Intelligent Design

Evolution Not Crucial in the Life Sciences

Spread the love

Finally someone has stated the obvious: Evolution does not play a crucial role in life science research. Of course evolution, like the flat earth theory, does make some helpful predictions. But one need not have one eye on the evolution text in order to rightly do life science research, as Steven Shapin explains:  Read more

5 Replies to “Evolution Not Crucial in the Life Sciences

  1. 1
    JPCollado says:

    the first poster by the ID name of troy, responds:

    …it doesn’t take much knowledge of evolution to study the physiology of mice, yet medical applications of such work rely on the shared ancestry of mice and men.

    ha ha ha

    “shared ancestry of mice and men”

    This guy means the homologous structures that exist between mice and men, since I don’t know of any evidence that definitely points to an actual identifiable ancestor of mice and men. And just exactly how has this illusory ancestry helped with medical applicatons? The poster does not say. The study of homology existed well before the founding of Darwin’s theory and medicine was in the course of progression without having to resort to a supposed knowledge of ancestry.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    This is so true. its clearly true. More then that.
    Its of no relevance to modern biology, actual biology, to know or believe evolution of any kind.
    Biology is about living life. Actually living right now. Working complexity of living entities.
    The tools are things that deal with material that decays after a while.
    The tools for evolutionary biology are pick axes and dynamite.
    Its not the same subject.
    The latter can not claim the prestige of the former to back up confidence in its conclusions.

  3. 3
    Cabal says:

    Biology is about living life. Actually living right now. Working complexity of living entities.
    The tools are things that deal with material that decays after a while.

    Right, all life decays after a while; that’s the reason why scientists like Darwin and ever since up to this very day have studied real life from every conceivable angle.

    But aren’t you overlooking one small fact about biology: Life decays, but quite often, not before having left offspring to carry the torch, to keep the fire of life burning. Even performing some sophisticated biology in the process. But embryology is of course not being studied in Canada.

    So you don’t have microscopes in Canada? I know there used to be laboratories there; you know, places equipped with sophisticated, state-of-the art test and analysis equipment, down to Petri dishes and test tubes. With dedicated scientists doing hard work, while you pull solutions to the problems from you know where.

    And now they are all gone?

    Robert, please tell us where and how biology is studied in Canada.

    With dynamite? Oh, now I see, all laboratories have been blown up. Better get the RCMP working on that pronto!

  4. 4
    Occam says:

    Biology is “real science”

    It isn’t clear what point Mr Hunter is driving at in this blog, but maybe this alternate title captures the spirit.

    Feynman is claimed to have said that nobody other than himself and Einstein understood quantum mechanics. Or even more telling, “One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.” And yet physics research continues unabated, irrespective of such lack.

    True to Hunter’s post, Mendel probably had no knowledge whatsoever of natural selection, and yet nobody I know of disputes his contribution to life science. As I recall, evolution wasn’t even mentioned in my one semester of biology – the Sputnik reaction hadn’t yet had effect – but I had to do a multi-generational project with fruit flies and verify statistically the effect of recessive genes. It’s evident that one needn’t understand all mechanisms to make use of one.

    I suspect that the assertion, “one need not have one eye on the evolution text in order to rightly do life science research,” would be accepted without controversy by most, but this blog in and of itself appears pointless. Unless it is to bring life sciences on a par with the “hard sciences.” Okay, welcome, Mr. Hunter.

    Now I can hardly wait for the long-promised “theory of intelligent design.” Will it be somehow based on the above-referenced “flat earth theory?”

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    Cabal.
    Right about microscopes. yet they look at living biology.
    Not biology of fossils or presumed intermediates.

    Off spring of biology is still living biology.
    evolutionary biology is about things not living and so not observable or testable.
    Tools matter in defining ones subject.

Leave a Reply