Evolution is irrelevant so why is it politically essential?

[mindlight]

And It wasn't me who brought up the Nazis.

Well they are a good example of how evolution has been used to justify genocide I suppose.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

I and about half the American public do not accept your definition of what science is. For me science is something empirically supported that can demonstrate what it says. So that rules out macroevolution and abiogenesis since they cannot be demonstrated and are therefore unscientific theories. The phylogenetic arguments used by the atheists in that Meyers Darwin Doubt discussion were an attempt to get round the missing supporting physical evidence for fossil precursors in the socalled Cambrian Explosion. Nobody properly addressed Meyers refutation of the Phylogenetic argument nor of Marshalls critique either. The substance of both these critiques being superior to the ad hominem attacks that characterised the bulk of the atheist argument methods employed in the thread and on Meyer personally following his books publication. But I am far worse than an ID - I am a creationist!!

Scientists don't care about public opinion. That isn't how science works. It wouldn't matter if 99% of people don't accept evolution, it doesn't make it false. If you want to do science you have to provide evidence for your side. You can't just use a faulty understanding of the theory to try to poke holes in it then just demand your view gets equal treatment.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Well they are a good example of how evolution has been used to justify genocide I suppose.

No it wasn't. Like I said they used selective breeding. That is not evolution. Besides that doesn't make evolution wrong. I could go through a long list of human rights abuses made by people who said they were doing "God's" will. Just because someone can use a tool to do bad things doesn't automatically make that tool a bad thing.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

The one can be demonstrated and the other not. There is no evolution outside a genus but a considerable amount within that.

Yes it can. Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't negate it's existence.

 

[mindlight]

Scientists don't care about public opinion. That isn't how science works. It wouldn't matter if 99% of people don't accept evolution, it doesn't make it false. If you want to do science you have to provide evidence for your side. You can't just use a faulty understanding of the theory to try to poke holes in it then just demand your view gets equal treatment.

It is evolution that is forcing itself down childrens throats in the classroom. If macroevolutionary theory is just a set of generalisations based on a uniformitarian principle and observations of microevolution within a genus then it is grossly dishonest to suggest that it is good science. It is a theory that stands or falls on whether uniformitarianism can be applied back the timescales that it has. The simple answer scientifically is that since we can prove none of the claims for it it is a theory to be treated with caution. It should most definitely not be taught to children given the level of uncertainty that surrounds it.

 

[mindlight]

No it wasn't. Like I said they used selective breeding. That is not evolution. Besides that doesn't make evolution wrong. I could go through a long list of human rights abuses made by people who said they were doing "God's" will. Just because someone can use a tool to do bad things doesn't automatically make that tool a bad thing.

Well we have had Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Nazism all appealing to evolutionary theory to justify their actions. Now we have modern liberals happy to murder the unborn and euthanize the old. It is not a good track record for the theory that so many who have subscribed to it have been genocidal maniacs.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

It is evolution that is forcing itself down childrens throats in the classroom. If macroevolutionary theory is just a set of generalisations based on a uniformitarian principle and observations of microevolution within a genus then it is grossly dishonest to suggest that it is good science. It is a theory that stands or falls on whether uniformitarianism can be applied back the timescales that it has. The simple answer scientifically is that since we can prove none of the claims for it it is a theory to be treated with caution. It should most definitely not be taught to children given the level of uncertainty that surrounds it.

It is as uncertain as gravity. We may not understand every single aspect but we know it's true. We still don't fully understand gravity but we still treat it as a reality, because it is. Again a science teacher's job is to teach the scientific consensus of the day. Right now scientists consider evolution to be a fact so that I what is going to be taught. Until the creationists can present testable evidence they will rightly be ignored when it comes to the scientific community. Science uses evidence to come to a conclusion, creationists and ID want to reverse that and start with a conclusion. That is anathema to the scientific process.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Well we have had Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Nazism all appealing to evolutionary theory to justify their actions. Now we have modern liberals happy to murder the unborn and euthanize the old. It is not a good track record for the theory that so many who have subscribed to it have been genocidal maniacs.

Straw man. Again none of that, regardless of whether I agree or not, is relevant to the truth of the theory.

 

[DaisyDay]

That is all microevolution. Nothing there that requires a commitment to a macro-evolutionary framework except at an irrelevant deep background level.

Evolution is evolution - your distinction is worthless.

 

[DaisyDay]

The one can be demonstrated and the other not. There is no evolution outside a genus but a considerable amount within that.

What's the difference ? Can you demonstrate that with some degree of certainty?

 

[DaisyDay]

Well we have had Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Nazism all appealing to evolutionary theory to justify their actions. Now we have modern liberals happy to murder the unborn and euthanize the old. It is not a good track record for the theory that so many who have subscribed to it have been genocidal maniacs.

Please show where Marxist-Leninism and where Maoism appealed to evolutionary theory to justify their actions...and which actions precisely in each case you're referring to. This seems like emotional rhetoric without much real basis.

 

[Silmarien]

Microevolution is not in question here. However you would not even need an understanding of this to create a flu vaccine. What they do to create a vaccine in practice is get a sample of the virus. Then then inject that into chicken eggs to infect the eggs. Then they kill the virus in the egg with a variety of possible techniques.

1) UV Light
2) Acid
3) Solvent /Detergent
4) Pasteurisation - heat the egg over 60C

Then they extract the dead and broken bits of the virus. Bits which cannot possibly infect a person. They then inject these into the person to be vaccinated. The body then builds its own immune defence against the now harmless virus. So when a live version comes along the body already has a defence in place.

So we could create flu vaccines with no knowledge of evolution.

If we didn't understand that the flu virus evolves from season to season, we would have difficulty predicting which strains were going to cause trouble.

We might be able to create vaccines without knowledge of evolution, but the chances of making the right ones drop significantly.

 

[keith99]

Evolution is essential to biology. So if a biology is to be taught then teaching evolution is a necessity. But the main job of science teachers are to teach the state of the scientific consensus at the time and evolution is the consensus. Evolution is considered the closest thing you can get to a fact among scientists and it underpins our understanding of a wide range of other fields than just biology.

Since you brought up the Nazi's I have to say that just because a scientific theory can be used to do bad things does not make the theory false. Secondly eugenics is not the same thing as evolution. The Nazi's tried to use a form of artificial selection where they tried to "breed" out what they saw as weak. This concept of selective breeding has been around for a lot longer than the theory of evolution. And the Nazi application was a complete misunderstanding on how evolution works anyway. If they wanted to engineer a "superior" people then they would have encouraged more diversity. The more diverse a population is the better the chance of it's long term survival.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_06

https://www.faseb.org/portals/2/PDFs/opa/Why is it important to teach evolution.pdf

It is worth pointing out that the Nazis all used Gravitational theory in developing their U-2 rockets! Let's stop teaching gravity!

 

[keith99]

Please show where Marxist-Leninism and where Maoism appealed to evolutionary theory to justify their actions...and which actions precisely in each case you're referring to. This seems like emotional rhetoric without much real basis.

Especially the Soviet side. They actively rejected Darwinism in favor of Lamarckism. The differences are huge.

 

[RDKirk]

Especially the Soviet side. They actively rejected Darwinism in favor of Lamarckism. The differences are huge.

The real problem created by the Soviets is that the Soviets treated acceptance of Lamarckism as a political litmus test for advancement across the board. Lamarkism was considered essential to the doctrine that they could evolve the New Soviet Man if they just tried ruthlessly enough.

You didn't get to be a rocket scientist unless you accepted Lamarckism, not because of its scientific superiority but because political doctrine depended on it.

I see that happening on both sides now. It's not a matter of "is it necessary for what I'm doing" the issue is becoming a political litmus test.

 

[Paidiske]

For an evolutionist survival is the ultimate value.

Not necessarily, but it is a value for most people, except perhaps those who see the end times as very very imminent.

For a Creationist the Ultimate value is found in the Creator. As a priest (your signature) you of course agree with the emphasis on God first and a commitment to honest science should not really change that perspective.

Agreed. I find no conflict between faith and science.

Since the source of all biodiversity is in the Creator rather than His creation the Creationist perspective is also the wiser choice.

You've lost me here. Creationism is a perspective on how God created the universe/life. I believe absolutely in God as Creator, but I don't buy the creationist perspective, because I find it to be both incompatible with the evidence of creation, and fairly sloppy treatment of Scripture.

But a Creationist living by what the bible suggests about respect for life is not going to be trampling on the garden so to speak. So I think this is all a rather moot point anyway. Some evolutionists trample on the flowers and rare bugs and some Christians do not. take it case by case.

My original point was that biodiversity - both within species and in terms of the range of species - is something a creationist has no real reason to seek to maximise. Creation is a given, in their view, so the need to preserve genetic diversity within a species (to give it maximum possibility to survive and therefore evolve) doesn't have the same importance.

Your science training should tell you that it is not a proper use of the scientific method to assert macroevolution or abiogenesis as fact when there is no way to demonstrate it scientifically.

At this point, macroevolution is a no-brainer. I do not believe I have ever asserted abiogenesis as fact; I agree that at this point it is speculative.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Name one evolution based technique used in such research that contradicts a Creationist perspective and has produced life beneficial results.

Could you please clarify what your creationist perspective is, since there are significant variations?

 

[mindlight]

It is worth pointing out that the Nazis all used Gravitational theory in developing their U-2 rockets! Let's stop teaching gravity!

Yes especially if it allows the Nazis to use their V-2s to bombard London with U-2 music. Cruel and nasty people!!!

 

[mindlight]

Could you please clarify what your creationist perspective is, since there are significant variations?

6 day creation, young earth and universe, special creation of Adam and Eve and indeed all life, global flood wiped out old world, most post Ediacaran / Cambrian fossils are of creatures that inhabited the same timeframe.

Abiogenesis and Macroevolution are impossible cause of the timescales and because of complete lack of physical evidence for these processes.

Microevolution within a genus is possible and indeed is observably happening. e.g. dogs and sparrows

 

[mindlight]

Especially the Soviet side. They actively rejected Darwinism in favor of Lamarckism. The differences are huge.

Lamarckism is just a heresy off the evolutionary tree. It still subscribes to a reductionist materialistic and naturalistic assumption about evidence. It is not pure Darwinism cause it lacks natural selection for one thing. But really this is like comparing Mainstream Christians and Jehovah witnesses. It is a cult version of Darwinism.