Comment on Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps by gene fortner.
FYI “Evidence Based Medicine”
The Intention Behind
1. The role of physicians is superfluous.
2. Resources are limited, and their allocation
must be controlled.
3. The impartial, cold, hard “science” of
“chance” (probability theory. shall drive that control
of limited medical resources.
4. Valid evidence or scientific information is
limited to that which is statistical.
5. The world is based on chance, and only
probability theory can provide certainty for scientific
One only need to review a simple pocket text of
evidence-based medicine to understand the argument
further. See Evidence Based Medicine: How
To Practice and Teach EBM, by David L Sackett,
Sharon E Straus, W. Scott Richardson, William
Rosenberg, and R. Brian Haynes (Los Angeles:
Churchill Livingstone, second ed., 2000).
A Personal Example
Thus, when receiving cancer treatment and after
the first dose of a chemotherapy cancer drug threw my
husband to the floor for days, he was given a second
dose which caused two weeks of arguably the most
painful condition known to man—“mucositis.” Imagine
my horror to find out, afterwards, that there was a
simple blood test available to determine his ability to
metabolize the poisonous drug, which was neither offered
to him nor performed before the second blast of
When I confronted the medical team responsible
for his care, a bewildered crew of residents and attending
physicians justified and dismissed the omission of this test
with the excuse that “there has never been a large, double-blind randomized trial to determine the utility of such testing.” In other words, evidence-based medicine
doesn’t allow it. Then, with the same inhumanity,
the test was offered to my husband after his encounter with mucositis. My husband’s response was: “I will not have my genetic material used in this fashion by you!” He had insight into their “cold hard science.” My husband was a professor of molecular biology in a medical school. How it
must have destroyed his faith in medicine to see what some physicianshad become.
gene fortner Also Commented
> In 2011, Dr. Alvin Plantinga, the foremost living Christian philosopher, released his book Where the Conflict Really Lies. Plantinga argues that the real conflict is not between Science and Religion, as commonly thought, but between Naturalism and Science itself. In the same spirit, I want to examine the current trend of denialism among promoters of Darwinism and critics of intelligent design. In that context, the real conflict lies not between science and skeptics like us, as you often hear, but between ostrich-like defenders of outdated scientific orthodoxy and the reality of scientific controversy. – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/where_the_denia078041.html#sthash.r4hIX6Ul.dpuf
> There is superficial conflict but deep concord between Christian belief and science, and there is superficial concord but deep conflict between naturalism and science.
Why is this tagged philosophical naturalism?I know that telling lies for God is an accepted literal creationist practice from Gish to Hovind but I do expect better from my own faith community.I have been crystal clear on my position on methodological naturalism and the practice of science.Of course I could attribute it to incompetence rather than malice but I have a hard time imagining you did it unintentionally.
when you call someone a liar you need to do the following:
The alledged lie documented by a reliable source.
Proof that the statement is a lie.
That is the minimum, otherwise you are just a gossip.
PS: How many lies for gov $$$ grants have you seen?
Think Climategate I and II
Recent Comments by gene fortner
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Bill “How inane would it be to claim an apple tree is not an apple tree unless and until it has apples on it?”
Comparing babies and apple trees is a bit more inane than comparing apples and oranges.
“The ONLY DEFINITION FOR SIN that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law… IT CONDEMNS EVERY SIN, AND REQUIRES EVERY VIRTUE.” E.G. White, ST, March 3, 1890 par. 3.
If it is a sin to possess a fallen nature then there must be a law against it. Has God given a law forbidding anyone from being conceived with a fallen human nature? If there ever was a law that was impossible to keep, this would be it, for how could one choose not to violate it before one existed?!
No statement was necessary.
In fact I consider it thoughtless.
FB#6 should have absolutely no effect on their ability to support the world church and perform work faithfully and with integrity.
Sin is transgression of the law.
Where does it say being born is a sin?