0
   

Doctors Doubt Darwinism

 
 
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 09:54 pm
From Jewish World Review:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0605/medicine.men060305.php3


Quote:

...Does your own doctor treat you like a human being, or just an accidental collection of chemicals, haphazardly arranged by dumb chance?

A recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research suggests an answer. The poll finds that 60 percent of doctors reject the mechanistic Darwinian belief that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role." Only 38 percent of the doctors polled agreed with this statement.

Given their "hands on" experience with individual human beings, doctors appreciate the intricate design implicit in every part of the body. For example, an eye surgeon knows the intricacies of human vision in detail; so vague evolutionary stories about how the eye appeared by a process of random variation and selection do not overawe him. ...



Evolutionism is the kind of junk science that gets people killed. The good news is that it's going away.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,513 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 10:14 pm
Name calling is easy, but of no significance. Only arguing the topic is significant.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 10:59 pm
Oh Goody! Another Cut'N'Paste War.
Oh Goody! Another Cut'N'Paste War.

By the way Gunge, this one involves lies, damn lies and statistics so lets get down to the bottom of the heap, Who knows, down in that grit and grime, there might exist that special justification where you can properly Stalemate science .

Oh well here goes---HDC Research of May 23rd of this year.

Quote:
Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design
NEW YORK, NY, May 23, 2005 - Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design.
As a qualifier for this study

The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13-15. The study was conducted as part of a continuing investigation of the social, political, and economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system. The margin of error for the study was plus or minus 3% at a 95% level of confidence.
Is this the same Louis Finklestein Institute that is referenced in the Jewish World Review item labeled "Doctors Doubt Darwinism?" It must be different 'cause there surely couldn't be two or more Louis Finklestein Institute, or is the Jewish World Review are data mining.


Nevertheless let's not quibble about the Louis Finklesteins of the world and go on since this poll breaks doubts of Darwinism and support of ID by religion and faith of the MDs.

Quote:
When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (88%) and more than half of Catholic doctors (60%) said they agree more with evolution, while slightly more than half of Protestants (54%) agree more with intelligent design.


Now considering ID as a hypothesis, the following interesting factoid (or is just statistic?) was mined

Quote:
When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply "a religiously inspired pseudo- science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation," while more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation."

The HCD/Finklestein survey concluded with these observations
Sympathy for the idea of intelligent design comes primarily from Protestant members of the medical community, although openness to consideration of intelligent design as a legitimate speculation is strong among Catholics but completely lacking among Jews," said Alan Mittleman, director of the Finkelstein Institute
.
As our earlier physician studies indicated, religion, culture and ethnic heritage have an impact on their views of science, even from this relatively homogenous group of physicians who share similar education, income and social status," noted Glenn Kessler, co-founder and managing partner, HCD Research.


For the Evolution ID box scores press for Detailed poll results..

Interestingly the strongest support for ID is expressed by Muslim MDs (73%), followed by Protestant MDs (55%), and Orthodox Christian MDs(52%). Support is weakest among atheist MDs (3%) and Jewish MDs (12%).

Now for my two cents----One Cent: I thank the big Kahuna that my physician is Jewish. Two Cents, I wouldn't recommend outsourcing Medical Expertise to the Islamic world...

Rap
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 11:03 pm
More worthless garbage.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 11:11 pm
Idea Exactly

Rap
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 08:07 am
Evolution can include the divine
Gunga, evolution and the divine can coexist. Look at the question in your post.

Quote:


The question was not about evolution. If you believe that evolution is correct and that there is a divine aspect to it, you would answer "no" to the question posted. There are plenty of people to respect the massed amount of data supporting evolution and still think there might be a driving role for some sort of divine being.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 02:57 pm
Quote:
Evolutionism is the kind of junk science that gets people killed.


Laughing Laughing Laughing aha that's classic.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2005 10:36 am
You mean creationism is the kind of junk science that gets people brainwashed.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 07:11 am
Re: Doctors Doubt Darwinism
gungasnake wrote:
Evolutionism is the kind of junk science that gets people killed. The good news is that it's going away.


Only in your dreams.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 08:55 am
Re: Doctors Doubt Darwinism
rosborne979 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Evolutionism is the kind of junk science that gets people killed. The good news is that it's going away.


Only in your dreams.


http://www.designeduniverse.com/evolutionandethics.htm



From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:


Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into

10.

modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!

We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from

11.

hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.

Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

12.

Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?

There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.

No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a

13.

lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).

14.

It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 08:59 am
Meanwhile, one by one, county by county, city by city, state by state, the stranglehold of Darwinism on our schools is being blasted open so that hard-core evolutionists are starting to feel the way Tojo and Hirohito did in 44 and 45 as one island base after another after another fell and the world began to close in on them.

As Phillip Johnson notes in "Darwin on Trial", page 144:

Quote:

"The Darwinists may have made a serious strategic error in choosing to pursue a campaign of indoctrination in the public schools. Previously, the high-school text books said relatively little about evolution, except that most scientists believe in it, which is hard to dispute. Serious examination of the scientific evidence was postponed until college, and was provided mostly to biology majors and graduate students. Most persons outside the profession had little opportunity to learn how much philosophy was being taught in the name of science, and if they knew what was going on, they had no opportunity to mount an effective challenge.

"The Darwinists themselves have changed that comfortable situation by demanding that the public schools teach a great deal more "about evolution". What they mean is that the public schools should try much harder to persuade students to believe in Darwinism, not that they should present fairly the evidence which is causing Darwinists so much trouble. What goes on in the public schools is the public's business, however, and even creationists are entitled to point out errors and evasions in the textbooks and teaching materials. Invokations of authority may work for awhile, but eventually determined protesters will persuade the public to grant them a fair hearing on the evidence. As many more people outside the fundamentalist camp learn how committed Darwinists are to opposing theism of any sort, and how little support Darwinism finds in the scientific evidence, the Darwinists may wish that they had never left their sanctuary."
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 09:03 am
The battle of Utah:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/1621/section/intelligent.design.seeks.a.place.in.utah.schools/1.htm

Quote:

A new front has opened up in the debate over evolution and creationism in Utah, with a proposal to require the teaching of divine design in public schools.

State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.

Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.

School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.

Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.

Currently, public schools in Utah are required to teach evolution, but not alternative theories. Some teachers have independently chosen to introduce the topics of creationism or divine design in their classrooms.

The issue of what to teach in schools regarding evolution has been an ongoing debate. Recent cases have gained nationwide attention.

In May, the Kansas Board of Education held hearings to decide on new science standards. A three-member committee heard arguments from proponents of intelligent design and evolution. Last week, written arguments from both sides were submitted to the Board. The Board is expected to decide on new standards by the end of the summer.

One of the most publicized cases last year concerned evolution disclaimer stickers that were placed on the cover of ninth grade science books in Atlanta, Georgia. The stickers said that "evolution is a theory, not a fact," and warned students that "material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Six parents filed a suit against the Cobb County School District, charging that the stickers violated the separation of church and state. The school district argued that the stickers were meant to open up discussion on the topic of evolution and alternative theories of the origin of life.

In January, a federal judge ordered the stickers to be removed. The school district began removing stickers from over 30,000 books in May, although an appeal is pending on the judge's ruling.

The new proposal in Utah is yet another iteration of the creation-evolution debate. The issue is expected to be brought up when the next legislative session begins in January.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 09:17 am
Superstition can sometimes slow the advance of science, as with Galilleo, but can never stop it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 09:21 am
Re: Doctors Doubt Darwinism
gungasnake wrote:
" "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." .


I always love it when Gunga quotes this. I don't think he ever reads it first.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 10:02 am
Guys like Hitler or Slick KKKlinton are basically a$$holes and will pay lip service to pretty much anything or say anything to advance their interests, including statements like reality depending on the definition of 'is', or the Japanese being 'yellow aryans'. Note however that the author (Keith) is able to read past this and correctly categorizes Hitler as an evolutionist.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 11:32 am
I love how you managed to connect Hitler with a Clinton, Gunge. Really nice segueway.

Rap
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Doctors Doubt Darwinism
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/03/2021 at 03:42:22