Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should creationists be able to benefit from technologies from evolutionary biology?
Kevin
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 35 (170934)
12-22-2004 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by umliak
12-21-2004 12:15 PM


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 PM
This message has been edited by Kevin, 12-22-2004 06:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by umliak, posted 12-21-2004 12:15 PM umliak has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jokun, posted 12-23-2004 12:16 PM Kevin has not replied

  
jokun
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 35 (171122)
12-23-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Quetzal
12-22-2004 5:27 PM


I'll do my best to answer your questions. I'm also posting the link to an article published by Jehovah's Witnesses on the subject that may answer your questions with more detail than I can here.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_01.htm
1. Witnesses as a whole do not accept transfusions of whole blood, or it's main components (plasma, red cells, white cell, and platelets), including a person's own blood (IOW, we wouldn't store our own blood aside for later use in an operation). There are now, however, many different treatments and medicines that are made from blood fractions derived from these main components. The choice of whether or not to accept these is a matter of conscience for the individual person.
This view is based on an understanding of the scriptures below:
Command given to Noah regarding blood
Gen. 9:3-5
Command given to the Israelites against eating blood, and the significance of it, blood being more than just a bodily fluid in God's eyes-
Leviticus 17:10-14
Instructions given to the early Christians, affirming God's view of the importance of blood, told to "keep abstaining from blood"
Acts 15:22-29
Acts 21:25
Given blood's importance in the bible, we consider any way of taking it into the body in violation of God's view. Witnesses are a unified people worldwide, and we consider this to be a very important part of our beliefs.
2. We do carry cards that clearly state our stand on blood transfusions in the event of an accident or emergency. These are signed and dated by the carrier as well as two witnesses. We also have the option to, and are encouraged to, prepare an advance written medical directive to state our stand on blood transfusions, but also to clearly indicate which blood fractions one's conscience would allow them take. That, again, is a personal decision.
3. I think it's important to state first that Jehovah's Witnesses are in no way opposed to medical treatment, and would seek the best possible medical care for our children. The conflict arises when hospitals and/or courts attempt to force a procedure that we consider to be unacceptable. There have been several instances where hospitals and/or courts have intervened to force a blood transfusion, but I won't be able to provide you with any examples at the moment. I'd rather take a little time when I get the chance to find specific examples than give you something from the top of my head that may be incorrect. Sometimes, a minor will be granted the right to reject the transfusion for themselves as a 'mature minor,' and other times a transfusion will be forced.
There are many non blood-derived alternatives that are available, and we pursue these very strongly. Fortunately, the medical community has been increasingly supportive of patients' refusal of transfusions. Many who are not affiliated with the Witnesses are deciding to pursue alternatives for their own personal reasons.
Sorry for the length of this post. I tried to be as concise as possible. Great questions, by the way.
*edit*-a couple of articles from the New York State Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association, reprinted with their permission at the links below. Gives further detail of the issue from the perspective of the medical community.
http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?article=articl...
http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?article=articl...
This message has been edited by jokun, 12-23-2004 12:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 12-22-2004 5:27 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 9:36 AM jokun has not replied

  
jokun
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 35 (171129)
12-23-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Kevin
12-22-2004 6:11 PM


Again, I disagree, in that I think you are lumping all creationists in their views toward medical/scientific advcancement. The notion that God created the earth and everything in it would not necessarily conflict with a person's views on medical care, except in certain instances, an example of which is given in posts previous to this.
Are you making the point that since a creationist may not be involved in the development of such technology, then they wouldn't benefit from it? That would make no sense, as billions of people worldwide benefit daily from advancements they had nothing to do with.
I also disagree that the creationist mindset will be abandoned, although that is because of my personal beliefs and matters of faith. Actually, we're of completely opposite views on that subject, as I expect the world to eventually be filled with believers in creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Kevin, posted 12-22-2004 6:11 PM Kevin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-23-2004 1:26 PM jokun has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 19 of 35 (171137)
12-23-2004 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jokun
12-23-2004 12:16 PM


missing the point
HI jokun
Are you making the point that since a creationist may not be involved in the development of such technology, then they wouldn't benefit from it? That would make no sense, as billions of people worldwide benefit daily from advancements they had nothing to do with.
I think the point of this thread is more like this. Should anyone who opposes the research that brings about a particular technology, be allowed to benefit from that technology? It has nothing to do with contributing to society in other ways, then benefitting from other peoples work just as they might benefit from yours.
For example in your own case, how do you suppose these "blood fractions" that you are allowed to use, were first discovered to work? Probably years of research with whole blood transfusions followed by comparrisons with different kinds of blood fractions and other alternatives.
In short, blood fractions would not be available without whole blood transfusions being carried out first.
Would you deam it to be directly in violation of God's word for a physician to give whole blood transfusions?
If so then these "blood fractions" are a byproduct of sin and as such they should be shunned just as whole blood is.
A further analogy would be a beneficial technology that was created by research that involved killing people. If you oppose killing people then you should not use that technology, no mattter if it would save your life or not.
How about stem cell research? Would you use a treatment gained from this line of research if it was your only available cure? More to the point, should that cure even be offered to you if you had just spent the last 20 years of your life campaigning against stem cell research.
I think that was more of the original question in this thread.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jokun, posted 12-23-2004 12:16 PM jokun has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 12-23-2004 2:14 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 35 (171152)
12-23-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PurpleYouko
12-23-2004 1:26 PM


Re: missing the point
quote:
I think the point of this thread is more like this. Should anyone who opposes the research that brings about a particular technology, be allowed to benefit from that technology? It has nothing to do with contributing to society in other ways, then benefitting from other peoples work just as they might benefit from yours.
Yes they should. Just becuase I consider theists to have wrong-headed ideas does not mean I also consider them morally reprehensible and unworthy of my assistance. And even if I did consider them morally reprehensible, this would still not be good enough reason to withold a technical benefit - that would only be to prioritise my own morality as absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-23-2004 1:26 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-25-2004 12:47 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Kevin
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 35 (171419)
12-25-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Quetzal
12-22-2004 5:27 PM


It does conflict
deleted
This message has been edited by Kevin, 01-05-2005 15:40 AM

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 12-22-2004 5:27 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 9:41 AM Kevin has replied

  
Kevin
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 35 (171420)
12-25-2004 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Quetzal
12-22-2004 5:27 PM


It does conflict
double post
This message has been edited by Kevin, 01-05-2005 15:34 AM

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 12-22-2004 5:27 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Kevin
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 35 (171421)
12-25-2004 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by jokun
12-22-2004 1:13 PM


It does conflict
Who says a creationist’s beliefs need to conflict with ‘directed evolution’ in medical, industrial, or agricultural applications?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jokun, posted 12-22-2004 1:13 PM jokun has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 24 of 35 (171451)
12-25-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by contracycle
12-23-2004 2:14 PM


Re: missing the point
Contracycle.
I fully agree. I think all technology should be available to all people, whether they deserve it or not. It would be morally wrong to deny a person or group of people, a particular medical treatment just because of their misguided attempts to prevent the technology from ever being perfected in the first place.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 12-23-2004 2:14 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 35 (173381)
01-03-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jokun
12-23-2004 11:35 AM


Jokun:
I want to thank you for the reply and the links. I'm quite embarassed that I didn't see it earlier (it slid off the pages, and I seldom check the "replies await" screen). I think you've answered my questions well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jokun, posted 12-23-2004 11:35 AM jokun has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 35 (173385)
01-03-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Kevin
12-25-2004 2:19 AM


Re: It does conflict
Wow, that's very weird. This post is noted as a reply to my post, but has nothing to do with anything I wrote. I'm not sure who's supposed to reply to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Kevin, posted 12-25-2004 2:19 AM Kevin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jokun, posted 01-05-2005 9:33 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 31 by Kevin, posted 01-05-2005 3:33 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 27 of 35 (173977)
01-05-2005 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kevin
12-20-2004 5:46 PM


By that same token nobody that believes in Evolution should be able to use a stun gun to immediately cure brown recluse/deadly snake bites.
The people who made the discovery/Dr. Carl Baugh
A doctor that uses stun guns for spider bite treatment.
Another doc that used stun guns
You will also find that many doctors/institutions specifically say DO NOT use a stun gun.
Anywho, enjoy.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kevin, posted 12-20-2004 5:46 PM Kevin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-05-2005 10:28 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 30 by Kevin, posted 01-05-2005 3:32 PM Tal has not replied

  
jokun
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 35 (174039)
01-05-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Quetzal
01-03-2005 9:41 AM


Re: It does conflict
I think it's directed at me, but I don't think it really applies to the topic at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 9:41 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Kevin, posted 01-05-2005 3:48 PM jokun has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 29 of 35 (174068)
01-05-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tal
01-05-2005 4:23 AM


Why is this?
Tal writes:
By that same token nobody that believes in Evolution should be able to use a stun gun to immediately cure brown recluse/deadly snake bites.
What possible reason can you have to say this?
What evolutionist ever campaigned against the development of stun guns or their use in medical applications? How is it contrary to the 'beleifs' of an evolutionist to do so?
Come to that who is to say that this idea wasn't actually invented by an evolutionist?
According to your own source..
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.
A farmer first used this method of treatment. Do you have evidence of his personal beleifs?
I would also like to note that one of the authors of this piece comes from the department of microbiology at Michagan state University (a known bastion of anti-evolutionist thinking? I seriously doubt it.)
Your third link is very interesting but still doesn't back up your argument.
As to the first link, I can't find anything about spider bites or stun guns in it at all. Am I missing something?
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 4:23 AM Tal has not replied

  
Kevin
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 35 (174162)
01-05-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tal
01-05-2005 4:23 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 4:23 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Loudmouth, posted 01-05-2005 4:58 PM Kevin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024