Posted on 05/03/2007 5:29:50 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
I apologize to RCC for that ping. My post was intended for rrc. I was just one letter off!
The plain fact is that neither statement in any way alters the biological processes themselves, neither alters any man's ability to observe those processes, learn their progression, to understand what happens, and in what order. Whether the man is a humanist, an Islamist, a Moonie, or a Scientologist is entirely irrelevant to the ability to observe, record, and relate the particulars of that which was observed. And it is also irrelevant to the man's ability to identify processes that he does not yet understand, to determine the need for deeper study, and to devise specific methods by which to advance that study.
The theory of evolution is an organizing device. It explains the data better than any other hypothesis (that's why it is classified as a theory).
Heinlein said it best:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.
Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481
To assert that a belief in evolutionary theory would suddenly transform the man from scientific incompetence to Nobel Prize stature is patently absurd.
Nor would I assert such. The converse, rather, is true. Without the knowledge of evolutionary theory, a man of Nobel Prize stature would be reduced to scientific incompetence in any of the fields relying on evolutionary theory. It is an organizing device (as noted above), and without it there is a huge gap in our understanding of biology and several related fields.
The word “evolution” is emotionally charged. It is much more likely to find agreement with the common-sense expression “natural selection”. This can be said, because natural selection is seen around us constantly, in most competitive situations.
Two boxers fight, one wins and one loses. That is natural selection. The better boxer won. The cheetah catches the slowest gazelle in the herd. That is natural selection, too.
It may be fatal, it may give you a better chance to have children with who you want to, it may make your life longer or shorter. It can make you healthier or wealthier. It can even determine if your children are smart or dumb.
All sorts of things come into play with natural selection, and noteworthily, to the religious, there are many, many variables that are not controlled by the participants, and are even invisible. Things that people might call “bad luck”, or “acts of God”, figure just as prominently into natural selection as do the obvious ones. As does free choice. So again, it is a less contentious idea than evolution.
That being said, we can objectively note some of the phenomena of natural selection, things that impact us in our lives.
One I find interesting is the odd phenomenon of grandmothers dying in large numbers when their grandchildren reach some milestone in maturity. The grandchild graduates from high school or college and bam!, grandmother dies. It sticks out in the statistics.
It is very practical to know this. Months before such an event is scheduled to occur, granny should be checked from stem to stern, looking for warning signs of heart attack, stroke, and other quick killers. Then she should be monitored and even be given preventative medical care for a window of time around that event.
People *can* mitigate a lot of the problems associated with natural selection, and we do all the time. Medicine itself is one such mitigation. Christianity as a religion prides itself on defying natural selection to help those who need it.
People under the age of 21-25 or so, often do not have fully matured brains, which translates directly to their judgment. This is why minors can’t sign binding contracts, and shouldn’t be allowed to consume addictive substances, because it is much easier for them to become addicted.
And, of course, they as a rule also have fairly poor judgment about sex and other high-risk activities. Society itself tries to help them not be victims of natural selection.
But everyone is involved to a great extent with natural selection. It is an integral part of all of our lives, and it does determine where we as individuals, and as a people, are going in the future. Some of the choices have little consequence by themselves, but add up; some we can change; some can have tremendous consequences.
Imagine how things would be if we had elected John Kerry instead of George W. Bush? That, too, was natural selection. And a wise choice. And thank God.
My sister is an infectious diseases doctor. She certainly recognizes and acknowledges the importance of evolution to her field.
?
Those “scientists with relevant experience” used to visit my Breakpoint threads every time Colson talked about evolution. They were jerks. No cryin’ here.
Well! Isn't your all-encompassing knowledge breathtaking!
But before I accept what you're saying, kindly demonstrate you actually know what you're talking about.
Please name the doctors I got to and how you know what they know.
You appear not to have read my post or to be making assumptions that have no basis in evidence.
This is not important enough to me to discuss further.
Sheesh!
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the clinical practice of medicine. Would matter if in some research. But they make too much of even that.
You can call people who have alleged relevant backgrounds conservative if you like, but for real, they ain't conservative, and out here they ain't relevant.
I have been around the block, and the so called relevant backgrounders are worse than any mob names that you could ever hurl at FReepers.
Those so called "relevant" types, were in many cases, intolerant, smug, arrogant, and BS artists who have not likely done half the reading that this here particular High School dropout has ever done.
So what you are basically saying is that in order to be conservative, one cannot be a scientist with stronger knowledge of evolution? In all the years I've been here, the crevo threads have been brutal, but the proponents of evolution have consistently had rational, well researched and well cited posts. Creationists, on the other hand, have been caught, multiple times, essentially, and IMHO, "lying for the Lord." Being a creationist is not a requirement for being conservative. Like From Many - One has said, without techical people posting haere anymore, these threads are nothing more than echo chambers so the choir can sing to themselves. It's political masterbation.
Can you refute the above article and each and every point it makes on how relevant evolution is to medicine, not just in research, but in practice? The author makes many excellent points.
Let me just say I have practiced Medicine for 22 years and never in my practice of caring for patients has evolution popped into my head while deciding what to do to save a life at 0300, while delivering a baby, prescribing medicine etc. What you do not want is your physician who is treating you thinking “Now what would evolution tell me about how much lasix or dopamine this patient needs who is in acute CHF and in shock?” I really tells you NOTHING. I have never used the theory directly. I am dealing in Medical Science not evolution. I am treatin ill human beings not wondering how the human being exists at all. Guys evolution is not the “knowledge that MUST be known” to do most anything. Unless you are a research scientist doing specific research in a very limited slice of science is it even necessary to know. A physician would be better served by a class in world religions so they can relate to their patients human needs.
I am not saying that.
I have taken Microbiology courses, A & P, Biology, and a few others. I believe that I have some grasp of the debate positions
If I have to express a position then I will say that their Theory of Evolution is a "Scientific Theory." That is, it is not the word "theory" as defined by most people.
It is a poor description of an explanation of a vast collection of works that are intended to describe just what the cause, course, and processes of biological life forms are about.
Evolutionists, in the debate club, are coming from a position of presumed authority which is contrary to the "scientific method" and additionally they are it seems to me preset in their opinions on the matter.
They want it both ways. Darwin did not intend to explain "the origin of life" despite the fact that he titled his big work "On the Origin of Species."
OK, ,,,probably non sequitor, but still, the Crevo threads were full of know-it-alls who really after all (IMHO) never really were open minded, and on the other side a bunch of folks who could not argue coherently about the real aspects of TOE because among other reasons, they did not know what they were talking about.
The Bible states that God created Heaven and the Earth. It does not take more than a single page to get to that fundamental claim.
When people choose to debate things then consideration ought to be given to just exactly what the other position is, and where the adherents are coming from.
Do you mean to imply that the Evos were not largely condescending and arrogant out here?
If folks want to discuss the cellular structure of Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, DNA, RNA, Mitochondria, hydrophils, Golgi Complexes, reticular this or that then there is no real conflict.
When folks are intent on undermining fundamental beliefs and principles, then they have crossed a line.
The Evos may all be bright people, but they certainly have proved that they have no place in a forum that is intended for discussion of issues based on common sense and reasonable positions.
As far as I am concerned, the Evos can all get together in their little lab coats at some convention someplace with their nerdy little note pads and play with each other.
They are no better than the folks who claim that a third trimester baby is still just a mass of cells or as they euphemistically like to put it "fetal tissue."
I know a little bit about a few things, and as I have been accused of, I do not mind thumping my chest every once in a while, if that is what it takes to make a point out here.
Let's add current politics. Just found this link to the Republicans Presidential debate from last night on MSNBC. The question was "Raise your hands if you don't believe in Evolution."
The ONLY 3 candidates that do not believe in evolution are Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee. Watch the video yourself.
Those guys want to be President, so then they have to respond to questions and polls, etc.
Me? I rarely raise my hand in situations where head counts are being taken (yeah yeah, hand counts) and I NEVER EVER respond to polls of any sort.
I think that a belief in Evolution or ID has very little to do with being President.
On the other hand, being a judge in a Federal Court...now that is quite different.
I don't want my doctor taking valuable classroom time in medical school studying evolutionary biology. I want him focused on being a very, very good doctor at diagnosing me and keeping me well. Study the subject in pre-med if you like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.