- "The development of a vaccine for avian influenza is totally dependent upon an understanding of natural selection, molecular genetics and evolution. This is in conflict with the theory of intelligent design and thus provides a marvelous opportunity for proponents of that concept to stand up for their beliefs and refuse to be inoculated. They would also be doing their part to make sure that there is enough vaccine for the rest of us."
-Richard G. Fried, M.D.Kimberton, Pa.
The problem, obviously, is when we get into the realm of public policy, but I have generated a relatively simple solution of the "debate" between science and the Magical Poof Theory: any person who supports Creationism or "teaching the debate" is hereby forbidden to ever make use of medical or biological advances that have been derived using evolutionary theory and/or natural selection. Conversely, evolution supporters are forbidden to use any medical or technological advances produced by Creationism.
Whoever is alive in 30 years wins.
8 Comments:
Still being, for reasons that baffle me, rather fond of you, I hope you will not abstain from using medical advances discovered by or dependent on advances discovered by people inspired by their religious convictions.
You're missing the point, Aleks. If a person is inspired by their religious beliefs to pursue a scientific investigation, that's perfectly fine...I was recently inspired by an onion ring, so I don't much care where people's inspiration comes from. I don't have a problem with scientists who happen to hold religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs don't corrupt their work, and I don't have a problem with people who have religious motives for pursuing science as long as they pursue it honestly and scientifically.
Now, if a religious person comes up with a medical advancement that is driven by supernatural forces, I will most certainly be consistent with my proposal and abstain from using it. That was the core of my proposal: people who deny the existence of evolutionary forces should not be using inventions powered by those forces, and therefore since I deride supernatural forces I will abstain from using any inventions powered by those forces.
So if God really had told the priest that the antimatter time-bomb was under St Peter's cathedral and he went in and got it, you'd have insisted on letting it go off unless he could reconstruct how he found it in purely nonsupernatural terms?
I don't think I missed the point at all this time. If you can use a lifesaving cure derived from the work of someone you consider childish and loony, working under those silly motives, why can't a Creationist use a cure that works if it was derived from a science he scorns? They could just as easily say the scientific foundation was flawed but they'll use the result anyway to save lives. We're most of us astonishingly practical when it comes to our survival.
So, no exorcisms for zombiedeathkoala. Damn, and that would have been entertaining too. But, care to explain how the onion ring insprired you? Sounds like a good story.
Aleks- I think you did miss the point too. If the antimatter time-bomb was "found" using religous guidance, thats ok with her as long as a scientific method was applied. If God told someone the AMTB was under a church, and to just go get it. You would be sure *I* would at least not want to use it without first having some scientific analsys done of it. I guess the reverse should prove true too. If pure scientific research that depended on evolutionary theroy produced a cure for something, and the Pope saw it as "Gods Intention" then why not use it? But I have serious doubts about the religious process if something like that were to occur. Hell, I have serious doubts about the whole thing now, so its hard to not have a biased oppinion on the matter.
Since the Creationists will just give God credit for the discovery of the cure/treatment regardless of the method used to produce it (because they were praying for that cure), I don't see any situation where the religious will believe that criteria has been met. They will always think supernatural forces were responsible for the discovery.
CF
Slushpupie,
Her parents entertained themselves through Author's early years by letting excorcists try to fix her, just to see them run out of the house crying.
And noone's asking you to *use* the AMTB, but don't you want to get awfully far away from it, or get it away from you? Would you refuse to seperate yourself from the impending explosion just because the bomb's location was revealed supernaturally?
Aleks,
If God said unto thee "The Bomb is this palm branch, and it will destroy all of humanity" then no, I will not run, and I will not worry. If God "spoke" to some person in a way that gave them the insight to create such a bomb, that is an entirely different matter. Someone's motivation for something is completely independent from the process of creating that same thing. If Louis Pasteur figured out what was going on with rabies because God told him, that dosnt make his work unscientific. If he skipped the scientific method, and just took the saliva from infected dogs and told people to drink it (without any research behind it) because God told him to- I will abstain from that "medical advancement."
Good sir, if the bomb has a detonation radius wide enough to kill humanity, of course you shouldn't run. But as I recall it was just going to take out the core of the Vatican.
And yes, you're right, the priest knew where the bomb was because he faked the whole thing and put it there himself.
Post a Comment
<< Home