So You Want to Know What's Wrong with Religion? (3 and 4)

Just read this: "Church stoked tithing with unemployment scam, ex-members say".

Just want to point out a few things from the article:

• fraudulent unemployment claims
• regularly punched and choked
• ordered by church leaders to lie to authorities
• forced to work at businesses owned by church leaders
• beatings administered by fellow church members
• The church also might mandate that he be cut off from any contact with his family
• keep tithing regardless of their financial situations

Sure, these are just the type of things you want to hear when discussing a church, any church. The Word of Faith Fellowship Church and it's founder appear to belong in jail.

 Is there some group overseeing this particular church that can take any sort of action?  I'm not familiar with this sort of church, but I am pretty sure a Catholic or Methodist Church does have levels of bureaucracy that can be contacted and possibly take some remedial action.I guess since it seems this isn't an ecclesiastical issue, but a legal one, the real question is what will NC officials do about this insanity?

How about this one: "Ex-Employees Sue TX Doctor, Saying He Forced Them to Attend Bible Study At Work".

Just a few points:

• he made them practice his version of Christianity in the workplace
• fired them when they didn’t follow suit
• held daily mandatory meetings . . .That included attending Bible studies
• dismissed because she was a single mother
• fired after saying no to that request [to attend pre-marital counseling for he and his live-in girlfriend]

I recall working with a contractor who I hope never to work near again. A few of his antics:

• When I declined to join his lunchtime prayer meetings, he was visibly upset and whined a great deal -- to my amusement, which annoyed him even more. 
• When he tried to co-opt the conference room for those lunchtime prayer meetings, he was told to stop, and he tried to complain up the chain of command and was shocked to get no support from the government bosses who managed his contract.
• When he harassed a single Mom, his company reprimanded him.
• When he complained about being reprimanded because of his efforts to 'save' that single mother, the company again reprimanded him and suggested the single mom get a lawyer and sue him for harassment.  He shut up about that subject after that.
• When the project ended, he was let go -- the only employee who wasn't changed to another contract.  According to him, he was told not to apply with that company again for a new position and to never use them for a reference.

How do I know these things?  It wasn't from secret meetings and hidden messages.  Everything that happened to him, he placed on his sleeve and used it to try and convince everyone within earshot that he was being persecuted for being a Christian and that those of us -- contractor, blue-suit, and government civilians -- that didn't support him were going to Hell.  I happened to have a desk less than 10 feet away, so I got a regular earful whether I wanted it or not.  I pretty much tuned him out and, on occasion got to tell him to shut the hell up because he was being disruptive.  Sometimes, those were the highlights of my day because he would lower his volume for at least the rest of that day.

A few years later, after I retied and became a contractor myself, I heard that he had given my company a resume, but wasn't hired.  If anyone had asked what I thought, they would have gotten my experience dealing with him, but I guess it wasn't needed.  

Let's see . . . How Many Way Can We Force People to Comply With Our Religion?

The Discovery Institute has been involved with discussions of BioEthics before and for the most part, I ignored them.  But this time I think they have gone a bit off the deep end and decided to use scare tactics to not only allow people to legally discriminate, but allow medical professionals to discriminate based on their own religion -- with a callous disregard to the welfare of the patient.  Check out how they have overblown the whole discussion in "The Ethical Menace of "Bioethics" Grows" There are several things that bother me about this whole post, first of all, is this what is being said?  I don't believe so.

" . . . the [medical] field increasingly targets the right of doctors to refuse to perform an abortion, euthanize patients, or perform other procedures or issue prescriptions that violate their religious beliefs."

I do love how they lump abortion and euthanasia with contraception (remember, many forms of contraception require a prescription), the key here really isn't the procedure, it's the DI's willingness to let Doctors discriminate based on their religious beliefs.  I have several issues, but before getting into them, let's see what has the DI fired up this time.

Take a look at the part of the bio-ethical statement that got the DI so up in arms, the full statement is at: Consensus statement on conscientious objection in Heathcare, here are the first two articles:

1, Healthcare practitioners’ primary obligations are towards their patients, not towards their own personal conscience. When the patient’s wellbeing (or best interest, or health) is at stake, healthcare practitioners’ professional obligations should normally take priority over their personal moral or religious views.  

2.In the event of a conflict between practitioners’ conscience and a patient’s desire for a legal, professionally sanctioned medical service, healthcare practitioners should always ensure that patients receive timely medical care. When they have a conscientious objection, they ought to refer their patients to another practitioner who is willing to perform the treatment. In emergency situations, when referral is not possible, or when it poses too great a burden on patients or on the healthcare system, health practitioners should perform the treatment themselves. 

Do either of these statements look like they are going to force a doctor to perform an abortion, prescribe contraception, or euthanasia?  Really?  Look at the words, when they have an objection, they should refer the patient to a doctor who isn't carrying their religious baggage.  One of my concerns is that doctors with strong religious feelings might opt out of making a referral.  Seriously!  Think it through.  Many theists preach their particular brand of religion to non-believers in an effort to 'save' them.  Do you really think all theist doctors is going to refer a patient to a doctor who is going to do a procedure that violates their belief system?

I don't think some of them will, and they will use their belief system as rationalization.  Can you trust a doctor who places their belief system ahead of a patients welfare to be honest about things that conflict with that belief set?  See what I mean!  Back to the statements, the one exception is in an 'emergency situation', so let's address that.

Can anyone even imagine an emergency situation requiring euthanasia?  Think about that.  Assisted suicide is legal in a number of states and the reasons are normally because of a incurable illness that will not only degrade any sort of a quality of life but place an incredible financial burden on the remaining family or society.  In those states you can request an assisted suicide.  I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea because I am not in such a situation.  But if it is a legal option, it's something that can be considered . . . but is it an emergency to the point where another doctor cannot be consulted? Hardly! It's not an immediate thing, some states require various forms of counseling to make sure the patient is picking this option for, what the state calls, the right reason.

How about contraception, or other potentially religiously-disagreeable prescription, although the only one that comes to mind is contraception.  If a doctor wants to be a doctor, then they have to face the fact that people are going to do things that the doctor himself might disagree with.  That might be smoking, drinking and sex not for procreation.  The doctor cannot and should not be the arbiter for making those decisions.  If that were the case, why not a prescription for condoms?  But no, what we have are theists who are making the decision for someone, and obviously for women.  As far as I know there are no prescriptions for any male contraception (yet!).  The decision belongs, not to the doctor, but to the patient. But, back to the subject, is there an emergency situation requiring contraception?  No, you might need it and not have it, but it's not an emergency unless you are making a bad movie!

How about an abortion?  There is one case where an emergency abortion might be required and that would be to save the life of the mother.  Any other form of abortion is not an emergency!  To be honest, in my opinion that shouldn't even be a question about whether or not it's legal in any location.  You are talking about saving the patient's life.  At that point any decision should be up to the patient and their family, not the doctor.  Once the decision is made, any doctor worth the title should be able to step past their personal objections and perform the procedure.  Yes, it might be personally disagreeable, but then so is the decision to cut off a leg due to gangrene or many other emergency actions!

See where I am going?  The bio-ethics statements on conscientious objections to any medical procedure is not going to force any doctor to do something against their religious beliefs.  Only one of the examples even apply in an emergency, the other examples are not emergencies and can be referred to other physicians . . . providing their are other physicians who can perform the procedure.

That's issue number 2 for me.  The same groups objecting to these procedures are also trying to make them illegal.  How facilities that are licensed for abortions have been shut down due to losing funding, protests, and even bombings?  Regardless of the other services they provide, Christian Conservatives have been too successful is stripping Planned Parenthood of funding in many states and other actions designed to end medical practices that they claim violate their religious beliefs. That's one tactic, in another they have managed to place such restrictions, for example having hallways wide enough for two stretchers to pass side by side.  This is a requirement for hospitals, not clinics.  But by requiring such standards, they are trying to drive such clinics out of business.  My concern is that it might be acceptable to refer a patient to another doctor or facility, but will there be such a facility available?

 Contraception is regarded by many theists as a violation of their beliefs, to the point where even the Pope speaks out against it!  If they are successful, then where is someone supposed to turn when there is no medical professional practiced in these areas?

My final issue is more related to the DI than this specific issue, it's with this quote:

"Would anyone assert that a non-doctor should be able to diagnose cancer or perform an appendectomy?"

Well for one, the Discovery Institute makes such assertions.  Don't you remember this:

"We don't need to rely slavishly on what scientists say because, in an important sense, we are all scientists, capable of judging a big scientific idea like evolution, if not necessarily the technical details, for ourselves." (More Scientists Praise Douglas Axe's Undeniable)

Yes, we are all capable of judging big scientific ideas for ourselves, right?  If that's so, then we don't need 'experts', we can use our intuition, right?  The DI has been peddling this idea that intuition is as reliable as scientific investigation.  But they aren't saying that here, here they are question the idea that someone other than Doctors might be able to function in some roles currently filled by doctors.  However . . .

Isn't that currently happening?  I mean over my lifetime I have seen role changes for many medical roles that used to be strictly in the doctors' purview.  Nursing roles have changes, many       hospitals are using  Physicians Assistants (Certified),  for many treatment and only bring in an MD or other specialist when needed.  Whether or not someone other than a doctor can do any medical procedure is a matter of training more than anything else.  I'm not saying someone other than a Doctor should diagnose cancer, but then the bio-ethics under discussion aren't saying that either.

Take Hospice Care.  Throughout a recent terminal illness, once Hospice was involved, doctors were pretty much hands off.  It wasn't until there was a new medical requirement did any doctors get into things and you had to transfer from Hospice care back to Medical care or there were all sorts of legal and insurance issues.  BTW, that was in Washington State, the home state of the DI.  So it's OK for non-doctors to manage the care for terminal patients, but if your religious views on life are involved, it's got to be a medical doctor?  Why?

This is pretty typical of the DI.  They take a stand not based on logic or even medical necessity, but one based on their religious beliefs.  Then they create a straw man trying to tell you what someone else is says, in this case the Consensus statement on conscientious objection in Heathcare -- only their strawman doesn't give it to you straight, they 'interpret' it for you . . . in other words spin it for their own purposes.  Then they want you to help demolish the strawman!

I don't know where you stand, but where I stand is simple.  A doctor's oath should come before any other considerations up to and including their belief system.  If they are incapable is setting their beliefs aside for the welfare of their patient, then I believe it's time to find another line of work.  That sounds harsh, but how can a profession develop a level of trust that is needed when the patient cannot be sure the doctor has their welfare as their foremost concern.  The rationalization that the doctor is also concerned for a patients spiritual welfare doesn't hold any water for me.  It's not part of a doctor's duties, training, or even job to play that particular card.

When a doctor let's their religious beliefs take precedence over their medical responsibilities, what they are doing is inflicting their belief set on another human being.  If that is allowed, then where is the line drawn?  Parents who allow their children to die because their belief system doesn't accept medical treatment have been, and should continue, to be held accountable.  Shouldn't we be holding doctors to the same standard?

Klingy thinks Medical Doctors' Opinions are Important, on non-medical topics, Is it?

Does the Discovery Institute really understand the word 'hypothetical'?  I don't think so.  In little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer Evolution and 'news' and Views post "The Medical Background to Intelligent Design", I think he misses the point.  But then since he is repeating a constant Creationist trope, it might be understandable.  Here is a quote of his:

"Biological systems not only need to exist but to function properly. It's no use tracing a hypothetical path of evolutionary descent unless every living thing along that path was fully functional in the real world."

The trope I mention is their continual insistence that a biological system must exist in its final and absolute state in order for it to be considered functional.  How many times does this have to be addressed before he, and the rest of the DI get it?  Michael Behe tried this with his 'Irreducible Complexity (IC)' and that work so well that he's backed off considerably from providing examples.  He got his hat handed to him after testifying about it during the 2005 Dover trial and and the court said:

The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." (Wikipedia: Irreducible Complexity)

If you don't recall the details, here's a quickie refresher: He argued that evolution, particularly evolution by Natural Selection, was impossible because 'certain' biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems.  He cited a number of potential systems, like blood clotting factor and the immune system as irreducibly complex.  However, when faced with over 50 peer-reviewed articles and papers explaining these in evolutionary terms, he rejected them out of hand saying that they were not enough.  You can see why the court said what it said about it.

My initial reaction was much simpler.  Michael Behe postulates an idea with absolutely no support except for wishful thinking and conjecture . . . and rejects actual peer-reviewed papers that he hasn't even bothered to read.  Anyone else see something wrong with that?

Anyway, you can see klingy is beating on that drum again.  Only he's not calling is IC, but the premise is the same.  He seems to define 'function properly' as functioning in the way the current biological system functions.  What he does is dismiss any possibility of the parts that make up a biological system having any other function.  Like all DI'ers, he discounts it.  He is once again claiming evolution's impossibility, while failing to support is argument with anything other than wishful thinking.

I do enjoy how he brought in medical doctors into the argument.  Back in 2005 the Discovery Institute claimed 60% of medical doctors didn't believe in evolution, in In 2007, the Jewish Theological Seminary conducted a survey on this topic, finding that 78 percent of doctors accept evolution.  As we have said before, you can find a survey on any subject that will support a particular view, so surveys like these are meaningless.  The real question is "Is it important that a practicing medical doctor accept evolution?"  The answer seems to be that for the most part, no.

When I first realized that, I was more than a bit surprised.  But when you think it through, doctors use the results of the biological science, but are not necessarily educated in understanding the details. Most specialties in medicine require no actual study or understanding of evolutionary theory to do their jobs.  There are some, like dealing with infectious diseases or cancers where evolution is key to their work, but for the most part doctors don't need it. Their focus is on the here-and-now and not on how we got here.  So when is comes to asking medical doctors about their level of belief in evolution, the answer isn't very important.  Which pretty well makes the DI's point meaningless. 

I haven't checked, but I am sure there are some medical doctors who signed to 'Dissent from Darwinism' petition, that's we've discussed all too often.  If you remember those posts, while the statement they signed claimed to dissent for scientific reasons, the reality was they signed for religious reasons.  I am sure there are a number of doctors who have a philosophical stand against evolution, but I doubt those that use evolution as part of their medical duties would agree.  Remember that while doctors are highly educated, the education is tightly focused.

While I am sure doctors wouldn't like the comparison, but can a car mechanic build a car?  No, that's not their job or training.  That is similar for medical doctors.  I have three degrees dealing with computers, but I cannot build a computer.  I can assemble one from parts purchased from multiple sources, as I have done on a number of occasions.  I can fix them, program them, network them . . . but I do not have the training or experience to 'build' one.  Why would we expect doctors to know everything about biology?  I wouldn't go to a biologist for a medical diagnosis, would you?

Of course the DI doesn't care about the reality.  All they care about to be able to string together words and phrases that make it sound like Evolution is on its knees.  You know for a scientific theory whose death knell has been declared continually for over a century and a half, its constant survival might seem surprising, until you look at the actual attacks.  Then it's easy to see why it's still the most supported theory in biology, maybe in all of science.

Practical vs Impractical . . . or Evolution's utility vs Creationism!

One of the questions I have dived into several times discusses the impracticality of Creationism. More specifically the question I ask is what part of any scientific theory, or scientific advancement uses Creationism?  To date the answer to that question has been silence, and it continues to be silence.  No one has been able to point to anything that shows an actual use of Creationism in science.

The best some have tried to do is claim credit for some scientific advancement because the scientist who made the breakthrough was a theist of one form or another.  My response to that is usually "So what!"  Just because Newton believed in God, show me where God had a hand in Newton's theories? Show me the part of any theory where you identify and categorize the actions on any particular deity? No one has been able to, not once!

So since Creationism is pretty much useless, then Creationists must show that Evolution is also useless.  After all, isn't it logical to infer that if evolution is useless, then Creationism must be the only answer there is?  I know, not to me, and not to anyone with a working brain.  Even if you manage to convince someone that Evolution is useless, that doesn't automatically imply that Creationism suddenly has value.

But you know they have to try, and one of my favorite Creationists, the homophobic and Biblical-revisionist - little kennie ham - had one of his pet 'scientists' give it a go.  He's tried it before, remember just last year it was "A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI".  Of course this was nothing but an example of a theist who managed to develop some very cutting edge science regardless of his religious beliefs.  As usual, no one can point to any part of the theories behind magnetic imaging and say "and here is where God did such-and-such." But since he is a Creationists, little kennie uses him as a poster-boy for Creation Science.

I will repeat something I have said over and over again.  Being a Creationist doesn't mean you cannot think . . . it's just that being a Creationist, most tend not to think, particular when someone like little kennie is telling you that thinking certain things goes against his religious beliefs.  Well, this time kennie has a pet medical doctor who makes this claim: "Evolution Has "Absolutely No Effect" on Medical Practice".  To which I can only reply "Bullshit!"

Apparently Tommy Mitchell has forgotten much of what he learned in preparation for his medical career.  Many of the medicines and treatments he used were tested out on various animals.  Why is that?  It's because they react much in the same way humans do.  Why would that be?  Of course the Creationist would say that maybe they were placed on this Earth for the purpose of medical testing. But the evidence shows that such testing works because of the evolutionary relationship we have with those animals.  Here is a quote from little kennie that he says he got from Dr. Tommy:

"When Grandma’s in the ICU and her kidneys are not working, you’re not sitting there thinking, “Well, her kidney’s evolved.” No, you just care that Grandma’s kidneys don’t work, and you want them to work again. So, operationally, evolution had zero effect on anything I did as a physician"

So where did the treatment and medications Tommy must have used come from?  Let me guess a quick prayer and they just pop into existence on Grandma's nightstand?  Tommy might be disingenuous, but the majority of the medical field knows the impact of evolution on medicine!

How about pesticide/drug resistance?  Does Creationism have an answer why individuals and groups develop a resistance to certain pesticides/medications over time?  Evolution explains it quite handily and that is something medical research doctors take into account regularly.  But I guess Tommy wasn't one of those.

One of the most telling evidences that support evolutionary theory is genetics.  But maybe Tommy slept through that part of his education.  Phylogenetic analysis, ribotyping, and parasite virulence are a few other examples where Evolution has impacted medicine.  I have to thank Talk Origins for these examples, there are many more at "The Claim that the theory of evolution is useless, without practical application."

It seems Tommy has been operating a medical license without appreciating the underlying knowledge and information that supported everything he did as a medical doctor.  I really don't care that Tommy is a theist, but I don't appreciate it when he denigrates the science behind his own education.   Which is what he did when he said this:

"Actually, taking care of Grandma today in the hospital has nothing to do with accepting evolution"

Again, denying everything that went into the development of Grandma's medicines and treatments!  I did have to check and see if he got his medical education at Liberty University (Falwell's Lament), but no, he did go to one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country.  Just goes to show you that Creationists are capable of insane level of denial!  No wonder he and kennie get along so well.

So Tommy has his say, I wonder if he will now list all the times Creationism was used in the development of medicines and medical treatments?  But I think if he were capable of addressing that, he would have lead off with it instead of trying to backdoor evolution.  I almost wish Tommy had been one of my granddaughter's doctors during a recent medical issue.  I would have loved to see him blubber through a creationist explanation of her treatment.  While it might be humorous to consider, I wouldn't have wished her to receive treatments from someone who can so glibly deny the science behind such treatments.  Luckily for his career as a doctor, science works whether you 'accept' evolution or not.