America, Evolution and our Global standing (tradition, choice, creation, experience)

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Evolution isn't just about the past.

Yes but will America truly go downhill if people don't accept the really old stuff? I can't see that it would.

Originally Posted by painted wolf

And yes, in genetics its important to understand the origin of our species and thus to understand the origin of our illnesses.
Our closest relations are Apes, we share many of the same illnesses, but then we also have a lot unique to us. Our evolutionary heritage influenced our predisposition to diseases like Diabetes, Cancer, Sickle Cell Anemia, Hemophellia and so on.

But these discoveries would have been made about our strengths and weaknesses anyway. We can in fact measure our similarity to the Ape and fully accept it without accepting pre-historic evolution. In your opinion, at a minimum, how far back should one accept pre-historic evolution so as not to 'damage' science and why? At what point does science suffer for a lack of backward looking and why?

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Honestly you can't have "contemprorary" evolution without "pre-historical" evolution. Or vice versa.

wa:do

Yet that's the perception science is up against.

Ok, say you were nominated by the scientific community to explain to a creationist how science would wither and America would slide if people did not accept pre-historic evolution. What would you give as a critical example of a piece of knoweldge of something that happened in pre-historic times, knowledge which then equipped us to birth a practical scientific application in the here and now? Obviously it has to be something that could not have been known any other way.

[painted wolf]

Yes but will America truly go downhill if people don't accept the really old stuff? I can't see that it would.

our ability to conduct reserch into the fields of Biology and Medicine will be hurt very badly, not to mention the side effects of lowering the other Sciences in public opinion.
It is our scientific know how that encourages our development. Science isn't abstract, it is the foundation of our modern existance.
Look at the people who shun Evolution... they often shun a wide variety of other sciences as well... Astronomy, Physics, Geology, Archaeology and so on.
China is just now really recovering from the systematic distruction of the sciences and educated classes from the revolution. They did so by sending generations of people to the US and other scientifically advanced nations.

But these discoveries would have been made about our strengths and weaknesses anyway. We can in fact measure our similarity to the Ape and fully accept it without accepting pre-historic evolution. In your opinion, at a minimum, how far back should one accept pre-historic evolution so as not to 'damage' science and why? At what point does science suffer for a lack of backward looking and why?

Almost all sciences are devoted to "looking back". Physics not only discovers new sources of energy but they also work out the fundamental building blocks of the universe and the conditions it was in just after the "big bang".
You can't understand the now without understanding the then.
Admiting we are like apes is not the same as admiting we are apes.

Ok, say you were nominated by the scientific community to explain to a creationist how science would wither and America would slide if people did not accept pre-historic evolution. What would you give as a critical example of a piece of knoweldge of something that happened in pre-historic times, knowledge which then equipped us to birth a practical scientific application in the here and now? Obviously it has to be something that could not have been known any other way.

Reccords of extinct animals led the scientists of the 1800's to admit that things go extinct... they go away forever. This idea, that god would let animals die out, led to a whole new understanding of how our world works.... it is the source of our concern for animals like the Calafornian Condor and the Giant Panda.
The reccord of the rocks put down millions of years ago, led scientists to the understanding of Plate Tectonics... this discovery helps us understand earthquakes and volcanos... this lets us help prevent deaths from such disasters.

I hope these two examples help... I can give more if you want later.

wa:do

[godfanboy#100002]

You're ******* me off. Stop with this non-sense. At least post some reason for making some offhand remark like that. I rid you of these forums! Be gone demon!

[godfanboy#100002]

God has a reason for everything.

[rojse]

I would like to know several correlations.

- Is there a link between home schooling and lack of evolutionary belief?
- Is there a link between religious beliefs, particularly Christianity, and a lack of evolutionary belief?
- Is there a link between a lack of scientific education in general and a lack of evolutionary belief?
- Is there a link between a lack of biology education and a lack of belief in evolution?
- Is there a link in this geographically?
- Is there a link in this based on what sort of schooling that a person received? ie religion-based schooling.

In short, I want to know why those countries are ranked in that way.

[painted wolf]

- Is there a link between home schooling and lack of evolutionary belief?
Unfortunatly this study doesn't cover that... home schooled children are difficult to test enmasse.
- Is there a link between religious beliefs, particularly Christianity, and a lack of evolutionary belief?
I don't see that... most of these countries are "Christian" nations, with state sanctioned churches. Secular but still Christian. Turkey being a notable exception.
- Is there a link between a lack of scientific education in general and a lack of evolutionary belief?
it does look that way. Evolution is an important part of a general science education. All the arguments over teaching it, implys that science in general is not a solid subject. If people are telling you your teacher is lying to you then way why bother learning any of it at all?
- Is there a link between a lack of biology education and a lack of belief in evolution?
There is certenly a strong corrilation.
- Is there a link in this geographically?
It doesn't seem so. Though with the exception of the US, all first world nations have a strong understanding of evolution.
- Is there a link in this based on what sort of schooling that a person received? ie religion-based schooling.
impossible to tell from this study. Though it would be intresting to find out. The Catholic church has no problem with evolution and I havent heard any big arguments about teaching it in Catholic schools.

wa:do

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

China is just now really recovering from the systematic distruction of the sciences and educated classes from the revolution. They did so by sending generations of people to the US and other scientifically advanced nations.

Yes, but with great respect to the people of that country it's no secret that their leaders embrace naturalism and evolutionary doctrine and official atheism to enforce what is a draconian nation-state. Good science doesn't cure all ills you know. Let's hope it makes a difference for them in the long run in more ways than one.

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Reccords of extinct animals led the scientists of the 1800's to admit that things go extinct... they go away forever. This idea, that god would let animals die out, led to a whole new understanding of how our world works.... it is the source of our concern for animals like the Calafornian Condor and the Giant Panda.
The reccord of the rocks put down millions of years ago, led scientists to the understanding of Plate Tectonics... this discovery helps us understand earthquakes and volcanos... this lets us help prevent deaths from such disasters.

I hope these two examples help... I can give more if you want later.

wa:do

Respectfully, I don't think these examples would convince a creationist that science was in jeopardy. We don't need knowledge of pre-historic events to know that animals can become extinct [but it helps]. Also, smaller time-frame measurements can give us enough information to extrapolate forwards for predictive purposes. Even if we had a brick wall in the way of everything that happened in pre-history we still would have been able to measure continental drift, the nature of plate movements etc and get enough data to project forward regarding crustal movements.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time seeing that working with shorter estimated time frames would somehow remove a lynchpin and cause much of science to come crashing down. But I respect your opinion to the contrary.

Not sure if you are interested in this (it's creationist and possibly biased) but I thought it was very very interesting in the context of this thread. Link.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Respectfully, I don't think these examples would convince a creationist that science was in jeopardy. We don't need knowledge of pre-historic events to know that animals can become extinct [but it helps]. Also, smaller time-frame measurements can give us enough information to extrapolate forwards for predictive purposes. Even if we had a brick wall in the way of everything that happened in pre-history we still would have been able to measure continental drift, the nature of plate movements etc and get enough data to project forward regarding crustal movements.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time seeing that working with shorter estimated time frames would somehow remove a lynchpin and cause much of science to come crashing down. But I respect your opinion to the contrary.

Not sure if you are interested in this (it's creationist and possibly biased) but I thought it was very very interesting in the context of this thread. Link.

You seem to be saying that we can use current observations of the world and scientific understanding to predict the future, but those same observations and knowledge cannot be used to extrapolate to the past. This strikes me as a logical inconsistency. If we understand the processes well enough to make valid predictions of the future, then our understanding of the past should be equally valid. If on the other hand the past is to be considered a magical realm in which the laws of science do not apply, then we have no justifiable reason to say that the laws of science will continue to apply in the future.

If you can reject what science tells us about the past without good reason, then you can also reject what science tells us about the future, and even the present, for the same lack of reason. That is what put science in jeopardy.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

You seem to be saying that we can use current observations of the world and scientific understanding to predict the future, but those same observations and knowledge cannot be used to extrapolate to the past. This strikes me as a logical inconsistency. If we understand the processes well enough to make valid predictions of the future, then our understanding of the past should be equally valid. If on the other hand the past is to be considered a magical realm in which the laws of science do not apply, then we have no justifiable reason to say that the laws of science will continue to apply in the future.

If you can reject what science tells us about the past without good reason, then you can also reject what science tells us about the future, and even the present, for the same lack of reason. That is what put science in jeopardy.

Excellent points FP. But they miss the point. The folks I was talking about don't have a problem with the future, precisely becasue they don't have a problem with the present. On the other hand, given the amount of times the 'age of geologic feature x', the 'age of the earth' and the 'age of the universe' etc have changed, we can't necessarily say that we are as good at predicting one way as we are the other. You imply bi-directional predictive equality where it is not proven to exist. Predictions of the short term future are very different than predictions (which require many more assumptions) about the long term past.