When comparing the evolution philosophy to the other end of young earth creation philosophy the usefulness of evolutionary principles always seem to come up as some, linchpin style necessity, to doing research and getting the work done. However, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see any area of modern science or the scientific method that would suffer from a creation perspective (unless abortion is considered cutting edge science). In fact, God fearing people were the first ones to respect GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s laws in a systematic way.
What is the "creation perspective"? How would you apply the "creation perspective" to biology? What can you do with? Can you apply it to genetics research? Genomics? Systems biology? Conservation biology?
For example, I've read a lot on phylogenetic trees (i.e. trees of evolutionary relationships) and how these get directly applied to biology. Everything from disease tracking to analisis of whole genomes to identification of new genes.
Can a "creation persective" be applied in the same way?
This issue of education comes up regularly. I would like to hear what we, as creationists, are missing from our intellect that makes us suffer, knowledge wise, when engaging in the evolution discussion.
This is a touchy subject and I'm going to try to approach this carefully. First of all, I want to make clear I don't think creationists are less intelligent than evolutionists or that creationists are incapable of learning or anything like that. Just that in my experience, in general creationists tend to have a far less degree of background knowledge in biology than evolutionists.
For example, on another board where I posted for about a half decade, I encountered all matter of creationists and evolutionists. The subject of credentials and knowledge would come up, to which I don't recall encountering a single creationist in direct discussion who had more than a high-school level knowledge and education in biology. In constrast, while many evolutionists in the forum fell into the same camp, there were also evolutionists who were either post-secondary students studying for degrees, masters or even PhDs in biology, evolutionists with PhDs under their belt already (including some who worked in research labs), and even a couple biology professors.
That to me was very enlightening. You had two groups of people trying to discussion/debate a topic (biological evolution). Yet the general knowledge, formal training and experience on the subject was greatly tilted towards the evolutionists.
And this became very apparent in debates. You'd have creationists show up who had read some anti-evolution articles from AiG or ICR, watched a H*vind video, or heard something from their pastor, try to regurgitate that information as an argument against evolution and then get promptly evicerated in debate by the most experienced and knowledgable evolutionists. In short, it was like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
So my advice to creationists who want to debate/discuss the subject of evolutionary biology: learn it first. If you've only had a cursory high-school level introduction to the subject, then it's not enough. Get some real books on biology and evolutionary biology specifically. Even if you find the topic unpalatable because you disagree with it, learn it anyway. Read journal articles/papers, too. If you don't have access, go visit your library or university.
I'm simply saying this because I've seen plenty of creationists get in way over their heads in these debates/discussions and make statements that reflect a very poor understanding of the subject matter. And that doesn't do them very good at all.
What part of science must suffer if Darwinian (microbes to man) evolution is abandoned?
The last couple decades of genomics research for one.
What aspect of our knowledge of biology couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be used from the perspective that sees the adaptation qualities and component similarities of living organisms as design features?
Phylogenetic trees would go right out the window and all related sciences and applications of which would go right with them.