What use is it?

[old ag]

Back in 1987, I gave a speech asking What Use is it? I have found no evolutionist then or since who is able or willing to tackle the question. (I guess I could scan and insert the text of the original talk if anyone is interested. And if I could figure out how to do it)

What PRACTICAL use is evolution. HOW is it used in decision making to build and maintain our modern society? Can someone give me the equation that contains evolution as one of its factors in deciding anything??

Will the modern ability to transplant organs disappear if I prove tomorrow that the organ was created instead of evolved??

Challenge! Give me a use!

Old Ag

[youngborean]

I believe my point is that too a creationist, evolution is distinct from mircoevolution. So if your example is to show that an example of what a creationist would call Mircoevolution or something like it may not be relavant because they are thinking mostly of the large morphological changes Macroevolution. Basically I believe that most creationists look a the Theory of evolution apart from Microevolution since they accept Microevolution.

Part of the problem may be that I can't think of any easy way to disentangle the process from the results of the process. They are all part of the same Theory of Evolution. If there is microevolution, there will be macroevolution.

This is my point. Scientists automatically lump everything together because they believe that microevolution inevitably points to macroevolution. Creationists make a distinction and assume that everyone would, so when you say Evolution, and mean any inherited change (regardless of magnitude), most creationist think you mean Monkey to Man.

The only difference between the microevolution that creationists now accept, complete with speciation, and what creationists call macroevolution, is how long it has to operate.

This seems to be the crux of the debate. Gradualism seems to occur as a philosophy stangely around the same time as Darwin. Informing each model has to be a belief about the age of the earth/universe. This fundamental principle is inherently more difficult to prove than genetic inheritence causing variability.

[Jose]

I believe my point is that too a creationist, evolution is distinct from mircoevolution. So if your example is to show that an example of what a creationist would call Mircoevolution or something like it may not be relavant because they are thinking mostly of the large morphological changes Macroevolution. Basically I believe that most creationists look a the Theory of evolution apart from Microevolution since they accept Microevolution.

It puzzles me that this is even possible. It's a little like taking the Theory of Gravity, and saying it applies only to solids and liquids, but not to gasses. ...or believing in vocabulary, but not sentences. ...or thinking that it's impossible to save dollars by saving pennies. It really is impossible, biologically, to separate microevolution (the process by which it works) from macroevolution (the result of the process working).

Creationists make a distinction and assume that everyone would, so when you say Evolution, and mean any inherited change (regardless of magnitude), most creationist think you mean Monkey to Man.

Actually, in evolutionary biology, the term "macroevolution" really means "changes in morphology." At least, that's how the evolutionary biologists I know use the term. When the term was invented, it was imagined that there would be fundamental differences in mechanism between microevolution and changes in morphology. Now we know that it is just a matter of which genes mutate, but the mechanism is exactly the same. Therefore, there no longer is a distinction between micro- and macro, unless we choose to think in terms of the molecular and developmental biology by which the mutation causes a change in phenotype.

Biologists actually don't make any special distinction for "monkey to man." Evolution is, well, just evolution--changes over time, occurring through the mechanisms of microevolution. It happens with people, it happens with monkeys, it happens with bacteria. We all use the same basic molecular biology, so the mechanism is the same. If the data point undeniably toward monkey to man, or goo to you, as some say, then, well...that's what the data point to. Unless we can come up with a better alternative, that's what we're stuck with. The trouble with creation as the alternative is that it provides no clues about what to study next or how to study it. The conclusion is a dead end.

But, at the time the Bible was written, a dead end was just fine. There just weren't any other ideas, and no science to follow up any of the possibilities. At that time, it made sense. It provided closure to a puzzle that people had absolutely no idea how to solve.

This seems to be the crux of the debate. Gradualism seems to occur as a philosophy stangely around the same time as Darwin. Informing each model has to be a belief about the age of the earth/universe. This fundamental principle is inherently more difficult to prove than genetic inheritence causing variability.

It does seem to come down to a question of measuring time, doesn't it?

Gradualism was pretty much what Darwin was thinking about, as were others of his time. He was just the one who figured out a mechanism that would make it work. In the absence of Mendelian genetics, though, he favored Lamarck's idea that animals could change during their lifetimes, and pass on the changes. This still seems to be the basic assumption among many Americans, since molecular genetics tends to get pretty confusing pretty fast.

We no longer consider gradualism as a reasonable explanation, because it implies a constant rate of change. The data show quite clearly that change is not constant. Still, even "rapid" change may take a few million years--and at the day-to-day scale of ordinary life, is quite gradual, indeed.

So, just how difficult is it to determine ages? We have several threads on that here. It seems to me that it's pretty easy, especially in the time range of 6000 years or so. We have several completely different methods, which can be used to check each other. They all check out consistently. They all give ages well beyond 6000 years. This, at least, indicates that Bishop Ussher's calculations were wrong, and maybe, just maybe, the Bible doesn't tell us exactly all of the human generations that occurred since creation. I do seem to recall that there is some ambiguity here and there.

We can also cross-check the hypotheses by other methods. If Genesis is true, then the Flood has to have happened, with all of the necessary consequences. This hypothesis makes very clear predictions about what we should find geologically. So, there are a number of different methods that we can use to look for the clues God left us in the world about how and when he created it. Ages of rocks are not the only methods available, valuable though they may be.

[old ag]

Can creationists be scientists?
by Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., astrophysics, AiG–USA speaker and researcher

First published in
Answers Update–USA
April 2005

It has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.”

Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.”

In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2

But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3

Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?

Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.

Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.


(By the way, Dr. Humphreys will be one of more than 20 leading creationist researchers who will be speaking at this July’s Creation Mega Conference.)

On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).

Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has been featured twice in our Creation magazine.

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.

On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature.

Yes, science is possible because the Bible is true.

References and notes
The claims made in this guidebook have been refuted in Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s powerful book Refuting Evolution.
The American Biology Teacher 35:125–129, March 1973.
A testimony to the power of God’s Word.
www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/ ... /21_3.html
Super-scientist slams society’s spiritual sickness!

[USIncognito]

Sorry for not replying to the entirety of your cut and paste, but this one part just sticks in my craw.

Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture.

I keep hearing this claim by Creationists.

It rings hollow hollow to me. First off, there's the NSCE's Project Steve (which was voluntary and for living scientists) vs. the invariable list of scientists from the last 400 years - "many" (see I use the same word as YECs) were dead long before Darwin's Origin or the discovery of DNA. Second, I honestly cannot recall a list of these supposed (and sometimes post-mortem) YECs that numbers as great as the 72 Nobel Laureates who signed an amicus curiae brief to the case of Edwards v. Aguillard.

Thirdly, I never see it mentioned about the historic Christian scientists, like Adam Sedgewick, et. al., that laid the groundwork for the abandonment of YECism, nor (Fourthly) do I see mentioned some of the most prominent and effective evolution apologists like paleontologist Dr. Bob Bakker (a Pentecostal minister) or Dr. Douglas Theobald (the author of the 29 Evidences essay on Talk Origins) being Christians.

On points three and four... if YECs are so interested in "teaching the controversy," then why do they utterly fail to mention Christians - and pastors and preachers for that matter - who have embraced evolution, and find no conflict between it and their interpretation of Genesis?

(As an aside, Old Ag, did you happen to attend TAMU?)

[Aximili23]

What a joke.

First of all, no matter how much creationists wish to ignore it, evolutionary theory has provided many benefits, only a few of which have been explained in this very thread. Some of these are:

1. Use of model organisms and establishment of important strains and breeds of such model organisms.

2. Better understanding of cancer and embryonic development.

3. Explanation of how and why pathogens adapt to drugs and antibiotics.

4. Explanation of incidence of genetically influenced disorders. (For example, evolution explains why Alzheimer's disease and cancer are so prevalent, while congenital hypothyroidism and phenylketonuria are so rare.)

Evolutionary theory has in fact probably saved countless lives, since the considerable efforts made by the World Health Organization to prevent a new flu pandemic rest on an understanding of how viruses evolve.

Second, to belittle evolution with terms like "molecules-to-man" or "particles-to-people" is inaccurate and misleading. Evolution is studied and explored in many contexts and levels of detail. So-called "molecules-to-man" evolution is only the very very very big picture and admittedly may not be so helpful, but examining the biological diversity of more closely related species has applications in both medicine and ecology. Similarly, to repeatedly refer to evolution merely as something to believe in is also misleading. Evolution is both a fact and a theory, supported by overwhelming evidence. It is not "believed" as if it were a religion or philosophy, so much as it is continually explored and understood, through study and experimentation.

Third, technology absolutely HAS arisen due to an understanding of evolution. And not just biomedical technology either, where the application of evolutionary theory is so staggeringly important. Genetic algorthims, which are modeled after mechanisms of biological evolution, have contributed greatly to computer science.

And fourth, the extremely few succesful creationist scientists today did not obtain data and publish scientific papers as a result of reading the bible, prayer, or divine revelation. Their success was through the rigorous use of the scientific method. If Dr. Baumgardner did publish a model of catastrophic plate tectonics in Nature, then his model must have been based on evidence. If he and other creationist scientists were truly logical, honest, and consistent, then they would follow what ALL of the evidence leads, not just those bits that fit their preconceived notions of the universe. The evidence leads us to an old earth, an absence of any Noachian flood, and the theory of evolution.

But really, these creationist scientists are only successful because creationists claim them to be so. It's difficult to find even one that is considered credible by the scientific community. Simple refutations of Dr. Baumgardner's ideas, for example, can be found here.

It's irritating and incredibly hypocritical of creationists to try to tear down the foundations and education of modern science, while simultaneously using a faked-up version of it, including its terminology, to give their own baseless ideas greater legitimacy to the public.

[Chem]

Old ag said:

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history.

I have to say with regards to the great minds of history, they are history. It was the main belief system of the day, of course they were creationists. In light of todays knowledge however, most of these great minds would concur that the evidence points to Evolution as the best description we have with regards to describing the plethora of life, past and present.

Would you think that Ptolomey would still say that the sun revolves around the earth, I doubt it very much!

When peoples beliefs are taken into account, they certainly can have a great influence on their science. One needs to look no further than Albert Einstein and his regard of quantum theory, a field in which he helped to start. His famous quote "God does not play dice".

[Chem]

Old ag said:

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.

Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.

I have to say that with regards to the great minds of history (Kepler, Newton, etc.), they are history. It was the belief of the day that the Bible was taken to be the literal word of God. No wonder they were creationists! If they were alive today, would they still hold the "truth" of the Bible? I doubt it very much. These scientists would concur that on the evidence, evolution provides the best description we have to describe the wide variety of fauna and flora, past and present.

When it comes to peoples beliefs and their science I would have to disagree that it doesn't affect their ability as scientists. If the scientists who are creationists actually set aside their religous beliefs and approached evolution as they approached their area of expertise then the situation would be some what different.

A very good example of the detrimental effects of belief and science comes from one of the greatest scientists- Albert Einstein and his eventual abhorrence of quantum physics ("God does not play dice"), an area of physics that he helped to develop. Do we stop investigating this area of physics because it does not hold with the world view of an undoubted genius? I don't think so.

One further point is that creationists have a great tendency to list people with Ph.D's who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible as if this lends credence to their cause. So what! They are human with all the baggage that goes with it. Experts are experts in their area of research. I have seen very little evidence of evolutionary biologists damming their area.

With reference to your original question, I think Jose has provide a succinct answer with regards to the use of evolution.

[Jose]

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3
...

Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).

It's always amusing to see these outright falsehoods not only presented initially, but re-presented over and over. Well, perhaps "amusing" isn't the right word, since so many people seem to be swayed by them. Yet, falsehoods they are.

We have already mentioned a great many things in which an understanding of evolution plays an essential role. There's little point in saying them again. If you want to read them, you can. If you want to ignore them, there's little that any of us can do to prevent it. The fact remains, however, that evolution has been extremely important in many aspects of the life sciences, and that it is the central unifying theme in all of biology. Sure, you can memorize little facts and ignore the Big Principles, but that's stamp collecting, not science.

It isn't very hard to look into the claim about Baumgardner. A quick search on Medline or on Nature's own search engine reveals that he has published in Nature, but not on the topic that is claimed. His own CV lists his publications.

Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "The effect of depth-dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection," Nature, 379, 436-438, 1996.

D. R. Stegman, A.M. Jellinek, S. A. Zatman, J. R. Baumgardner, and M. A. Richards, "An early lunar core dynamo driven by thermochemical mantle convection," Nature, 421, 143-146, 2003.

As usual, the publications in mainstream journals have nothing to do with creationism, but are about different stuff altogether.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism,
R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, and S. A. Austin, "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth creation/Flood model," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

D. R. Humphreys, J. R. Baumgardner, S. A. Austin, and A. A., Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood," "Dealing carefully with the data," and "A constructive quest for truth," all contributions to a "Forum on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics," Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 16, Vol. 1, 57-85, 2002.
( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... 7Forum.asp )

Again, as usual, the creation publications are in creation journals.

Still, it may be true that his catastrophic model was "featured" in Nature...as a discussion of its implausibility, based on the lack of any supporting data, and the overabundance of contradictory data. If this is the case, then it may not be an outright falsehood (and I apologize for suggesting that it was), but rather an intentional misrepresentation of the facts, designed to mislead the readers. This isn't any better than an out-and-out falsehood. Both seem to violate Christian ethics. Why do people follow these guys?

[LillSnopp]

This isn't any better than an out-and-out falsehood. Both seem to violate Christian ethics. Why do people follow these guys?

Perhaps they interpret it different?

Why do people follow Christianity? I dont know, as i dont listen to the words of Santa Claus or The Fairy Godmother, which for-that-matter, never seem to appear before me.

[rjw]

Gidday Jose,

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3
...

Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).

It's always amusing to see these outright falsehoods not only presented initially, but re-presented over and over. Well, perhaps "amusing" isn't the right word, since so many people seem to be swayed by them. Yet, falsehoods they are.

I detected a fair degree of annoyance in your response to this.

I can only sympathize.


Jason would have done well to have thought about the implications of the form of his own argument:-

“Science works perfectly well without any connection to meteorology. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules to meteorological phenomena necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in meteorology? No, not at all.”

Would Jason and any other YEC who cares to consider this argument seriously be prepared to abandon naturalistic meteorology in favor of Job’s claim (see Job chapter 37) that God causes these phenomena by his direct action.

I bet most would prefer modern meteorology to the Bible and the above type of argument would simply have no currency with them. They would consider the argument to be silly. Yet switch evolution for meteorology and somehow the argument becomes sensible and we should all interpret another book of the Bible “literally”.

Regards, Roland