|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dierotao Junior Member (Idle past 6095 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
With such time and effort given to the scientific study of the origins of mankind, I wonder if mankind receives any benefit from these studies of origins?
Has knowledge gained through Evolutionary theory advanced technology? Saved or healed lives? Brought peace and prosperity? Has the Theory of Evolutions "discovery" practically benefited, or advanced, humanity. Is the mere knowledge of truth about the origins of the physical universe beneficial to humanity? I.e. if Evolution cannot be directly, or physically, applied to the technological or social advance of man, does only it's knowledge actually benefit man (giving purpose to existence, motivation to succeed, personal ethical advance). Also, if the study of origins does benefit man, does it benefit man as much as an equal advance in another field? Is it better for man to understand his history and the implication thereof, or to focus on his current and future well being? Why or why not has the study of Evolution been promoted as being of such great value? Please understand that I am here refering not to mere micro-evolution, which most everyone would agree is fact, as well as beneficial to man. Rather, I am refering to macro-evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, geologic and fossil records, etc. Things which a staunch Creationist would typically disagree with. I suppose, as may be obvious from the phrasing of my questions, the answers I would most like to hear will come from a more humanistic mindset.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I'll let others talk about the "practical" benefits of the Theory of Evolution (if any). One benefit which I fear will end up being ignored is just the knowledge of the universe and how it works.
My main interest in science (and other subjects) is the enjoyment of learning more about the world in which I live. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of how the world we live in has come to be the way it is, and the explanation of a wide variety of interesting phenomena. In my opinion, that alone justifies any and all research in the subject. As in any other field of science, any other "practical" results are just icing on the cake. (And, to be truthful, I prefer cake without icing.) "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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I see no benefits. The ToE is purely an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness. All it has done is undermine Christianity and the moral absolutes most societies used to depend upon.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 01:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
There are a couple on the board (I'm thinking Crashfrog?) who will probably be able to address your main point head on. I however just wanted to make a little side point that I feel I should mention:
I think the distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial, to say the least. To me it seems analogous to say that although I believe in micro-time because I observe seconds ticking by every day, that I don't believe in macro-time because I've never experienced a millenium first hand. It seems as though the onus is on the person drawing the distinction to say why 31557600000 individual seconds can't equal a thousand years... (Forgive me if my maths is radically awry!) or indeed why ten thousand genetic changes can't acrue into a different species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Faith
I see no benefits. The ToE is purely an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness. So when a bird flu epidemic hits North America you will refuse the vaccination correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Tusko.
Good point and worthy of discussion, but the main topic of this thread has the potential of being very informative and interesting as well. In that spirit, I'm going to express my hope that we don't take this too far off-topic. Undoubtably, your point is going to be addressed as some of the pragmatic benefits are introduced -- in fact, I have an idea of some objections that could be raised, and if they are I have an idea of how I'd address those. "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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Right you are chief. Sometimes I get the insuppressable urge to post something vaguely relevant on a topic that I suspect I'm not going to be able to contribute to very effectively. In my defence, I only brought it up because the poster alluded directly to these ideas in their opening post... but I realise I am being a bit random.
I'll be keeping my eyes peeled because this topic holds promise. To that end, I'm going to pipe down... one last point - As I'm sure everyone is aware - the practical benefits to be reaped from an idea don't have any bearing on the truth of said idea. This message has been edited by Tusko, 05-Apr-2006 06:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5834 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Let's see... I'm sure I can think of a few.
Antibiotic rotationGene Therapy Genetically Engineered Crops Pre-birth screening for various genetic disorders Any medical treatment related to DNA or genetics Any food science related to DNA or genectics etc, etc, etc
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Heh. If sidelined were to flesh out his bit about flu vaccination, I'm sure the objection would have something to do with "micro-" vs. "macro"-evolution. Then we would be a bit more on topic with this.
"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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dierotao Junior Member (Idle past 6095 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
Thanks for keeping it on topic guys. I know I was making a debatable presupposition by drawing a line between micro and macro evolution at the start. Really I just want the Evolutionists to show how the most debated aspect of the ToE are beneficial. What of the things Evolutionist hold, but Creationists do not, benefits mankind. Or, for the Evolutionist, if everything the Creationist argued was true, would there be any less benefit to mankind and it's advance. Hopefully that's clear enough. If anyone can think of a better way to phrase this your welcome to do so.
SuperNintendo Chalmers: Is the Theory of Evolution necessary to the study of genetics? Or, if the Theory of Evolution remained 'undiscovered', would men never have 'discovered' genetics? Is our knowledge of genetics dependent upon our knowledge of Evolution? I apologize I am too narrowly defining the field here. Creationists agree with things that are current and observable. And it seems that these things which are current and observable are what is most beneficial to man. Unless historical hypothesis (ToE) of current observable effects furthers advance of current observable effects. This message has been edited by Dierotao, 04-05-2006 02:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The difference in the way YEC's and evolutionists view the theory of evolution is one of scale. Both accept natural selection and descent with modification, but YEC's reject that it can cause significant species change over time.
Advances like inheritable disease analyses or bird flu vaccines do not derive from believing that large scale species change is possible, or that modern life shares a single common ancestor (or even a few common ancestors - from the YEC perspective there's not much difference). I don't think the parts of the theory of evolution rejected by YEC's have provided much tangible benefit, besides satisfying our yearning to know how the world works. This goes a bit beyond what Chiroptera said, since he granted the possibility of tangible benefits but chose only to comment on its "knowledge for knowledge's sake" benefits. I think it might be difficult finding tangible benefits that a YEC could see depend upon accepting large scale species change. --Percy
Fix grammar. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, 04-05-2006 02:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
SuperNintendoChalmers writes: Let's see... I'm sure I can think of a few. Antibiotic rotationGene Therapy Genetically Engineered Crops Pre-birth screening for various genetic disorders Any medical treatment related to DNA or genetics Any food science related to DNA or genectics I'd like to put this in the context of my previous message. I don't think any of these scientific benefits derive from any science rejected by YEC's. What *is* extremely notable, however, is that all these benefits were developed by scientists who accept the theory of evolution. For whatever reason, those who hold the creationist perspective never make these types of contributions. I don't actually believe there's a cause-and-effect relationship involved in this case. I think that creationists don't make any contributions to science not because their perspective is wrong, but because they don't really do science. I think a YEC geneticist, were one to exist, would be as capable of contributing to the development of bird flu vaccines as any other geneticist. The genetic processes involved would not violate his belief that change across kind boundaries is impossible. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Dierotao.
If you accept that "microevolution" has resulted in benefits to humanity, then you are accepting that the Theory of Evolution has been beneficial. "Microevolution" is an idea that, obviously, came out of general evolutionary theory. "Microevolution" was applied to real life problems by scientists who had accepted the Theory of Evolution and were thinking of life in terms of evolution. I doubt that "microevolution" would have occurred to creationist biologists. Without the Theory of Evolution, important techniques and ideas would not have been available as they are now. "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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You seem to be including a whole bunch of things under the generic umbrella of "Evolution", geology, fossils, abiognesis, the Big Bang among others.
The reason to study those things is that the Biblical Creationist models did not explain what was seen in the record. The reason to accept the findings of those studies is that they better explain the evidence seen than any model yet presented by the Biblical Creationists. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024