If evolution is true...

FoeHammer

Veteran
Dec 13, 2006
916
15
Warwickshire
✟8,780.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
... then isn’t "medical science" anti-evolution since it attempts to understand and treat that which the mindless, purposeless, process of evolution produces?

Who decides whether a genetic mutation is beneficial or harmful? And what do they base that decision on?

Why fight disease? Why fight "nature"? What is the motivation?

FoeHammer.
 

FoeHammer

Veteran
Dec 13, 2006
916
15
Warwickshire
✟8,780.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You seem to be under the impression that evolution carries some sort of moral imperative. It doesn't. It jsut describes what happens. What we do in medicing we do by our own choice not because some doctrine or other tells us we should.
Choice? If evolution is true then what is choice? Where did choice come from?

FoeHammer.
 
Upvote 0

Logic_Fault

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi Ubique
Dec 16, 2004
1,299
70
✟16,844.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
... then isn’t "medical science" anti-evolution since it attempts to understand and treat that which the mindless, purposeless, process of evolution produces?
Say what? Why would treating illness be considered "anti-evolution"?

Who decides whether a genetic mutation is beneficial or harmful?
Nobody in particular. If it helps the organism survive in it's environment or gives it a better chance to reproduce then it's "beneficial" if it kills the creature before it's born, causes the creature to be eaten by a predator or hampers it's reproduction then it's a "harmful" mutation. What, you thought there was a scientist somewhere cataloging mutations and deeming them "beneficial" or "harmful"?

And what do they base that decision on?
Just what I said, if it helps the creature survive in some way it is, by definition, "beneficial". If the creature dies from it, directly or indirectly, it is "harmful". What is so confusing about this?

Why fight disease?
Would you rather die before 30 like the vast majority of people who have lived on this planet before the last century or so? Yeah, thought not.

Why fight "nature"? What is the motivation?
How nihilistic of you. Would you prefer we all curl up into the fetal position and await an untimely death instead?
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
453
47
Deep underground
✟8,993.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Choice? If evolution is true then what is choice? Where did choice come from?
From the brute fact that quantum interactions are indeterministic.

Why? What did you have in mind?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOutsider
Upvote 0

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟13,256.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Foehammer. Every animal fights nature. The survival instinct has evolved to be very strong. Every Wildebeeste strives not to be the one eaten by crocodiles, even if it is the weakest or sickest in the herd. With luck, it survives, and the croc eats a different wildebeest.

We don't worship or try to further evolution. Evolution has no goals.

We can, as a matter of fact, argue that our ability to think about diseases and invent medicines to cure them is a direct result of our having evolved big brains. But taking medicine isn't new and isn't confined to humans, either. Chimps and monkeys eat different leaves and herbs to aid digestive upsets. Cats will eat various grasses which are known vermicides.

Nobody 'decides' a mutation is beneficial or not. It may become evident, one way or the other. Most of the time, mutations go completely un-noticed, as they don't have much of an effect on the organism for good or ill.

You would be able to present better arguments if you actually read a few good books on the subject. Would you respect my arguments about the gospels if you could tell I hadn't bothered to read and try to understand them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
... then isn’t "medical science" anti-evolution since it attempts to understand and treat that which the mindless, purposeless, process of evolution produces?


You forget that the brainpower needed to apply medical science also evolved. We evolved a brain to overcome our physical deficits. Medical science is just one more example of this.


Who decides whether a genetic mutation is beneficial or harmful? And what do they base that decision on?

The environment decides. However, given the fact that humans can now shape their environment it is a bit circular.


Why fight disease? Why fight "nature"? What is the motivation?

Because we want to ensure that our genes and our species flourish. Another trait that has evolved.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClausJohn

Active Member
Jan 18, 2008
397
12
43
Saarbruecken
✟596.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
To me, atheism is nihilism. (no free will, no ultimate purpose)
I would more or less agree to that. With the addition that we certainly have the illusion of free will (which is for all intents and purposes not different from the "real thing") - and that even though life holds no ultimate purpose nothing prevents you from creating one for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
453
47
Deep underground
✟8,993.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
To me, atheism is nihilism. (no free will, no ultimate purpose)
There is nothing immediately objectionable about that, as long as you don't equivocate philosophical nihilism with the accusation that is more synonymous with despair and hopelessness.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,728
7,756
64
Massachusetts
✟342,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
then isn’t "medical science" anti-evolution since it attempts to understand and treat that which the mindless, purposeless, process of evolution produces?
What a silly question. It's like asking whether medical science is anti-reproduction because it attempts to understand and treat that which the mindless process of reproductive biology produces. Medicine treats disease, regardless of whether that disease has been produced by evolution, developmental biology, chemistry or stupidity.

Who decides whether a genetic mutation is beneficial or harmful?
In the medical sense of beneficial and harmful, doctors and patients decide. Whether this has anything to do with evolution or not is of little interest.

And what do they base that decision on?
They use their senses and their brains.

Why fight disease?
Because they have empathy with the sick, and a moral sense.

Why fight "nature"? What is the motivation?
See answer to previous question.

Meanwhile, in the real world of biomedical research, scientists study evolution precisely because it can give insights into the causes of illness.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Patashu

Veteran
Oct 22, 2007
1,303
63
✟16,793.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
... then isn’t "medical science" anti-evolution since it attempts to understand and treat that which the mindless, purposeless, process of evolution produces?

Who decides whether a genetic mutation is beneficial or harmful? And what do they base that decision on?

Why fight disease? Why fight "nature"? What is the motivation?

FoeHammer.
The theory of evolution does not describe how things ought to be, just how they are, as with all science.

The theory of gravity states that massive bodies attract other bodies towards them. Does this mean that jumping, flying and building space shuttles are all ethically wrong according to the ToG? If not, then why is treating detrimental mutations and their effects wrong according to the ToE?
 
Upvote 0

Patashu

Veteran
Oct 22, 2007
1,303
63
✟16,793.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If gravity is true...

...then isn't "aerodynamic science" anti-gravity since it attempts to understand and rectify that which the mindless, purposeless, process of gravity causes?

Who decides whether a gravitational attraction is beneficial or harmful? And what do they base that decision on?

Why fight attraction? Why fight "reality"? What is the motivation?

Patashu.
 
Upvote 0

Patashu

Veteran
Oct 22, 2007
1,303
63
✟16,793.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
From the brute fact that quantum interactions are indeterministic.

Why? What did you have in mind?
You can choose what outcome emerges from a quantum waveform? Elaborate, please? I was under the impression it was completely random and involves about as much choice as obeying the roll of a die.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums