Does Biology make sense without Darwin?

[Subduction Zone]

So you can be a perfectly good Dr or Nurse or technologist or farmer or car mechanic
What would be the lack without Darwinism

and actually, if one cannot question Darwinism, is that an impediment to science? Science questions everything

There are diseases where the cure would take much longer to find or perhaps never be found at all. The fight against AIDS/HIV has depended heavily on the theory for one.

Earlier a comparison was made to physics without relativity. Newtonian physics is good enough to get us to the Moon and back, but it is not good enough for the GPS in your phone.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then there is the plain fact that biological evolution, quite simply, happens.

It would be possible to attempt to avoid noticing it, but there would be no valid reason to.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There are diseases where the cure would take much longer to find or perhaps never be found at all. The fight against AIDS/HIV has depended heavily on the theory for one.

Earlier a comparison was made to physics without relativity. Newtonian physics is good enough to get us to the Moon and back, but it is not good enough for the GPS in your phone.

No invention of practical benefit to mankind inherently rests on evolution to the exclusion of other creationary or intelligent design views... nada... zip

Genetics is common to both sets of views. Hey... but nice try.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Then there is the plain fact that biological evolution, quite simply, happens.

It would be possible to attempt to avoid noticing it, but there would be no valid reason to.

Both views believe in some types of evolution. A fish might lose eyes and become a blind cave fish. A darwinian finch might cyclically alter its beak depending on the food source available... but it is cyclical not a continuous ever changing thing. We even have effects of the epigenome where plants and animals are exposed to something and the next generation changes... but may fly right back if they are not exposed to that effect

A wolf might become a poodle by breeding but... ya can't go backwards... information lost

 

[paarsurrey]

Or fails to, far as I can tell.

Yet I think I see where you are coming from. And that makes one wonder why there is so much denial of evolution* in certain circles that swear to be motivated by belief in God.

They don't ponder on the Word to get correct understanding, so the fault is theirs. Right, please?

Regards

___________
* Word mentions and gives clear hint:
Quran[71:15]
" And He has created you in different forms and different conditions."
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 71: Nooh

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

No invention of practical benefit to mankind inherently rests on evolution to the exclusion of other creationary or intelligent design views... nada... zip

Genetics is common to both sets of views. Hey... but nice try.

Wrong again,. genetics, in the sense that you mean it is evolution. In fact here is just one article on how evolution plays a role:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414815/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both views believe in some types of evolution. A fish might lose eyes and become a blind cave fish. A darwinian finch might cyclically alter its beak depending on the food source available... but it is cyclical not a continuous ever changing thing. We even have effects of the epigenome where plants and animals are exposed to something and the next generation changes... but may fly right back if they are not exposed to that effect

A wolf might become a poodle by breeding but... ya can't go backwards... information lost

Not information lost, different information. It can't go back because one cannot work backwards.

You can't refute that which you do not understand.

 

[Jumi]

If you need some belief opposed to reality then you just need to fudge things and you can be entirely ignorant of evolution as most creationists seem to be. Scientists have to take into consideration what we know so they would also know what evolution is. They're not hung up on "Darwin" or "atheism" and wouldn't feel a need to attach them to every discussion on evolution. Why? Because lots of those "evolutionists" are theists.

 

[Jumi]

Creationists who fight evolution and physics are sawing the branches from under their own religions. And then they will blame the atheists when they see that their churches go empty. They could of course fight education and science as a whole. Ain't no way around it if you're going to go full on against a part of reality, you need to work against the whole thing so the walls don't fall in. Because once a part of it falls in, you'll be surprised how you've been fooled and quit religion altogether. That's why we have so many of these anti-theists who've left their religions.

There are healthy ways to have God and even healthy ways of keeping faith.

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong again,. genetics, in the sense that you mean it is evolution. In fact here is just one article on how evolution plays a role:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414815/

Ive been through this discussion with him, and provided a quote from "creation wiki" and still he continues to be dishonest.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interestingly there have been lists of the top 100 inventions in the last century and non of them inherently rest on Evolution

It is more interesting that you see fit to even ask whether there are any.

And then you do not realize that this claim is at odds with your own OP.

 

[Valjean]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Don't you think understanding the mechanisms of life would be useful in medicine or agriculture?

... if one cannot question Darwinism, is that an impediment to science? Science questions everything

Exactly. Science is always questioning its findings, looking for and correcting errors. That's what makes it so much more effective in advancing human knowledge, technology and prosperity than religion, which has traditionally suppressed these as threats to faith.

Does life interconnected make sense without a book you ask.

Since the tone deaf in religion argue with the tone deaf in science on this I suppose nothing makes sense to those types without a book!

Can you expand on this tone deafness and these books?

Seems like a problem of a particular region of the brain that's a bit self important called the intellect.

So intellect is a problem? Perhaps so, inasmuch as we're ruining the ecosystem, but if one wants to understand the world, it seems to me intellect is important.

Does Biology make sense without Darwin?

Didn't Biology exist before Darwin?
Darwin did discover "evolution", right, and we appreciate his contributions in this connection but human biology existed as per the system created by G-d before Darwin.

Biological mechanisms existed for millions of years before humans even existed, Our understanding of how it all works is recent.
As for God, He cannot be examined or studied, so He's outside of the purview of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ive been through this discussion with him, and provided a quote from "creation wiki" and still he continues to be dishonest.

Sadly it is to be expected. Believers simply can't be honest when their religious beliefs are threatened by reality. They cannot let themselves see the least little bit of evidence for evolution since they know that they have no reliable evidence for their beliefs.

 

[ChristineM]

Sadly it is to be expected. Believers simply can't be honest when their religious beliefs are threatened by reality. They cannot let themselves see the least little bit of evidence for evolution since they know that they have no reliable evidence for their beliefs.

It is a very sad way to live a life.

 

[Valjean]

Interestingly there have been lists of the top 100 inventions in the last century and non of them inherently rest on Evolution

True, auto mechanics and aviation don't involve much biology, but agriculture, animal husbandry and medicine do, and our modern lives have been greatly shaped by these.

Did biology make sense centuries ago?

In that we didn't understand the underlying mechanisms or the evolutionary processes that tied it all together, no, it did not make sense to us.

Would motor mechanics make sense without a motor car?
Would biology make sense without living organisms?

I don't understand your point.

G-d exists irrespective of what I personally believe or not believe.
Regards

How do you know that?
If you'd been born in a region without a belief in God, or with a belief in a different sort of God, do you think you'd still believe as you do today?

 

[Valjean]

No invention of practical benefit to mankind inherently rests on evolution to the exclusion of other creationary or intelligent design views... nada... zip

Genetics is common to both sets of views. Hey... but nice try.

I think you're conflating two unrelated things. Science studies how things work. It's concerned with mechanism.
Religion does not deal with mechanisms. It's more concerned with who than how.

Both views believe in some types of evolution. A fish might lose eyes and become a blind cave fish. A darwinian finch might cyclically alter its beak depending on the food source available... but it is cyclical not a continuous ever changing thing. We even have effects of the epigenome where plants and animals are exposed to something and the next generation changes... but may fly right back if they are not exposed to that effect

Religion, though, doesn't explain the mechanisms by which these things happen, it just posits an agent.
Cyclical? Organisms change as their environment changes. The finches' bills evolved to better exploit the particular environmental niches available. If you caught them all and moved them to a different environment they would change to better fit the new situation.

A wolf might become a poodle by breeding but... ya can't go backwards... information lost

How is information lost? Isn't it just rewritten?

 

[David T]

Biology without evolution is like physics without relativity. There might be ways of making sense of it -- in much the same way Newtonian physics makes sense of physics -- but they are not truly accurate or profound ways of making sense of biology.

Darwin isn't profound and not even original. Life interconnected was fundemental before writing developed. He only stated a narrative that modernity can understand. Nature is a container and inside it is a football game going on.

I would disagree with that narrative and neo darwinism as well. As soo. As someone challenges the dogma they are cast as anti science I am all about science and Darwin as dogma is nonsense that's not scienc

Don't you think understanding the mechanisms of life would be useful in medicine or agriculture?
Exactly. Science is always questioning its findings, looking for and correcting errors. That's what makes it so much more effective in advancing human knowledge, technology and prosperity than religion, which has traditionally suppressed these as threats to faith.
Can you expand on this tone deafness and these books?
So intellect is a problem? Perhaps so, inasmuch as we're ruining the ecosystem, but if one wants to understand the world, it seems to me intellect is important.
Biological mechanisms existed for millions of years before humans even existed, Our understanding of how it all works is recent.
As for God, He cannot be examined or studied, so He's outside of the purview of science.

Do you need a book to know life interconnected? No. To explain that I would need braille for the eyes. As far as I know the below is about as close to braille for the eyes that I know of. It actually literally makes no sense. But literally Is literally having zero talent.

 

[Audie]

Creationists who fight evolution and physics are sawing the branches from under their own religions. And then they will blame the atheists when they see that their churches go empty. They could of course fight education and science as a whole. Ain't no way around it if you're going to go full on against a part of reality, you need to work against the whole thing so the walls don't fall in. Because once a part of it falls in, you'll be surprised how you've been fooled and quit religion altogether. That's why we have so many of these anti-theists who've left their religions.

There are healthy ways to have God and even healthy ways of keeping faith.

And of course a scientist knows that as soon as you go
"-ism", there goes objectivity, there goes intellectual honesty.

 

[Wu Wei]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

Just a Note:

bi·ol·o·gy
bīˈäləjē/
noun
noun: biology; noun: biol.

1. the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.

Dar·win·ism
ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: Darwinism

1. the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

Darwinism is not needed to study Biology however Biology is needed to study Darwinism.

So to answer the question

Does Biology make sense without Darwin?
Yes Biology does make sense without Darwin, however Darwin does not make sense without Biology.

 

[Jumi]

And of course a scientist knows that as soon as you go
"-ism", there goes objectivity, there goes intellectual honesty.

Well modern scientists who I've appreciated at least have left their ideological isms at the door.