for the religous folk

Ok so for those of you who believe in that God created and controls everything etc. and believe evolution is a joke.

Why is it if someone you love has a heart attack why not say a prayer instead of calling a doctor/ambulance.
And i dont mean pray after or before calling, but not bother placing your loved ones in the care of someone who's ability to help them is based on the same scientific ideals/foundation as Darwinism.

I mean genetics is considered by most to be indisputable evidence of darwin's theory of evolution , and most if not all medical treatments have this theory "bunny ears with fingers" of genetics at their base.

Nailed it.

Genetics according to modern microbiology - which puts it in it's true and frankly reduced perspective - and as according to the 19th century relative ignorance surrounding the formulation of the theory of Evolution By Natural Selection are very different, babe.

I was under the illussion that someones genetic makeup directly effects the treatments a medical professional will make an option, as well as using such things as DNA profiles to move from prognosis to diagnosis in some situations.

The fact most modern day medicine ,with the exception perhaps of some chinese herbal medical professionals and very unprofessional doctors etc.,
accepts that to successfully read the genetic code will allow you to track that induviduals evolutionary orgin and maybe in future predict their likely hood of developing disease.
Granted our ability to read it is lacking, as is my ability to explain my point, but at the very least we can do an accurate enough job to treat someone a creationist loves.

What i mean is,at this point in time, we can prove evolution reading the genetic code more accurately than use it in the treatment of medicine, so can people accept the benefits of something that contridicts their faith.

Perhaps in the future it will prove the existence of a higher power, although unlikely, but at this moment in time it goes against creationists belief.

If what they believe is true, then the free ticket to a wonderland of puppy dogs and rainbows that awaits them is gone when they accept this treatment.

and its their own selfish desire for life and fear of death that forces them to give the go ahead for a treatment , which by their own beliefs also damns them to the fire pits of disneyland.

Elaborate please... (if you can be bothered, and on the science.)

Does this mean you are a theist?
(Somehow, I doubt it.)

Nah, I'm not even remotely religious lol.

I just prefer to 'do' science as it should be done, looking at the observations totally and using all the pieces of the puzzle, rather than the pseudoskeptical version which is so commonplace and which is basically preaching Scientism rather than true science.

Religious beliefs explain everything , so having them leads to one sided understanding of data. And im not preaching just mocking it to the extent were some bible basher might question it for themselves.

Stop teasing, and bloody elaborate please, you're talking about stuff that's pretty damn interesting; please don't tell me that you're "into" Karl Popper (or do, if you are... )

So you believe in a "holistic" scientific approach (for want of a better term) as opposed to... what exactly?
Mere empiricism? Or what?

Define your "true science" please.

Yeah - the same applies to Scientism. Many people who pose as 'rational' to an extreme degree are basically preaching that doctrine - the doctrine of promisory materialism - presuming that even though science (especially biology) has no answers currently for the big questions about life, the answers will inevitably eventually be in the context of strictly materialist views. That is not genuine science, because basically it is unfalsifiable, and is more akin to an act of faith than a rational position, as it seeks to deny uncomfortable evidence and awkward questions. True science is actually quite rarely practiced.

True Science means following the observations, all of them, not just the ones that suit your theory or philosophy.

You can't solve a 1000 piece puzzle by putting together a few dozen pieces in the middle and insisting that only those which fit that are valid - yet that is what many so-called 'scientists' do. lol.

The fashionable - and frankly lazy - way of posing as a scientist is to preach Scientism, which is the philosophical standpoint of promisory materialism, promoting the idea that all effects will eventually be explained in terms of (classical) orthodox understanding so anything which suggests otherwise deserves to be ignored. That is an irrational view, but it has the loudest voice at the moment.

Thank you, interesting stuff. So it seems you have, at least partly, been influenced by Popper.

I'm still a bit unsure what you consider to be "true science?"

But it's a bit late at night/early morning, so I'll pish off and give you peace... for now!

Cheers!

(Edit:Damn you posted again already! Off to read...)

Ultimately it is all faith.


Theists have faith in God.
Empiricists have faith in perception.
Rationalists have faith in reason.

Ultimately it is all faith.

And ultimately, the approach that most increases the potential for an approximation of the truth is a conflation of all three.

Story: (made up, not an actual event but none the less true)

There was a draught. The theists prayed to their gods for rain. The scientists seeded the clouds for rain. When it rained the theists believed that their prayers had been answered and they had been; and the scientists believed that their science had worked and it had. Maybe they were both right.

Another Story: (made up, not an actual event but none the less true)

The explorers told the aborigines they were getting sick because of invisible animals in the drinking water. The witch doctors laughed. Everyone knows that sickness is the result of evil spirits.

Ultimately it is all faith.

I beleive there is a branch of religion that would not call an ambulance and merely pray while thier child choked to death. They dont even go to jail for it.

f***ing idiots.

Erimitus said the closest to what my answer would be.

I do believe in the God of the Bible. If you read it, you'll see that God works through people. In the hypothetical situation that you've provided...the paramedics, doctors and hospital staff are those people. When we pray for people in those situations, we also pray for the medical staff.

Similar to Erimitus' story, I like to tell the one about the flooding town. A man is stranded on his porch and a boat comes by to rescue him. He says "Go rescue someone else, God will save me". And they go on. A few hours later, the same man is still stranded but the waters have risen and he is now on his roof. Another boat comes by to rescue him and he says "Go rescue someone else, God will save me". Half an hour later, the flood waters are still rising and this man is now clinging to his chimney. A helicopter comes by to rescue him and he says "Go rescue someone else, God will save me." and the man drowns. - When he gets to Heaven, he asks God "Where were you? I had faith in you to save me." and God replied "Well, I sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"

So...to me, doctors are an answer to prayer. Just because a doctor tries to help someone, doesn't mean they will be successful.

No the whole reason for science is to explore and explain the unexplained, true it doesnt offer any big answers about the origin of life or disprove the christian face.

But the reason for science is discovery if we knew everything there wouldn't be science just a big book called facts, also known as the holy bible or the karan

anywho promoting the continued exploration of ourselves and our environment is a good thing, currently only science does this. Religion promotes the idea of treating life as nothing more than a series of emotions.
Whilst once an important contributing for the developement of civilization it is now a limitation on its further development.