Vanderzyden

So what? That is the question that begs for the asking.

It is vital that we ask it: What benefit to mankind has been the result of evolutionary inquiry?

The non-rational animals may be unconcerned. But this question is very critical to us humans, since many of us value our precious time. We treasure our aspirations, hopes, and dreams. We have interesting work to do, friends to make, and places to go. Most importantly, there is love to give and to receive. There is living to do! But, you see, the so-called “theories” of evolution add absolutely nothing to the human experience. Unlike most proper scientific endeavor, evolutionary hypothesis and “research” contribute nothing positive to the human experience. If anything, it subtracts mightily from it--at least in the present form. In essence, biological macroevolution declares that we are just slightly physically superior to the chimpanzee, and as such it makes a mockery of any human notions of significance. So, then, what good can we ascribe to it?

I see nothing beneficial. In fact, we may attribute a number of horrible acts of humanity to naturalistic evolutionary philosophies. For example, one immensely disturbing problem with Darwin’s dangerous idea is genocide. Indeed, this is selection--of the artificial kind. Not only has such unthinkable elimination occurred in recorded history, but--on the evolutionist view--must necessarily have occurred in the distant past and will most certainly occur in the future. (This is an entirely separate topic, which I intend to post soon--stay tuned.)But the greatest detrimental effect of naturalistic thinking is the exclusion of God. In the words are cent post in one of my threads, “Goddidit is intrinsically useless.” That is an immense tragedy.* It doesn’t matter if we are discussing hypothetical abiogenesis or the supposed processes of Darwinian selection. Comments like this make it crystal clear that central issue is the utility of evolution in declaring the inutility(i.e. irrelevance) of God. This is the Big Lie. And, as I have briefly alluded, there are tremendous consequences to belief in this Lie (yet another separate topic).

The proponents of naturalistic theories are agnostics with a background in proper science. They restrict their inquires to the visible world and refuse to consider any truth claims from non-naturalistic domains. To them, their naturalism is rationality itself—it also goes by the name of science. Therefore, in practice, methodological naturalism is exactly equivalent to metaphysical naturalism. Resting on “past successes”, zoologists and paleontologists somehow feel qualified to pontificate on a new para-science called evolution. This “science” aims to completely describe all biological reality, including its origins and supposed common-ancestry trans-species development. The aim of these new “scientists” is to establish naturalism as the top epistemology (way of knowing), all others being subject to its adjudication. The problem is, evolutionary hypothesis--despite its two hundred year gestation—is utterly useless.

Now, I realize that some of you would like a response to the “24-chromosomes” proposal, and I want to investigate that in detail. In the interim, I have a challenge for you kind folks:Name one technological advance that is the result of macroevolutionary hypothesis.

Please observe this reply filter: Medical procedures that address the effects of adaptions such as antibiotic-resistant bacteria don’t count. Euphoria over finch beaks doesn’t either. These aren’t examples of macroevolution.

*I realize that people in these forums have little patience for complex emotional reactions (since they are a serious challenge to evolution, no?) But I am human, so I will exercise the faculties that I possess.

Mageth

I realize that people in these forums have little patience for complex emotional reactions (since they are a serious challenge to evolution, no?)

You're right, no, they're not.

You continue with your hand-waving and head-in-sand sticking. How you or anyone else feels about evolution, or what benefits evolutionary theory may or may not have given us, have absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of evolutionary theory.

wildernesse

It is vital that we ask it: What benefit to mankind has been the result of evolutionary inquiry?

This got me thinking: What benefit to mankind has historical inquiry been? I mean, who cares what happened in the past—we can’t change it and there aren’t many technological advances from the study of the pre-Constitutional United States. So, we should definitely stop wasting tax dollars on educating our students about world history. And you never hear how God set all of human history up for the creation of America!!!! Historians should be shown to be the wastrels that they are—of time, of money, of human effort! I’m off to make placards and protest in front of Leconte Hall.

--tibac

Mageth

One good it's done is give us a plausible explanation for all those goddammed fossils that keep turning up. Without evolutionary theory, we'd still entertain stone-age beliefs that some invisible war-god created 'em.

Utnapishtim

To be honest, I can't think of one technological advance through macroevolutionary theory (although someone else might). However I don't see this as the only purpose of scientific inquiry. I think the main purpose of science is to advance our knowledge of the universe and how it works, to help understand our place in it. If that produces technological inovation, great. If it doesn't, it still has value for the reason mentioned above.
And as for addressing the issue of "Goddidit", If we can't test the effects of God on the universe, how can we come up with any theory regarding his involvement? If you can present a sound way for science to test God, I'll listen.
And as for genocide, I believe that was around long before evolutionary theory or the advent of naturalistic thought. In fact, I believe a few are mentioned in a certain collection of Hebrew holy books and stories. Now what was that book called again?

Autonemesis

You just did ascribe goodness to it! Mocking human notions of significance is a terrific idea. You are a prime example of why.

I see you not responding to any of the replies you get, Mr. Hit-And-Run. Therefore I see nothing beneficial to this thread.

You are the weakest link, goodbye!

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Genetics.
Just like Disney, work, space exploration, golf, baseball, soccer, bungee jumping, archaeology, biology, etc--if you choose NOT to add anything to your life. And your life is part of the human experience
Are you:
a) conceding that evolution IS a proper scientific endeavor (in which case you should bloody well shut up)
or
b) continuing your claim that it ain't?

You're kidding, right? Oh, wait, you aren't.
Genetics
He was in favor of NATURAL selection. Good to see you can remember such small details.
Hey, guess what religion has done in the name of God? LOTS AND LOTS of genocide!
Um, no. If you aren't able to survive in a world of limited resources that are being competed over by a wide variety of beings, you have gone extinct. Genocide would require the concious act and desire to destroy that organism's kind. Evolution does NOT HAVE A CONCIOUS DRIVING FORCE!!! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
For the love of whatever gods you believe in, please don't.
Aaaaah, the real bones of this mental masturbation. Are you stating that all endeavors MUST include god? Hmmmm? So we should all praise Jebus every time our favorite soccer team scores a goal? Or when we get hired at a new job?
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
No, it isn't. It's saying that falling back to the supernatural to straight away explain anything you choose is useless--it hinders progression, thought, and innovation. Way to miss the forest for the trees.
We're all gonna burn in hell, right? Well, I've already concluded that I deserve to burn in hell as is, so I ain't losing much, am I?
Wonder why that is?
I sure see lots of gluons and electrons these days, not to mention atoms and bacteria.
Nope, it still ain't.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! Please stop making my brain hurt.
Um, no. That would be..abiogenesis.
Guess what? Naturalsim as epistemology works damn good at prediciting what will happen. Better than Ouja boards, so I hear.
No, it ain't.
Genetics.
Why the hell not?
Why the hell aren't they?
No, they aren't.
Except for reason and logic.

[edited to fix UBB code]

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jesus Christ ]</p>

Richiyaado

Vanderzyden, I believe the Invisible Tinkering Warrior Army and the Invisible Pink Pixies have made room for you aboard the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If you hurry, I believe you can jump on before they disappear forever into the enveloping fog of Reverse Theory.

Seriously, is it worth knowing that our shared evolutionary heritage shows rather conclusively that there is no biological basis whatever for making sharp qualitative distinctions between people of the basis of "race"? That every past and current claim of racial or ethnic superiority is completely and utterly without scientific merit?

And is it worth knowing that because every person now alive shares a unique and fairly recent common ancestry (a relatively small population living in Africa less than 200,000 years ago), we can begin to understand how shifting patterns of gene flow and expression among various populations over time can lead to a much greater understanding of genetically-borne disease? And that we may now begin to effectively deal with it?

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Vanderzyden,

Lot's of evolutionary research has added to technology. Medicines, especially antibiotics, are found and produced using the results of evolutionary biology. It's not just in the realm of biology. Computer science has done phenomial work applying the mechanisms of biological evolution to solve software architecture problems. I've heard the microsoft has used evolutionary computation to construct parts of their operating systems.

But why this rant about evolution and not say historical linguistics? Why do you feel so threatened by a scientific inquirety? Do the answers scare you?

~~RvFvS~~

Skeptical

Allow me to answer your question with a question:

Assume for the sake of argument that evolutionary theories are completely true. If this is the case, is the pursuit of truth in and of itself sufficient to justify the pursuit?

Answer this, and I will answer your orginal question.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>