Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?

With such time and effort given to the scientific study of the origins of mankind, I wonder if mankind receives any benefit from these studies of origins?Has knowledge gained through Evolutionary theory advanced technology? Saved or healed lives? Brought peace and prosperity? Has the Theory of Evolutions "discovery" practically benefited, or advanced, humanity. Is the mere knowledge of truth about the origins of the physical universe beneficial to humanity? I.e. if Evolution cannot be directly, or physically, applied to the technological or social advance of man, does only it's knowledge actually benefit man (giving purpose to existence, motivation to succeed, personal ethical advance).Also, if the study of origins does benefit man, does it benefit man as much as an equal advance in another field? Is it better for man to understand his history and the implication thereof, or to focus on his current and future well being? Why or why not has the study of Evolution been promoted as being of such great value?Please understand that I am here refering not to mere micro-evolution, which most everyone would agree is fact, as well as beneficial to man. Rather, I am refering to macro-evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, geologic and fossil records, etc. Things which a staunch Creationist would typically disagree with. I suppose, as may be obvious from the phrasing of my questions, the answers I would most like to hear will come from a more humanistic mindset.

Thanks for keeping it on topic guys. I know I was making a debatable presupposition by drawing a line between micro and macro evolution at the start. Really I just want the Evolutionists to show how the most debated aspect of the ToE are beneficial. What of the things Evolutionist hold, but Creationists do not, benefits mankind. Or, for the Evolutionist, if everything the Creationist argued was true, would there be any less benefit to mankind and it's advance. Hopefully that's clear enough. If anyone can think of a better way to phrase this your welcome to do so.SuperNintendo Chalmers: Is the Theory of Evolution necessary to the study of genetics? Or, if the Theory of Evolution remained 'undiscovered', would men never have 'discovered' genetics? Is our knowledge of genetics dependent upon our knowledge of Evolution?I apologize I am too narrowly defining the field here. Creationists agree with things that are current and observable. And it seems that these things which are current and observable are what is most beneficial to man. Unless historical hypothesis (ToE) of current observable effects furthers advance of current observable effects.This message has been edited by Dierotao, 04-05-2006 02:11 PM

I think it may be a bit of overgeneralization to say "all these benefits were developed by scientists who accept the theory of evolution", or "creationists don't make any contributions to science".As much as anyone may dislike AiG (myself included, at least in part), they do have a list of 181 current Young-Earth Scientists, as well as historical YEC's. I realize this is a small list, and I have no wish to begin an off-topic argument here. I just ask that we not make unfounded generalizations to support our positions.Note to self: Try not to make any more distinctions between micro and macro anything or your thread may go way off-topic.This message has been edited by Dierotao, 04-05-2006 03:02 PM

I did want to mention also that this is open to the many fields of study which Creationists (specifically YECs I suppose), disagree with. Not only geology, cosmology, chemistry, etc. But also socially or psychologically. Government, education, law...purpose, motivation, morality. The question is; how does Evolutionists past and further study of such fields benefit mankind.I would honestly like to hear some more Evolutionists responses (Creos stay out for awhile, you can let the Evos share for a minute before you butt it).
Thanks

Chiroptera
Percy
pink sasquatch
melatonin
Quetzal
sidelined
kalimeroI just wanted to praise the above authors for actually providing on-topic and well-thought-out information. Give yourselves a pat on the back.I do hope that of the next (possible) 234 posts, there may be a higher percentage of valuable information though.This message has been edited by Dierotao, 04-08-2006 09:57 PM

A couple comments on the "evidences" provided thus far:1. We may test on animals which are biologically similar to us in order to determine whether or not the product tested will work on humans. Most would obviously agree with this. The question is, has the ToE shown us similarities between humans and animals, or have the similarities between humans and animals shown us the ToE (at least as evolutionists would interpret it). If evolutionary theory had never been presented by anyone, would we not still have presumed that animals and humans share a number of physical similarities. And would not the discovery of genetics have further allowed us to make the presumption that those animals with the closest genetic makup prove to be the best for testing purposes? As animal testing has been done for millennia, would man not have sought to discover which animals are closest to humans without any underlying motive for proving the ToE?2. It seems some things are taken to be exclusively under the umbrella of the general ToE, without any possible existence outside the ToE. Could a moderate form of Natural Selection exist if the ToE were not true? Natural Selection is used as an evidence for the theory that all life originated from a single organism, yes? So if creationism were true, if life could not evolve between species, could not Natural Selection still exist in some form? Would men not have studied Natural Selection and determined the same benefits had the ToE not been introduced?This is the still the question I am pressing: If the ToE had never been intoduced, and all mankind believed that God created the universe a mere few millennia ago, with set species which cannot "evolve" beyond certain boundries; would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today? It seems the arguments then becomes more philosophical in nature; to say the ToE opens men's minds to possibilities which they would not have otherwise been open to. But then we would need to ask whether it was simply Darwin's theory which caused such a change, or if was the underlying philosophical currents of the day. But such questions are better left to the historians, of which I am not. I am simply pondering the possibilities.*Disclaimers:
It now seems to me necessary to further define my every word, lest I be misunderstood, whether mistakenly or purposefully. I still am more a philosopher than a scientist. If I have made any gross scientific errors above, feel free to correct me. It is not my intent to mislead, I only speak from limited understanding. I am also asking more questions than answering to any. If I have used the term "Natural Selection", "ToE", or "evolution" improperly, feel free to inform me of it. I intended to use them only in the plainest manner from my simple understanding.