Re: [asa] Is you doctor an evolutionist - if so, what then?

This is just silly. Believing in the fact of evolution does not mean
that one should abandon reason and morality. I find such arguments
foolish at best, especially when they come from fellow Christians.

Of course, in some countries, not by choice but by circumstance,
babies and children succumb to illness, malnourishment. Do we see a
stronger humanity arise in these areas?

Let me change the issue slightly: A doctor who believes in religion,
let's say Christianity, should leave the decisions of life and death
to God and thus sickness is treated as the 'will of God' not to be
interfered with.

In fact, are there not some groups of Christians who refuse medical
intervention?

I think the fallacy behind Murray's musings is a confusion of natural and good.

Pim

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This isn't a response to anybody in particular, but just a musing...
>
> It strikes me that a doctor who truly believes in evolution might actually
> process the question of treatment of the sick in a very different way than
> has traditionally occurred.
>
> In essence, I'm thinking that a truly evolutionary approach to medicine
> might be simply to allow all illnesses to take their course and,
> consequently, improve the human species by eliminating the unfit through
> inaction.
>
> Indeed, I can identify at least one instance in which medical intervention
> has had the apparent result of decreased fitness of particular human
> individuals;
>
> A recent US study has suggested that daughters born to women who delayed
> childbearing and who eventually did so with the assistance of fertility
> treatment themselves had difficulties in conceiving;
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/4kxbgh
>
> So, it appears, that in this instance medical intervention has actually
> compounded a problem (infertility) which might have been avoided by doing
> nothing and allowing natural selection to do its thing.
>
> I need not point out that there have been doctors in recent history who have
> taken such logic to an extreme - so it's not merely a hypothetical issue, I
> think.
>
> One wonders, in consequence, whether one ought to ask a further question of
> a doctor who espouses evolution, viz: "and what follows from this belief?"
> If the answer is that human persons are mere contingent outcomes of
> evolution (i.e. "accidents") then I would wonder why this person is even
> motivated to practice medicine in the first place.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 1 14:22:22 2008