First, the rise of biology has nothing to do with evolution. (Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?) It may interest you to learn that belief in evolution actually fueled racism tremendously in the past century. Take a look at the subtitle for Darwin's famous book and you'll see the beginnings of this. The African man Ota Benga was even captured and put on exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in 1906 due to the evolutionary belief that his race was closer to the ape than Caucasians
36 comments
"(Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?)"
All of it. Like birds evolved from dinosaurs, reptiles evolved from amphibians, mammals evolved from reptiles, lucy evolved from tree dwellers, turkana boy evolved from lucy, we evolved from turkana boy.
"It may interest you to learn that belief in evolution actually fueled racism tremendously in the past century. "
It may interest you that the racist religion Souther Baptists fuelled opposition to teaching evolution tremendously. It may also interest you that Nazi Germany outlawed the teaching of evolution tremendously.
Now do you understand how tremendously wrong you are?
And American Christians in the 1700's-1800's thought that slavery was ordained by the bible, so therefore Christianity is evil.
See how that works? No matter what bad things you can try to attribute to belief in evolution, it doesn't disprove the theory.
Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?
Not until you can define a "kind". Otherwise it's absolutely impossible. It'd be like me asking you if you can group all plants into glotz and non-glotz without telling you what a glotz is. I know why you keep it vague like that: because then any time anyone sees a new species or even a new genus emerge you can still claim that it's the same "kind". What you sacrifice for that is the ability to have that word be taken seriously by scientists because in meaning whatever you want it to mean the word means nothing.
"The African man Ota Benga was even captured and put on exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in 1906 due to the evolutionary belief that his race was closer to the ape than Caucasians"
Forgot to sign - Alencon
"Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?"
Yes, speciation. Next question.
"It may interest you to learn that belief in evolution actually fueled racism tremendously in the past century. Take a look at the subtitle for Darwin's famous book and you'll see the beginnings of this."
In Darwin's day the word "race" was synonymous with "species" so the subtitle doesn't mean what you're claiming it means.
Even if what you said were true, it has no effect on the accuracy of Darwin's ideas.
"The African man Ota Benga was even captured and put on exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in 1906 due to the evolutionary belief that his race was closer to the ape than Caucasians."
Social Darwinism mixed racial theories with biology in the late 19th century. The result were some absurdities such as the "Human Zoo" in 1906 featuring the pygmy Ota Benga.
However this was a distortion of Evolution and strongly refuted even in its hey day by reputable scientists.
"Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?"
Flavobacterium, Sp. K172:
In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or, for that matter, any other bacteria), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts. - Wikipedia
No other of its "kind", however vague you would like to define that non-specific Jell-O word you expect us to nail to the wall for you.
FAIL!
"Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?"
How about your whole 'Yahweh made a man out of clay said some magic words to make him live, then took a rib bone and turned it into a woman.'?
No, a willful misunderstanding of evolution fed into an already existing culture of racism. Also, that's an argument from adverse consequences and guilt by association, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether evolution is true.
Human exhibits in zoos go back to the early nineteenth century, before evolution was thought of. Indeed, displaying humans as objects of display goes back at least to the sixteenth century.
image
There was also no doubt in anyone's mind that Ota Benga was human; he was on display in an anthropological exhibit as someone from a "more primitive" civilization than that of Westerners. Put that way, I can't help thinking that Jason Lisle wouldn't see much of a problem.
"exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in 1906"
Yeah, cause an American zoo in 1906 is the height of scientific achievement. You people constantly harp about how America was so much more Christian in the past, with prayer in schools and governing by God n'all yet you keep referenceing the shallow, bigoted offenses of the past, Christian endorsed, as somehow the fault of scientific endevour.
You and you fucking churches have forever fanned the flames of racial intolerance, religious differences and cultural practices. You're all doing it to this day.
@The Anonymous:You'd think for one of the few creationists who has a legitimate degree his arguments would be better than the same debunked bullshit with a layer of extra smug over it. Read a history book, Jason--those Klansmen weren't exactly supporting the evolution side of the Scopes Trial.
Plus, you might expect him to actually speak about the subject he actually got his degree in (Astrophysics). At least he could repeat the same old crap about NASA proving there was a missing day or something. He did try one about light moving at different speeds in different directions a few years ago to "explain" why we could see things billions of light years away, but i suspect none of the rubes could follow it.
Even if what you're saying is true and that somehow evolution being misinterpreted by someone made them racist or a group of people racist, that's not the fault of evolution.That doesn't make the concept incorrect. Same thing with eugenics and whatever else you attribute to evolution. Evolution is still true no matter what anyone else may do as a result of it. It's a process, not a belief system.If you're going to continue such an argument then it could actually be well used against the bible,and you wouldn't like that now would you?
Kinds are fun.
Polybaramins supposedly do not share a common ancestor. According to mainstream science there is exactly one (unless you dispute abiogenesis occurring multiple times). There is not a broad agreement in the YEC baraminology community as to how to identify polybaramins.
Some specific efforts have been made that I'm aware of, like a paper on snakes submitted to CRSQ and an attempt at identifying mammalian kinds on AiG, but the methodology sucks. For instance "The first step was to find out what the Bible says about snakes" in the BSG paper. In the AiG paper it is stated, "Although there is only one species, it is distinctive enough to be easily recognized by most people and will be considered a created kind here", regarding the Koala. However, other creationist work says life can have fairly different morphologies (e.g. cabbages and radishes) within the same baramin. They mention a relationship with wombats, then discard it "because it (Koala) is distinctive enough". I didn't see anything on how that proves that Koalas are a polybaramin with no common ancestor.
If they supposedly want to be taken seriously and published in /real/ scientific journals (ones where "the Bible says" doesn't count as evidence, and accepting baraminology as "just so" doesn't fly) they might want to fix that shit and do some serious editing. Then again, they probably couldn't accept any of the papers they get.
This is what you get when an astrophysicist talks about biology, history and sociology.
Read the book to find out what Darwin meant by "favored races"
Take a look at the subtitle for Darwin's famous book and you'll see the beginnings of this
"Favored Races" refers to cabbages and pigeons. "Races" refers to genetic strains - what we might call subspecies - not different colored humans, which are genetically indistinguishable from one another.
Yes, there'e social Darwinism, and there's evolution. Social Darwinism is based on the strange belief that "survival of the fittest" means that animals go around murdering their own species in order to survive. Interestingly, that's not true. The idiots that caged Mr Benga were incapable of understanding this. But of course, the inability to empathise with other humans simply because they have a different coloured skin and a different social background, existed centuries, or probably millenia, before Darwin.
Um yeah I can...
Dinosaurs
The long line of human fossils and how that connects to prehuman monkeys and going back even further to tree rats that lived during the dinosaurs.
Every fossil that dates back from before 6000 years.
And the developments in biology predicated on creationist beliefs...
Speciation, genetic engineering, chimeras, selective breeding and novel lifeforms such as M. mycoides.
It's not that developments in biology are predicated in beliefs inconsistent with creationism, it's that there's a very large body of actual evidence which falsifies creationist models. (You know, little things like the fossil record and transitional fossil series; the biogeopgraphic distribution of species; convergence of independent phylogenies; conserved retroviral insertions, transposons and pseudogenes...etc.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
