Evolution is irrelevant so why is it politically essential?

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,614
2,671
London, UK
✟821,661.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The first link is to a website run by an organisation that exists to promote intelligent design. That is a biased source.
Miller debunks the Discovery Institute again
Recursivity: Discovery Institute Lies Again!
More lies from the Discovery Institute
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/diagenda.html
Discovery Institute Still Undermining Science | HuffPost
The Discovery Institute Is A Con-Profit Scam

Ben Carson is Beijing criticized not "persecuted," there is a difference. This is the first link embedded in the source you ave me by the way.
Dr. Ben Carson's Beliefs On Evolution Stir Controversy At Emory University
-The professors say this is no protest and they still want Carson to speak at the commencement.

They say they simply want to draw attention to Carson’s stance.

“I credit my university with being open to and engaging in these conversations because it’s not having those conversations where that can lead to many dangerous situations in politics and beyond that we see in our country today,” Eisen said."


The last link is an article written by someone with a physic's degree, so he's not an authority on the subject.
James Hannam
"James Hannam took a Physics degree at Oxford before training as an accountant."

He also wrote this:
"I am a Christian, a historian of science, and a committed advocate for evolution. I've always thought that the best way to persuade creationists they are mistaken is to engage with them and explain that evolution need not conflict with their faith."
Debating a Young-Earth Creationist


Most of that was hot air and failed to address the substantial issue. Even Wikipedia substantially reduced their profile on the scientist who resigned footprint on Wikipedia. His profile was rendered less authoritative after his decision to come out for ID.

Freedom of speech is a big issue here. Marginalisation and exclusion are the tactics obviously being employed.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
There are endless debates to be had as to whether abiogentic, macroevolutionary descriptions of our origins are true or not. But setting that aside for just one moment what real tangible benefits has evolutionary theory brought us.

Insights in anatomy, genetics, psychology, sociology, medicins,... even optimisation modules through genetic algoritms.

It also learns us a great deal about what the potential effects can/could be in environmental issues, as "selection parameters" are messed with and ecological balances get out of whack as a result.

The major advances of the last 300 years in industrial, military, medical , mining technologies owe nothing to evolutionary theory.

Not exactly. A boeing 747, for example, now flies with better fuel efficiency, thanks to the fuel distribution system having been subject to an evolutionary algoritm to come to a more optimised solution. And that's just one silly example, off course.

Trained forensic scientists , or drug researchers, or oil experts do not need to subscribe to the theory to do their jobs.

No joking...

And a chef at a restaurant doesn't need to subscribe to quantum physics or big bang theory in order to be able to cook a delicious meal.

Therefor, what's the use of cosmology, right?

:rolleyes:

So if the theory is irrelevant to most beneficial human activity why it considered so important by the political authorities that we teach it to our kids, that we vet our scientists and teachers by whether they subscribe to its teachings. Is home schooling considered so horrific here in Germany for fear that religious parents might teach their kids creationism and break the mould. Indeed America has accepted asylum seekers from Germany over such an issue.

Because evolution is fundamental in understanding biology, genetics and general development of life.

Under Soviet Communism evolution was considered the scientific equivalent of dialectical materialism and useful for breaking the hold of Russian Tsars and Orthodoxy on the soul of the nation.

Under Mao evolution was seen for similar reasons as a way to break the tyranny of heaven and old Chinese superstitions.

Under the Nazis it was used as a way of scientifically demonstrating the necessity of exterminating less evolved and weaker races.

None of these silly arguments have any bearing on the accuracy of the well-established theory of biology.

But in modern liberal society what is evolutions value to the political elites of Europe and the Democrat party in the USA. Since it adds no value to society what is it political purpose today?

Remove it from the public sohere and then raise a generation of biologically illiterate people as a result and then see what happens to the "superpower" status of the US.

It is already in decline. Allready today, there are more H1B students in american universities in certain departments for the sheer fact that there are no american students qualified enough to take part in those programs.

And when these H1B's get their PHD, they move back home - taking their knowledge with them - where they build companies, invent new technologies and generate all the business and advances that comes with that.

And then the US is surprised that a "silicon valley" pops up in china and india....
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,614
2,671
London, UK
✟821,661.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Insights in anatomy, genetics, psychology, sociology, medicins,... even optimisation modules through genetic

There is nothing of any value here that requires macroevolution. Microevolution is not in dispute.

It also learns us a great deal about what the potential effects can/could be in environmental issues, as "selection parameters" are messed with and ecological balances get out of whack as a result.

Again from a practical point of view only microevolutionary trends and insights are of any value here. In fact even if macroevolution were true the timescales would make it irrelevant here.

Not exactly. A boeing 747, for example, now flies with better fuel efficiency, thanks to the fuel distribution system having been subject to an evolutionary algoritm to come to a more optimised solution. And that's just one silly example, off course.

It is an example of good programming not a proof of macroevolution!!!

No joking...

And a chef at a restaurant doesn't need to subscribe to quantum physics or big bang theory in order to be able to cook a delicious meal.

Therefor, what's the use of cosmology, right?

:rolleyes:

Macroevolution is irrelevant to all major professions in practice.

Because evolution is fundamental in understanding biology, genetics and general development of life.

It adds intellectual burden in the name of explanatory power but brings no practical benefit or added insight.

None of these silly arguments have any bearing on the accuracy of the well-established theory of biology.

Remove it from the public sohere and then raise a generation of biologically illiterate people as a result and then see what happens to the "superpower" status of the US.

It is already in decline. Allready today, there are more H1B students in american universities in certain departments for the sheer fact that there are no american students qualified enough to take part in those programs.

And when these H1B's get their PHD, they move back home - taking their knowledge with them - where they build companies, invent new technologies and generate all the business and advances that comes with that.

And then the US is surprised that a "silicon valley" pops up in china and india....

Super power status and Americas economic advantage was mainly established by people before evolution was widely accepted and as a result of how America played 2 world wars. Evolution on the national curriculum is a symptom of national regression to a lower more damaged form of existence.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
There is nothing of any value here that requires macroevolution. Microevolution is not in dispute.

There is no technical difference between macro/micro. Only a conceptual one.
It's not "two different kinds" of evolution. Same mechanisms, same processes, different timescales.

Again from a practical point of view only microevolutionary trends and insights are of any value here. In fact even if macroevolution were true the timescales would make it irrelevant here.

If you are just going to repeat this falsehood (that there somehow is a difference between macro/micro in terms of process and mechanism), then this is going to go nowhere.

It is an example of good programming not a proof of macroevolution!!!

No. It is an example of the process of evolution working.
That process being: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Macroevolution is irrelevant to all major professions in practice.

Strike 3.

It adds intellectual burden in the name of explanatory power but brings no practical benefit or added insight.

I just gave you a whole bunch of examples, and all you did was handwave it away with a strawman.

Super power status and Americas economic advantage was mainly established by people before evolution was widely accepted

Evolution was widely accepted before the 20th century.
What gave america super power status was scientific literacy and innovation.
If the scientific literacy goes away, so will the super status.

The rest of the world, where people don't reject science for medieval reasons, will continue to make progress, innovate and grab economic opportunity in the process. And america... america will sit there and watch it happen. It is, in fact, already happening.

and as a result of how America played 2 world wars. Evolution on the national curriculum is a symptom of national regression to a lower more damaged form of existence.

Uhu, uhu.

Maybe first learn what evolution is about before saying such things. You clearly have no clue. Whenever someone pretends that "macro" and "micro" or somehow two different things, then I know enough...

It's like arguing against gravity "because hammers don't fall down in the international space station".
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,614
2,671
London, UK
✟821,661.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is no technical difference between macro/micro. Only a conceptual one.
It's not "two different kinds" of evolution. Same mechanisms, same processes, different timescales.



If you are just going to repeat this falsehood (that there somehow is a difference between macro/micro in terms of process and mechanism), then this is going to go nowhere.



No. It is an example of the process of evolution working.
That process being: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.



Strike 3.



I just gave you a whole bunch of examples, and all you did was handwave it away with a strawman.



Evolution was widely accepted before the 20th century.
What gave america super power status was scientific literacy and innovation.
If the scientific literacy goes away, so will the super status.

The rest of the world, where people don't reject science for medieval reasons, will continue to make progress, innovate and grab economic opportunity in the process. And america... america will sit there and watch it happen. It is, in fact, already happening.



Uhu, uhu.

Maybe first learn what evolution is about before saying such things. You clearly have no clue. Whenever someone pretends that "macro" and "micro" or somehow two different things, then I know enough...

It's like arguing against gravity "because hammers don't fall down in the international space station".

There is a very important difference between experimental science and speculative science that you are persistently missing.

The first can be demonstrated and tested by repeatable experiments. Tell me how you did something and I should be able to repeat and thereby confirm your results. You cannot do this to prove the theory of common descent or chemical evolution.

The second is the kind of science that justifies its theories in terms of their explanatory power. In the case of macroevolution, in the background, is the assumption of uniformitarianism. According to this the demonstrable flexibility and adaptability of a genus somehow proves the theory of common descent. But the near complete lack of fossil precursors for major evolutionary eras like the Cambrian explosion make the theory physically undemonstrable. In the case of abiogenesis there is even less physical proof of chemical evolution and the whole theory is based on guesses and speculation and a firm commitment to evolutionary principle.

In both cases there is a lack of credibility to the generalisations made but so also a dogmatic insistence on evolution nonetheless. In practice both theories are pretty much irrelevant to any truly life beneficial science and thus add a ponderous deadweight to the efforts and communications of otherwise smart scientists who would rather have an explanation than admit they and indeed noone really knows.

Science should focus on the advancement of the kind of knowledge that builds people up rather than merely puffs professors up.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,200
19,055
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,503,896.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
are you implying that we have no evidence for creation or just for some creationists claims?

I wrote that five months ago! I'm not sure now what I had in mind when I wrote it.

I don't think I meant no evidence for creation, but more that some of the assumptions which guide how creationists use data have no evidence behind them.
 
Upvote 0