Should we be prepared for the proponents of intelligent design?

[WoodyJI]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

I was not yet aware of the fact that Darwin foresaw the eye to be a difficult case for his new theory to explain, so this is news to me...but perhaps some of you, as students/optometrists/etc., have encountered this argument before?

"If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?"

 

[aam0050]

Here's a link of a response to that theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

And what Darwin said about the eye:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

This website has hundreds of responses to typical creationist arguments.

 

[4Eyes]

I'm not sure if it's a good practice builder to try to debunk your Creationist patients. I'm sure that's not what you're getting at, but just sayin'. It's probably better to come up with a good way to be vague then change the subject. That is if it ever comes up.

 

[IndianaOD]

Many rightfully believe that macro evolution is just as if not more speculative than intelligent design.

With the massive oversupply of ODs, I can only encourage you to insult these patients.

 

[jefguth]

hey, evolution is just a theory, but it's a theory supported by tons of reproducible data. And it's not even inconsistent with religious belief - the vatican and other bodies have issued statements stating that the theory of evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

However, I don't think it's our place to try and set our patients straight on their, err our beliefs. Just deal with it the way you'd deal with any other unpleasant things some patients like to talk about.

 

[Ben Chudner]

In my 10 years of practicing, this has never come up. I think the last thing on your patients' mind will be your thoughts on Evolution while they are having an eye exam.

 

[cpw]

In my 10 years of practicing, this has never come up. I think the last thing on your patients' mind will be your thoughts on Evolution while they are having an eye exam.

yeah, I've never had a patient try to engage in me in deep philosophical conversations during their eye exam. They're usually more concerned with their cell phones. 🙄 Now my techs on the other hand.. since they're mostly college students, love to quiz me about things all the time.

 

[JAZZEYE]

Better one
Better two
"thats my story and I'm sticking to it"

 

[still_confused]

With the massive oversupply of ODs, I can only encourage you to insult these patients.

see a psychologist, you are obsessed with oversupply. is it necessary to bring it up everytime?

but because of you, im leaning towards the evolution theory.....

 

[muleque]

I'm a "creationist" or whatever they call it. I believe in God and that he created all things. Does that make me unfit to be an optometrist?
Please don't view religious people as ignorant; that only makes you the ignorant one.

 

[stonegoat]

I will never understand how someone eduacted in science to the doctorate level could be a creationist. The evidence for the Earth being several billion years old is overwhelming, and the fossil record and contemporary observations support natural selection. Just look at the "evolution" of microbes in just a few decades...
I suppose there could be a "God", but creationists or intelligent design proponants ignore scientific discovery.
I find it amusing that religious people have no problem accepting scientific understanding as it relates to their health, say with new cancer therapies, but deny the advances in other scientific fields. Science is science...it's about understanding.
I feel sorry for anybody who adheres to any myth, religious or otherwise.

 

[muleque]

Thanks for your opinion. But what I was asking is how being religious or not has anything to do with an optometrist providing care for patients.

 

[Colonel Mitchel]

I think that regardless of which side of the argument one takes, he/she should be prepared to debate the other side. Having a solid handle of the arguments, facts, and reasons the debate even exists should help anyone to not only better defend his/her own opinion, but also to have a better opinion.
Having said that, you probably do not want to get into a debate with any your patients about any emotionally charged subject. However, if you have the time and a patient that just really enjoys debates, demonstrating an ability to intelligently debate the issue with him/her might just win over that patient to you as his/her OD.

Some fundamental information everyone who may intelligently debate another on the issue of intelligent design vs. neo-Darwinian* evolution should know has been logically and scientifically presented by Lee Strobel and Michael Behe in multiple books.

*Please note: "Darwinian" evolution is no longer considered valid by a majority of scientists today. The current thinking of how evolution may have occurred is very different from the ideas proposed by Darwin. "Neo-Darwinian" is often used to describe some of the more common beliefs about the supposed mechanisms of evolution.

 

[JAZZEYE]

Better one
Better two

 

[bettie1or2]

Better one
Better two

Followed by, "Will that be cash or charge?"

 

[IndianaOD]

Followed by, "Will that be cash or charge?"

I'm tempted to shoot down your enthusiasm with low paying vision insurance but I wont. 🙄

 

[4Eyes]

I'm tempted to shoot down your enthusiasm with low paying vision insurance but I wont. 🙄

I thought that was the joke, but maybe not.