Evolutionary Ideas Are Not Important for Observational Science

AiG ’s Dr. Georgia Purdom, who has a PhD in molecular genetics, wrote an interesting blog recently that I thought would be good for all my blog readers to see. She begins:

The quote in the title of this blog post was the concluding sentence of an article entitled, “The Devolution of Evolution” in the science news magazine, The Scientist. The author, Leonid Moroz, is a professor of neuroscience, chemistry, and biology at the University of Florida College of Medicine. The author’s main complaint is that evolutionary ideas are not being taught in graduate school and medical school. I can personally attest to this, as there was very little direct teaching about evolution during my time in graduate school.

Dr. Moroz states why he believes evolution is not being taught: “evolutionary biology and biosystematics courses . . . have quietly lost their place of eminence . . . “outcompeted” by escalating specialization and the increasingly technical nature of many biological sciences.” Basically, what he is saying here is that observational/operational science that is important for everyday work in the lab (science that gives us planes, cars, medical discoveries, etc.) is being taught instead of historical science like evolution. He thinks this will cause a loss of “strategic advantage” and “long-term perspective.” But will it?

As he states later in the article, “Many, if not most, breakthroughs in biology and medicine have come by studying experimental models representing the entire spectrum of life . . . .” Notice he uses the word experimental, which is the heart of observational science—it is testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. This cannot apply to evolutionary ideas, which fall under the category of historical science and are not testable, falsifiable, or repeatable. Yet, read what he says in the next sentence: “The doctor’s pragmatic interest in healing and repair and the synthetic biologist’s ambitious dream to build a new life-form require a deep understanding of life’s evolutionary history.” Talk about a paradox! He just effectively refuted his previous sentence by saying that a “deep understanding” of a completely non-experimental science is essential.

I urge you to read this entire blog posting on her blog.

News to Note and the Ark Encounter

Our News to Note weekly feature on our website today has an item about the just-announced Ark Encounter project. If you don’t regularly visit News to Note, I urge you to do so as it will help you keep up with the latest relevant news about items that Answers in Genesis considers should be brought to your attention.

Also, read our Ark-related web articles from Wednesday-Friday of this week about the exciting Ark Encounter project—drawing headlines worldwide (we’ll report on the wide press coverage this Monday)—by going to this link.

Speaking This Sunday

This Sunday, I will be speaking at a church in the Brisbane (Queensland) area—at the morning service, and then giving two presentations in the evening.

I encourage those in Australia who know people in the Brisbane area to send the information about these meetings to them. You can obtain the details on the event page.

This is the only time I will be speaking in Australia this year.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken