Evolution is a lie: Christian nuts get company of Muslim zealots

Remove all ads!

Morgoth hit the nail on the head.

 

I'm guessing that there are not too many universities that aren't a disgrace in your view, then. If you have a degree, you better tear it up so that you can sleep at night.

 

Splunge, you might be right in that I might be too harsh. I'm actually studying my master degree at a university that was founded on the freedom of religion; and abused that freedom to teach according to teach according to a strict Calvinistic belief. In the early 20th century, universities became forced to include a science faculty to be allowed to carry the honorable title of university. Our university had great difficulties finding competent people to fill the chairs; eventually settling for a IIRC ~19 year old chemistry student who was still studying for his doctoraat (equiv. to PhD). After a few decades of studying chemistry, biology and geology the board adopted evolution without so much as a struggle. With shame we look back on these early days but we scholars try to be forgiving and satisfied with any conversion to common sense that we come across

 

There are an abundance of clinical trials that establish which antibiotics are effective and when. I highly doubt any doctor who comes across a case where antibiotics may be called for opens up a book on evolution to find out what specifically should be prescribed. Rather, I assume they rely on the results of clinical trials to make that decision. And I’m sure those doctors who are creationists simply say that god is responsible for providing them with the means to discover ways to fight infections.

 

My dad has a biology degree and is a Christian. He doesn't seem particularly addled, for what it's worth.

 

That is a leap -- the study of viruses and mutations does not require evolution at all. Mutations occur due to external factors, most mutations do not change the species and so have no real bearing on evolution. Testing on lab rats/mice has been done long before anyone ever thought about evolution. Observations are even now routinely made and cures found without the slightest reliance on evolution. A lot of medicine today is still trial and error -- sure genetics research and computational chemistry have pioneered much of the field, but you don't need to rely on either (or evolution) to make a medical discovery or cure patients.

In this case I would venture to say you are nearly as biased as the students boycotting evolution. I agree with your stance more than theirs but both positions take hard lines which really prevent the existence of a middle ground.

 

You have more confidence in the medical profession than I do. I think doctors simply make guesses and often go to a reliable standby for any ailment. Understanding does not overcome laziness.

 

I don’t see how believing in (or understanding) evolution is going to prevent a doctor from prescribing the wrong antibiotic. Again, presumably the doctor is relying on clinical trials. And if detailed clinical trials (presumably conducted by evolutionary experts) haven’t revealed situations where an antibiotic shouldn’t be prescribed, I can’t see how a doctor, whose level of knowledge of evolution is likely below that of the ones doing the tests, is going to conclude differently.

 

It doesn't matter why or how mutations occur, but the mere observation of mutations in combination with their heritability and them effecting positive or negative traits that offset that heritability, is the definition of evolution as Darwin defined it. I'm not talking about the origin of biological complexity, I'm talking about the evolution that is happening inside each living cell at this very moment.

Evolution is important for the study of viruses because there are viruses which use a technique called reverse transcription in which the RNA carried by the virus is transported back to its DNA form and becomes a template for virus reproduction. When that string of DNA becomes part of the host genome, it will in effect have mutated the host by inserting new genes that will produce proteins (which either have a good, negative or neutral effect) when the gene is activated. Some viruses cause permanent genetic mutations that are in effect inheritable.

Also, with the theory of evolution we have realized that the term 'species' has become essentially meaningless. The term refers to a population of homologous organisms that have similar properties. As effect, the study and classification of species is now directly tied to the theory of evolution; animals are now grouped by descent, not by physical features. Evolution has no effect on species, because 'species' is just an artificial concept that doesn't exist in the real world. Evolution does have effect on individual organisms.

On the mice. Really, the number of genes that we share (of which most are practically identical; heck, there are even genes that we share with yeast that are practically identical) is just bizarre. The fact that there is another animal that we can use as a replacement, is in itself a strong argument against the idea of separate creation and in favor of common descent.

A medical practitioner denying evolution is a bit like an accountant denying Peano arithmetic (Splunge, I dare you ). You don't need to understand it to do math, but Peano arithmetic is the formalization of addition and multiplication and if you deny it, then you are in effect denying that 2+1=3 (for example). I say that it is a bit like evolution, because evolution is a real thing happening in the real world, and Peano arithmetic, like addition, exists only as a concept (although some philosophers would disagree.)

Well perhaps I *don't* want a middle ground. I want universities to graduate doctors that only live in this world and who treat people using evidence-based methods.

 

Actually, I just re-read BTA’s post above, and I realize I missed his point; his argument is that people who don’t believe in evolution will prescribe antibiotics “just for the heck of it” even though there may not be any clinical basis for it, whereas someone else will see the risks involved and not prescribe it. I suppose that’s valid to an extent, but I also think that there’s enough knowledge about superbugs to give creationists as much pause as evolutionists. And then there’s T2’s take on it.

@Morgoth – well, this is this point where my lack of knowledge puts me in a position where I can’t debate you one way or another. Except for this:

Any accountant worth his salt knows that 2+1 equals 3 only if it is convenient for it to do so.

 

When did creationist doctors stop treating people using evidence based methods?

 

There are thousands of religious testaments that contradict what is taught in school. Why do people get so hung up on the evolution one? Anyone with half an eye can see that evolution is happening all around us. It's just not worth arguing over because it's so obvious.

Why don't these guys protest all the ancient history lectures as well, because these go against the principle that everyone and every animal in the world is descended from a few lucky couples that ended up on a wooden boat?

 

Vistigial organ development and throwback developments should be a reason in itself to understand at least the basics of evolution in a medical field. Skeletons from the past hundred years have differences that are enough to make an impact on medical understandings - it's also not too far back that such throwbacks occur in the modern population. Same is true for the past thousand years too, and even before that in some fairly unique cases.

The initial necessity and attempt of mutations should also be understood if only for depth of understanding on the human body and what an instance could be attempting to adapt to. Though not necessarily as a general medical practice, a more specific understanding I think would be useful.

 

I haven't been this pissed off on these boards in a long time.

Just because a doctor doesn't buy into evolution 100% as currently taught doesw not mean that said doctor would be a bad doctor. I personally know two Mormon doctors. They are firm advocates of Mormon theology and have held positions of high regard in the church. They are also highly respected in their fields. The insinuation that their religious beliefs somehow mades them less qualified to help heal the sick is ridiculous, igorant, obnoxious, arrogant, and downright ****ing stupid. I'm willing to bet both of my testicles and my kidneys that there are plenty of Christian, Jewish and yes, Muslim doctors around the world who reconcile their religious beliefs with evolution in a way that the sanctimonious atheists like Hitchens don't agree with, and yet provide superlative service to their patients. And people say I'm dogmatic? Jaysus Key-rist on a stick!

When a doctor is about to perform surgery on me, or prescribe a powerful drug, I don't give a flying flip if he* believes in evolution or not -- I want to know that he knows the anatomy of the human body, or exactly how the drug performed in trials. I want to know that other patients have been healed or at least helped by him.

On the flipside, these students are douches. They can sit down, shut up, regurgitate the expected answers, and move on just like the rest of the religious folks. But the continual smearing and insinuation that religious believers are somehow going to end up giving crappy care to their patients is not only a bridge too far, it's an entire continent too far.

 

Well I do. When a doctor denies evolution when there simply is no rational discussion possible about its existence, then I wonder what else he is going to ignore when it doesn't match up with his worldviews.

If such a doctor would be consistent, then he would not give you medicines that were tested on mice, because without evolution there is no inherent reason for mice to be ideal test subjects; the similarity is just coincidence. If such a doctor would be consistent, then he wouldn't know **** about cancer because cancer is a genetic - inheritable - mutation of cells. Which is something that you need to deny if you deny evolution.

If such a doctor would then claim that he does believe in micro-evolution, but not in macro-evolution, then he doesn't understand basic biological concepts. Just ask him what he think that a species is as opposed to a variety, and what he thinks that limits a variety from evolving into a distinct species?

Edit:

Ignoring the issue of evolution for a moment, do doctors provide superlative treatment when they withhold stem cell treatment, abortions, or various measures of anticonception?

 

I've never heard of Peano arithmetic at all. I like to think I still get on fine as an accountant. I suppose the relevance to this debate is that they can still do their day to day work without ever worrying about evolution. Though in college we're expected to study stuff at a higher level than we'll actually use. So I suppose evolution should be on a biology course.

 

I don't see the point in blaming an idea for something someone else decided to do with it. I don't blame guns for killing people, I don't blame concepts like greed for starting wars, I don't blame the "plus" sign for giving me the answer I didn't want. And while I'm neither perfect nor flawlessly consistent, these are among the ideals I try to live by.

So from where I'm sitting these people either didn't (intentionally or otherwise) think their priorities through or they badly wanted the attention of the school/public for some reason. Maybe both.