a_Truster #fundie

a_Truster #fundie bbc.co.uk

was looking at autism the other night. I have some clients who have autistic children and wanted some background information before giving further advice.

Someone commented on the fact that autism might be ''evolution'' and this was so obviously a possibility for those that have believed the lie.

If you honestly believe in evolution then preventative medicine should not be an option. You should let the weak die so as to insure the survival, by evolution, of the fittest.

If evolution is working in these children to change the pattern of thought then evolution should be allowed to take it's course and the evolutionist should not interfere with the process.

Does evolution always mean improvement?

We creationist know that sin was not an improvement, but that in Eden Elohim Yah Veh promised to put things right so that we should be better off after the application of the promise than Adam was before the fall.

43 comments

old comment by Eden

He didn´t put anything right in me.
He fucked things up (hey, he could have put these 2 trees everywhere on the world, out of reach of Adam and Eve), lied to them about the fruits of the trees being poisonous (which, as the snake correctly stated, they weren´t) and afterwards threw Adam and Eve out of Eden as some kind of punishment for Adam and Eve, for falling into the trap he laid out for them.

Nowhere is there any mentioning about a promise of improving the conditions of Adam, Eve or any of their children, instead every child would get punished as well, for the sins of their parents (original sin).

(that is, if you take the bible by word ;))

You also seem to fail to see that social behavior, which lets specimen survive which usually wouldn´t survive on their own, also is part of evolution

old comment by John

Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. If a scientist says smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, is he telling you not to smoke? No. He's just giving you information. Likewise, if a scientist says the strong will reproduce and the weak won't, he's not telling an autistic person not to have children or saying we shouldn't help autistic people. He's just pointing out that in the long run, the descendants of people without autism are more likely to survive than the descendants of people with autism. The same is true for people with early heart disease, early breast cancer, Down's Syndrome and a host of other maladies that afflict our human condition.

old comment by Amadaun

Not a philosophical position, nimnal.

But, see, you stumble across an important point that even nominally secular subscribers to the theory can have trouble with. Science fiction is regularly misleading in pursuit of a good story, but the teleological view is fundamentally incorrect. Evolution isn't necessarily "for the better." Nothing is guiding it, and there is no objective. The process contains no measure of good but advantage in getting live children, and even then only those things which arise by accident have a chance, and things that aren't any good can still get by.

Peacocks' tails are impractical but have gene-pool advantages, so they're in...but they're pretty, so we can classify them as 'good,' if we like, by another measure. Earlobes are neutral. No reason for them to go, even though they serve no detectable purpose.

Of course, our society and technology allow us to minimize selection pressure to such an extent that significant evolution in humans is unlikely, because most people, most unnaturally, survive to breed. We are not most animals. We manipulate the rules. It's our whole mechanism, tinkering and subverting; our nature to be unnatural and make up for our weaknesses with awesome cheats. Pursuing a form of 'natural selection' in the name of...biological destiny would be something else entirely from what has brought us to this point.

I mean, geez. Sure, keeping every whittle in the pack is probably increasing all those weird little problems that would make you die young otherwise, but we're tiny soft little things that could at this point totally kill the dinosaurs if they reappeared.

old comment by WWWWolf

> If you honestly believe in evolution then preventative medicine should not be an option. You should let the weak die so as to insure the survival, by evolution, of the fittest.

The fact that humanity is able to produce preventative medicine is an example of humankind's ability to overcome problems that threaten its existence. Duh.

Survival isn't about physical strength, it's about all of the qualities that further it - and intelligence and ability to apply it is a good example.

> Does evolution always mean improvement?

Something that strictly produces traits that benefit individuals? No. Something that helps the species to function in their environment? Yes.

Simply put: What you want isn't necessarily what you need.

old comment by Saccharissa

"If you honestly believe in evolution then preventative medicine should not be an option. You should let the weak die so as to insure the survival, by evolution, of the fittest."

And if you honestly believed in creationism then preventative medicine should not be an option. Since everything is God's will, he is allowing you to be sick for some greater purpose. You should pray instead.

"If evolution is working in these children to change the pattern of thought then evolution should be allowed to take it's course and the evolutionist should not interfere with the process."

If God is working in these children to change the pattern of thought then God should be allowed to take His course and the creationist should not interfere with the process.

old comment by theo

Most of your post is semi correct: yes in a brutal wilderness situation, certain genetic disorders in humans would be gradually bred out of us as a species, through survival of the fittest.

You've made the common mistake of fundamentalists though. You assume that evolutionists WANT evolution to be true and WANT evolution to continue. We really don't. We believe it IS true, and we look for as much evidence as possible to prove it, but if sufficient evidence points to a completely different theory we'd be open to that. We DEFINITELY DON'T WANT evolution to continue. The only way for the human race to continue to evolve, is, as you rightly said, to deny all medicine to all of society, so that weak people die early without breeding. Making people fight to the death regularly would speed the process up.

Modern technology has essentially ended the possibility of humans evolving further, because we keep people alive as long as possible, and don't restrict breeding. No evolutionists (except the psychopathic ones) are advocating anything else...

a_Truster #fundie bbc.co.uk

43 comments

Confused?