Should creationists be able to benefit from technologies from evolutionary biology?

I like to propose a new topic.Should creationists be able to benefit from technologies that came from evolutionary biology?This topic does not have to only include those that belive in creationism. It could include those that believe genetically modified organisms are wrong, but take insulin created by genetically modified E. coli. Another group at the top of my head are environmentalits that are vegans that don't care about explanations in evolutionary science why animals are eaten, but thankfully use this science when some ecological fact is needed.In mine and many of my professors' view, modern biology is based on evolution. What I would like to know is it ethical for scientists to deny the fruits of their labor to people that reject scientific fact. The same fact that may have helped create this technology. Is it also ethical for creationists to use a technology that was made from an area they are against.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

No! _{edited to make it clear what I am responding to}This message has been edited by jar, 12-20-2004 06:01 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Heh. That was a short discussion. Does that mean it's Miller Time?

Make it a beer instead and I'm all over you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe knowing that they were saved from cancer by some new drug created with evolutionary knowledge then they would be more inclined to back off. Then again they might just say that the only evolutionary knowledge used is micro-evolution.

From one angle I disagree with you Jar. It would, in my mind, be unethical to without benefits (especially medical treatments) based on the beliefs of the recipiant. We even force some children to take blood donations against their religious beliefs.However, from the other side, I think it is hypocritical of these same believers to accept the treatments. If, for example, they are convinced that prayers are behind the medical "miracles" that seem to make the papers rather frequently then it is surprising that there are so few you relay solely on the prayers.Perhaps there are "no atheists in the foxhole" but I'd say there are
"no true believers in the hospital ward". Neither is true of course, but I'd say the second is more true than the first.

No one asked if it was silly or hypocritical.The question I answered was: There was a second question in the OP though as well. It was: That is closer to what you are saying but it is still couched in the terms of ethics.I would have to answer the second question as a resounding YES!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I think it is hypocritical of these same believers to accept the treatments

---

So do I.First though, I personally think it would be unethical to not share scientific technology, even if you own the technology, with someone else. (Of course the problem of not sharing technology with people who can't offord the technology is unethical to me.) In terms of belief I can't see it as ethical to reject someone because of their beliefs, no matter how foolish they are.But I also think it is hippocritical for people to take a technology they believe is wrong and use it. Recently where I live there was a bible on display at a courthouse. A bunch of religious people where there to keep it. I was there to see that it was taken away. Anyway I struck up a conversation with a man that believed this was a Christian nation. I asked him his opinion on biologists and he thought they were evil and in the same catagory as witches in the 16th century. I asked about doctors because they are biologists as well and he said they were okay.This is a big problem. Some people are splitting the scientific community into two catagories. One group is doctors or other medical professionals that are held in favor because they heal people, but the second group, other biologists, are considered evil.

The Bible says to not breed two different types of species. The Bible is thought of as inconsistent and one-sided, and also ignorant, whereas science can get away with shoving its book in every classroom and household, demand that because it is "science" it should be regarded as something people should approve of, because it is "fact" or "evident".While the Bible itself along with the spirit and faith are so prevailently real, however science devilishly rules out spirit, and faith to be anything scientific or real. If science is the study of the world around us, then how is spirit not scientific? You can take x-rays of a fetus and call it science, but you can't take faith and spiritual readings of spirit to be scientific?And creationists are not necessarily against areas, we are against sins. Jesus died for our sins, and so forgiveness grants a man the freedom to investigate, and lodge himself in places where sin surrounds him (as the entire world is sinful and evil), but to protect and guard himself against the evils.
I suppose it is not ethical to use technologies that "require" and continue sinful and destructive activities, for that would make the object itself an object leading to death (the punishment for sin is death). For if a science was murdering people to put food on your dinner plate, that is clearly bad. The food itself is clearly unacceptable, and also the method of getting it.However, the world is so corrupt with lies and secrets, and accusers and liars that it is hard to get to the bottom of a matter. One woman could cry rape but that doesn't necessarily mean she was raped. Likewise if you go around accusing people of copying merchandise (such as burning CDs for yourself, or even your own children or maybe your family or friends, who knows) as being a thief, that doesn't necessarily make them a thief. So many technologies and actions aren't necessarily unethical. If a science is unethical then obviously using it would be.I am still on the edge with the burning CDs thing, as if you pay for something it is yours. To suggest reproducing your own possessions as theft would be enslaving the owner. It would be suggesting their money isn't worth anything, though they paid for it, it is not really their possession anyway, it belongs to the "artist". Give me a break, the time and money belongs to the artist, not the merchandise. You make and sell merchandise for money, and out of your own greed you demand the enslavement of the world in order to keep making money. That is clearly ungodly, and so ethically this technology of burning CDs is okay.Basically, it comes down to: whose judgement of what is ethical is right? All things belong to God, and God created all men equal. If you pay for something, it is yours. Burning CDs is not assault nor weaponry, and I can't see how it is ungodly to reproduce something you own by means of your own possessions. If a sound belongs to an artist, then that is suggesting technology was created to enslave. If an artist wants to yell "rape", let him be his own object of condemnation to call himself a slave owner.But about evolutionary biology: all biology belongs to God, so if the world around you is sinning against him, I suppose it would not be wrong to possess the product of it. For if science harms a baby by altering its genes (which neither belong to the alterer, the baby, or the parent), then why should anyone scorn the baby for what it has become? No, the baby itself has a spirit. To suggest because "science" did this, the baby is no longer beneficial to the world is crazy.Evolution (the evolving principal, not the proposed religion) and biology belong to God. Also technology. And nobody can benefit from anything in life as we all die, and life is rotting. Its the life we enter that is eternal.
If you had built a house in your mother's womb, it would no longer be of value to you. Likewise earthly life is mortal.

Who says a creationist’s beliefs need to conflict with ‘directed evolution’ in medical, industrial, or agricultural applications? I personally believe that an intelligent designer created all life. I disagree with the ‘common ancestor’ view, but understand and appreciate that life does evolve and change to an extent.To answer your question, I do think it would be unethical to deny a specific treatment to someone based on their beliefs, and yes, hypocritical of someone to accept treatment that they are opposed to. Nothing says that a person can’t change their mind upon further reflection, though.It’s a misconception to think that creationists are opposed to medical/scientific advances of this type, or that we’re all Bible-thumping zealots waiting for God to heal our maladies. There are specific medical treatments that I am opposed to, though, such as blood transfusions as NosyNed mentioned, and I would expect my beliefs to be respected.

Fascinating. I've had hearsay that certain Christian sects had specific proscriptions against different types of medical treatment (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses), but have never actually had the opportunity to talk to a member. I think it is relevant to this thread, if only peripherally. Would you be willing to answer a few questions about the subject?

I'll do my best. Fire away.

if you stop participating in all things done in the honor and glory of God......and what could those things be?Beginning with medical breakthroughs and on and on..I ask you......cease and desist from benefits of such kind....they are not meant for you.

Thanks! If any of the following questions appear "impertinent", or disrespectful, that is not my intent. I am honestly fascinated by this worldview (being so completely foreign to my personal experiences), and - in this instance anyway - am simply seeking to understand where you're coming from and what it entails. I will not debate the answers, so please feel free to be as expansive or not as you will.1. Which medical procedures/treatments do you NOT accept? Is there a relationship between these treatments (i.e., something like "all treatments dealing with blood from others", or specific medication regimens, etc)? Are there specific Biblical verses (if you are not Christian, then please use the relevant religious text) whose interpretation you are using to determine which procedures are acceptable? Are these same verses interpreted differently by other groups within your religion/sect (i.e., to allow the proscribed treatments)?2. On a practical front, do you use some identification like a medicalert bracelet to inform paramedics or other first responders that there are treatments, etc, to which you are opposed on religious grounds? IOW, if you are incapacitated through accident, how are the medical personnel to know what methods are appropriate/inappropriate?3. Although there is a strong tendency in the US, at least, to honor religious proscriptions whenever possible, how does the legal issue of denial of treatment for minors play out? Do you know of any conflicts that have occurred from this between members of your group and legal authorities?Anyway, thanks for your responses. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this.