rationalskepticism.org

rEvolutionist wrote:It's an interesting concept this thread. I'm sure there are specific cases of where the ToE has lead to advances, but I can't say i've ever really viewed the theory in that light. ToE addresses (to most extents) where we come from. The 'where do I/we come from' has got to be one of the most innate questions humans have always probably asked themselves. That's probably also why religion and superstition is so rife. I'd don't view the theory as needing to have practical advances to be of great worth in and of itself. I think it addresses many fundamental question of what it means to be human and part of the animal kingdom. That in itself makes it totally worthwhile in my mind, even if it contributed nothing of practical value whatsoever.

I agree, I wouldn't touch anything like this thread's kind of thinking in a debate about the theory's accuracy compared to Creationism. The logical fallacy would be identical to Ben Stein's Nazi concentration camp schtick in "Expelled", and to one of the ones the race deniers are pulling in the race denial thread right here at this forum, in which they claim that admitting the fact that there are human races equals being a racist and wanting to oppress some races and/or enforce breeding programs for racial purity. In those cases, since they're done in a negative way, there's also poisoning-the-well going on, but even without that aspect of it, the core claim that they have in common with defending evolution based on positive things we've done with it is that a statement's accuracy or inaccuracy can be determined from how we feel about its alleged results or purpose.

But, in this case, we're not trying to use this to debate Creationists, just coming up with examples because it's interesting, so that objection doesn't apply...