Re: In the News: New Survey Supports Evolution, But Critics

On 15 Jan, 19:52, "nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx"
<nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9 jan, 20:25, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

jspace...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"In fact, it can be shown that evolution has slowed scientific
advances," he added.

Oh, I want to hear the evidence for this. Should I get
popcorn?

Well what about a top 3 ways evolutionary theory slowed science.

1. Evolutionary science generally caused biologists to focus on well
evolution, descent, recreating lineages, neglecting the focus of
creationists on the intricacies of nature as it is presently.

the intricacies of nature are the product of evolution. Understanding
how the came to be cannot be done with out an understanding of
genetics and, yes, evolution.

For the
reason to refocus biology on nature as it is, in the late 1990's the
discipline of environmental biology was formed. It's not as if nothing
was done on the environment in the mean time, but very little was
done. Moreover the fundamental concepts in dealing with environmental
biology are the concepts of intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not a part of science. It lies in the are we
call faith and is another name for creationism. If ID advocates can
perform some successful science to back up their idea then then
they're in business. So far it's been nothing but dead ends.


Environmental biology
does not work on the foundation of Darwinian "blind laws of nature".
Partly this is because human beings got to be a large environmental
factor, and so human choices got to be a large environmental factor.

And what leads to human choice? The workings of the mind. How did the
mind get to exist - evolution. Our mental abilties where evolved to
deal with our environment.

But neither does any sophisticated model of any complex organic system
work on the notion of blind laws of nature. That's because often
increasing complexity runs parallel to a particular increase in
freedom in the system. And freedom does not sit well with the
hypothetical blind Darwinian laws of nature.

Freedom is a human concept - but for you you use it to mean
unpredictable - that's something different. That is covered by the
concept of complexity as in self organising systems.


2. Evolutionary scientists advanced the knowledge about gene related,
or racial behaviour, doing much work for insurance companies and
government committees on genetic health, but as always, they destroyed
the knowledge about how humans behaved freely.

Until you even acknoweldge the concept of nature vs nurture this is a
dead end for you.

3. They made science repulsive to the general public, and caused the
majority of people to turn away from science. By attracting a mass of
irreligous atheists, who seem to conceive of science as some kind of
way of life, and evolutionary theory as an explanation of life, they
alienated the general public.

That's only if you choose not to understand science. Advanced
knowledge will always alienate some and there are many good TV
programmes (especially by the BBC) that contain digestable scientific
information. There's also great books on evolution and general science
available to allow you to get over the gap that comes when you realise
you may not know as much as you think. In some males the ego kicks in
and they choose to attack those that have knowledge, like in your
case.

Evolutionary theory explains how life evolved, not how it came to be
etc. You have some very old views about religion and spirituality that
stop you understanding simple scientific concepts as they arnt as
mystical and enigmatic. I'd rather have something real than something
fake that makes me feel good - that's just self deception.

Stew Dena




regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

.

Relevant Pages