Grizzled and I have hijacked Mr MEOWGI's thread, but I don't think we're getting anywhere. The hijack attempt has been foiled! USA! USA! I'd like survey the board's mindset on this topic. Grizzled and I will keep the other thread alive simply b/c we're arguing from two different perspectives. If you'd like to contribute to that thread, great. I am still curious as to what the board's overall mindset is concerning this topic though. Click a radio button, any radio button.
The other thread was going on for too long so I thought I'd post in this one. JV asked why it matters that doctors be evolutionists. I have a med school friend (Yale/Baylor background and she does understand the evolution theory but disagrees with it) who pointed out that as a doctor you cannot be a practical evolutionist. The problem is that there isn't a good reason to try to save/prolong the lives of sick people who aren't positively contributing to the gene pool.
Unless you are crazy like Carl Everett and think that the government made and placed all the fossils we've found, you should believe in evolution. Whether you think it happened alone or by god is up to you.
i don't know that this poll hits all the alternatives, does it? i have a hard time believing in macroevolution...that one species skips into being the next species...however, i clearly see how a moth, while remaining a moth, could change colors over years and years to blend into its surroundings.
Wow. Please let us know the name of this doctor, so we can avoid seeing a eugenicist! The health of the gene pool appears exactly where in the hypocratic oath? Whoa.
You should tell your friend we people who believe in evolution aren't killing off the weaklings. That's a fairly deranged argument.
I can't believe there are five creationists, you guys are really keeping the faith - respect! Props to da God!
Mrs Valdez, There are certainly some intimidating things about evolutionary theory (hopefully a creationist will take this quote out of context, that'd be sweet). There are some people who simply refuse to accept its dryness b/c of their egalitarian intuitions or as you have highlighted, their idea(s) that social darwinism follows from evolutionary theory. I'm familiar with those concerns. There are people like Phillippe Rushton that use evolutionary theory to argue for race differences... luckily his particular arguments are bs... but there are arguably still heritable differences between people. I agree that there are plenty of scientists that would squash this stuff in a second... I acknowledge that I don't know what we are to make of science when it does conflict our cultural ideals. What if science discovers sexist or racist differences? I don't know what we're supposed to do about that sort of stuff. "yet the science remains"... maybe I should study plants.
Please excuse my insanity, could you give me some specific sources I could check that provide fossil evidence for evolution? I had studied evolution at the University of Chicago, both in the biology department and in philosophy of science courses and our university didn't provide us with that sort of evidence. Quite the contrary, we were given eloquent arguements for why such evidence has not yet been discovered.
it might surprise you to know i haven't voted yet either! i don't think i can simplify it down like that.
But why do you need fossil evidence? Evolution is the best explanation for how all the different species reached their present form. Yes, it's a theory, and there may be changes to evolutionary teachings here and there. But how else did we get to where we are now? Did species just appear in their present form out of nowhere?
Sorry MadMax, I meant for the 'evolution occurred' to be a grab-bag of all beliefs... I wish that I could be more compelling in your eyes that the line between macroevolution and microevolution is arbitrary. I also am not up to date on the most recent Intelligent Design argument. The last one seems to have hit the snag that all of their literature that illustrates "conflict in the establishment" has been dismissed b/c of reading comprehension problems. If you think of Intelligent Design as 'evolution with God', then you can click on the evolution radio button (is there a way for me to add options?).
The point was that she isn't a eugenicist. If you try to apply a faith in evolution in a medical practice that is how it could come out. At least if you are a person who tries to be quite consistent. A great proponent of the the evolutionary theory, Daniel Dennet, in Darwins Dangerous Idea explores the problem in great detail.
no need to add the option...no need to say sorry...i don't know which is right....and it really doesn't matter to me. i do believe that God is behind creation. I don't know exactly what that means from a scientific viewpoint. But I have this dream of Heaven having this HUGE library where I can research all kinds of stuff like that...that's the lawyer-geek in me!
Every theory has problems, usually ethical ones. Hitler carried out the Holocaust in the name of religion. Muslims and Jews have been fighting for how many years? Just because something is rooted in religion doesn't mean it can't take on a dangerous path. There are religions, specifically Johova's Witnesses, that are adverse to main stream medicine.
