theyeti

What Fleming did is not epidemiology. What he did is discover antibiotics, but epidemiology was around long before. Modern epidemiology is heavily influenced by evolutionary theory, and has been very sucessful as a result.
Yep.

I'm not sure what you mean by "immunology science", but drug design is done preferably through the Darwinian process of mutation and selection. Enzyme design is carried out that way too. Yes, it does rely on a great deal of trial and error, but it is more efficient than rational design in most cases. Just more evidence of how useful evolutionary theory is.

Perhaps you should not take any medicines when you get sick? If you think modern medicine is really inept, quit going to the doctor -- you won't hurt anyone's feelings. MDR and other types of resistant pathogens are examples of evolution in action, and understanding how they acquire their resistance demonstrates the usefulness of evolutionary approaches. Doctors and others who use antibiotics have been warned for years now by evolutionary biologists to quit overapplying these drugs. In Europe they were listened to, and as a consequence, they have relatively few problems with drug resistance. In America, the powerful agricultural lobby has prevented Congress from limiting antibiotic application, and as a result the US has far more resistance problems. Again, stark evidence of the utility of evolutionary theory.

BTW, you should take your arguments to the E/C forum where they're appropriate. As has been pointed out to you, this is the Church/State separation forum. I would like to ask the mods to move this thread to E/C if dk keeps posting non C/S related material.

theyeti

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>

dk

dk: I said the modern age of epidemiology began with the discovery of penicillin. The term “epidemiology” was coined in 1860. Darwin’s Theory was published in the 1850s. Clearly the cause and containment of contagious disease preoccupied civilization from the dawn of history.
dk: - Immunology is the science of the immune system, the term was coined in 1910 when evolutionists were running the Pitman Scull up a British flag poll. All synthetic drugs are designer drugs. Organic Chemistry dates back to the 1840s. Around 1850s aspirin and ether were synthesized. Aspirin from the bark of a tree known from ancient Greece to relieve pain etc... Ether was synthesized then found to have anesthetic properties with medical application. Obviously designer drugs predated evolutionary science, and as the knowledge of microbiology and cellular biology advance designer drugs are developed. This has nothing to do with evolutionary science.
dk: - The hard sciences like mathematics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, etc.. are not the handmaidens of evolutionary science, but of independent value. Each has its own unique instrumentation, datasets and domain. Evolutionism takes input from hard sciences, then interprets it to bolster the social sciences. Evolutionary science doesn’t solve practical problems because it is not intended to solve problems. The job of evolutionary science is to ask questions, and certify convergence between the many disciplines of science.
dk: - The separation of church and state as interpreted by “an impenetrable wall” established evolutionism the god-head of a secular society. This is the correct board for this discussion.

Obviously several people errantly believe evolution solves practical problems, which is of course nonsense. In a proper context evolutionary science asks questions. Evolutionism provides to elite opinion makers a powerful platform from which craft a Great Society through better social engineering. I'm not saying all public schools engage in social engineering, but they are encouraged by $dollars, and liable to law suits if they don't. .

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Claudia

Doubting,
There are several points there. I will begin by the end:
In fact, the teaching of 90% of subject matter in all grade-school science, history, literature, etc., would have to be considered "faith based".
I do not count the number of times my children have told me" Mom, you are wrong, the teacher said the contrary. I had time to explain why on this or that specific point the teacher has been wrong, but part of the learning was faith based that the teacher was right. Of course, it was in primary school, when growing they were able to make their own opinions. But yes, there is a part of faith in the reliability of science and of the teacher, faith which must be replaced by understanding and/or critical sence when the pupils grow.
But my point was not that evolution must not be taught before pupils (studnets) understand all the underlying sciences. It is that if you use creation debunking as base to teach evolution, you start from scratch on a conflictual base. Hence there is a huge risk to be confronted to some on who push and push in more and more technical areas, with affirmations which are not easy to refute without a call on "faith on what the teacher says" because the pupils still do not have the bases to know what this affirmation is false. And creationists would be quick to say "you believe that, but you have no proof".

My idea is more: if you initiate the conflict, be sure that you have enough weapons. I am not sure that all teachers have enough weapons in high school. But it would be appropriate that they build these weapons by helping pupils to develop critical sense.

Now may be my views are biased because in my country, there is no visible opposition to evolution theory. (And may be I do not explain so well what I mean because English is not my mother-tongue).

Rusting Car Bumper

Interesting analysis of his "paper".

One thing you aren't taking into account (unless I'm stupid and missed it) is that the version of evoultion taught was likely a straw man version.

When I was in Middle school in the 70s I was taught a creationist-evolution thing side by side. I was the only one who noticed that the work book for supposedly putting them side by side was written by creationists.

DC

tgamble

You are obviously incapable of telling the difference.

Spare me your paranoid delusional conspiracy theories! "Big Daddy" is not an accurate portral of a science teacher. Or anything else.

That's the lie cretinists are fond of parroting. The truth is that it was used to explain patterns. Since there are plenty of transitional forms, explaining the absense was hardly nessasary.

It describes both.

Hominds into humans?! Humans ARE Hominids!

Wells Icons, still trash. Still based on dishonesty.
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/luskin.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/luskin.html</a>

Maybe you should quite having demonstrated your ignorance of the science you attack.

That doesn't even make sense!

dk

dk: So as matter of doctrine evolutionism generally defines fossils as transitional forms. Problem Solved?

dk: - These comments are evidence of the closed minded pedigree of scientism that people find offensive, and a threat to human dignity, culture, intellect and education. If this is what evolutionism teaches then it is a dead end that hopelessly imbues its patrons with denial. I personally believe society, religion, education and science can and will do better and that faith and reason demand we do better.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Quetzal

dk: No comment on the examples I provided? I would suggest that they fairly succinctly put paid to your argument that evolutionary biology has no value. Or do you disagree with the value of what was accomplished in those examples?

tgamble

No. Fossils are transitional when they have features of two major groups. ie. Reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals. Such fossils have been found.

Since evolution has been established as a fact, it's not unreasonable to conclude that all fosisls are indeed transitional between what cme before and what came next.

You have any intelligent comments?

Toto

It's time to move this puppy to its real home- Evolution / Creationism.

dk seems to have read the Bell Curve and some other conservative or crypto-racist polemics, but that's all the sense I can make out of this.

ps418

Ok, I should keep my mouth shut . . .

BUT, I did read the Bell Curve, and I did not find a single 'racist' statement in it, contary to what I had been led to expect.