Does Biology make sense without Darwin?

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to get into that debate - on opinion, in my opinion.

So you have no explanation for your willful ignorance here? Perhaps that is wise.

 

[74x12]

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

You'll do fine without all that gobblygook.

 

[Audie]

The theory does not have to have any practical
value.

I doubt there any use for our knowledge of Pluto.

The 6 day poofnflood really is a cheat, there
is so much that is real, and interesting to learn.

The JWs etc can short- change themselves, but it
is sad to see them let the children down so.

 

[Audie]

You'll do fine without all that gobblygook.

Did someone really say "dogma to justfy atheism"?

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"He cannot be examined"

It is G-d who is to examine us, we could only experience Him and perceive Him and know Him from His attributes* manifested in the Universe as Absolutes.
Science is a tool endowed by Him to the humans that is only useful in the secular while who evolve. Right, please?

Regards

____________
*Quran 104-105
[6:104]Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105]Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/6:104

 

[whirlingmerc]

The they
yry does not have to have any practical
value.

I doubt there any use for our knowledge of Pluto.

The 6 day poofnflood really is a cheat, there
is so much that is real, and interesting to learn.

The JWs etc can short- change themselves, but it
is sad to see them let the children down so.

Of course you might argue planetary, moon, stellar and galaxy evolution could apply
but lets leave it in the biological realm

 

[Audie]

Of course you might argue planetary, moon, stellar and galaxy evolution could apply
but lets leave it in the biological realm

And like art, science / discovery is among other things,
its own reward, worthy whether practical or not.
Zero to do with dogma or syheism.

 

[gnostic]

Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

First, there is no such thing as “Darwinism”.

The general term is just “Evolution” or “Evolutionary Biology”. But if you want to be more specific as to what Charles Darwin involved in, then the scientific term for one evolutionary mechanism is “Natural Selection”, not Darwinism.

There are 4 other mechanisms in evolution (other than Natural Selection):

• Mutation
• Genetic Drift (evolution based on frequency of allele)
• Gene Flow (eg 2 different populations of species, (for instance, migration), making 3rd species, hence it is related to interbreeding)
• Genetic Hitchiking

The “theory” of evolution is just explanation to the observable fact that species (as population) changes over time, whether it be one (or more) of the mechanisms involved.

Second, Evolution has nothing to do with atheism (or even with theism, for that matter).

Atheism is only relating to the question of theism, which is the existence of god or gods.

Atheism is more a philosophical position regarding to the question of theistic religions. It has nothing to do with science.

And you are forgetting that Charles Darwin has always being a Christian, with agnostic leaning. And most of the biologists in Darwin’s days, who accepted Natural Selection were most Christians, not atheists.

You are also ignoring that large populations of scientists (I am talking about biologists here), today, that understand and accept evolution, are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists.

Science (I am talking about all natural science, not just biology) should be religion-neutral, where any atheist or theist can study, do research or work in science.

What I mean by “religion-neutral”, science should be free of any preconceptions of theism (eg mono-, poly-, hens-), atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, and whatever religious or philosophical “-ism” are out there, because they are all irrelevant in science.

The major problem with religions, or more precisely, some religious people, is they can let their personal beliefs cloud their judgement, thereby lead to biases in their research with preconceptions of their gods.

For instance, Young Earth creationists and Intelligent Design adherents often make use of propaganda and misinformation, not only with taking science out-of-context, but with their own scriptures, through their twisted interpretations.

Natural science has nothing to do with both atheism and theism, because they (atheists and theists) are both personal and subjective.

Does being atheist or theist make any difference with being dentist or medic or surgeon?

Does atheism or theism make a person a better physicist, chemist, geologist, carpenter, plumber, electrician, bricklayer, butcher, accountant, manager, fisherman, pilot, etc?

Both atheism and theism contributed zero knowledge to any trades and professions.

Atheist just lack belief in god or gods. There are no dogma involved.

But getting back to your question. Darwin was a Christian, and he did biology as best as he could with the limited technology available to him, without his Christian background interfering his work.

Darwin (as well as Wallace) just took the first steps in modern biology, but since their deaths, Natural Selection have been corrected, modified and expanded beyond their pioneering works, with other mechanisms.

So “no”, modern biology cannot advanced further without evolution. In fact, it is because of evolution that advances have been made.

 

[Valjean]

Nope, it has been the unifying idea behind biology for over one hundred years now. Of course science deniers are often decades or more out of date.

It only took the church 350 years to acknowledge that the heretic Galileo was right, for example

 

[ecco]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome religious indoctrination.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome religious indoctrination.

The same is true for the non-religious indoctrination. Right, please?

Regards

 

[whirlingmerc]

First, there is no such thing as “Darwinism”.

The general term is just “Evolution” or “Evolutionary Biology”. But if you want to be more specific as to what Charles Darwin involved in, then the scientific term for one evolutionary mechanism is “Natural Selection”, not Darwinism.

There are 4 other mechanisms in evolution (other than Natural Selection):

• Mutation
• Genetic Drift (evolution based on frequency of allele)
• Gene Flow (eg 2 different populations of species, (for instance, migration), making 3rd species, hence it is related to interbreeding)
• Genetic Hitchiking

The “theory” of evolution is just explanation to the observable fact that species (as population) changes over time, whether it be one (or more) of the mechanisms involved.

Second, Evolution has nothing to do with atheism (or even with theism, for that matter).

Atheism is only relating to the question of theism, which is the existence of god or gods.

Atheism is more a philosophical position regarding to the question of theistic religions. It has nothing to do with science.

And you are forgetting that Charles Darwin has always being a Christian, with agnostic leaning. And most of the biologists in Darwin’s days, who accepted Natural Selection were most Christians, not atheists.

You are also ignoring that large populations of scientists (I am talking about biologists here), today, that understand and accept evolution, are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists.

Science (I am talking about all natural science, not just biology) should be religion-neutral, where any atheist or theist can study, do research or work in science.

What I mean by “religion-neutral”, science should be free of any preconceptions of theism (eg mono-, poly-, hens-), atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, and whatever religious or philosophical “-ism” are out there, because they are all irrelevant in science.

The major problem with religions, or more precisely, some religious people, is they can let their personal beliefs cloud their judgement, thereby lead to biases in their research with preconceptions of their gods.

For instance, Young Earth creationists and Intelligent Design adherents often make use of propaganda and misinformation, not only with taking science out-of-context, but with their own scriptures, through their twisted interpretations.

Natural science has nothing to do with both atheism and theism, because they (atheists and theists) are both personal and subjective.

Does being atheist or theist make any difference with being dentist or medic or surgeon?

Does atheism or theism make a person a better physicist, chemist, geologist, carpenter, plumber, electrician, bricklayer, butcher, accountant, manager, fisherman, pilot, etc?

Both atheism and theism contributed zero knowledge to any trades and professions.

Atheist just lack belief in god or gods. There are no dogma involved.

But getting back to your question. Darwin was a Christian, and he did biology as best as he could with the limited technology available to him, without his Christian background interfering his work.

Darwin (as well as Wallace) just took the first steps in modern biology, but since their deaths, Natural Selection have been corrected, modified and expanded beyond their pioneering works, with other mechanisms.

So “no”, modern biology cannot advanced further without evolution. In fact, it is because of evolution that advances have been made.

To some ideas like Lamarkianism (giraffes stretch their necks and so their offspring have longer necks), Darwinism (survival of the fittest) , Huxlyism ( survival of the luckiest) and to an extent Punctuated Equilibrium (like when the Flash says I did it... so fast you couldnt see it... want me to do it again?) are all a bit different as far as evolution

( But by title of his book "Origins of the species in the struggle for life and the preservation of favored races" with the nast comments in the book about the Irish, Asians and Africans is also social Darwinism leaning and so... not even only biological )

 

[ecco]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome religious indoctrination.

The same is true for the non-religious indoctrination. Right, please?

Regards

If there were such a thing as non-religious indoctrination then you would be correct.

Let's compare.
Many religious people display religious symbols and pictures in their homes. There are no atheistic symbols to display.

Religious people regularly take their infants, toddlers and adolescents to churches, listen to sermons, sing songs praising god and pray to him. There are no places where parents take their infants and toddlers and inculcate them with atheistic philosophy.

Religious people regularly take/send their infants, toddlers and adolescents to Bible classes and Sunday schools to further instill into them the concept of God. There are no places where parents take their infants and toddlers and inculcate them with atheistic philosophy.

Many religious people say prayers at meals and when putting their young to bed. Atheists do not remind their children at each meal and before going to bed that there is no god.

School age children, in the US, pledge their allegiance to their Country "Under God".

That'll do for a start.

 

[Valjean]

The same is true for the non-religious indoctrination. Right, please?

What would non-religious indoctrination be, please?

To some ideas like Lamarkianism (giraffes stretch their necks and so their offspring have longer necks), Darwinism (survival of the fittest) , Huxlyism ( survival of the luckiest) and to an extent Punctuated Equilibrium (like when the Flash says I did it... so fast you couldnt see it... want me to do it again?) are all a bit different as far as evolution

Lamarkianism has long been discredited, and never actually proposed a mechanism. Darwinism is a creationist invention. Huxley was a proponent of Darwin's Natural Selection, so they're essentially in agreement. Punctuated equilibrium isn't a separate theory, just a tweak of established ToE.

( But by title of his book "Origins of the species in the struggle for life and the preservation of favored races" with the nast comments in the book about the Irish, Asians and Africans is also social Darwinism leaning and so... not even only biological )

What does this have to do with biology, though?

 

[paarsurrey]

What would non-religious indoctrination be, please?
Lamarkianism has long been discredited, and never actually proposed a mechanism. Darwinism is a creationist invention. Huxley was a proponent of Darwin's Natural Selection, so they're essentially in agreement. Punctuated equilibrium isn't a separate theory, just a tweak of established ToE.

What does this have to do with biology, though?

Like Atheism celebrities/leaders suggesting to their people to:

• to ridicule religions and their followers
• to deride religions and their followers
• to not respect human being just for being just humans and floating the idea that only to respect such person who earn it.

etc,etc.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[whirlingmerc]

What would non-religious indoctrination be, please?
Lamarkianism has long been discredited, and never actually proposed a mechanism. Darwinism is a creationist invention. Huxley was a proponent of Darwin's Natural Selection, so they're essentially in agreement. Punctuated equilibrium isn't a separate theory, just a tweak of established ToE.

What does this have to do with biology, though?

It's clarification that the various theories emphasized things differently

Like the biology of Haekle's embryos often quoted ideas even when I was in school... although discredited as a fraud 150 years earlier.... go figure

"Ontology recapitulated phylogeny" nice sound but fanciful and wrong. Even Carl Sagan fell for that one


sad sad sad
see https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2014/07/07/nobody-loves-science/

Ernst Haeckel holding that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” meaning that the developing human embryo passes through stages recreating the evolutionary descent of man from ancestral species. Professor Haeckel supported this view with anatomical drawings now known to be inaccurate, sometimes extremely so, and even considered fraudulent by his less charitable critics. His theory has been known to be erroneous for decades and was as dead as fried chicken among scientists by the middle of the 20th century, but the theory and the inaccurate drawings still crop up in science textbooks; indeed, they appeared in my own eighth-grade text. But Professor Haeckel’s pseudoscience is not being inflicted only on junior-high students with out-of-date textbooks. Professor Sagan relied upon embryonic recapitulation for a 1990 essay in that noted scientific journal Parade, in which he presented superficial Haeckelesque embryonic observations — “looks a little like a segmented worm,” “something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian,” “reptilian face,” “mammalian but somewhat piglike,” “the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human,” etc. — to argue for abortion. Drawing ethical conclusions out of good scientific knowledge is difficult enough if not impossible; drawing them out of scientific error is a cardinal intellectual sin. Professor Sagan was wrong about the science, but if the dispute is framed as Carl Sagan vs. the Bible-thumpers, that does not matter — nobody f*****g cares about science; they care about winning.

In the same essay, Professor Sagan presents clumsy mistruths about U.S. abortion law and grossly inaccurate observations about fetal brain development. This is not entirely surprising: Carl Sagan was an astronomer with no special expertise in fetal development or law.

 

[Valjean]

It's clarification that the various theories emphasized things differently

Like the biology of Haekle's embryos often quoted ideas even when I was in school... although discredited as a fraud 150 years earlier.... go figure

"Ontology recapitulated phylogeny" nice sound but fanciful and wrong. Even Carl Sagan fell for that one

But there is only one theory of evolution.

 

[Audie]

It's clarification that the various theories emphasized things differently

Like the biology of Haekle's embryos often quoted ideas even when I was in school... although discredited as a fraud 150 years earlier.... go figure

"Ontology recapitulated phylogeny" nice sound but fanciful and wrong. Even Carl Sagan fell for that one


sad sad sad
see https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2014/07/07/nobody-loves-science/

Ernst Haeckel holding that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” meaning that the developing human embryo passes through stages recreating the evolutionary descent of man from ancestral species. Professor Haeckel supported this view with anatomical drawings now known to be inaccurate, sometimes extremely so, and even considered fraudulent by his less charitable critics. His theory has been known to be erroneous for decades and was as dead as fried chicken among scientists by the middle of the 20th century, but the theory and the inaccurate drawings still crop up in science textbooks; indeed, they appeared in my own eighth-grade text. But Professor Haeckel’s pseudoscience is not being inflicted only on junior-high students with out-of-date textbooks. Professor Sagan relied upon embryonic recapitulation for a 1990 essay in that noted scientific journal Parade, in which he presented superficial Haeckelesque embryonic observations — “looks a little like a segmented worm,” “something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian,” “reptilian face,” “mammalian but somewhat piglike,” “the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human,” etc. — to argue for abortion. Drawing ethical conclusions out of good scientific knowledge is difficult enough if not impossible; drawing them out of scientific error is a cardinal intellectual sin. Professor Sagan was wrong about the science, but if the dispute is framed as Carl Sagan vs. the Bible-thumpers, that does not matter — nobody f*****g cares about science; they care about winning.

In the same essay, Professor Sagan presents clumsy mistruths about U.S. abortion law and grossly inaccurate observations about fetal brain development. This is not entirely surprising: Carl Sagan was an astronomer with no special expertise in fetal development or law.

Of course, all you have done is to misrepresent
Dr. H as a "fraud", and then post an op ed that in
no way argues against the validity of ToE.

For that one needs facts, not opinions.

You may be aware of the belief that there were
canals on Mars. That turned out not to be the
case.

I expect by creationist standards, that would be
fraud, and disqualify all of astronomy from being
acceptable science.

 

[Audie]

But there is only one theory of evolution.

Lets see if that clarifies things.

 

[Audie]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome religious indoctrination.

Depends on how deep it struck. I do know a
recovering Catholic.