Replies

Yes. And while the procedure for researching disease to find cures is itself scientific, the definition of the illness as bad and curing the illness as good is not scientific. Science is great for finding out how the natural world works, but it's not really going to give you an explanation of what is "good" and "bad". You'll have to use something else to make those judgements.

That thing is philosophy, the handmaid of theology, the queen of the sciences.

The problem is, if evolutionary theory makes no judgment regarding the relative goodness of various mutations, then it loses the basis for what little explanatory and predictive power it has.

Under an evolutionary rubric, mutations must be good, at least with respect to the theory, because without them evolution would not occur. We cannot, in a scientific sense, say whether specific, current, human mutations are good or bad because we cannot know what we are evolving into, and whether these mutations will ultimately increase or decrease our chances of survival.

Since we cannot scientifically say whether specific human mutations (and diseases) will ultimately increase or decrease our chances of survival, doctors may take an agnostic attitude regarding human mutations and diseases, or they can just as "scientifically" choose to cure these diseases, or they can just as "scientifically" work to cleanse the gene pool, as Margaret Sanger did.

This conclusion contradicts the first principle of ethics, which is that the good must be done and evil avoided. Clearly disease and injury are disorders of the body and intrinsic evils.

That thing is philosophy, the handmaid of theology, the queen of the sciences.

Yes, it is philosophy, but I don't see it as queen of the sciences.

The problem is, if evolutionary theory makes no judgment regarding the relative goodness of various mutations, then it loses the basis for what little explanatory and predictive power it has.

No, it doesn't. It's descriptive. That's it.

Under an evolutionary rubric, mutations must be good, at least with respect to the theory, because without them evolution would not occur.

That's only if there's an implied definition of the process evolution itself being "good", which again, is outside of the realm of science. Evolution simply describes a process, it does not say whether the process itself is 'good' or 'bad'.

We cannot, in a scientific sense, say whether specific, current, human mutations are good or bad because we cannot know what we are evolving into, and whether these mutations will ultimately increase or decrease our chances of survival.

You're right. We cannot say, in a scientific sense, whether mutations are good or bad. We also cannot say, in a scientific sense, whether increased human survivability through mutation is good or bad, whether the WTC attacks were good or bad, whether Spider-Man 2 is good or bad or whether feeding the homeless is good or bad. Science simply describes processes, it does not make value judgements of any kind. Evolution happens; whether the ultimate results of the process are "good" or "bad" are judgements left for non-scientific analysis.

Since we cannot scientifically say whether specific human mutations (and diseases) will ultimately increase or decrease our chances of survival, doctors may take an agnostic attitude regarding human mutations and diseases, or they can just as "scientifically" choose to cure these diseases, or they can just as "scientifically" work to cleanse the gene pool, as Margaret Sanger did.

You still don't understand. Evolution deals with survivability in a given environment. If you work to cure disease, then you are changing the environment, and thus increasing the survival chances for individuals within the population. Thus curing human disease is another means of creating an environment in which more people will be able to survive.

Yes, you can try to argue that you're just trying to cull the 'weak' from the environment to improve future human generations, but don't tell me that it's an argument from pure science. You still have to make the ethical decision that it's better to let people die now so that humans in the future might have a genetic predisposition for immunity to the diseases and when you do that you've left the realm of science.

This conclusion contradicts the first principle of ethics, which is that the good must be done and evil avoided.

Well then it would seem as though someone who makes such a decision has a warped sense of ethics. I don't see how this condemns the theory of evolution.

Clearly disease and injury are disorders of the body and intrinsic evils.

If you say so. But this has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.