Originally posted by ZAKAR: If you believe in Evolution
Perhaps slightly off topic, but Zakar, do you ever use any modern pharmaceuticals. If so, you owe a debt to evolutionary biologists.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: kresge,
Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history... Michel Foucault
Hope begets many children illegitimately and prematurely. Allie M. Frazier
Beware the terrible simplifiers... Jacob Burckhardt
Originally posted by Dell Gines: I don't think that is fair Kresge. Most modern pharmaceuticals are the result of capitalism, patent protection, and huge investments in R&D.
Utilize those drugs and not embrace capitalism?
How does that relate to the science upon which treatments are developed?
Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history... Michel Foucault
Hope begets many children illegitimately and prematurely. Allie M. Frazier
Beware the terrible simplifiers... Jacob Burckhardt
You implied in your statement that we owe a debt to evolutionary biology for modern pharmaceuticals in response to Zakar's statement "if you believe in evolution". Does this not imply we owe a debt to capitalism for being the primary pusher for new and effective drugs? Point being, simply because one disagrees with a philosophy does not mean they are being hypocritical if they utilize what that different philosophy creates. Another example is the rapid advance of science during the middle ages under Islam. I am not a Muslim yet I enjoy some of the things they produced.
Of course if I misread your intent is asking Zakar that question I stand totally corrected.
The New Blog is Up more Black Talk, Politics, Religion, Economics Etc.:
I believe many of the diseases we are afflicted with are a direct result of Science and Technology, and I would venture to say many more percentage of the worlds population are dying from disease, science and technology now than ever before. So who does it really benifit> and how are we better off?
You implied in your statement that we owe a debt to evolutionary biology for modern pharmaceuticals in response to Zakar's statement "if you believe in evolution". Does this not imply we owe a debt to capitalism for being the primary pusher for new and effective drugs? Point being, simply because one disagrees with a philosophy does not mean they are being hypocritical if they utilize what that different philosophy creates. Another example is the rapid advance of science during the middle ages under Islam. I am not a Muslim yet I enjoy some of the things they produced.
Of course if I misread your intent is asking Zakar that question I stand totally corrected.
Whether you subscribe to Islam or not, you do believe it exists, right? Ditto for capitalism. People who are anti-capitalism understand that it exists, right?
People who don't "believe in" evolution dispute its existence. It's not like they believe it exists but are philosophically opposed to it. As in, "Evolution is bad! We demand our tails back! No gills, no peace!!" That's not what's going on. They are opposed to belief in it. What I got from Kresge's post was that if you don't believe in evolution, then the science behind it should not have been succesful in the development of more advanced antibiotics.
You implied in your statement that we owe a debt to evolutionary biology for modern pharmaceuticals in response to Zakar's statement "if you believe in evolution". Does this not imply we owe a debt to capitalism for being the primary pusher for new and effective drugs? Point being, simply because one disagrees with a philosophy does not mean they are being hypocritical if they utilize what that different philosophy creates. Another example is the rapid advance of science during the middle ages under Islam. I am not a Muslim yet I enjoy some of the things they produced.
Of course if I misread your intent is asking Zakar that question I stand totally corrected.
The difference as I see it is that science is not a philosophy in the way I believe that you are using the term in this context. Specifically in the case of experimental science, it is associated with methodologies, predicated on empirical data, and performed in such a way that outcomes are universally reproducible. In a basic sense, such outcomes are not dependent upon whether one is a capitalist, socialist, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, etc. The acceleration due to gravity is 32 ft/sec(2), the charge and mass of an electron is a constant, and evolutionary science provides the substrate by which the modern pharmaceutical industry develops new drugs and treatment protocols.
Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history... Michel Foucault
Hope begets many children illegitimately and prematurely. Allie M. Frazier
Beware the terrible simplifiers... Jacob Burckhardt
Whether you subscribe to Islam or not, you do believe it exists, right? Ditto for capitalism. People who are anti-capitalism understand that it exists, right? 
