… Evolutionary biology does not contribute anything towards newer technologies or better medicines.
Your statement assumes that evolutionary biology is something real. That is a step in the right direction.
But you are still pretending to a grandiose God-like ability to know what parts of everyone’s medical education were important in them gaining their understandings. Since obviously you are not God, your claim is nothing but disingenuous hyperbole.
What I suspect you want to see is some researcher say, “Evolution shows us this biological change is going to happen, so I will concoct a new medicine that will do such-and-such.” Sans that kind of definitive link from the theory to a new medicine, you are going to keep up the “Nyah Nyah Nyah” dialogue.
But as has been repeatedly pointed out, that does absolutely nothing towards showing that the Theory of Evolution is not the explanation of the diversity of life. Scream and bawl and kick and have all the tantrums you like, the correctness of the ToE is not dependent on any person’s personal proclivities, on any society’s views, or on the actions of any group to suppress or exterminate another group.
(Belief about origins plays no role in real science)
Sorry, but you are not the arbiter of what is and is not real science. You and your wacko creationist buddies may not like it, but research into origins (on several levels – the universe, the earth, life) is a fully recognized branch of science.
In fact many of the technologies mentioned have direct links to creationists.
Lets look at some of the categories mentioned as examples of how evolutionism is the cornerstone of science...
Computers...Charles Babbage, creationist but not Bible creationist, invented computing machines.
I appreciate your specifically identifying this person that pointedly disagrees with the creationist catastrophic viewpoint. You really so desperate you need to shanghai this guy and pretend he is one of yours?
Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?
Cell phones...James Maxwell, Bible creationist, pioneered electromagnetic radiation theory upon which cell phones depend.
Is this the Maxwell that showed that a beam of light could be viewed as an electric field wave and a magnetic field wave whose waves oscillated perpendicular to each other and were 90 degrees out of phase? You know, where the equations showed that dual pattern of waves would travel at the speed of light, yet that speed was not defined relative to any specific rest frame?
Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?
Flight / airplanes... The Wright brothers who were both creationists invented the airplane after studying God's design of birds. some examples of the evolution of flight.
Fixed your mistake above about the Wright brothers. Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE they were conversant with enough to show it wrong?
Food... Modern day creationist John Sanford has inventions which improved food crops, feeding the world.
Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?
and even space travel.... Werner von Braun believed in a designer....opposing evolution. He headed the moon landing program.
Just a note here. He didn’t head the moon landing program, he was primarily responsible for the Saturn 5 first stage rocket. You know, the one that (as I recall) produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust, burned 15,000 pounds of fuel per second for the 152 seconds before stage burnout – the one that I watched a test firing of from a special observation bunker at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, and that later I watched lift into the sky on the Florida coast with Lovell on board on the first manned trip to and around the moon …
Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?
I don’t know if this was your A-team or not, but if it was, you really need to find a new game.
Would it help if I were to post a list of prominent scientists who have clearly expressed ideas incompatible with yours and that are within their fields of expertise?
