The facts of the case:
There was recently a case in Idaho where a woman had an abortion, then tried to fill a prescription for a medicine that is a common after abortion treatment. The drug in question was methergine, and is most commonly prescribed as a several day course of pills, which contracts the uterus to help prevent residual bleeding post procedure.
The pharmacist, called the clinic, and in the conversation, asked if the drug was being used as post abortion treatment. The nurse practioner refused to answer the question, and so the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. Health professionals are allowed (perhaps even obligated) to share private and confidential information about their patients with each other, if they are directly involved in treatment.
The reason the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription was because of conscience laws in Idaho which allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medicine causing or directly related to abortion.
Planned Parent filed a complaint against the pharmacist and against Walgreens, which was the pharmacy in question.
The Board of Pharmacy's response was basically that the pharmacist did nothing wrong.
Austin Cline wrote an article about this incident, titled, "Idaho Pharmacists not Obliged to Prevent Women from Dying"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/12/idaho-pharmacists-not-obliged-to-prevent-women-from-dying.htm
End of the facts of the case.
Holy cats, where to start on this one.
First, the woman's life was not in danger. Methergine is not an emergency treatment. If she was bleeding internally from a botched abortion, that is a post operative concern and a pill isn't going to fix that one. If the uterus is perforated by a surgical instrument, to the point where life is threatened, the emergency procedure is not, "well drive down to the Walgreen's on 77th, then wait in line at the pharmacy for few minutes..."
Second, this kind of thing is expressively why a conscience clause exists in the first place. If someone has a moral objection to abortion, then they may not be forced to participate in the procedure, treatment, or aftercare of that procedure.
We don't know for sure, but it seems likely that the reason the nurse practioner refused to answer the question, was because she knew this and was attempting to skirt the issue entirely. By refusing to answer germaine questions about the context of the case, the pharmacist has an arguable reason to be concerned or suspicious about the nature of the prescription. This is a drug, with effects and side effects and if the pharmacist has questions about the issuing of a prescription relative to the person in front of them, these should be addressed, not ignored.
Third, the title and treatment of this argument is the logical fallacy called the Appeal to Fear.
By implying that inaction on the part of the pharmacist caused someone to die (when it didn't), or that the conscience clause allowing pharmacists to not participate in abortions someone results in people dying is simply not accurate.
It is a lie.
It is inaccurate, unethical, and immoral to talk about this case in this way. Austin characterizes this as a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription because, "punishing her for a possible abortion was all that mattered." (emphasis in bold mine, original was italics)
It isn't speculative or punishing to refuse to participate in something that you morally believe is tantamount to infanticide. This isn't someone who killed an abortion doctor. This isn't even someone peacefully picketing outside an abortion clinic. This is someone who is refusing to participate in the process, which she is specifically, and legally allowed to do.
She made a "choice" to not participate in this process. Related to whether or not she wants to participate in an abortion, her own, or someone else's, should she be allowed to choose? Isn't that the hallmark of the so-called, "pro-choice" agenda? Or is she only allowed to choose when she agrees with you?
Austin doesn't stop there, he goes on to hysterically attack ALL pharmacists.
He writes, "Yeah, right. I say that if pharmacists want a right to invoke their "conscience" to refuse to dispense legally prescribe medication to people in need, then we the people should invoke the power to deny pharmacists a monopoly over dispensing medication in the first place. Let the pharmacists follow their "conscience" to refuse to do their jobs while the rest of us seek medication elsewhere. Sooner or later, we won't have any pharmacists left to endanger our lives and we'll all be better off.
Here we have fine instances of the logical fallacies of Hasty Generalization, Generalization and the Slippery Slope.
For Hasty Generalization, Austin is clamoring for removing the stringent and detailed education and licensing practices for pharmacists. There are reasons, and excellent ones, for allowing someone with a PhD level of education to regulate the dispensing of potentially life-threatening drugs in society. He wants to do this, based on an isolated example that he disagrees with, instead of a rational and reasoned review of the entire pharmacy process as a whole.
For Generalization, he is lumping all pharmacists in with the Walgreen's pharmacist in Idaho, many of whom would disagree with her actions. If Austin is unhappy with the pharmacist's actions, or the peer review of the board of inquiry's finding, well that is unfortunate. But his statements don't apply to pharmacy in general.
The Slippery Slope here is that because one pharmacist somewhere followed an appropriate and legal action for a conscience clause, then no pharmacists anywhere will help us obtain life saving medicine. What a hysterical and incoherent rant!
Austin just leaves out critical information related to this occurence, and in doing so, does a disservice to every critical thinking person who took the time to read it.
The thing is, he knows better, especially regarding rhetoric or logical fallacy. He has even written about these things specifically. At that point, I don't know what to say. Is Austin deliberating misrepresenting the facts to strengthen a desperately weak argument?
Is he deliberately using rhetoric to further an anti-religious position, even if in doing so, he is leaving the truth and logic behind?
I don't know his motives, but I can't think of a reasonable alternative in this case. I hope he doesn't need any medicine in the near future. For my part I think pharmacists are a valued and conscientious part of our society, they are doing great work for the most part in doing their jobs well and preventing more problems than you would believe.
I don't think they need to be attacked unfairly, for adhering to moral belief, and following their protections under the law.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the only one who died in this case, was the unborn child.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The Problem with Talking About Evolution
I read an article recently where a prominent atheist is talking about evolution versus creationism, and says the following:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/08/comment-of-the-week-proving-evolution.htm
Creationism is not a position adopted simply because a person happens to lack all the information necessary to rationally justify accepting evolution. Creationism is a religious ideology adopted in spite of evidence because one's religion demands opposition to most of what defines modernity: science, reason, autonomy, etc.
This is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of the Straw Man. Basically you misrepresent a position you disagree with, then "refute" the imaginary position. It's a wonderful metaphor and in a fight, an opponent who is propped up and stuffed with straw is easy to defeat, knock down or set on fire. The reality is not so simple.
Not all people who believe in Creation are idiots, or submissive to an oppressive and backwards ideology eschewing of all things contemporary or modern. To be sure, there are some people who believe that the earth is flat, in bigfoot and UFOs and in all manner of things. The internet has made it alarmingly easy to identify and link to the lunatic fringe, but you're still talking about Straw Men here.
There are lots of people who are reasonably informed on the science of biology and evolution, who still believe God created the universe.
As an example, the head of the human genome project, is a Christian, and believes that God created the universe. One of the most prominent and effective scientists of our age led the genome project to successful completion, early and under budget. He calls DNA, the language of God and he isn't a yokel, he is an expert who knows what he is talking about and understands the implications of what he says.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/08/God-Is-Not-Threatened-By-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx?p=3
The question isn't (from anyone with a brain, in my opinion) does evolution, in some sense, occur? Of course it does. The real question is, does the fact that it does mean that science has successfully answered questions of origin to the point where there is no rational room for faith?
That answer is clearly no and unfortunately, this is the real source of disagreement.
Atheists like Austin, hold their statement above to be a given, and refuse to acknowledge the ontological underpinnings of their own assumptions, and assume that anyone who disagrees simply isn't rational at all.
In the article, reference are made to three pieces of evidence considered to be a "slam dunk" against anyone who believes in creation. So, I'm game, let's take a look at these one by one:
First: The Lenski experiment
This is an experiment, still running at the University of Michigan, which is studying changes over time with generations of E Coli, with 50,000 generations having come and gone. It is an interesting study where they seperate an observe differences over time from organisms with a common ancestry. None of the organisms have turned into a fish or a giraffe yet, but they have shown significant changes over time and have adapted to things in their very limited and controlled environment.
The philosophical implications of this are pretty thin, given that no one that I'm aware of is saying that we can't adapt significantly over time. That some of us are white, some brown and some black seems like a pretty obvious indication that we're really adaptable in ways that can pass onto our children. That E Coli become larger and more round over time, simply isn't conclusive evidence that materialism is now the only answer. This doesn't refute anything, except the notion that organisms do not adapt at all, and even the craziest people on the creation boat don't believe this.
It's one of those things that seems like it ought to be more than it actually is, in terms of actual logical implication.
Second: Chromosome #2
This one was interesting as well, and I hadn't encountered this one before. Humans have 23 strands of chromosomes. Other primates, apes, chimps, etc... have 24. One of our strands (#2) looks really, really similar to 2 separate strands in other primates.
The theory from the scientific side is that we and other primates have a shared ancestry, because of the hugely similar sections of our DNA. The philosophical implication that our atheist article writer wants to make is that this clearly indicates that evolution as currently understood is true and therefore, we don't need any Creator for explaining little Timmy.
Just off the top of my head, there would be two other options, both compatible with Christianity.
One, God used an evolutionary process to develop life on earth. If you consider that every person you know, in all their complexity, orginated as a single cell (zygote), it isn't much of a leap to imagine that God grew a world of life and complexity in similar fashion, from an equally humble and simplistic beginning. This is Collin's position, and it is a reasonable one.
To say that this complexity (both in a person as an individual and in the world's ecosystem at large) occurred spontaneously over time, is still a huge leap... and it doesn't seem to follow that pattern in other complex systems that we observe in nature.
Two, God used similar building blocks in designing different life forms, because they worked well. To say that we share DNA with fruit flies, carrots and baboons might be a bit like saying engines in planes, trains and automobiles all utilize metal.
If you consider that there might be an intelligence at work in creation, of course there would be things used again and again, that isn't shocking at all.
The challenge on this one was to demonstrate how the scientists are wrong here. The answer to that is, that the implication of the data at hand does not make it necessary that God does not exist. Moving on.
Three: Tiktaalik
Basically, this is a fish with flipper joints, which would allow the little halibut to do a push up.
This is in answer to, "There are no transitional fossils! The missing link is still missing!"
Yeah, ok, but that's a stupid position for any creationist to take, and not many of them do. The problem with holding that there is no specie to specie "evolution" is that species are categorizations made by us and while they aren't arbitrary, they aren't perfect either.
Species is defined as a taxonomic rank that can breed and produce fertile offspring. So as a stupid example, dogs can't breed with giraffes. They are different species.
But a great dane, with theorectically compatible with a chihuahua, is practically a separate "species" under this rule. Great danes and chihuahuas have a common canine ancestor, but they have developed different traits and sizes over time. A litter of great dane puppies would kill a chihuahua mother, should that actually somehow occur.
I would actually agree that fossils like tiktaalik would be indicative that evolution does occur in such a way that allows for the possibility of two groups being identified as different "species" over time.
But we still have the same problems, this isn't new or alarming, it doesn't answer questions of first cause or necessarily mean that the complexity we see came only from natural, material causes. In terms of transitional animals, or evidence that would lend itself well to this kind of theory, you don't need a 380 million year old fossil for that...
you just need a frog.
Or any amphibian - aren't they much stronger (and fully formed) arguments for transitional species than a salmon that can prop itself up by 2 inches or so to see better?
So three "slam dunk" arguments against creation, seemingly defanged. Thanks for playing.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/08/comment-of-the-week-proving-evolution.htm
Creationism is not a position adopted simply because a person happens to lack all the information necessary to rationally justify accepting evolution. Creationism is a religious ideology adopted in spite of evidence because one's religion demands opposition to most of what defines modernity: science, reason, autonomy, etc.
This is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of the Straw Man. Basically you misrepresent a position you disagree with, then "refute" the imaginary position. It's a wonderful metaphor and in a fight, an opponent who is propped up and stuffed with straw is easy to defeat, knock down or set on fire. The reality is not so simple.
Not all people who believe in Creation are idiots, or submissive to an oppressive and backwards ideology eschewing of all things contemporary or modern. To be sure, there are some people who believe that the earth is flat, in bigfoot and UFOs and in all manner of things. The internet has made it alarmingly easy to identify and link to the lunatic fringe, but you're still talking about Straw Men here.
There are lots of people who are reasonably informed on the science of biology and evolution, who still believe God created the universe.
As an example, the head of the human genome project, is a Christian, and believes that God created the universe. One of the most prominent and effective scientists of our age led the genome project to successful completion, early and under budget. He calls DNA, the language of God and he isn't a yokel, he is an expert who knows what he is talking about and understands the implications of what he says.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/08/God-Is-Not-Threatened-By-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx?p=3
The question isn't (from anyone with a brain, in my opinion) does evolution, in some sense, occur? Of course it does. The real question is, does the fact that it does mean that science has successfully answered questions of origin to the point where there is no rational room for faith?
That answer is clearly no and unfortunately, this is the real source of disagreement.
Atheists like Austin, hold their statement above to be a given, and refuse to acknowledge the ontological underpinnings of their own assumptions, and assume that anyone who disagrees simply isn't rational at all.
In the article, reference are made to three pieces of evidence considered to be a "slam dunk" against anyone who believes in creation. So, I'm game, let's take a look at these one by one:
First: The Lenski experiment
This is an experiment, still running at the University of Michigan, which is studying changes over time with generations of E Coli, with 50,000 generations having come and gone. It is an interesting study where they seperate an observe differences over time from organisms with a common ancestry. None of the organisms have turned into a fish or a giraffe yet, but they have shown significant changes over time and have adapted to things in their very limited and controlled environment.
The philosophical implications of this are pretty thin, given that no one that I'm aware of is saying that we can't adapt significantly over time. That some of us are white, some brown and some black seems like a pretty obvious indication that we're really adaptable in ways that can pass onto our children. That E Coli become larger and more round over time, simply isn't conclusive evidence that materialism is now the only answer. This doesn't refute anything, except the notion that organisms do not adapt at all, and even the craziest people on the creation boat don't believe this.
It's one of those things that seems like it ought to be more than it actually is, in terms of actual logical implication.
Second: Chromosome #2
This one was interesting as well, and I hadn't encountered this one before. Humans have 23 strands of chromosomes. Other primates, apes, chimps, etc... have 24. One of our strands (#2) looks really, really similar to 2 separate strands in other primates.
The theory from the scientific side is that we and other primates have a shared ancestry, because of the hugely similar sections of our DNA. The philosophical implication that our atheist article writer wants to make is that this clearly indicates that evolution as currently understood is true and therefore, we don't need any Creator for explaining little Timmy.
Just off the top of my head, there would be two other options, both compatible with Christianity.
One, God used an evolutionary process to develop life on earth. If you consider that every person you know, in all their complexity, orginated as a single cell (zygote), it isn't much of a leap to imagine that God grew a world of life and complexity in similar fashion, from an equally humble and simplistic beginning. This is Collin's position, and it is a reasonable one.
To say that this complexity (both in a person as an individual and in the world's ecosystem at large) occurred spontaneously over time, is still a huge leap... and it doesn't seem to follow that pattern in other complex systems that we observe in nature.
Two, God used similar building blocks in designing different life forms, because they worked well. To say that we share DNA with fruit flies, carrots and baboons might be a bit like saying engines in planes, trains and automobiles all utilize metal.
If you consider that there might be an intelligence at work in creation, of course there would be things used again and again, that isn't shocking at all.
The challenge on this one was to demonstrate how the scientists are wrong here. The answer to that is, that the implication of the data at hand does not make it necessary that God does not exist. Moving on.
Three: Tiktaalik
Basically, this is a fish with flipper joints, which would allow the little halibut to do a push up.
This is in answer to, "There are no transitional fossils! The missing link is still missing!"
Yeah, ok, but that's a stupid position for any creationist to take, and not many of them do. The problem with holding that there is no specie to specie "evolution" is that species are categorizations made by us and while they aren't arbitrary, they aren't perfect either.
Species is defined as a taxonomic rank that can breed and produce fertile offspring. So as a stupid example, dogs can't breed with giraffes. They are different species.
But a great dane, with theorectically compatible with a chihuahua, is practically a separate "species" under this rule. Great danes and chihuahuas have a common canine ancestor, but they have developed different traits and sizes over time. A litter of great dane puppies would kill a chihuahua mother, should that actually somehow occur.
I would actually agree that fossils like tiktaalik would be indicative that evolution does occur in such a way that allows for the possibility of two groups being identified as different "species" over time.
But we still have the same problems, this isn't new or alarming, it doesn't answer questions of first cause or necessarily mean that the complexity we see came only from natural, material causes. In terms of transitional animals, or evidence that would lend itself well to this kind of theory, you don't need a 380 million year old fossil for that...
you just need a frog.
Or any amphibian - aren't they much stronger (and fully formed) arguments for transitional species than a salmon that can prop itself up by 2 inches or so to see better?
So three "slam dunk" arguments against creation, seemingly defanged. Thanks for playing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)