"From an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't seem plausible that Mother Nature would have purposely allowed secretion of concentrated nitrate in the mouth if it were harmful to us."
While reading an article someone e-mailed me about nitrates and potential health benefits, I came across the above statement. It actually took me a while to figure out why exactly it was that this bothered me, but I finally came to it.
Here was someone who was not making wild claims about a 6000 year old earth or building strawmen about evolution and monkey or parroting on about some false micro/macro dichotomy, yet who was expressing an ignorance of evolution all the same.
Of course it is possible that this was simply someone engaging in poetic license, but still, I find myself as disturbed by the implication of this statement as I do in the ID/Creationism movement.
I wondered to myself why that was and low and behold, the angel of reason spoke down upon me...
The statement above speaks of some form of intent.... and misses the most basic of concepts inherent in the Theory of Evolution ... that evolution does not care about us... it has no design.
The statement above give the mental image of some format, some direction, when in fact, 'evolution' is nothing more than a label we give to a phenomenon that happens because one organism dies, while another lives.
Evolution... the change in genetic frequency over time.... whether or not an organism has a genetic makeup which gives that organism the ability to pass along its genes to the next generation, that is ALL that evolution (indulging my poetic fancy) 'cares' about.
From an 'evolutionary standpoint' it is completely plausible that we would have evolved with a secretion of something that was harmful to us... as long as it did not interfere with our ability to reproduce and pass those genes along, 'Mother Nature' would have nothing to say about it at all.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Man and God -Times Online
Just anther example of how people NOT subscribing to a believers faith is somehow 'persecution'
Man and God -Times Online: "Man and God
How should faith respond to the onslaught of atheism?"
My response:
I am an agnostic atheist. I am not militant nor am I a 'profit' of godlessness... I do not claim that god 'does not' or 'can not' exist. I simply see no evidence that would lead me to a belief in god. That is all.
I do not preach an atheist doctrine (whatever that might be), I do not strap a bomb to my chest with the intent of killing others in the name of no-god. I do not ask others to stop believing in their god. I do not ask others to stop worshiping their god. I do not ask others to refrain from praying to their god. I DO request that people not force their personal beliefs on me whether through preaching to me or making laws intended to make me act as they think I should based on their arrogant belief that, if there is a god, they have the ability to know what that god wants from me.
But apparently, my not wanting others to feel justified in shoving their beliefs in my face makes me militant. Apparently, asking others to keep their pray privately or with others in their church and NOT in the schools I pay for and send my children to is trying to take their rights away. Apparently, expecting someone to respect that I am NOT a christian and wish me a happy holiday instead of Merry Christmas means that I am intolerant to their religion, but if I wish them a Happy Holiday instead of Merry Christmas I am persecuting them.
The very fact that the author listed as evidence of this vast atheist conspiracy the fact that a politician was honest about not having a belief in a god as opposed to lying about it to make he and his 'feel' better says a lot more about his religion and values than any atheist could ever say.
The sad fact is that the best argument against christianity are the believers themselves. It is not what the atheists are saying that is problematic to the theist... it is what they are doing... pointing out the disparity between what the religions put forth in their PR pamphlets and how their adherents actually act.
It is simple... I could not care less what someone believes... and if they are not telling me all about it, I would have nothing to say at all on the subject.
Man and God -Times Online: "Man and God
How should faith respond to the onslaught of atheism?"
My response:
I am an agnostic atheist. I am not militant nor am I a 'profit' of godlessness... I do not claim that god 'does not' or 'can not' exist. I simply see no evidence that would lead me to a belief in god. That is all.
I do not preach an atheist doctrine (whatever that might be), I do not strap a bomb to my chest with the intent of killing others in the name of no-god. I do not ask others to stop believing in their god. I do not ask others to stop worshiping their god. I do not ask others to refrain from praying to their god. I DO request that people not force their personal beliefs on me whether through preaching to me or making laws intended to make me act as they think I should based on their arrogant belief that, if there is a god, they have the ability to know what that god wants from me.
But apparently, my not wanting others to feel justified in shoving their beliefs in my face makes me militant. Apparently, asking others to keep their pray privately or with others in their church and NOT in the schools I pay for and send my children to is trying to take their rights away. Apparently, expecting someone to respect that I am NOT a christian and wish me a happy holiday instead of Merry Christmas means that I am intolerant to their religion, but if I wish them a Happy Holiday instead of Merry Christmas I am persecuting them.
The very fact that the author listed as evidence of this vast atheist conspiracy the fact that a politician was honest about not having a belief in a god as opposed to lying about it to make he and his 'feel' better says a lot more about his religion and values than any atheist could ever say.
The sad fact is that the best argument against christianity are the believers themselves. It is not what the atheists are saying that is problematic to the theist... it is what they are doing... pointing out the disparity between what the religions put forth in their PR pamphlets and how their adherents actually act.
It is simple... I could not care less what someone believes... and if they are not telling me all about it, I would have nothing to say at all on the subject.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Family sues insurer who denied teen transplant - Health care- msnbc.com
Family sues insurer who denied teen transplant - Health care- msnbc.com
As I started reading this, a very cynical thought occurs to me. How very stupid they are to have reversed it in the last minutes. If they had simply stuck to their original decision and said "We are sorry, but that is the way it is" they would probably get away with this if they originally had as leg to stand on in the denial.
If they did not, nothing would help them, but in reversing their decision, they open the door for accusations that they made a mistake in denying it in the first place, making them liable for the death.
Now... I think this before actually having finished the article to know whether or not they had grounds in the denial in the first place. That in itself brings up so many issues; primarily, what right does the insurance company have to make medical decisions in the first place.
If the patients doctor says it is a viable option, what right does the insurance company have to deny the treatment? No one with half of a brain-cell can argue that they do it for any reason OTHER than money. "It has a low chance of success" is nothing more than saying that "There is a good chance that the money would be wasted".
The argument that someone else could use that organ is an emotional appeal, but not a legitimate argument, because the doctors on the transplant teams are the specialists. They know the risks, they know the chances, they know the patient. And they know that there are more people than available organs.
Additionally, just because there are other people on the list who are a match for that organ, that does not mean they are necessarily in competition for that organ. Sending a fresh organ across the country to someone else, means that the organs chances of being accepted are dropping... usually to the point where a patient with a 'better' chance of survival with a FRESH organ looses that edge with an organ not so 'fresh'.
I think it comes down to something very simple. If the insurance company can show that THEY had another patient with an over all better chance of survival and made the choice based on that, then they are off the hook... if they are going to pay for it, they are justified in choosing the person with the best chances of survival based on the doctors judgement. If that is the case and they denied it simply based on HER chances, then they should be treated the same way a bank robber would be charged if a teller were killed during the commission of their crime.
As I started reading this, a very cynical thought occurs to me. How very stupid they are to have reversed it in the last minutes. If they had simply stuck to their original decision and said "We are sorry, but that is the way it is" they would probably get away with this if they originally had as leg to stand on in the denial.
If they did not, nothing would help them, but in reversing their decision, they open the door for accusations that they made a mistake in denying it in the first place, making them liable for the death.
Now... I think this before actually having finished the article to know whether or not they had grounds in the denial in the first place. That in itself brings up so many issues; primarily, what right does the insurance company have to make medical decisions in the first place.
If the patients doctor says it is a viable option, what right does the insurance company have to deny the treatment? No one with half of a brain-cell can argue that they do it for any reason OTHER than money. "It has a low chance of success" is nothing more than saying that "There is a good chance that the money would be wasted".
The argument that someone else could use that organ is an emotional appeal, but not a legitimate argument, because the doctors on the transplant teams are the specialists. They know the risks, they know the chances, they know the patient. And they know that there are more people than available organs.
Additionally, just because there are other people on the list who are a match for that organ, that does not mean they are necessarily in competition for that organ. Sending a fresh organ across the country to someone else, means that the organs chances of being accepted are dropping... usually to the point where a patient with a 'better' chance of survival with a FRESH organ looses that edge with an organ not so 'fresh'.
I think it comes down to something very simple. If the insurance company can show that THEY had another patient with an over all better chance of survival and made the choice based on that, then they are off the hook... if they are going to pay for it, they are justified in choosing the person with the best chances of survival based on the doctors judgement. If that is the case and they denied it simply based on HER chances, then they should be treated the same way a bank robber would be charged if a teller were killed during the commission of their crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)