Should creationists be able to benefit from technologies from evolutionary biology?

I like to propose a new topic.Should creationists be able to benefit from technologies that came from evolutionary biology?This topic does not have to only include those that belive in creationism. It could include those that believe genetically modified organisms are wrong, but take insulin created by genetically modified E. coli. Another group at the top of my head are environmentalits that are vegans that don't care about explanations in evolutionary science why animals are eaten, but thankfully use this science when some ecological fact is needed.In mine and many of my professors' view, modern biology is based on evolution. What I would like to know is it ethical for scientists to deny the fruits of their labor to people that reject scientific fact. The same fact that may have helped create this technology. Is it also ethical for creationists to use a technology that was made from an area they are against.

quote:

---

I think it is hypocritical of these same believers to accept the treatments

---

So do I.First though, I personally think it would be unethical to not share scientific technology, even if you own the technology, with someone else. (Of course the problem of not sharing technology with people who can't offord the technology is unethical to me.) In terms of belief I can't see it as ethical to reject someone because of their beliefs, no matter how foolish they are.But I also think it is hippocritical for people to take a technology they believe is wrong and use it. Recently where I live there was a bible on display at a courthouse. A bunch of religious people where there to keep it. I was there to see that it was taken away. Anyway I struck up a conversation with a man that believed this was a Christian nation. I asked him his opinion on biologists and he thought they were evil and in the same catagory as witches in the 16th century. I asked about doctors because they are biologists as well and he said they were okay.This is a big problem. Some people are splitting the scientific community into two catagories. One group is doctors or other medical professionals that are held in favor because they heal people, but the second group, other biologists, are considered evil.

quote:

---

Who says a creationist’s beliefs need to conflict with ‘directed evolution’ in medical, industrial, or agricultural applications? I personally believe that an intelligent designer created all life.

---

Those that believe in creationism, in my opinion, would be less likely to use future (if they do happen) medical and technological advances such as embryonic stem cells or robotic limbs and bodies. They would be less likely to use these technologies because it conflicts with their beliefs which would then have to be modified or abandoned to allow continued use of the technologies. Lets say stems cells would allow the user to regenerate degrading brain tissue and a robotic body with artificial organs baths the brain with the things it needs. These technological advances would most likely allow the organism to live longer and maybe reproduce much more than those that don't have these technologies.A belief system that uses a higher power as its "force" for the creation of life will never be able to discover what life really is because the creation of life is supernatural to this belief system, in other words magic. Thus without an understanding of what life is, the creationist belief system would be unable to contribute to technological advances. Biology that has a theory of evolution as its core will create technologies that extend the life and reproductive success of the organism because it can find out what the cell really needs, and this extends not only the life of the organism but also the information that allowed it to make these technologies, the theory of evolution meme or model system.Creationism would eventually die out because it is not selected by nature. Creationism followers may refuse to abandon their belief and eventually become outnumber by evolutionary believers who live longer and reproduce more to an extent they are a fringe segment of the population. The creationism followers may abandon creationism and take in the evolutionary world view that allows them to pass on their genes more effectively. Creationist merge their belief system with the evolutionary system to an extent that they abandon some radical concept, maybe the human-centered idea that we have some purpose greater than other things in the world.This message has been edited by Kevin, 12-22-2004 06:13 PMThis message has been edited by Kevin, 12-22-2004 06:16 PM

deletedThis message has been edited by Kevin, 01-05-2005 15:40 AM

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

double postThis message has been edited by Kevin, 01-05-2005 15:34 AM

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

Ever wonder why most drugs come from the rainforest? It can be explained because of natural selection. When an animal dies it is like a new frontier is opened up to a lot of bacteria and they go to work on that piece of flesh. The bacteria grow exponentially and new bacteria species start to digest parts of the flesh. Spores from fungi land on the body and they too start to digest certain parts. Eventually with all this bacteria, fungi, and other animals competition gets fierce. To get a better hold on their resource some organisms, mostly bacteria and/or fungi, synthesize and secrete antibiotics and/or antifungals. The better the organism is at creating these chemicals that kill its competitors, the more likely it will pass on their genes.This brings me to another side of the debate that I think is very important. Drug resistance is one of the most biggest problems facing the medical community today. Drug resistance in pathogenic bacteria is mostly caused by people that don't properly use antibiotics. Either they don't believe in evolution and/or they are just not educated on how evolution works. When you get some type of bacterial infection your doctor perscribes a certain antibiotic and it says take all the pills. When you start to take the antibiotics the bacteria that are dividing are killed. As you keep taking the antibiotics the bacteria causing the infection are unable to reproduce at an exponential rate and the older bacteria die from "old age" naturally, which lowers the infection rate. The problem is usually at this point people start to feel well and stop taking the antibiotics thinking they will have some if they get sick again. Unfortunatly this is wrong because some of the bacteria that didn't die from the short period of antibiotic use are resistant to the antibiotic. These bacteria have a mutation in their genome that allows them to not die from the antibiotics. Usually when the bacteria are used as directed, these antibiotic resistant mutants are so few in number that the immune sytem can kill the rest. When you stop taking them before your doctor tells you to this makes some of the non-resistant bacteria only weak and prime for transformation (a process in which bacteria exchange genes in the form of plasmids) of the antibiotic genes from the mutans to the formerly non-resistant bacteria. In a couple of days or weeks you start to get sick again and take the left over antibiotics but they don't work because you have a drug resitant strain of the bacteria. Then you spread it to other people, and they spread it to others until eventually that antibiotic does not work anymore. That is why you don't see antibiotics around for more than a couple of years.This message has been edited by Kevin, 01-05-2005 15:41 AM

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

Have you ever had a stun gun discharged on you, it is painful. What most people don't know is that if you hold down a stun gun on someone for more than 5 seconds the person starts to urinate and shit on themselves.This is the most important part of that second article.

quote:

---

The idea of using an electrical current for treating venomous bites arose from a report in a local paper in Illinois, USA, of a farmer who was hyperallergic to bee stings and who found that applying a high voltage, low amperage, direct current shock to the site of his bee stings prevented his usual severe reactions.

---

And I though I new how to party! The key is that he was allergic to bee stings but found a way to skip the adrenalin shots by using electric shocks. Do you know what an allergy is? It is caused by an overreactive immunce system.If you are trying to say the immune system has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection, I believe you need to double check that. Check out B cells and see how natural selection is the reason how the right antibodies attach to the right antigens.

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

Sorry, i posted that right when the site was being updated and I kept on getting an error message. Didn't think any of my posts had been received.

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

Of course it has to do with the topic.A medical doctor needs to understand evolution if he or she is going to prescribe antibiotics to a patient.A drug researcher needs to understand evolution to know where to find new antibiotics in nature.If the business person knew how evolution worked then they would probably not cut down some rain forests to make a new plantation or ranch because they would understand that this area is one of the most competative areas on earth and thus where most antibiotics are created.

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent