Good. Then we have a common point of comparison. My wife is an embryologist, working in a busy fertility clinic in the Midwest. As such, I am acquainted with a sizeable number of people who work in the Assisted Reproductive Technologies industry, most of whom are Masters' or Ph.D-level biologists or physiologists.
As a degreed person in his field of expertise, he says that there is absolutely no substance to the statement you just made.
I'm a degreed person in my field of expertise as well (U.S. History), and I could've made the same statement, and it would hold the same level of authority as your friend's statement. It's a meaningless assertion.
If anything, his daily lab work has shown him that evolutionary theory is unnecessary to perform his duties.
Not knowing the particular realm of your friend's work, I cannot comment specifically, but let me just say this - many real-world technical laboratory jobs don't draw much on the actual biological knowledge of the person doing the job. To be clear, I'm talking about practical non-research type work.
Having observed my wife and her boss at work on any number of occasions, I know that with the same on-the-job training they received, any reasonably intelligent person could do the job quite competently. They have said as much themselves. Thus, detailed knowledge of biology or evolution isn't really necessary for the job, and won't come into play on any regular basis.
I understand that people who believe in evolution will appeal to their own authoritative specialists in natural sciences.
It's very kind of you to allow us to appeal to those authorities. Especially since those folks are pretty much everyone in the biological sciences.
People who are inclined to believe in evolution because that's what "Dr. So-n-So says" are just as wrong as those who say that there is no credence to the study of evolution.
Well, they're "wrong" only in the sense that they're intellectually lazy, and haven't bothered to do any reading of their own. But then, everything that most people know is stuff that Other People Have Told Them, isn't it? Really, most of the survival of Creation "Science" revolves around people simply accepting what they read at face value, without bothering to check its accuracy, doesn't it?
Personally, I believe that science is at its best when it is like the marketplace...competing theories.
Yes, that's how we've arrived at Darwinian evolution as the best, most fitting explanation for the current state of affairs in the living world. Surely you don't think that when it was proposed by Darwin that it was widely and instantly accepted, do you?
I think that all theories of beginnings should be studied in school, including Intelligent Design (which implies some deity but not necessarily the Christian God), Creation Classic (Genesis/Flood Geology)[...]
Sure, I can go for that. Just don't present them as science.
Regards,
Snidely
That is the point I attempted to make...he is degreed in biology, worked for a few years in nothing BUT research (and some of the research demonstrated problems with evolution). And yet because he interprets data differently than the "norm" then his knowledge, experience, and expertise are wrong? I don't doubt that the bulk of biologists subscribe to evolutionary theory as the way, but they do so, in my opinion, because (A) that is the established paradigm ("Holy Grail") of scientists today (much like Ptolemaic Theory was at the time of Galileo...I find it interesting that the scientists of that day manipulated their calculations to fit their idea of how the universe worked instead of seriously considering Galileo's Copernican model. And it was the scientists of that day that convinced the religious leaders to accept the Ptolemaic dogma, thus the church's compromised views leading to the "heresy" issues...) and you don't mess with the paradigm, and (B) That's where the money is for research.
Not knowing the particular realm of your friend's work, I cannot comment specifically, but let me just say this - many real-world technical laboratory jobs don't draw much on the actual biological knowledge of the person doing the job. To be clear, I'm talking about practical non-research type work.
Having observed my wife and her boss at work on any number of occasions, I know that with the same on-the-job training they received, any reasonably intelligent person could do the job quite competently. They have said as much themselves. Thus, detailed knowledge of biology or evolution isn't really necessary for the job, and won't come into play on any regular basis.
I agree with much of what you have said above. However, I again clarify that my friend's statement regarded his biological research AND his practical application.
It's very kind of you to allow us to appeal to those authorities. Especially since those folks are pretty much everyone in the biological sciences.
The majority makes it right? See above comments.
People who are inclined to believe in evolution because that's what "Dr. So-n-So says" are just as wrong as those who say that there is no credence to the study of evolution.
Well, they're "wrong" only in the sense that they're intellectually lazy, and haven't bothered to do any reading of their own. But then, everything that most people know is stuff that Other People Have Told Them, isn't it? Really, most of the survival of Creation "Science" revolves around people simply accepting what they read at face value, without bothering to check its accuracy, doesn't it?
Not so. There are a significant number of scientists who are Creationists who validate their work. I will grant you, though, that there are significant numbers of people who simply spout off that, "Well my preacher said it ain't so!" Just about as many as shout, "Well my biology professor said it isso!"
My "beef" is not with the evidence displayed in biology, but rather with the one-sided interpretation of that data. All data regarding this issue is interpreted within a framework. I want people to be aware that there is more than one legitimate framework, and then let them decide which framework "fits" the evidence better.
Personally, I believe that science is at its best when it is like the marketplace...competing theories.
Yes, that's how we've arrived at Darwinian evolution as the best, most fitting explanation for the current state of affairs in the living world. Surely you don't think that when it was proposed by Darwin that it was widely and instantly accepted, do you?
No, but I wouldn't be shocked if we found out after reviewing history (your field of specialty, so you can let me know) whether or not the earliest adopters of this paradigm weren't looking for something to embrace that would finally allow them to try and "rule out" any possibility for the "Divine".
That is the point I attempted to make...he is degreed in biology, worked for a few years in nothing BUT research (and some of the research demonstrated problems with evolution). And yet because he interprets data differently than the "norm" then his knowledge, experience, and expertise are wrong? I don't doubt that the bulk of biologists subscribe to evolutionary theory as the way, but they do so, in my opinion, because (A) that is the established paradigm ("Holy Grail") of scientists today (much like Ptolemaic Theory was at the time of Galileo...I find it interesting that the scientists of that day manipulated their calculations to fit their idea of how the universe worked instead of seriously considering Galileo's Copernican model. And it was the scientists of that day that convinced the religious leaders to accept the Ptolemaic dogma, thus the church's compromised views leading to the "heresy" issues...) and you don't mess with the paradigm, and (B) That's where the money is for research.
Not knowing the particular realm of your friend's work, I cannot comment specifically, but let me just say this - many real-world technical laboratory jobs don't draw much on the actual biological knowledge of the person doing the job. To be clear, I'm talking about practical non-research type work.
Having observed my wife and her boss at work on any number of occasions, I know that with the same on-the-job training they received, any reasonably intelligent person could do the job quite competently. They have said as much themselves. Thus, detailed knowledge of biology or evolution isn't really necessary for the job, and won't come into play on any regular basis.
I agree with much of what you have said above. However, I again clarify that my friend's statement regarded his biological research AND his practical application.
It's very kind of you to allow us to appeal to those authorities. Especially since those folks are pretty much everyone in the biological sciences.
The majority makes it right? See above comments.
People who are inclined to believe in evolution because that's what "Dr. So-n-So says" are just as wrong as those who say that there is no credence to the study of evolution.
Well, they're "wrong" only in the sense that they're intellectually lazy, and haven't bothered to do any reading of their own. But then, everything that most people know is stuff that Other People Have Told Them, isn't it? Really, most of the survival of Creation "Science" revolves around people simply accepting what they read at face value, without bothering to check its accuracy, doesn't it?
Not so. There are a significant number of scientists who are Creationists who validate their work. I will grant you, though, that there are significant numbers of people who simply spout off that, "Well my preacher said it ain't so!" Just about as many as shout, "Well my biology professor said it isso!"
My "beef" is not with the evidence displayed in biology, but rather with the one-sided interpretation of that data. All data regarding this issue is interpreted within a framework. I want people to be aware that there is more than one legitimate framework, and then let them decide which framework "fits" the evidence better.
Personally, I believe that science is at its best when it is like the marketplace...competing theories.
Yes, that's how we've arrived at Darwinian evolution as the best, most fitting explanation for the current state of affairs in the living world. Surely you don't think that when it was proposed by Darwin that it was widely and instantly accepted, do you?
No, but I wouldn't be shocked if we found out after reviewing history (your field of specialty, so you can let me know) whether or not the earliest adopters of this paradigm weren't looking for something to embrace that would finally allow them to try and "rule out" any possibility for the "Divine".