You say you want an evolution?

[WinAce]

Originally posted by s0uljah

A unfair generalization...not even half-way accurate anyway. You assume anyone that diagrees with your interpretation of science is a moron. Got arrogance?

I suppose you'd be willing to reconcile the last 500 years of geology, astronomy, biology and other scientific fields with a young-earth view of the cosmos?

No?

I suppose you deny that most of the material on AnswersInGenesis and other young-earth cretinist sites is often used 50 years after being debunked, just because the layman is unfamiliar with the scientific rebuttal and may uncritically accept it just because it confirms his already-existing views?

No?

Just who was it that requires all its employees to sign a statement of faith stating in no uncertain terms that *any* evidence which contradicts them must be considered false without consideration?

AiG and other cretinist organizations?

I suppose the 'interpretation of science', such as the 'created kinds' and flood geology, can be used at least somewhat consistently to predict the position of pseudogenes, endogenous retrovirii, phylogenies, earthquakes, floods, and other phenomena, as opposed to being fit to the data after real scientists do actual research?

No?

I suppose they haven't been caught in one direct lie/misrepresentation/stupid mistake for their faith after another and continued using it anyway with an innocent face?

No?

Got arrogance?

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Because evolution is one of the most powerful and useful scientific theories that ever was, and it is backed up by over 150 years of scientific research."

"It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much."

Francis Crick, "Lessons from Biology", Natural History, November 1988

 

[chickenman]

there we have it, an admission from the guy who helped discover the structure of the most important molecule in biology that evolution is a useful tool in research

 

[Christian Soldier]

"there we have it, an admission from the guy who helped discover the structure of the most important molecule in biology that evolution is a useful tool in research"

You failed to mention that he stated they can only be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, "but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much."

He also clearly states that they do not play a large part in guiding biological research.

Chickenman's deceptive interpretation is amusing, and so typical of evolutionists.


"It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much."

Francis Crick, "Lessons from Biology", Natural History, November 1988

 

[WinAce]

OK, let's see what Young-Earth Creationism has accomplished.

Strategies for minimizing antibiotic, vaccine and pesticide resistance... oh wait, that was evolution.

Predicting the existence of a hereditary code, instrumental in the research of those who later found it, such as Dr. Crick: err...

Predicting a high degree of genetic homology based off of phylogenies, enabling us to sequence and research genomes much faster than if we were going in blind: umm, whoops.

Enabling us to more accurately use animal models such as mice when conducting medical studies by understanding their relationship with humans... *sheepish grin again*

Come to think of it, I can't think of a *single* advancement or benefit to *anyone* that's been the direct result of young-earth creationist hypotheses. The created kind model is undefined and vague, flood geology is totally useless at predicting *anything*, and their cosmology makes monkeys think they're the most intelligent life on Earth.

So, aside from quotes mined from some of the greatest minds in science cautioning us to always rely on updated data and not trust anything as infallible truth, a basic tenet of science anyway, how about some real data supporting your position? Or how about an explanation better than 'god did it, don't ask how, why, when or where'?

 

[chickenman]

it of course depends on which line of research you are doing as to how useful evolution is.

I'd submit that developmental biology in general relies far more on the theory of evolution than say, metabolic biochemistry. I very much doubt there would be so many biologists studying drosophila melanogaster were it not for the theory of evolution. For population geneticists, the theory of evolution is absolutely integral to their research.

I understand the gist of what crick is saying, and its basically; evolution is useful in research, but don't rely on it too much. Evolution has changed the entire science of biology, that much is undoubtedly true. It helps us unite the entirety of biological fields under a general theory, it helps us integrate different evidences, it helps us explain the evidence that scientific enquiry produces.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think that Crick was also lamenting the fact that (when he wrote it) there was little way that the construction of a particular phylogenetic tree could be independently verified.

 

[Cantuar]

"It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much."

Francis Crick, "Lessons from Biology", Natural History, November 1988

It might be helpful to put this quote in its context. He's talking about the difference between physics and biology and the dangers of applying the simplicity of physics wholesale to biological processes.

"What is found in biology is mechanisms, mechanisms built with chemical components and that are often modified by other, later, mechanisms added to the earlier ones. While Occam's razor is a useful tool in the physical sciences, it can be a vert dangerous implement in biology. It is thus very rash to use simplicity and elegance as a guide in biological research. While DNA could be claimed to be both simple and elegant, it must be remembered that DNA almost certainly originated fairly close to the origin of life when things were necessarily simple or they could not have got going.
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.
"All this may make it very difficult for physicists to adapt to most biology research. Physicists are all too apt to look for the wrong sort of generalizations, to concoct theoretical models that are too neat, too powerful, and too clean. Not surprisingly, these seldom fit well with the data. To produce a really good biologocal theory one must try to see through the clutter produced by evolution to the basic mechanisms lying beneath them, realizing that they are likely to be overlaid by other, secondary mechanisms. What seems to physicists to be a hopelesly complicated process may have been what nature found simplest, because nature could only build on what was already there."


If that doesn't show you that Crick was a supporter of evolution by natural selection, there's more where that came from. On the whole his writing tends not to lend itself to sound bites, but I'll quote whole pages if you need more evidence.