Creationists Against Science?

[Crusadar]

It is often reiterated to students that creationists are against science because they do not except the general theory of evolution (GToE) for example this textbook states:

“If we prevent our secondary school students from learning what science [i.e. evolutionary science] has to offer we run the risk that they will not be able to compete effectively in college classrooms or in today’s global economy.” - Discover Biology 2000 p.303. Sinauer Associates.

That is quite the charge, after all my students do quite well without ever hearing anything about evolution and if they do it’s at a minimum, skipping the parts that deal with evolution and concentrate on the more important stuff. But here’s the point, students are being told that there is no distinction between “origins” science which evolution would fall under and “operational” science where the rest of the sciences fall under.

My question:

What economic disadvantage in the world market would students have by not knowing evolution? Or for that matter what economical advantage would there be in knowing evolution?

Just to let everyone know, I’m not against science, I happen to love science (can’t you tell) – it allows us to build better computers, better planes, communication systems, more effective vaccines, etc. etc. So I really have no problems with science – only the GToE.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Medicine would suffer because our animal testing can currently assume the closely related animals probably react in the same way. Without evolution, we wouldn't be able to explain why a monkey would be a better test subject for a human treatment than a rabbit.

Computers would also suffer. Our chip designs may soon begin taking advantage of design algorithms modeled after evolution.

 

[Crusadar]

That's quite a claim, that such are the result of the study of evolution. In both cases who or what is synthesizing the vaccines? Who or what is programming the chip so that it will function according to its programming as oppose to some unknown untested program derived by natural laws? Now if such were the result of just natural forces as oppose to being the result of intellect then that would be evolution at work.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

That's quite a claim, that such are the result of the study of evolution. In both cases who or what is synthesizing the vaccines? Who or what is programming the chip so that it will function according to its programming as oppose to some unknown untested program derived by natural laws? Now if such were the result of just natural forces as oppose to being the result of intellect then that would be evolution at work.

Without evolution or heavy experimentation, what reason do you have to believe an ape's physiology more closely resembles that of a human than a rabbit's does?

Without knowledge of evolution, who would think of combining random alterations of a design coupled with rules to select designs based on fitness? This technique was directly modeled on biological evolution, so without knowledge of evolution, people wouldn't think of designing things this way.

 

[Crusadar]

without knowledge of evolution, people wouldn't think of designing things this way

Without any knowledge of evolution people who think do design things any way they want!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

without knowledge of evolution, people wouldn't think of designing things this way

Without any knowledge of evolution people who think do design things any way they want!

It's not the function that we can't design. It's the efficiency. Computer chips are so complicated that we tend to design things using building blocks that we understand. This works, but it is not necessarily the most efficient solution.

 

[The Lady Kate]

My question:

What economic disadvantage in the world market would students have by not knowing evolution? Or for that matter what economical advantage would there be in knowing evolution?

Probably none at all. Ignorance actually carries several economic benefits.... just not for the people who suffer from it... more like for the people who exploit the ignorant for their own benefit.

Just to let everyone know, I’m not against science, I happen to love science (can’t you tell) – it allows us to build better computers, better planes, communication systems, more effective vaccines, etc. etc. So I really have no problems with science – only the GToE.

That is a problem with science. Science is an objective methodology for discovering facts. It is not a Chinese menu where you get to pick the conclusions you like, and discard the rest.

The rejection of ToE on religious grounds is symptom of a potentially larger issue. If a "scientist" is unable or unwilling to follow the facts to a logical and inevitable conclusion, even to one that runs afoul of his/her personal beliefs, then how reliable/impartial can they be?

 

[Crusadar]

It's not the function that we can't design. It's the efficiency. Computer chips are so complicated that we tend to design things using building blocks that we understand. This works, but it is not necessarily the most efficient solution.

My point is that without the use of any intellect can you build a better chip! Without any purposeful additional programming can we improve on a model. In fact the more complicated the chip, I'll bet the more the source of intellect that was involved in designing it! It is fine and dandy to imitate already existing design, it however still requires a source of intellect to do so. The bottom line is that design ultimately demands a source where the most efficient solution is one in which has been well planned and thought out - evolution does not provide this - it may provide inspiration but it is ultimately a source of intellect that well determine its usefulness.

 

[Crusadar]

Probably none at all. Ignorance actually carries several economic benefits.... just not for the people who suffer from it... more like for the people who exploit the ignorant for their own benefit.

Excuse me, but I would like to congratulate you on the most irrelevant statement that has ever made in a single response! Really, do stick with the topic please!

Snipped- the rest of more nonsense.

 

[Critias]

Computer Chips are not being design to model evolution. Computer Chips are being design to model DNA. There is quite a difference.

You can say computers have evolved, but that it only happened because of intelligent design not random chance.

 

[Critias]

Probably none at all. Ignorance actually carries several economic benefits.... just not for the people who suffer from it... more like for the people who exploit the ignorant for their own benefit.

There are people who are quite wise in a business sense and don't know much about the theory of evolution and who make considerable amount of money.

Why are there many Christians who don't hold to evolution who are doing extremely well for themselves financially?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

It's not the function that we can't design. It's the efficiency. Computer chips are so complicated that we tend to design things using building blocks that we understand. This works, but it is not necessarily the most efficient solution.

My point is that without the use of any intellect can you build a better chip! Without any purposeful additional programming can we improve on a model. In fact the more complicated the chip, I'll bet the more the source of intellect that was involved in designing it! It is fine and dandy to imitate already existing design, it however still requires a source of intellect to do so. The bottom line is that design ultimately demands a source where the most efficient solution is one in which has been well planned and thought out - evolution does not provide this - it may provide inspiration but it is ultimately a source of intellect that well determine its usefulness.

The process can work on its own any time you combine inheritable variation, reproduction, and selection.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Probably none at all. Ignorance actually carries several economic benefits.... just not for the people who suffer from it... more like for the people who exploit the ignorant for their own benefit.

Excuse me, but I would like to congratulate you on the most irrelevant statement that has ever made in a single response! Really, do stick with the topic please!

Snipped- the rest of more nonsense.

You mean "nonsense" that anyone who calls themself a scientist, but cannot/will not do their job objectively will be seen by the rest of the world community as incompetent and/or untrustworthy?

You don't see an economic advantage in that?

Then you've answered your own question.

 

[shernren]

Don't dodge. Your question as stated in the OP was:

What economic disadvantage in the world market would students have by not knowing evolution? Or for that matter what economical advantage would there be in knowing evolution?

And an answer given was:

Computers would also suffer. Our chip designs may soon begin taking advantage of design algorithms modeled after evolution.

To which you replied:

My point is that without the use of any intellect can you build a better chip!

So what? Your question was what economic use is the concept of evolution? And the response was that a knowledge of evolutionary concepts helps in designing chips. Whether or not that knowledge of evolution also requires intellect is irrelevant to your question. A student who did not know evolution would not know how to use GAs effectively not having a good working idea of the evolutionary concept. He would distrust the whole thing, asking "How can supposedly random chance produce good models?" and instead look at the design specs and hand-design the whole thing himself one copper strip at a time. Evolution is useful.

In the same way, an intelligent God using the rather unintelligent process of evolution created a most spectacular biosphere on the planet we call Earth.

 

[immortalavefenix]

Let us see.

You hold a creationist view? Creationist theory states that lifeforms come in differnt imutable kinds.

Can you please provide me with a list of all the known "kinds" as of today, or link me to a page with has that information?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Why are there many Christians who don't hold to evolution who are doing extremely well for themselves financially?

Because they're not in a scientific line of work?

I can make a comfortable living for myself without studying any kind of medicine... as long as my line of work doesn't involve performing any kind of surgery.

Please tell me you were joking when you asked this question.

 

[Critias]

Because they're not in a scientific line of work?

I can make a comfortable living for myself without studying any kind of medicine... as long as my line of work doesn't involve performing any kind of surgery.

Please tell me you were joking when you asked this question.

It was asserted in the OP, by the quote, that anyone who didn't accept evolution couldn't make it in school or in life. TEs came in and showed their support, so it look.

So, I asked this question since it seemed many TEs supported the belief that if you don't accept ToE then you will not succeed in life.

The quote in the OP is being painted with a broad brush and appears to cover all classes and jobs. TEs here seemed to support it.

Oh, and a relative of mine did extremely well in medicine as a Doctor and doesn't accept ToE. I know many more Doctors who don't accept ToE who are doing incredibly well.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It was asserted in the OP, by the quote, that anyone who didn't accept evolution couldn't make it in school or in life. TEs came in and showed their support, so it look.

So, I asked this question since it seemed many TEs supported the belief that if you don't accept ToE then you will not succeed in life.

The quote in the OP is being painted with a broad brush and appears to cover all classes and jobs. TEs here seemed to support it.

Oh, and a relative of mine did extremely well in medicine as a Doctor and doesn't accept ToE. I know many more Doctors who don't accept ToE who are doing incredibly well.

I read the OP as referring to the US as a nation...our entire economy, as opposed to individuals. If the world sees us as scientifically backwards, we will suffer.

Perhaps the quote (what was given of it, anyway) didn't make that clear, or gave the wrong impression.

 

[shernren]

Let us see.

You hold a creationist view? Creationist theory states that lifeforms come in differnt imutable kinds.

PRATT.

 

[Numenor]

There are people who are quite wise in a business sense and don't know much about the theory of evolution and who make considerable amount of money.

Why are there many Christians who don't hold to evolution who are doing extremely well for themselves financially?

Oh you can be ignorant and still make lots of money. Just look at all those basketball players, footballers etc