jdavidb's Journal: Biological research, without evolution

As we all learned in this discussion, no biological research can take place without accepting evolution.

Unless you count this family, who have beliefs fairly similar to mine.

One counterexample provided. One false premise refuted.

Of course, the truth is that the other side wasn't using the same definition of "evolution" which was explicitly verbally provided at the beginning of the discussion.

(And, yeah, I'm not classing running somebody's distributed computing client as full-blown "research." I'm just saying it's clear you don't have to accept evolutionary origins in order to understand the progress of biological science.

Actually, that was not what you asked

[sam_handelman]

What you asked was:

Belief in evolution is not necessary in order to remain competitive in advanced technological fields. I'd appreciate it if you could demonstrate otherwise.


So showing one counterexample of Young Earth Creationists doing scientific research is not sufficient to disprove the assertion. This is also not a very good example, as they haven't developed this software themselves but are running it to study the disease in which they are particularly interested (my boss administers

Re:

[jdavidb]

Your response completely failed to distinguish between evolutionary origins and a belief in "microevolution."

Re:

[sam_handelman]

Firstly, to a biologist, there is no distinction. I'm aware that YEC mostly allow for evolution "within kinds", since that has been demonstrated in the lab over short timescales - but biologists do not recognize the existence of "kinds". The entire distinction is purely religious in nature.

Secondly, studying protein active site binding pockets generally requires an understanding of the evolutionary relationship between humans and bacteria. I don't think that would qualify as "microevolution" by any

Re:

[jdavidb]

The distinction I was making wasn't quite the same as the macro/micro distinction, which I'm aware isn't followed by the scientific consensus crowd. My distinction was basically one of time: I specifically made the qualification of evolutionary origins in my original journal entry. By which I mean you might be observing any kinds of transmutations between lifeforms today, but I'm talking about accepting the thesis that this accounts for prehistory.

Re:

[jdavidb]

Again, you don't have to *believe* anything. I know of successful Buddhist scientists who *believe* that the universe is all an illusion - this is not a hindrance in the least, but I assure you that they understand evolution.

For the record, if you maintain that belief is not necessary, then you concur with me.

But let me ask: do you think it's possible for a scientist to be successful if he believes the universe is 6000 years old and species do not transmute into one another?

Re:

[sam_handelman]

Someone could understand and use the principles by which organisms evolve and believe that it doesn't actually happen; I think that the congitive dissonance would be severe, however.