|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dierotao Junior Member (Idle past 6123 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
A couple comments on the "evidences" provided thus far:
1. We may test on animals which are biologically similar to us in order to determine whether or not the product tested will work on humans. Most would obviously agree with this. The question is, has the ToE shown us similarities between humans and animals, or have the similarities between humans and animals shown us the ToE (at least as evolutionists would interpret it). If evolutionary theory had never been presented by anyone, would we not still have presumed that animals and humans share a number of physical similarities. And would not the discovery of genetics have further allowed us to make the presumption that those animals with the closest genetic makup prove to be the best for testing purposes? As animal testing has been done for millennia, would man not have sought to discover which animals are closest to humans without any underlying motive for proving the ToE? 2. It seems some things are taken to be exclusively under the umbrella of the general ToE, without any possible existence outside the ToE. Could a moderate form of Natural Selection exist if the ToE were not true? Natural Selection is used as an evidence for the theory that all life originated from a single organism, yes? So if creationism were true, if life could not evolve between species, could not Natural Selection still exist in some form? Would men not have studied Natural Selection and determined the same benefits had the ToE not been introduced? This is the still the question I am pressing: If the ToE had never been intoduced, and all mankind believed that God created the universe a mere few millennia ago, with set species which cannot "evolve" beyond certain boundries; would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today? It seems the arguments then becomes more philosophical in nature; to say the ToE opens men's minds to possibilities which they would not have otherwise been open to. But then we would need to ask whether it was simply Darwin's theory which caused such a change, or if was the underlying philosophical currents of the day. But such questions are better left to the historians, of which I am not. I am simply pondering the possibilities. *Disclaimers:It now seems to me necessary to further define my every word, lest I be misunderstood, whether mistakenly or purposefully. I still am more a philosopher than a scientist. If I have made any gross scientific errors above, feel free to correct me. It is not my intent to mislead, I only speak from limited understanding. I am also asking more questions than answering to any. If I have used the term "Natural Selection", "ToE", or "evolution" improperly, feel free to inform me of it. I intended to use them only in the plainest manner from my simple understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wepwawet Member (Idle past 6137 days) Posts: 85 From: Texas Joined: |
quote:Short answer: No. Long answer: The ToE is the result of the scientific process that, by definition, denies people the easy out of attributing any phenomenon to supernatural causes. The scientific process does not exist because it is a philosophical argument against supernatural causes, it exists for a much more pragmatic reason: it works. For millenia people have believed and worshipped according to assorted holy books and teachings in the hope that such activities will make their lives better. But aside from a few scriptural nods towards good hygiene there is nothing at all in religion that is of practical use to the daily struggle for food-shelter-safety. While the goal of religion may be to raise us above the status of animals, the animal needs still remain and it can be argued that the level of human civilization is inversely proportional to our immediate animal wants...we are only three meals away from the jungle. Science merely sets aside philosophy and works from a simple premise: we can learn about our environment by observing our environment and then challenging the conclusions we make. The ToE is just one of many practical results of that premise. Like other scientific theories it provides a practical framework for making predictions about what we will find as we continue to look. The ToE did not spring fully-formed from the forehead of Darwin; it is a conclusion based on our observations of the real world that is tested again and again with each new discovery and has so far managed to remain generally sound. In the world of belief-based-science (shudder) every theory must be weighed against not real observations, but against holy writ and the philosophers that are the self-appointed interpreters for God. If the observations don't match God then there is a problem with the observation or our interpretation...so the entire foundation of knowledge is presumed to issue from a source that can neither be seen, touched or heard. God says man was made in his present form 6,000 years ago, but we see an organism that has evolved from other organisms over a much longer time period. There's an old saying: Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see...that's science in a nutshell. Science is not about someone preaching the truth to us, it is about enabling all of us to go look for the truth ourselves. Science takes our flawed perception of reality and turns it into a blessing by continuously challenging us and letting nothing stand as unassailable truth merely because the majority believe it to be so. When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. - Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
There's an old saying: Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see...that's science in a nutshell. Science is not about someone preaching the truth to us, it is about enabling all of us to go look for the truth ourselves. Science takes our flawed perception of reality and turns it into a blessing by continuously challenging us and letting nothing stand as unassailable truth merely because the majority believe it to be so. I would like you tuh 'splain sumpin to me as you see it. Exactly what is the nature of any truth science might have to offer? Exactly what do you mean by truth? I think a far better term to use with science is accuracy not truth. As big a follower as I am of the sciences in general I sometimes think that it is science that gives us a flawed or limited perception. Skewed if you will. Kinda like to much of a good thing does not a good thing make.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wepwawet Member (Idle past 6137 days) Posts: 85 From: Texas Joined: |
quote:Oh no, I dropped the T word! I'll go ahead and qualify the word for you so you don't have to feel like science is stepping on sacred toes... Science lets us look for the closest thing to truth we can know. There is no ultimate destination there, we will never discover the truth qua truth (henceforth known as The Truth(tm)) using the scientific or any other method. What we can do is make progress towards discovering practical understanding of our universe and ourselves. We do not have to know The Truth(tm) in order to make the world a better place. We just need to know something close enough to it to let us get the job done. The search for The Truth(tm) does not have to actually succeed in discovering The Truth(tm) in order to benefit mankind. I do not speak for the institution of science and I make no claims that science will ultimately discover the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. What science will do is allow us to test and improve our current understanding and improve the quality of the truth (note the absence of the capitals, bold, italics and (tm)) that we can know. I really hate having to write disclaimers...every time a disclaimer is written the universal average IQ drops a little. When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. - Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Dierotao writes: The question is, has the ToE shown us similarities between humans and animals, or have the similarities between humans and animals shown us the ToE Both are true. Neither one excludes the other.
Dierotao writes: ...would man not have sought to discover which animals are closest to humans without any underlying motive for proving the ToE Yes. Why do you assume a motive for proving ToE? It just happens to be the only theory that is entirely consistent with all observed similarities.The closer the relatedness, the greater the physiological similarities. Dierotao writes: Could a moderate form of Natural Selection exist if the ToE were not true? No. You cannot divorce NS from ToE. The idea that some kind of boundary to change can exist at species level or above is another fabricated illusion that has been debunked repeatedly on this board. See the 'define kind' thread - early on before it deteriorates.
Dierotao writes: If the ToE had never been intoduced, ...would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today? Your construct is both implausible and unreasonable. The Toe HAD to be introduced at some point based on what has been observed with the help of all forms of technological advance. It was inevitable. Technological advance and ToE have re-inforced each other every step of the way.
Dierotao writes: ... to say the ToE opens men's minds to possibilities which they would not have otherwise been open to Now you are skirting logic, but still managing to avoid it.The ToE gives us a framework for reasoning and determining how living things are related and how we should expect them to behave. It doesn't just open up the mind to possibilities, it gives us a mechamism to determine which of many possibilities are most likely true, and which (the largest set) cannot be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
The point is the nature of your intentions with respect to the words you use.
Science lets us look for the closest thing to truth we can know. Exactly what truth are you reffering to? You need to be more specific.
There is no ultimate destination there, we will never discover the truth qua truth (henceforth known as The Truth(tm)) using the scientific or any other method. What we can do is make progress towards discovering practical understanding of our universe and ourselves. We do not have to know The Truth(tm) in order to make the world a better place. We just need to know something close enough to it to let us get the job done. I am happy for you that your beliefs allow you all the confidence in science a good follower of faith typically exhibits when discussing thier beliefs. However, I do not share your view.
The search for The Truth(tm) does not have to actually succeed in discovering The Truth(tm) in order to benefit mankind. I do not speak for the institution of science and I make no claims that science will ultimately discover the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. What science will do is allow us to test and improve our current understanding and improve the quality of the truth (note the absence of the capitals, bold, italics and (tm)) that we can know. 1). Any observation of what is beneficial to mankind is purely subjective.2.) Any quality of truth is a subjective observation of the objectively abstract idea "truth" Science can never be apart from the subjective. It is where it originates from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Exactly what truth are you reffering to? You need to be more specific.
i would think he means observable truths, like during the day time blue wave lengths are absorbed by the molicules in the sky making it appear to be blue, this is a fact and true. just as at night it does not do so
I am happy for you that your beliefs allow you all the confidence in science a good follower of faith typically exhibits when discussing thier beliefs. However, I do not share your view.
i guess accepting science for the benefits of man and the world it has produced is meaningless to you? i mean i figure thats why he accepts it, not because of some faith in it. but that it works, which is why most people accept it
I do not share your view
what views do you have? you don't really show any beliefs at all, so far you just try to be counter to everything that is mainstream or common
1). Any observation of what is beneficial to mankind is purely subjective.
umm what?, that doesn't make any sense,if you observe a medicen that helps destroy a cancer or gives a person back the ability to walk, thats subjective? that is a benefite. i'm not sure you know what subjective means when you use it
2.) Any quality of truth is a subjective observation of the objectively abstract idea "truth"
umm what? that also makes no sense, a truth: rocks exist. stubbing your toe on said rock hurts, that is subjective. but also a truth. seeing someone break thier toe on a rock is objective and looks painful and can be observed, thus is a truth
Science can never be apart from the subjective. It is where it originates from.
i think you are just saying things without knowing what they mean, do you even know what the words mean?science is by defintion objective, if it was subjective it would be useless since noone could understand apart from the person presenting it This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 05-07-2006 08:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
2BT writes: ). Any observation of what is beneficial to mankind is purely subjective. I reacted strongly to this statement at first, but then I saw your angle. The term "beneficial" can be construed subjectively in many ways, this is true. But it can also be quantified objectively, in that some things are clearly not beneficial and others provide advantages to many. Any insight that helps humanity *on balance* is demonstrably beneficial to humanity, and evolution has definitely provided insights to help humanity advance its enterprise. So the question now becomes, has knowledge of evolutionary principles hurt us more than it has benefited us? A cost benefit analysis is called for.Many benefits of ToE have already been demonstrated. Can anyone produce a demonstrable cost or disadvantage to humanity from use of ToE principles? This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-07-2006 08:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi,
Just as some general information here is a quote from the "White Paper" (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html) which pretty much answers the opening post. I know it's not really a done thing to post such long quotes without comment, but I guess this speaks for itself. The quote is part of a description of the future role of evolutionary biology in the applied arena; the document also contains a similar section of previous accomplishments, which you can look up if you are interested.
quote: This message has been edited by mick, 05-12-2006 10:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Mick provides more ammunition to load onto the cart.
We are still waiting for anyone to demonstrate a 'cost' to the human race of applying evolutionary theory that could possibly counter some of its innumerable benefits, let alone demonstrate a single useful insight derived from creationsist or ID reasoning.I guess we'll be waiting for a while.... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3843 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined: |
A couple comments on the "evidences" provided thus far: 1. We may test on animals which are biologically similar to us in order to determine whether or not the product tested will work on humans. Most would obviously agree with this. The question is, has the ToE shown us similarities between humans and animals, or have the similarities between humans and animals shown us the ToE (at least as evolutionists would interpret it). If evolutionary theory had never been presented by anyone, would we not still have presumed that animals and humans share a number of physical similarities. And would not the discovery of genetics have further allowed us to make the presumption that those animals with the closest genetic makup prove to be the best for testing purposes? As animal testing has been done for millennia, would man not have sought to discover which animals are closest to humans without any underlying motive for proving the ToE? The TOE predicts not just similarities between animals, but systematic similarities: in otherwords the creation of hierarchies of similarities. Without the TOE, there would be no reason to expect such similarities, and thus no reason to look for them. Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said in 1973 "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution", in the sense of meaning that there would be no reason to expect patterns in nature. Without these patterns, there would, in effect, be no biology, except that accidently discovered. Yes, Flemming might have discovered penicillin after the accidental contamination of the sample, but there would have been no reason to look at other, similar organisms.
2. It seems some things are taken to be exclusively under the umbrella of the general ToE, without any possible existence outside the ToE. Could a moderate form of Natural Selection exist if the ToE were not true? Natural Selection is used as an evidence for the theory that all life originated from a single organism, yes? So if creationism were true, if life could not evolve between species, could not Natural Selection still exist in some form? Would men not have studied Natural Selection and determined the same benefits had the ToE not been introduced? Why would there have been any concept of Natural Selection without a TOE? Darwin's insight was that Natural Selection was the engine that drove evolution. If yiou have one, you have the other: if you are missing one, yu are missing the other.
This is the still the question I am pressing: If the ToE had never been intoduced, and all mankind believed that God created the universe a mere few millennia ago, with set species which cannot "evolve" beyond certain boundries; would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today? It seems the arguments then becomes more philosophical in nature; to say the ToE opens men's minds to possibilities which they would not have otherwise been open to. But then we would need to ask whether it was simply Darwin's theory which caused such a change, or if was the underlying philosophical currents of the day. But such questions are better left to the historians, of which I am not. I am simply pondering the possibilities. Without evolutionary theory we would have no rational basis for determining closeness. Yes, a similarity of body plans would allow an assumption that chimps are more similar than canaries, but only evolutionary theory would allow us to state that we are more closely related to pigs than sheep. We would have no reason to systematically investigate DNA, for example, or, indeed, any of the other proteins etc, since there would be no reason to expect patterns. Without evolution, and the TOE to provide a framework, biology would have remained a neo-science of observation and collection - stamp collecting of species and molecules. Finally, let's separate evolution from the Theory of Evolution. By Darwin's time most educated people accepted some form of evolution. Erasmus Darwin had come up with a theory a generation earlier, and Lamark's theories were current before "The Origin of the Species". Darwins theory was an attempt to explain Evolution using a naturalistic methodology rather than the then current saltationist (sudden emergence of large changes) viewpoint, which was considered compatible with divine guidance. For Whigs admit no force but argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
i think you are just saying things without knowing what they mean, do you even know what the words mean? I will ignore this comment other than to comment on it's childishness.
science is by defintion objective, if it was subjective it would be useless since no one could understand apart from the person presenting it People by definition are not objective.The idealistic view of science may in theory be objective. In practice subjective views are allways the source. This is a no brainer. All people can to at best is find answers within the current limit of our subjectively scewed understanding. This makes the philosophy of science as inherently falible as it's weakest link. i guess accepting science for the benefits of man and the world it has produced is meaningless to you? i mean i figure thats why he accepts it, not because of some faith in it. but that it works, which is why most people accept it No, on the contrary. Exactly what is beneficial and what is not is subjective as the motivations for what is discovered. A cure for a disease increases the population. Now there are fools that wish to cure death. Many things that are seen as "benefits" have concequences.We as a whole always leap before we look. It is a reoccuring human trait. A Fact or Truth if you will. The earth is a system that we are a part of. We seem as a whole to continually miss that fact or truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
2ice writes: People by definition are not objective. That's why science operates with a combination of physical evidence and peer review. Consensus is achieved by the testing of hypotheses by many individuals. This is also why science has no relation to faith. In any case I see you have started playing the "well, what is truth/reality/objectivity anyway" trick to derail any closer examination of your ideas. Whatever "reality" constitutes, science can be seen to operate within it. If you get a life-threatening disease in this "reality" then medicine might just save your life in this "reality". Arguing about the ultimate nature of reality doesn't change this!! Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
My simple point is this.
The observation of the development of systematic biological chemical reactions on this planet is interesting. To assume knowledge of the function of imagined behaviours and thier effects is simply that. Imagination. Fossil evidence shows little of behaviour.EVO works when it sticks to the biological mechanics.Outside that it becomes conjecture.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024