Evolution, creation science and economic impact

Pete Harcoff · #1 2nd January 2005, 01:19 PM

I was just listening to the Infidel Guy listeners versus Kent Hovind show again, paying particular attention to one caller who grills Hovind about the applicability of "creation science".

The caller's point came down to this:

Theory of evolution -> application of said theory -> profit

In contrast, creation science was like this:

Creation science -> ??? -> profit

With no practical applications for creation science, it won't have nearly the same impact on the ecomony that evolutionary theory does. In fact, if you look at sites dedicated to evolution versus those dedicated to creationism, I see a lot more emphasis on selling of products (books, videos, etc) or acquiring donations on the creationist sites.

Another example would be geology. Reading Glenn Morton's site, he points out the absence of any so-called YEC geology being actually used in places like the oil industry (again: geological theory -> application of geology -> profit).

I'm wondering if this is going to be the death knell for creationism. Without being able to apply creationism and actually create an ecomonic impact with said application, they'll be restricted to reaping in donations and selling merchandise. Essentially, no different than any other business.

Btw, since it's obvious that creationists are going to ask what use is evolution, I'd just like to pre-emp that by pointing to a couple threads on the subject:

Real world applications of evolutionary biology and What scientific accomplishments have scientists achieved with evolution?

Likewise, PubMed has various published papers of evolution being used in things like medical research (for example, tracing gene variations in populations that bring about resistance to diseases). There's lots of stuff in there.

Electric Sceptic · #2 2nd January 2005, 01:40 PM

I haven't thought about the economic impacts of either evolutionary theory or creationism, I must confess. But I think the death knell for creationism will not be its economic repurcussions, but rather the demonstrated fact that it's simply false. The truth has a disturbing habit of coming to the fore.

Pete Harcoff · #3 2nd January 2005, 02:08 PM

I don't think that the fact that it's false will stop people from believing it. Look at how many people believe in phony psychics, faith healers, crop circles caused by UFO's, the moon landings were hoaxed, and so on. Pseudoscience and kooky beliefs seem to be a human staple. I don't think they're going away any time soon.

Yet, without applicability, such beliefs are limited. Take psychics for example. Genuine psychic powers could be a powerful force in things like natural security, military operations and so on. Yet, they're regulated to little more than a pop-culture side show.

Ditto with faith healers, UFOlogists, and so on.

Creationism, imho, falls in the same boat. It just isn't useful for anything, so it's simply an evangelism tool that caters to people's need to believe in things. Which is precisely why I don't think creationism will disappear, just that it will hardly displace anything in mainstream science that has economic impact.

MatthewM · #4 3rd January 2005, 12:44 AM

On the message above it has the quote-
'Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution'

I would just like to say also the theory of evolution is a useless theory which has also not helped out the understanding of anything. In science we can understand the nervous system, circulatory system and all other things in science without having to know how it got there, its irrelevent.

Sorry bout not reading the post Arikay, I was just wanting to know how evolution has an affect to most things. Oh well ....

Arikay · #5 3rd January 2005, 12:51 AM

matthew, did you even bother to read the post?
If you can't even do that much, don't expect many people to take you seriously.

Pete Harcoff · #6 3rd January 2005, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by MatthewM

I would just like to say also the theory of evolution is a useless theory which has also not helped out the understanding of anything. In science we can understand the nervous system, circulatory system and all other things in science without having to know how it got there, its irrelevent.

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

Btw, since it's obvious that creationists are going to ask what use is evolution, I'd just like to pre-emp that by pointing to a couple threads on the subject:

Real world applications of evolutionary biology and What scientific accomplishments have scientists achieved with evolution?

Likewise, PubMed has various published papers of evolution being used in things like medical research (for example, tracing gene variations in populations that bring about resistance to diseases). There's lots of stuff in there.

A4C · #7 3rd January 2005, 01:18 AM

I think the main difference will be that scientists, instead of saying " We understand how things are - aren't we good", will say "We understand how things are - isn't God good".
That way we will be able to save money on huge salaries and the economy will benefit.

Pete Harcoff · #8 3rd January 2005, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by A4C

I think the main difference will be that scientists , instead of saying " We understand how things are - aren't we good" will say "We understand how things are - isn't God good".
that way we will be able to save money on huge salaries and the economy will benefit.

Like I said, creationism is an evangelism tool. Other than that, it's useless.

Your point about saving money on salaries makes no sense. Are you suggesting these scientists will be out of a job? (Which would actually be worse for the economy, if that's the case.)

Quite frankly, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Electric Sceptic · #9 3rd January 2005, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by A4C

I think the main difference will be that scientists, instead of saying " We understand how things are - aren't we good", will say "We understand how things are - isn't God good".
That way we will be able to save money on huge salaries and the economy will benefit.

As always, A4C, your posts are good for a laugh, and not much else.

Arikay · #10 3rd January 2005, 01:23 AM

To actually add to the thread, I have noticed that many creationist sites are about selling a product, and a lot of their theories are based around that as well. It's a very interesting marketing strategy. I think a good example is looking at Drdino's current site, the majority of the main page seems to be integrated adds and beggings for money.

By designing the bussiness around a ministry it seems to bring in many people it normally wouldn't. I have heard many times where people have said, "Well, Drdino isn't always right, and he has some pretty wild ideas, but he is trying to spread christianity so I support him (which sometimes includes buying his product)" By connecting faith with the theory and product you can reach a larger audience. People who would laugh at the "The moon landing is a hoax" books, support the equivalent of "The moon landing is a hoax, and God loves you for it" books, because they have God in them, so they must be worth supporting.

Edit: And A4C made my point before I made it. Creationism is accepted often because it has God in it. If I made a tonic called "The Holyspirit" and created the right marketing angle that included things like, "Defend the faith from atheist invasion" or "Put God back into secular society" I bet it would sell, even if it was only water and food coloring.