middle school kids. The only thing that scientists can't tear apart is the faith that creationists have.The problem with allowing the teaching of creationism in school is it allows room for other mythologies to seek their way into the classroom. Think about it. Would you want your kids to learn that the world came from a giant egg laid by a gigantic chicken in some creation myths?

yes, when it comes to faith "resistance is useless"I understand that california used to have a comparative religions class in high schoolliteralists (fundamental christian ones) objected.I also heard a comment from someone (can't remember)"why would you want a science teacher to teach creation?
not only is it bad for science
it is lousy for religion"

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

I LOVE science; it's just that evolution is supported by popular opinion among scientists but not by actual first-hand research.

---

Um, can you please support your rather outrageous claim that Evolutionary Biologists don't do any first-hand research?How do you think they figured out that nylon-digesting bacteria had evolved; by sitting on their thumbs?

quote:

---

First off, I am constantly asked to read peer-reviewed publications, but what's the point if they are going to speculate a theory based on THEIR interpretation of the evidence beforehand?

---

So, you are admitting that you DON'T read these peer-reviewed journals, yet you think you know what they contain.Despite the fact that you don't read the primary literature, you somehow can reject everything in them?Hmm, how can you say you "love" science when you don't read scientific literature at all?Regarding the defunct ideas of Aryan race superiority, blood-letting, and that Muslims were evil, none of these are scientific concepts. In fact, it was science that showed that the ideas of race superiority and blood-letting were false!

quote:

---

I am not bias AGAINST peer-reviewed work, (I believe there are many great scientific advancements being made as well as good observations). The problem is that when the majority of the population among ANY group of people decides to follow a specific belief (theory/doctrine/etc. depending on the context) I make it a firm point to try and understand what they believe, why it is what they believe, and if there is any logic against it or in favor of it.

---

So, why don't you read peer-reviewed scientific literature??That is exactly what you would need to read if you wanted to know what scientists think.

quote:

---

Thus, since I would never take the word of ANY scientist over first-hand observation of scientific processes (and I advise others to do the same)

---

The peer-reviewed literature is exactly where you will find the first-hand observations of all scientists.

quote:

---

I conclude that the theory is often based on the interpretations of the evidence rather than the actual evidence.

---

This statement shows your confusion regarding the scientific process.Evidence is always interpreted in every scientific endeavor of any kind. Always.Theories are the explanatory framework which then interprets the evidence in order to explain it.The best theories are those which explain the facts (evidence) in the simplest and most complete way, and which survive repeated tests. For instance, we have never found flowering plants below a certain geologic layer, therefore the theory is that flowering plants evolved later than non-flowering plants. Every time we again find no flowering plants below a certain geologic layer, the theory has survived another test. Eventually, the theory becomes stronger and stronger the more tests it survives.Similarly, the ToE has survived probably millions of individual tests, the most important one being the realization that the phenotypic lineages developed pre-genetics match remarkably well with the genetic lineages constructed in recent decades.

quote:

---

I was merely pointing out that it is not imperative to believe in evolution in order to maintain a credible science career, recieve and accredited education in a science field, or provide for the world of science a compilation of legitimate research.

---

Well, no, not technically, but only one of your examples, out of four, ever had any real scientific career, and that one didn't use the supernatural or use any Creationist concepts at all in his work.You may not have to accept the ToE to contribute to science, but you certainly cannot use any Creationist concepts to contribute to science, either.

quote:

---

Like I said earlier, most people I know, in my family and string of friendships, who hold a degree in a field of western science also believe in ID and have disregarded ToE.

---

How many of those people have degrees in Biology or are practicing scientists in any of the life science fields?How many of these people believe what they do for religious reasons?Funny, most people I know who hold degrees in western science think ID is silly and they fully accept the ToE. True, most of the people I know with western science degrees are actually scientists.

quote:

---

Well, I would not argue against speciation (obviously, if the observation of new species emerging from similar species has been documented in the last century in some cases, it would not go to prove that this speciation has been going on for millions of years.)

---

Really? Why not?Please be specific.

quote:

---

It is entirely possible for speciation to have occured in some observable cases and yet the concept of young-earth-creation still be possible.

---

Mmmmm, no, not really, not if you look at all the evidence for an old earth.

quote:

---

Like I've said, the theory of evolution and natural selection--as Darwin put it--was not based on evidence but on his interpretation of the evidence.

---

Again, you are confused.All evidence is always interpreted in all science.His theory of natural selection fit the facts (evidence) the best.

quote:

---

Likewise, could you be so inclined to prove to me that the theory of evolution is based on evidence RATHER than yours (and most other scientists') interpretation of the evidence?

---

The following are pieces of evidence/facts. They do not change:Individuals are born with genetic differences from their parents.
Not all individuals survive to reproduce.
The environment favors some individuals' reproductive success over others.
Those the genes of those individuals which reproduce more successfully tend to proliferate within a population.For natural selection to be true, all of these facts must be true. If all of these facts are true, then it leads to certain effects that we call natural selection.I refer you now to the specific examples of macroevolution at this page:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentIf you want to open another thread to dig in to these specifics, please do so.Anyway, without interpretation within a theoretical framework, facts just float around and don't explain anything.Theories explain and interpret why the evidence appears as it does.

quote:

---

We're talking about the most prevalent two theories of origins of the earth, life, and species: The theory of evolution (Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) and the theory of creationism (The Bible's first several chapters).

---

Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism DOES NOT deal with the origin of life.Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism DOES NOT deal with the origin of the Earth.There is no scientific "theory of Creationism", since it is, as you say, based upon the assumption that a certain interpretation of certain parts of a religious book are literally true. It is therefore revelatory in nature, rather than being based upon evidence, and also is not falsifiable.Not being scientific disqualifies it from science classrooms, no?

quote:

---

Also, the supreme court and people on it are part of government and are not scientists. Thus they are no more fit to make an assumption on creationism than they are to put a label on, for instance, the credibility of Galileo, Dr. Libby, or Judas Iscariot.

---

However, they are quite qualified to take testimony from experts in the field of the philosophy of science who explained to them what science is and what it isn't, and then make a reasoned descision regarding if Creation science actually met any of those requirements.It didn't take the supreme court to make that true, but it was nice to have them come to that conclusion to help keep religion out of public school science classrooms.By the way, are you going to provide a scientific theory of Creation? I've never seen one although I've been told one exists many times.

quote:

---

For one, Evolution and common ancestry are from the interpretation of evidence and not based on real observable evidence.

---

Um, this makes no sense.First you say that they interpret evidence.Then you say that this interpretation of evidence is NOT, in fact, based upon evidence.So, what non-evidence are they incorrectly interpreting??

quote:

---

Moreover, at least half of the population--based on a 2002 poll from MSNBC--believe in creation (Intelligent design) and that means that half the people who pay taxes so that evolution can be taught to their children do not even belive evolution is true.

---

Earlier in this post, didn't you say that the truth isn't based upon popular opinion?If you believe this in the case of scientists, why do you then use the argument now?About half of th US population believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the WTC bombing. Should we teach that in school just because people believed it?

quote:

---

People who pay the money should have a right to control what their money is going to support--to an extent--and parents who pay local taxes for their school system to teach evolution should have the right (and do have the right) to request that their student be exempt from any instruction of origins that is inconsistent with their morals (a notary public will notarize a form and sent to the school requiring the classroom to recognize the parent's wish for the student to not be forced to study creation--provided the parent is a tax-payer and the student is in a school that is tax-supported and thus the parent may bring up a lawsuit against the school if the student is quizzed or tested or given any assignments pertaining to evolutionism).

---

Again, if parents are so afraid of exposing their child to science, then so be it, but their fear {and really fragile faith, apparently) has nothing to do with the validity of a given scientific theory.

quote:

---

If evolutionists want their theory IMPOSED upon children, they should withdraw from tax-support and open private schools where they can teach evolution all they want.

---

Evolution is science. Only a small, vocal group of radical religious people oppose it on religious, not scientific, grounds.If you have some SPECIFIC scientific grounds to oppose it on, please do so now. Otherwise, you are just spouting one giant Argument from Incredulity; "I don't believe it, therefore it isn't true."That's not good enough. You have to SHOW me, with science, HOW I am wrong.

quote:

---

First off, nylon-digesting bacteria are still bacteria--evolution FROM a bacteria to a more complex-than-bacteria organism has never been observed and therefore only proves a mutation has occurred (not necessarily a mutation that will lead to production of a new genus).

---

What is the barrier to many small changes accumulating to result in large changes, given time?

quote:

---

Also, whales being born with hind legs is a HINDRANCE-related mutation and is not beneficial to the animal, just like turtles being born with two heads. That is not evidence for evolution (it's the OPPOSITE of beneficial advancements through mutations).

---

The point is why would the whale be born with legs in the first place if it wasn't descended from creatures that had legs?

Dawkins does mean "inclusive" but I could not square this with the rejection of the brain of a mammal simply ON TOP of a reptile's. Once I "included" the cold bloods I was able to reject the literal selfish notion but if I only thought of verts from a warm blood division of the plethora of forms the id would not have my ego if I so willed. That last is specious as well. Mark didnt want me to respond to him directly so I put it here S. Hope for no worries.

Hi Schafinator:Sorry for the delay (busy week-schedule). I'll try to be more "on top of things" a little in the future. I did not say that evolutionary biologists don't do any first-hand research. Of course they do!What I DID say was that one aspect of thier concentration--the theory of evolution--is merely an interpretation of their research (which means that the research published in scientific journals neither proves nor disproves evolution; rather, it offers an explanation to the observations made utilizing a Darwinian-evolutionary mindrame) Please don't try to put words in my mouth. If I misled you into thinking that I don't read scientific publications, I am sorry. Fact is, I do... Nevertheless, as I've said before, I think that peer-reviewed journals--in terms of what they have to say on evolution--is only one major way of looking at the facts, and therefore the realm of reality extends beyond what the panel of scientists that decide what to put in their journals think. Again, you seem quite quick to draw assumptions on behalf of: since I don't have a multitude of praise to offer the scientific literature, I must be ignorant of it. Or in other words, I don't believe it therefore I must not understand if (come on, you don't seriously think you can sway popular opinion with that argument, do you)? No, it is not. Peer-reviewed literature is where you will find the majority consensus on what the current scientific principles are, and essentially, what is widely-believed to be the explanations for current/recent observations. So you're saying, the reason the theory of evolution is true is because of the fact that it is the simplest method of explaining the evidence we see?If I chose to believe in evolution, it would definitely NOT be because it offers the quickest and easiest path to INTERPRETING the evidence before me. (Lest we forget, interpretations can be very misleading... whenever a person's mind "runs away" with an idea their logic can become blurred and confused). That works in terms of both creation AND evolution (which is why I never take the word or any evolutionist over Gould, Hawking, Dawkins, or Darwin... Likewise, I never take the "word" of any scholar over the Bible itself). So you're saying that genetic similarity offers evidence that the theory of evolution stands up to scrutinizing tests?Well, okay. Nevertheless, creationism gives leeway (it has to, given the true proofs we see in science today) as to the changes--and similarity--of both modern and ancient phenotypes. Therefore--when looking at simply this and nothing more--both evolution AND creation seem credible (afterall, creation = common creator... evolution = common ancestor... enough said). So you're saying that nutritional therapy (which by the way produces a much higher survival rate of certain diseases than conventional medication) has made no beneficial contribution to healthcare worldwide?Or likewise, you're suggesting that cross-bred genetics has not helped us understand the patterns of genetic botany and producing "thorough-bred" crops within the produce industry (as devised by Mendel, the "father of genetics", who was a creationist and working in the mindset of trying to learn more about "God's earth" and the inhabitants thereof)?These are only TWO examples, but I hope you will understand my point in saying that the ToE itself does not contribute to the advancement of society (it hasn't helped us fight diseases, get to the moon, discover other planets, predict earthquakes, etc.) First off, the burden of proof is on the speculator (i.e. the person presenting us with evolution theory) and therefore it is up to evolutionists to produce evidence that speciation has been going on for millions of years.A plant breaking the boundary of science's definition of species neither proves that process has been going on for millions of years any more than it proves intelligent design, granted.How about a different approach: let's assume the Flood of Noah actually happend (~5000 yrs ago)...
Now, it might be possible that the changes in a genus of organism may be changing at an exponential-decay rate. In other words, the first fish to have survived the flood were either salt-water or fresh-water and have had to adapt as the oceans have gotten saltier--or to the freshwater lakes--following the flood. Such changes were drastic and rapid at first, but the changes have minimised (exponential-decay) gradually as the NEED for such adaptation and mutations in our environment has decreased (afterall, the theory of evolution suggests that the mutations of natural selection are based on the idea that such changes are prompted by environmental conditions... so how is it proven that these speciation-events that we've observed are any more than the adaptations made to fit current conditions following the flood)? Granted, I was not trying to prove the flood to you, but I WAS offering a hypothetical, creation-based explanation to the select few speciation events lately-observed. Or, why would some cows be born with two heads if it did not evolve from a two-headed creature.Okay, sorry, that was a stretch and I admit it. Nevertheless, evolution by means of natural selection offers only one of the possible explanations. Similarly, some human babies have been born with certain birth-defects deemed disturbing (long arms, fewer than ten fingers, etc.) That proves only one thing: mutation has occurred, but does not prove that Genesis chapter one is wrong and Charles Darwin was right.Okay, I have to go. Sorry, but I'm in a bit of a tight hurry.Catch you all later,
Sincererly,Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

I don't see how that could be true. After all what you call the "Darwinian-evolutionary mindframe" was developed by inference from the evidence. How could evolution simply be a presupposition for the interpretation of evidence when it was the evidence itself that was the impetus for evolution? It actually does help us fight disease by modeling how infectious microbiota will react and adapt to changes in their environment. I don't understand how you could read a scientific journal or other primary source and come to that conclusion. If scientists aren't publishing the results of their research and experimentation in the journals published for that expressed purpose, then where do you think they're doing it?Primary research consists of accounts of observation, experimental methodology, and conclusion. Those conclusions are subject to peer-review not in regards to how they match "accepted" scientific theory, but only in regards to how well that conclusion is actually supported by the evidence presented by the researchers.In other words, the conclusion is not peer-reviewed, only the process that led to that conclusion. If one's methodology is sound then one's conclusion cannot be rejected.That's why creationism is rejected by science - not because of the conclusion, but because that conclusion is not reached by a valid methodology. On the other hand, creationists reject evolution not because of the methodology, but because they don't like the conclusion.

Dear Crashfrog,
I thought it rationally possible that my prediliction(sp?) for baraminology might have been out of spite but now that I have had over a year past Gould's passing to mull over his "tome" and compare it to a video tape debate with Johnson by comparision to Eldrideges' distancing from Provine's taped conviction (which I knew any way by personal contact)I now DO understand how anti-Gould perspectives specially aired"" here on EvC in the name of Dakwins or not are CORRECT in a particular way. There has indeed been a tendency in the post Mayr/myGrandfathers' generation of biologist to cause a trend in thinking that I was only aware of its limits by by reading and understanding creationism. So though one might indeed remain distant to the actual research and still find room to criticize the mindframe itself it does begin to appear to me to ONLY address the current observations. Provine for instance acosted Johnson for NOT providing his own idea on how biological change works. This tact would not and did not work "against"(sic.) me for I have some ideas of the business that explains current observations as well. I am now able to dilineate the Provine/Gould/Dawwkins era FROM a LARGER section of scholarhip into our generation and before this generation after the syntheses. Veblen had noted in 1898 (see in Darwinism and the American Intellectual A Book of Readings 1967 p)"In all this economic science is living over again in its turn the experiences which the natural sciences passed through some time back. In the natural sciences the work of the taxonomist was and continues to be of great value, but the scientists grew restless under the regime of symmetry and system-making. They took to asking why, and so shifted their inquires form the structure of the coral reefs to the stucture of teh habits of life that lives in and by them."Your evo suppport I can find is no differnt from remaining in trajectory with Gould,Provine,Eldridge and the forward processing which can be read otherwise espeically as Veblen also noted THEN "But all that may be necessary here is to point out that, by descent an by psychological content, this constraining normality is of a spirtual kind." That is why the notion of mind "frame" exists. God Bless. The problem is that when comparing Gould and Dawkins one does not get a common WHY even thought Johnson and ICR aremore generally homogenous on this there is still "dissent" despite Provine's strained exclaimations that Eldgridge disclaimed socially.

quote:

---

I did not say that evolutionary biologists don't do any first-hand research. Of course they do!

---

But didn't you write this?:

quote:

---

I LOVE science; it's just that evolution is supported by popular opinion among scientists but not by actual first-hand research.

---

Anyway, if you didn't mean that, so be it.

quote:

---

What I DID say was that one aspect of thier concentration--the theory of evolution--is merely an interpretation of their research

---

...based on and tested by first-hand observation and evidence.The ToE was developed after examining the evidence, and continues to be tested as well, with every new observation.

quote:

---

(which means that the research published in scientific journals neither proves nor disproves evolution; rather, it offers an explanation to the observations made utilizing a Darwinian-evolutionary mindrame)

---

No, the ToE came about BECAUSE of the evidence, not the other way around.That's how all scientific theories develop; AFTER the collection of the evidence and the observations, scientists try to develop frameworks of understanding. Otherwise all we have is a bunch of facts just floating around.

quote:

---

Please don't try to put words in my mouth. If I misled you into thinking that I don't read scientific publications, I am sorry. Fact is, I do... Nevertheless, as I've said before, I think that peer-reviewed journals--in terms of what they have to say on evolution--is only one major way of looking at the facts, and therefore the realm of reality extends beyond what the panel of scientists that decide what to put in their journals think.

---

Upon what basis do you reject what is in the peer-reviewed journal articles, then?I'm only interested in discussing the scientific merits of a claim as it pertains to science. If you want to reject science on religious grounds, fine, but I think you want to do more than that.

quote:

---

Again, you seem quite quick to draw assumptions on behalf of: since I don't have a multitude of praise to offer the scientific literature, I must be ignorant of it. Or in other words, I don't believe it therefore I must not understand if (come on, you don't seriously think you can sway popular opinion with that argument, do you)?

---

Well, so far, you have not shown much understanding of the scientific process or of how peer-review works. You have also avoided discussing specific evidenceces in support of the ToE.

quote:

---

Peer-reviewed literature is where you will find the majority consensus on what the current scientific principles are, and essentially, what is widely-believed to be the explanations for current/recent observations.

---

As Crashfrog explained so well, no conclusions are judged by one's peers, just the methodology you used to reach them. The reviewer's job is not to agree or disagree with your findings, just make sure the ways you used to reach them are scientifically-sound.If you want to see contention and debate, look in the peer-reviewed journals. However, just as scientists no longer debate if the sun is the center of our solar system, they no longer debate if the basic principals of common descent are true.I have to cut this short right now, but I will complete this later this evening.

Sorry to hear that you had very little evolution in high school. Myself and the three other biology teachers spend between 3 and 4 weeks on evolution and natural selection. Our state assessment for biology covers evolution/natural selection also, so we definitely have to prepare for it.The national standards say that evolution needs to be taught. I cannot see why it wouldn't be taken seriously by any scientifically minded teachers. If a teacher has a problem with teaching evolution then he/she should stay out of teaching biology! They definitely shouldn't lie or distort the actual hard scientific evidence based on personal prejudices.

quote:

---

So you're saying, the reason the theory of evolution is true is because of the fact that it is the simplest method of explaining the evidence we see?

---

No one is saying this! The best theory is the one that makes the most sense based on the evidence and makes the least amount of assumptions and inferences. If someone says it is the simplest explanation, it means that the evidences speak more for themselves than you have to.

quote:

---

How about a different approach: let's assume the Flood of Noah actually happend (~5000 yrs ago)...

---

This is an example of too much inference against the evidence. None of the evidence for the time period 5000 years ago points to a worldwide flood. Any evidence that could be used to support a worldwide flood could be better explained otherwise. That is what we mean by a "simpler" explanation.

quote:

---

None of the evidence for the time period 5000 years ago points to a worldwide flood. Any evidence that could be used to support a worldwide flood could be better explained otherwise. That is what we mean by a "simpler" explanation.

---

Well said, hitchy."Simple" is not synonymous with "simplistic".

quote:

---

So you're saying, the reason the theory of evolution is true is because of the fact that it is the simplest method of explaining the evidence we see?

---

Yes, however, it is also the best explanation, in that it accounts for all of the evidence.

quote:

---

If I chose to believe in evolution, it would definitely NOT be because it offers the quickest and easiest path to INTERPRETING the evidence before me.

---

No, not "quick", and not "easy"."Simplest", while making the fewest assumptions and explaining all of the evidence.

quote:

---

(Lest we forget, interpretations can be very misleading... whenever a person's mind "runs away" with an idea their logic can become blurred and confused).

---

OK, I'll say this again.A scientific theory is a framework that scientists use to organize and explain the evidence/facts (natural phenomena).Unless you care to propose a different scientific theory which explains ALL of the evidence as well as or better than the ToE, you are simply rejecting it on purely religious grounds. That's fine, but that is not what you have been saying all this time. You have made claims regarding the science, yet strangely donm't seem to wailling to discuss specific scientific evidence.

quote:

---

That works in terms of both creation AND evolution (which is why I never take the word or any evolutionist over Gould, Hawking, Dawkins, or Darwin... Likewise, I never take the "word" of any scholar over the Bible itself).

---

The thing is, Creation scientists don't actually seem to spend any time developing scientifically-sound theories based upon natural phenomena, nor do they seem to spend any time making predictions and then testing those predictions based upon their theories.So, it doesn't sseem to be that they do much science.Unless, of course, you wanted to cite some publications...

quote:

---

So you're saying that genetic similarity offers evidence that the theory of evolution stands up to scrutinizing tests?

​

Well, okay. Nevertheless, creationism gives leeway (it has to, given the true proofs we see in science today) as to the changes--and similarity--of both modern and ancient phenotypes. Therefore--when looking at simply this and nothing more--both evolution AND creation seem credible (afterall, creation = common creator... evolution = common ancestor... enough said).

---

Well, I think you are skirting the issue I raised.Based upon morphology (physical appearence) alone, long before anybody knew anything at all about DNA, Evolutionary Biologists constructed a huge, multi-branched "tree of life" showing the ways they thought life had evolved since the first life emerged.Lo and behold, DNA and genetics was discovered and then the amazing similarity of the morphological tree of life with the genetic tree of life was revealed.The point is, you can say that a common creator created life on this planet to have evolved exactly as if there was no common creator, but what is the point of that?The simplest explanation that accounts for all the evidence is the ToE. Adding a "creator" into the mix only creates more questions and doesn't explain anything at all.

quote:

---

So you're saying that nutritional therapy (which by the way produces a much higher survival rate of certain diseases than conventional medication) has made no beneficial contribution to healthcare worldwide?

---

What part of nutrition research is based upon the supernatural?

quote:

---

Or likewise, you're suggesting that cross-bred genetics has not helped us understand the patterns of genetic botany and producing "thorough-bred" crops within the produce industry (as devised by Mendel, the "father of genetics", who was a creationist and working in the mindset of trying to learn more about "God's earth" and the inhabitants thereof)?

---

Mendel did NOT use the supernatural in his work, which is why his was good science.Also, where in animal husbandry research/genetic restaerch is the supernatural invoked?

quote:

---

These are only TWO examples, but I hope you will understand my point in saying that the ToE itself does not contribute to the advancement of society (it hasn't helped us fight diseases, get to the moon, discover other planets, predict earthquakes, etc.)

---

The ToE would not be expected to predict earthquakes, help us get to the moon, nor discover other plantets, because the ToE is a branch of Biology, not Cosmology, Geology, or Astronomy.The ToE actually does help us to understand heritable diseases and disorders, and helps us understand rates of mutation in microorganisms
which make us sick.

quote:

---

First off, the burden of proof is on the speculator (i.e. the person presenting us with evolution theory) and therefore it is up to evolutionists to produce evidence that speciation has been going on for millions of years.

---

Um, it's called the fossil record.

quote:

---

How about a different approach: let's assume the Flood of Noah actually happend (~5000 yrs ago)...

---

No, first you can go out and compile all the evidence of what geologic features are like and what effects current geological processes seem to have.THEN, and only then, do you begin to develop an explanitory framework, or theory, which explains all of the evidence the best.What you did in your flood scenario is to start with what you wanted to be your conclusion and then supposed a bunch of stuff to possibly explain it.Science STARTS with the evidence...ALL of the evidence, and develops theories based upon that evidence.

quote:

---

Or, why would some cows be born with two heads if it did not evolve from a two-headed creature.

---

A two-headed cow is a copying mistake in a gene.A whale with legs happens when otherwise "turned off" genes are accidentally turned on again.That's the difference.

quote:

---

Okay, sorry, that was a stretch and I admit it. Nevertheless, evolution by means of natural selection offers only one of the possible explanations. Similarly, some human babies have been born with certain birth-defects deemed disturbing (long arms, fewer than ten fingers, etc.) That proves only one thing: mutation has occurred, but does not prove that Genesis chapter one is wrong and Charles Darwin was right.

---

It's not only Darwin, you know. We have made significant advances in the past 150 years.These days it's called the Modern Synthesis because it incorporates genetics.Please comment upon the amazing congruence between the genetic and morphological trees of life.-edited to fix quote[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-06-2004]