Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dr. No on evolution


Okay, this is the last thing I (O’Leary for News) have to say on the subject of doctors and evolution, and fitness for public office:

Once, about forty years ago, one of my kids was hit on the head by a car. She was taken immediately to the local ER.

I flagged down a cruiser to follow. Even in those days, one could get immediate updates by cruiserphone (… so far okay … so far okay … um, check with medical resident … )

So the cops and I rushed through the ER doors.

It wasn’t hard to find her; I could hear her screaming from four emergency rooms away.

Later, a medical attendant told me to carry her upstairs to paediatrics.

She was still screaming and screaming. But after all, she had been hit by a car.

Now, of five possible things the attending physician didn’t “believe in,” what would a reasonable person think should be of least concern to a parent?

1. What people choose to do matters (not all just “fate”)
2. Children matter more than cockroaches
3. Science-based medicine
4. Sterile procedure
5. “Evolution” – Darwin’s theory or any other

Reader, if you have kids, I sure hope you got this one right.

Apparently, most US doctors don’t “accept” evolution (Darwinism). Should they lose their licences?

See also: Can we talk?

Note: No news posting till late tonight.

Good questions, bFast: If it is my kid, I would sure strike some announced Darwin pro off the list, because I don't believe in "Darwinian evolution." And of course want my kid to live. By the way, if one does really believe in Darwinian evolution, why pay taxes for any government at all? News
News, my first contention is that your argument is fallacious. You argue that when a child needs emergency medical care, you care nothing about the evolutionary views of the medic(s) involved. You then say approximately, "therefore, why should a person's views on origins matter when they run for public office". You are comparing apples and oranges. Secondly, on the issue of a presidential candidates view on origins, I think you are being disingenuous. If the situation were reversed from that of Carson, if a presidential candidate strongly declared support for Darwinian evolution, and made it clear that they would guide all public scientific research funding in accordance with that belief, would you vote for them, or would you strike them off your list with this one litmus test? bFast
Also, bFast at 3, some of us are wondering why US politics is infested with stupidity about what an office seeker believes about "evolution." If one could just remove that from the conversation, would one not have a more sensible discussion? About issues today? News
Not believing in Evolution indicates freethinking. Not believing in Evolution reveals a rational and logical mind. RM & NS? Who would want a President who believed in that crud. Like believing in Unicorns. But I still agree with DaveS, answer is 5 ppolish
bFast, should acceptance or non-acceptance of "evolution" matter more to such a person's fitness for office than achievements in relation to the public welfare? The original question was, why should that matter. News
'Hate to say, but this is one of the silliest lines of reasoning that I have heard on this site. Carson is not presenting himself to save anybody's children, he is presenting himself to be the overlord of all US Government scientific spending. While Carson's scientific views re origins may mean nothing to Carson the surgeon, they may mean a lot to Carson the overlord of scientific research spending. Carson doesn't buy the whole evolution thing? This may be a huge improvement over Obama, but even if it is, the argument of whether his views make him a better or worse surgeon do not play into the question of whether they would make him a better or worse politician. bFast
[T]ruth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
(Jerry Coyne, "Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?," reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).) Barry Arrington
The correct answer is #5. daveS

Leave a Reply