A point for debating, I hope.

If someone doesn't believe in evolution, how come they're eager enough to access all the benefits of it, like anti-biotics, fertility aids, DNA testing, general medicine, et al. All things being equal, I think there needs to be an argument that if you don't believe in the foundation, you shouldn't be entitled to those things created out of the science of evolution.

I think there would be a lot less fundies around if something like this was enacted at some level.

learnt that myself relatively recently.

There are now so many avenues that use DNA for evidence, for breeding animals, for farming, for almost all life sciences--DNA and the process of evolution are everywhere. And it's not just these things--food, liquor, law enforcement. ...It's difficult to find any major crime now being solved without DNA evidence, and the need to understand how it can identify specific people.

There are so many different uses that continue to grow in so many different areas of expertise, and which will continue its applications. The more we work with it, the better advantages we will get from science with its foundation in evolution.

Genetics, Medicine, Anatomy, Physiology, Cell Theory(its only a theory folks!), Germ Theory, Vaccines, and the list just goes on, numerous technologies and breakthroughs can be listed as well, but NONE of this makes sense EXCEPT in light of what both the facts and Theory of Evolution.

The one thing about the theory of Evolution, is that it has survived remarkably intact for many years, with later discoveries in genetics and understanding the mechanisms of mutation just strengthening the evidence for it.

I find it completely ridiculous to deny what most of us have knowledge of through evolution. As I mentioned below, perhaps we should deny all services beyond what was available in the world at the time evolution became widely accepted. Leeches, the lack of sanitation during surgery, germ-killing, etc, would be scarier to deal with if these people were put to task in their own lives.

About a guy who was given vehicular manslaughter charges. The deal was, that he and two other people were in an auto accident. The couple were super religious, and after arriving at the hosptial refused to have a blood transfusion. Refused surgery. They said it was against their religion. The woman died, however her husband did live, as he had minor cuts and bruises.

The guy who was in the accident was then charged with her death, even though her death could have been prevented, had she allowed the hospital to work on her. She refused, and so he was charged with vehicular manslaughter.

I know people who would be in that same boat. One woman I knew years ago was a Xtian Scientist, and she had a rash on her arms. It was essentially eczema, which was quite itchy. She ended up with raw skin because she refused to put any kind of medicine on it. Simple cortisone would have healed it up, but instead it got infected and raw because she refused to find out what it was.

I can understand someone willing to forgo the benefits of medicine, but I think that the court should intervene in incidents where they put someone else at rish, like a child or someone who is disabled. In the incident you cited, I hope that guy beat the rap, because I think he would have had a case for dismissal of the charges. It seems the charges were based only on the technical outcome of the situation, and not on the actual set of sircumstances.

I think that I am more concerned with the people who seem to have contradictory intent--those who want to have their cake and eat it too--the desire to deny evolution as a belief, but the medicines and other benefits that have been discovered and utilized because of evolition. An example: Someone ends up with a major infection like MRSA or some other supervirus, which we know could kill that person. A believer in creationism should, by their beliefs, not have any treatment that involves the scientific theory of evolution, because these people refuse to believe in it. It's up to them to change, NOT that medicine or life sciences should revert to the ancient medical practices of 200 years ago. If these people want to believe in creationism, they should also accept that some things are against their beliefs, and they should therefore be denied access to these medical advances. Let's see them using leeches or other bloodletting, or being operated on in a non-sterile open theater, or not allowing them to have any kind of anesthesia during something like an amputation. If we forced these people to accept the limits of medicine to the date when evolution became an integral part of science and biology, I think they would change their minds about it pretty damned quickly.

He was sentenced to go to prison. I forgot how many years he got, but it was standard to what ever is handed out for manslaughter.

(a) I think there is in fact a correlation between religious fundamentalism and being ideologically against modern medicine; (b) take into account that creationism is less common in the UK than USA, but I think I've actually come across MORE people who are ideologically against modern medicine (including a few on DU in fact) than people who don't believe in evolution!

BTW, I once encountered someone who was very anti-theory-of-evolution ('Darwinism') and who also couldn't understand why antibiotics need to be on prescription; and why people shouldn't just take them whenever they had a cold, and then stop them the moment they felt better. It occurred to me at the time that her general rejection of evolution might be associated with her cavalier attitude to antibiotics, as she didn't understand why resistance might evolve in bacteria.

reject both evolution and modern medical interventions, preferring prayer over medicine.

Those numbers are relatively small, compared to the entire huge number of non-believers in evolution (around 40% of Americans, in fact).

By the way, antibiotics would have no effect upon the common cold or flue, since colds and a flu are caused by viruses, which are impervious to antibiotics. Antibiotics also tax the human defenses, make people more tired, and, thus, less able to fight off a flu.

But I'm sure you knew that, your anti-evolution acquaintance there, evidently had very little in the way of knowlege of biology.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/40-of-americans-majority-of-republicans-reject-evolution/

I cannot copy and past the data, but it's pretty surprising to someone like me, who actually has been convinced by the science.

( And I don't mean the so-called "creation" science, an oxymoron, in all ways)

These are people who live in houses, drive cars, use cutting-edge technology and take advantage of modern medicine. Meanwhile they demand we live according to Bronze Age morality and deny the very science that provides them the lifestyle they enjoy.

If we could cut off fundies from the benefits of all science based on things they reject as false, then they'd cut us all from all the benefits of their prayers... and then... the boogey man would get me or something, right?

They could cut everyone off from at least some of the benefits of science. The stem cell research issue is an outstanding example; even worse, is the dismissal by some of AIDS research as unnecessary because only 'immoral' people get it. And just about anything that links in any way to women's reproductive rights.

And some fundies go even further; e.g.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Health_Concerns/Vaccines/biblical_support-not_vaccinating.htm