Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?

The difference in the way YEC's and evolutionists view the theory of evolution is one of scale. Both accept natural selection and descent with modification, but YEC's reject that it can cause significant species change over time.Advances like inheritable disease analyses or bird flu vaccines do not derive from believing that large scale species change is possible, or that modern life shares a single common ancestor (or even a few common ancestors - from the YEC perspective there's not much difference). I don't think the parts of the theory of evolution rejected by YEC's have provided much tangible benefit, besides satisfying our yearning to know how the world works. This goes a bit beyond what Chiroptera said, since he granted the possibility of tangible benefits but chose only to comment on its "knowledge for knowledge's sake" benefits.I think it might be difficult finding tangible benefits that a YEC could see depend upon accepting large scale species change.--Percy Fix grammar. --PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 04-05-2006 02:24 PM

I'd like to put this in the context of my previous message. I don't think any of these scientific benefits derive from any science rejected by YEC's. What *is* extremely notable, however, is that all these benefits were developed by scientists who accept the theory of evolution. For whatever reason, those who hold the creationist perspective never make these types of contributions.I don't actually believe there's a cause-and-effect relationship involved in this case. I think that creationists don't make any contributions to science not because their perspective is wrong, but because they don't really do science. I think a YEC geneticist, were one to exist, would be as capable of contributing to the development of bird flu vaccines as any other geneticist. The genetic processes involved would not violate his belief that change across kind boundaries is impossible.--Percy

Wow! I'm a subheading!There's a little reply button beneath each message. Use that if you want to reply to a specific message.You're right, you don't want to lose sight of your own topic, so I'll just withdraw the comment. But if someone wants to open a new topic to discuss creationist contributions to science it could be fun. If you look at the AIG list of creationist scientists you'll see that it includes Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, Duane Gish, Werner Gitt, Russell Humphreys, John Morris, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling and Kurt Wise. Interestingly, Michael Behe is not on the list.What you're looking for is benefits that depend upon acceptance of macroevolution. Seems like it would be a very short list.--Percy

To all,Faith wrote this in Message 26: I don't want to debate the accuracy of this comment, but it does raise the question of whether the theory of evolution referenced in the OP is the theory as expressed by Darwin (i.e., Darwinian evolution or even Darwinism), or is it the modern synthesis theory of evolution represented by the combination of Darwin's theory with the science of genetics?Dierotao?--Percy

Lest we forget, it should also be pointed out that while the OP's title references only the theory of evolution, in the body it opens the discussion up to all areas of science with which a YEC would differ.Are there any benefits from cosmology? Astronomy? Geology? Paleontology? I'm having trouble thinking of any benefits that derive from aspects of these sciences that differ from YEC views.Maybe geology contributes the strongest possibilities. Don't modern prospecting techiques, whether for oil or water or minerals or whatever, depend a great deal upon geology's view of the planet's history? I don't have specific knowledge here, so I'll have to defer to the geologists.--Percy

I believe Faith was speaking in shorthand. She means that the part of the ToE not accepted by creationists, namely macroevolution, has no practical scientific application.--Percy