Skip to comments.Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress
Posted on 11/06/2009 9:39:16 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress
Evolutionary-based research always begins with the inaccurate and unscientific presupposition that the Theory of Evolution, i.e. the Big Bang, the spontaneous generation of life, and common descent, is true.
Due to this systemic problem, scientific discovery and progress is severely hampered, not to mention the hundreds of millions of research dollars that are squandered every year.
In a time in which almost ANY alternative thought is given a platform, the evolution industry is silencing dissenting scientific evidence, even when its from fellow evolutionists!
See the growing list of dissenters and read the case histories of how the evolution industry is hopelessly locked in a battle with the Truth...
(Excerpt) Read more at whoisyourcreator.com ...
into your favorite websites list.
I see... so what we do here in the labs is called operational science? It uses the scientific method and that is what makes all the modern medicines? OK. What is done in our labs actually makes the medicines? That we seem to agree on.
Then you say that the Creation/ID and Evolutionists are separate things that are more akin to the underlying philosophy of science? Ok then GGG (btw do you prefer GGG or GodGunsGuts?), consider me an operational scientist.
I lean towards the evolutionist in only that there is much much more evidence for that deep past story. Someone finds me some evidence of a great super flood or Noah’s ark or can actually get God to come down and tell us how he just made the world in six days I’ll surely take that story more seriously. Right now it has way more holes than the Evo side. You know... like how women came from the rib of man. I don’t really see how that has evidence. Not totally sold on anything, I have an open mind, I’m just saying that one side philosophical side has more evidence.
Evolution Theoory discoveries that have led to medicines, products, or services? Crickets
Creation science does not produce medicine. Medicine is produced by humans, using the intelligence (On loan from God) given us, to modify or adapt life forms given to us to have dominion over.
When you get sick do you go only to church (or mosque, you know those guys are also creationist)? Do you just pray really really hard or do you also use evolution based medicines?
Evolution based medicines? You mean perhaps virii or bacterial produced substances that are medicinal in value? EVOLUTION is NOT Adaptation. NOPE, NOT, NEVER. At the end of the day, that virus is still (surprise!) a virus. It adapted, it did not EVOLVE into a higher form.
How do the virus mutate if not randomly? God does it? How do they select for survival of certain traits? God does that also?
Perhaps a little time in a basic genetics course would answer those questions for you.
Do we as humans even need to learn anything or try to figure our the world or do we just wait on God to make it so?
In your case, perhaps I would go with trying to learn.
“Creation science does not produce medicine.”
True. Using the scientific method with evolution as the dominant theory has produced and continues to produce medicines for people.
“EVOLUTION is NOT Adaptation. “
Changes in time of a species DNA and therefore its traits is part of the modern understanding of evolution. Put a species of bacteria up against an antibiotic some will live and be resistant their offspring retain this adaptation. I don’t know what you call that but scientists agree that this is part of the current definition of evolution.
These changes add up over time creating a wide variety in lifeforms.
Or I could just believe everything living was put here the way it is now in a day, including fossils of older lifeforms that are no longer present for no reason because God(or an ID) didn’t tell me why. Creation science hasn’t even given us a narrative other than God (or an ID) did it. How? What? When? Where? Why? More importantly how do I use that information to predict changes in the future and influence future events?
People use evolution to anticipate changes in the seasonal flu and attempt to adapt the vaccine to anticipate the most prevalent strains. Tracking genetic changes overtime in a life form that are naturally selected, the modern theory of evolution, is used with the scientific method to make the vaccine.
But who knows, maybe Pasteur's assistant had an unevolved memory or it was the Darwinds that blew into Fleming's lab.
How about an example ?
Last time I asked about this, you couldn't come up with one.
Remember, those nasty darwinists who were supressing a meeting ?
Sounds like the victim card to me.
Evolution says that an animal today (Whale for instance) changed from a completely different animal. Some land based hippo perhaps, now it is a whale.
A common dog ancestor, created, has been bred (adapted, not Evolved) into hundreds of breeds today. ALL are still dogs. None are now cats.
A species of crab in Japan have adapted a carapace that looks like a human face, as locals would throw them back. Now almost all have this trait. ALL are still crabs. None are now jellyfish.
If there was a gradual change from one form of animal to another, with the plentitude of fossils, where are those remains?
How? Why? ALl those questions, you’ll have the opportunity to ask one day, hopefully, I pray, not just before you hear “Depart from me, I never knew you.”
How do you use that idea that evolution is a non-starter? It lets you know that your cats later generations will not be armadillos. How will the Fact of Adaptation help you? In all the ways it has so far and so many more.
Do any of the countries that scored better than we did not teach evolution, or teach creation doctrine as science?
Here, I hope, is a Hot Link to the Creationist rebuttal site ....
Based on the web site this spam is from, why isn’t in religion instead of news?
The relative abundance of hydrogen/helium was well known before the Big Bang theory was formulated so how is predicting that which is already known meaningful? And it didn’t require a particle accelerator to find this out.
Still looking for YEC geologist who can tell me where we should put a nuclear waste storage facility, and why there and not somewhere else.
The examples are so numerous, whole books have been written about it. Here are some case studies from the website of one of the books written about the persecution and silencing of Creation/ID scientists:
And there a plenty of examples of jackbooted Darwinists trying to disrupt and/or cancel Creation/ID conferences.
The first article (below) goes to the mindset of the Temple of Darwin fanatics, followed by a few recent examples illustrating how their fascist mindset translates into actions:
In Oklahoma, Darwinist Choir Sings the Praises of Suppression and Censorship
Darwinists Launch Cyber Attack Against Intelligent Design Website
Los Angeles Premiere of Intelligent Design Film Moves to USC on Oct. 25th at 7pm
And here I was getting ready to write a long response to what could have been summed up in a sentence!
“Do any of the countries that scored better than we did not teach evolution, or teach creation doctrine as science? “
They teach STRAIGHT SCIENCE.
They do not dwell on millions of years. They’ll say, “many years ago” and FOCUS ON THE SCIENCE.
It is the UNITED STATES that focuses on MILLIONS OF YEARS and DARWING. The Pacific Rim focuses on SCIENCE.
NO, they don't! Check out Singapore Science and their Science curriculum. That's what we are using for SCIENCE. It does NOT dwell on AGE and DARWIN as the U.S. DOES.
“However, among those countries we are the only one with a large, effective religious movement in opposition to evolution. Maybe that's it. “
No, Science is NOT about “religion”. NO religion is discussed in the other curriculmns or Singapore Science that WE USE. Is it not a “religious” argument. It's all ABOUT DARWIN in the U.S.. Science is Science.
If the facts in those articles are true, you’ve made a good case for suppression being real.
If folks don’t like what’s being said, they should refute it, not suppress it.
I'd like a source for that, please.