Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Research requires money and a goal. Whoever provides that money expects results. In new drug discovery, evolution has a zero role. Trial and error are the order of the day. Many racks are filled with tubes containing diseased tissue, which are then filled with a new drug candidate(s). If something works, it’s on to animal trials, then human trials. Then FDA approval. Evolution offers no guidance. None.

So, what is it good for?
 
edwest said:
In new drug discovery, evolution has a zero role.
Click to expand...
Even if that’s true what relevance does it have?

It would be a sad world where research has to turn a profit before we are allowed to
discover anything about the universe.

The privatisation of scientific research (the applied sciences) has no relevance to the subject matter.
 
I have to conclude that evolution, as the word is used here, is about promoting atheism.
 
This is one of your jokes, right? It’s funny because you’d have to be really dumb to say that seriously. Very good, lol
 
edwest said:
I have to conclude that evolution, as the word is used here, is about promoting atheism.
Click to expand...
Why is that? And what do you think the natural evolution of species is that you would describe it as atheistic?

In order for evolution to be atheistic there would have to be no God. Otherwise describing it as atheistic makes no sense.
 
In my experience, young earth creationism has done more to promote atheism than evolution has, because it makes Christianity seem irrational and at odds with science and truth.
 
Atreju said:
In my experience, young earth creationism has done more to promote atheism than evolution has, because it makes Christianity seem irrational and at odds with science and truth.
Click to expand...
oooooh the irony!!!
 
Atreju said:
In my experience, young earth creationism has done more to promote atheism than evolution has, because it makes Christianity seem irrational and at odds with science and truth.
Click to expand...
Even if the Earth is billions of years old, that doesn’t automatically prove Darwin’s theory to be true.
 
Let’s put hypotheticals and the so-called logical derivations of assumptions aside. A small population to be sure, but there were two people in different university study groups I attended, who went on to be physicians and would fit that description. One bright young woman entered medicine as part of her commitment to Christ, the giving back of the graces she received through healing of the sick. Last I heard thirty years ago, she and her physician husband, whom she met in medical school were missionaries. I would trust her to do exactly what she was trained and had a calling to do. Likewise a friend who moved to another part of the country, your basic hardworking country doc, if he is still alive. He just shrugged when he heard about evolution, figuring any argument with science students would go nowhere. I disagreed with him at the time but completely respected his integrity and desire to do the best he could. That best was extraordinary by the way.
Bradskii said:
Your problem, as is the problem with the usual suspects on this dreary thread, is just the opposite. You dismiss authority.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, pretty much everything we know we get from authority. I will stick with what I know to be true. That has led me to see though what is held by many to be authoritative, be it religious, philosophical, political and scientific. Hopefully, what I’m stating furthers the discussion. I’m not sure what purpose it serves to call posters , usual suspects. I actually find the discussion invigorating.
 
What is it good for? No joke. 5 year old Billy asks mom what evolution is good for. Simple question.
 
So just to get this straight, you re asking for the utility of a branch of science that studies a long-term intergenerational process, but it cant have anything to do with history, or the incremental effects of the process, and must be understandable by a really stubborn 5 year old determined not to understand it?
 
Interesting rephrase.

Why Should I Think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true? Right now, there is no reason to believe it’s true.
 
I mean there are or otherwise the vast majority of experts in the field wouldn’t believe it. But I guess the opinion of a couple amateurs on the internet matters a lot more.
 
Atreju said:
So just to get this straight, you re asking for the utility of a branch of science that studies a long-term intergenerational process, but it cant have anything to do with history, or the incremental effects of the process, and must be understandable by a really stubborn 5 year old determined not to understand it?
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about genetics and breeding, nor about the existence of dinosaurs. There is good evidence that the average IQ is dropping in spite of improved nutrition and public health measures. A study found it to be the equivalent of 14 points since Darwin’s time. They held breeding to be the cause. More recent work attributes the loss to the toxic effects of pollution.

A theory of evolution which holds that we came from some sort of simian is relevant to the discussion in that it would hold that the apex which mankind achieved is declining. If we are reverting to monkey-men to maintain the dignity of humanity some degree of eugenics would have to be instituted. As we know a person through what they do, philosophical systems can be understood in terms of their implications. Excluding the actual science - genetics, microbiology, organic chemistry, which I have made clear is better explained from a creationist perspective, what positive end is acheived by our believing that we share a common parentage with animals and plants.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top