hezekiah jones

Who cares. Answer the other threads.

KC

Troll.

TooBad

Vanderzyden:

Stripped of its pomp, your argument seems to be this:

Darwinism is bad because it (a) diminishes human significance, (b) fosters genocide, and (c) seeks to make God irrelevant.

In response to (a) I would simply point out the incoherence of supposing that human significance is diminished by the demonstration that we are biologically a species of mammal, when one's idea of enhancing said significance is to recommend universal voluntary servitude to an imaginary sky god.

Point (b) is, as it stands, a risible non-sequitur. I await your proposed defence of this silliness with interest, albeit with little expectation of cogency.

(c) is no bad thing at all. "Goddidit" is inherently useless as an explanation, unless accompanied by some intelligible account of exactly how goddidit. Evolutionary theory provides a coherent mechanism to explain some of the observable complexities of Nature. "God" provides no informative account of anything. Far from being a bias in favour of metaphysical naturalism, this is no more than a salutary clarification of one of the standard uses of the term "explanation".

And I suggest that anyone who is so devoid of intellectual curiosity that they regard "Goddidit" as a satisfying account of the nature and origin of the world is in no position to lecture anyone else on the depths of human experience.

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

Albion

What benefit to mankind is any sort of enquiry? Enquiry itself is the benefit.


Sez you. Now if I came along and said the same thing about creationism, I think you might find some benefit in the search for truth.


What arrogant rubbish. Evolution is the bedrock of modern biology. Just actually read some science research journals and you'll see all sorts of research in medicine that depends on evolutionary principles. You don't suppose that genetic diseases are being understood and treated without a basic knowledge of evolutionary principles, I hope.


I think that's "mentally superior," not "physically superior." And it entirely depends what you mean by significance. If this is just a plea to suppress anything that gets in the way of "I need to feel that I'm special," that's sort of too bad. If you can't feel special without thinking that you were personally created by some deity who wants to place you at the pinnacle of creation, that's your problem, not science's.

Considering the long history of carnage attributable to religious differences, this is rather disingenuous.

So do you propose to outlaw atheism? It's been explained to you repeatedly that methodological naturalism is a tool, not a philosophy, and is practised just as effectively by devout Christians as by atheists. It's used hroughout science, not just in evolutionary biology. Guess we'd better outlaw all science while we're at it and we can sit in our caves and worship God in perfect ignorance. Or maybe God gave us good brains for a reason - which might not be to sit and worship him in perfect ignorance.

Are you deliberately missing the point? "Goddidit" is essentially useless as an EXPLANATION of how things work. We'd still think that hurricanes and epidemics were due to "Goddidit" if we were content to roll out that answer to every question. How tragic would that be?

Again, please explain how this applies to evolution and not to the rest of science, which is also based on methodological naturalism and doesn't permit "Goddidit" as an explanation.

Rubbish. And mighty insulting to the devoutly religious scientists out there.

Total rubbish.

Yet more total rubbish. You do seem to tink you know scientists better than they know themselves.

Too bad. This fixation on macroevolution is a creationist quirk anyway. The whole science of addressing and treating congenital disease is based on the same evolutionary principles that apply to the origin of species. As is the work being done on xenotransplantation.

Vanderzyden

Wonderful question. Wonderful! Very refreshing! If only that were the epistemological approach of all the people I've encountered on this list.

There is no higher endeavor for Man than to pursue the truth--WHEREVER IT LEADS. Immense benefits result from a genuine, inquisitive, reflective, passionate search for the real world--visible or not.

If evolutionary theories had the "ring of truth," then they would also withstand non-scientific inquiry. Science doesn't plumb the depths of human experience--in fact it only does its job well on the surface.

Many who ask tough questions find themselves unconvinced by evolutionary hypothesises. They continue to wait upon substantial unfabricated evidence. Perhaps the Darwinists are onto something, but it has yet to be demonstrated.

I genuinely anticipate your reply to my question.

Thanks!

GeoTheo

It is good as the best explanation for the evidence and because it unifies broad areas of Science. Like Astronomy, geology, biology, embryology, anthropology etc.
It is good in that it has made my view of the world a larger.
Also a word of friendly advice:
These folks here are really smart about science.
There was a post once where people listed their credentials. There are a good many who post here who are scientists by vocation with graduate degrees. ICR literature and even Behe and Larry Johnson literature really don't arm one with enough info for a serious debate here. So don't feel too bad that you aren't making much headway.

daemon

Well, I can think of a variety of medical benefits that we've derived from evolutionary theory, but you don't seem particularly concerned with those.
Other than years of life and a good chunk of help in understanding genetics...
That's an interesting question, but the problem is that evolution does not declare the superiority or inferiority of anything except in terms of survival. That you believe that that derives from evolutionary theory seems to indicate that you either (a)believe that survivability is the only factor that matters in the value of a biological entity, or (b)do not understand evolutionary theory. The problem is not that it makes a mockery of human notions of significance, but rather your particular notions of significance.
Why is it the fault of evolutionary theory if people derive philosophies from their misconceptions about it?
You are correct. The Old Testament of the Bible records several instances of genocide, ordered by their diety no less. Admittedly, this may be entirely fictional, but I believe at least a few are thought to be potentially accurate.
I'm sorry, but that is not the value of evolutionary theory. Many Christians see the utility of evolutionary theory, yet none claim this has anything to do with the relevence of God.
At least you admit to it.
That's nice.
Incorrect. Please do some research; you will find some scientists hold religious beliefs. There is a difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.
Well, as scientists, yes. Science has never been shown to provide any information about non-naturalistic events.
Again, incorrect. Some scientists do not believe in metaphysical naturalism, yet at the same time believe themselves to be rational.
This has proven nothing other than that you have confused the two.
Actually, the discipline you have described here is "biology," not evolution. It is not "new."
Since when did you become arbiter of utility?
Well, then, you've demonstrated your ignorance. This seems akin to saying, "What's 2 + 2? By the way, 4 doesn't count, since it's not a number."
No... not really. Why would emotions challenge evolution?
You have my sympathy.

Skeptical

Ok, I will now answer your original question. There is substantial evidence that evolutionary theories are correct. Even if they are not entirely correct, the DNA evidence alone makes common descent as close to a fact as we get in the field of science. It really is that clear cut. To answer "what good is it?", it is sufficient to say that scientists are pursuing the truth about the development of life on this planet. One cannot know what scientific truth is without pursuing it empirically. It is the search for this truth in and of itself that makes it worthwhile. Nothing more need be said to justify it.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. If by "ring of truth" you mean it just doesn't _feel_ correct, I would say what one feels or what ones intuition might be are irrelevant. The data does not lie and could care less what one feels about it. I'm also unclear what you mean by "non-scientific inquiry", so I can't speak to that. Science does not attempt to "plumb the depths of human experience" as far as I can tell. It attempts to understand objective facts about the universe, nothing more. Science is indifferent to the "human experience". I believe you are talking more about philosophy than science, which is a completely different topic.

If one does not want to be convinced, one will not be convinced. As I said, the DNA evidence is clear cut enough that any reasonably objective person would conclude that common descent is a fact. There may be problems with particular theories that hypothesize the how and why of common descent. I have spoken with and debated a lot of creationists of one flavor or another, I can count on one hand the number who had any idea what the facts actually are (none of them knew anything about DNA evidence for example). The evidence is there for those who want to look for it.

Careful, you really don't want to start down the "scientists fabricate evidence" road. It is no better than an ad hominem attack. Let's stick to the facts.

Common descent has been demonstrated by DNA evidence. If you have particular problems with particular evoultionary theories, you should post what you feel are strong arguments against those theories. As yet you have only posted general statements.

On second thought, let's keep it simple. What exactly do you feel would demonstrate that evolutionary theories are correct. Please be specific. What evidence from what disciplines do you feel would be required. Let's start there and then examine if such evidence exists.

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

lpetrich

Selection of model systems for human physiology and human disease. This is done because many of the experiments needed to understand many physiological mechanisms and diseases are either impractical or unethical when done on members of our species. However, other species are much easier to experiment with in a lab, such as rhesus monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, rats, chickens, frogs, fish, fruit flies, and bacteria.

But which ones to select? Special creation gives no hint of which one; in fact, if our species is fundamentally special, it may have been created in a fashion completely distinct from other species on Earth, making animal models useless. But if special creation had been done in a way that exactly imitates what one might expect from evolutionary biology, then one might as well act as if evolution was true.

Evolution provides a natural explanation for the treelike taxonomy that one works out for Earth organisms; those with a more recent branching have more in common than those with a less recent branching. Thus, if one wanted some experimental stand-in for human blood vessels, one would not choose plant sap vessels, because their origin is completely separate. The ideal species would be the chimpanzee, but chimps have several of our disadvantages, like being large and slow-breeding. Rhesus monkeys are somewhat better, but mice and rats are the best of all, so you'd do your experiments on mice and rats, and perhaps a few monkeys when you know what to look for.

Genomics. Cross-species comparisons are very valuable in the study of genomes, because experience in the study of the evolution of genes shows that genes with shared function often have slowly-changing sequences, as a result of which mutations make it into the next generation. Thus, comparing genomes makes it possible to find out what genes are shared between species. And the closer species are found to share more genes. Thus, we have more genes in common with mice than with fish.

How is the study of evolution any different from the study of any other form of history, O Vanderzyden? Do you consider the study of the Bible to be an equally big time-waster?

How is being descended from a long-ago ape any worse than having an ancestor who had been miraculously created from some dirt???

Something the Bible treats as very praiseworthy when the Biblical God or his favorite people do it. Consider Noah's Flood. Consider Psalm 137. Consider what was to happen to the Hittites, the Hivites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, among others.

If one wishes to deduce a "might makes right" ethic from evolutionary biology, one may also deduce the value of cooperation and self-sacrifice. Most of the cells of a multicellular organism will die with the organims, and some of them die before that, such as outer-layer cells. And cells even have a form of hara-kiri known as apoptosis or Programmed Cell Death. One also finds self-sacrifice at the organismal level; worker honeybees die as a result of the stings they inflict, making them kamikaze stingers.

Why are you crying over that? You don't complain about the exclusion of Zeus or Odin or Amon-Ra or numerous other deities.

Then what is?

Coragyps

One piece of knowledge that was known well enough from "macroevolutionary theory" was ignored by the surgeons at (YEC-leaning) Loma Linda Hospital maybe twenty years ago: they transplanted a baboon heart into some little girl. She died. They couldn't get a chimp heart, but hey, they're all the "ape kind" anyway, eh? Now we know that chimp probably wouldn't work either - wrong flavor of sialic acids - but the Seventh-Day Adventist insistence on "created kinds" led them to try something with less chance that that of me winning Lotto Texas.