Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?

I see no benefits. The ToE is purely an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness. All it has done is undermine Christianity and the moral absolutes most societies used to depend upon.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 01:32 PM

For the umpteenth time, the ToE has absolutely nothing to do with such practical science. The illusion that it does is one of the saddest things imaginable.

Genetics is not dependent on the ToE and could have thrived quite usefully without it.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 03:52 PM

All he could do is the usual: point out that the way one develops vaccinations is by taking into account the rapid "mutation" of the organism targeted, which is now called speciation with macro implications, but is in fact speciation in the micro sense, business as usual.

Well, here's a thought about why. There aren't many of them, and they are engaged in trying to answer evolutionism. The vast majority of scientists simply accept evolution because that's what they were taught, and they just go about their scientific business without having to get involved in the dispute. Yes, I agree.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:06 PM

This is a complete falsification which has been answered many times. All that was rejected was the way the term "speciation" is used by evos, to mean macroevolution. It's a semantic headache and a big one, but that's all it is.The concept itself has never been a problem to creationists, it's the most mundane observation in biology that variations occur all the time and some are rather dramatic. This whole problem is strictly the result of how evolution has co-opted the language of biology to suit its own presuppositions, and forced creationists to sort it all out in order even to discuss their own point of view.The terms have so many meanings it is understandable there has been a lot of confusion, but your way of spinning this is simply wrong and unfair.

Fine, I'll drop out.But actually, all the points I'm making are support for my contention that evolution has not benefitted mankind, in answer to those who claim it has by misappropriating various sciences to the ToE that have nothing to do with it.Having said that, I'm done.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:22 PM

It's not personal, Percy, and it's totally on topic as it is an explanation for the historical situation that is so often misinterpreted. It's a statement about how the presuppositions, labels, definitions of the ToE itself spin things against creationists and lead to this kind of accusation that creationists are simply stupidly rejecting concepts such as "speciation" when the point is that the concept has been changed to remove the earlier understanding which creationists had no problem with.I suppose I could try to find less inflammatory language, but the accusations against creationists and the ridicule of creationists are rather inflammatory to begin with, don't you think?Nevertheless I do not want to get into a battle with you about this and unless I continue to get posts to me to answer I'm leaving this thread.

Creationist reasoning is involved elsewhere than the science labs, though there is no reason to think that individual creationists have not made any contributions to science. I agree with what Percy said, that creationist biologists have no problem dealing with the everyday science involving genetics and DNA or anything else on that level.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:32 PM

Wow, I almost missed it. The fact that creationist science is not contributing to everyday science is actually confirmation of my point that the ToE has nothing to do with science per se, the stuff that goes on with DNA etc. That's because the ToE doesn't operate on that level and creation science is aimed at the assumptions of the ToE. All this complaint about how creationists reject the benefits of science is nonsense. Creationists are arguing with the ToE which has nothing whatever to do with science.Having said that, goodbye for now.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:38 PM

I already answered all this on this very thread.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-06-2006 01:40 AM

That is correct. Thank you.But of course I don't regard microevolution as the ToE at all.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-08-2006 10:46 AM

I am not posting on science threads because the powers that be don't like my style, but I will answer this just to repeat my usual theme song, which I've certainly said often enough: Genetics is not the ToE. Knowing genetic similarities and differences between the different species is genetics; there need be no idea of descent implied. And this basic reasoning goes for every other accusation that creationists oppose basic science. We do not. Science is not dependent on the ToE.