Maybe. As a "tech" kind of guy, I'm not quite ready to vote for a medical doctor who denies human evolution.
And what does being a medical doctor have to do with evolution? Evolution has no effect on medication at that level.
As to whether or not someone can just learn what has to be done in a specific situation or not, let me ask you this: do you prefer working with developer colleagues that work with Cargo Cult mentality or because they understand the underlying technology that they use? And which of those two developers produces better work? Yeah, I choose doctors that understand evolution.
In this particular case, the beliefs are not irrelevant - doctors need to correctly understand evolution to correctly carry out their duties. Also, I fail to see how someone that understands their job could be considered more dangerous in doing that job than someone that is cluelessly copying something they've been told. To be clear, I can imagine a competent psychopath being more dangerous than an incompetent normal person, but psycopathy is orthogonal to the discussion here, I hope you agree.
Be concrete. In what way would not knowing anything about evolution affect the duties of a doctor?
> Also, I fail to see how someone that understands their job could be considered more dangerous in doing that job than someone that is cluelessly copying something they've been told.
Well, you were making a comparison to a developer who understands what they work with vs. one who doesn't. For this comparison to work, the one with understanding would have to be evil or dangerous. In that case, I would pick the one with lack of understanding provided they at least can get the work done that I need.
>I can imagine a competent psychopath being more dangerous than an incompetent normal person, but psycopathy is orthogonal to the discussion here, I hope you agree.
That I agree with a competent psychopath is more dangerous than an incompetent person? I would agree with that. I don't necessarily agree that psychopathy is orthogonal to the discussion tough, it's a key part of the reason why I'd vote for someone like Paul. :)
If my doctor doesn't accept evolutionary theory, I have to wonder what else he doesn't accept. Can I trust him to advise on my childrens' vaccinations? Will he give me wife good advice on birth control? Did he just prescribe a homeopathic remedy for my high blood pressure?
I prefer dealing with professionals who use the best available evidence to make decisions in both their professional and personal lives. That way I don't have to wonder who he/she answers to at the end of the day. And that rules out MDs who don't accept the basic tenets of modern biology.
I don't see the difference. I don't trust either of them to do their jobs properly if their mental model of reality is based on religion.
And you consider that rational? Do I care if my car mechanic believes in ghosts? Why would it matter? Because it might mean he could have other strange ideas as well? How about I cross that bridge when I get to it and first meet the person, and maybe start caring about their beliefs once they actually do fuck up, instead of plastering my beliefs about their beliefs, and how it influences their work, all over it and calling it a day? At any rate, I would sooner look out for their office being littered with gifts from pharma salesmen and ads, if you catch my drift, and you can worry about bogeymen in the meantime.
Obviously I do, since I'm the one who said it.
Do I care if my car mechanic believes in ghosts?
Do you care if your electrician believes in Ohm's Law? Because that's what it means to deny evolution, for anyone whose job is even remotely connected to biological science. Your car mechanic analogy is irrelevant, because car mechanics don't confront decisions in their professional life that may bring them into conflict with their religion.
A better way to phrase your question might be, "Do you care if your car mechanic believes in phlogiston?" That would be "Yes."
That's absolutely not true. Do you somehow not realize that the process that evolution describes takes millions of years to work? There is no possible way that disbelieving evolution can effect the effectiveness as a doctor.
That's like saying you can't develop a PHP app unless you understand Turing theory. The bulk of the internet proves such an assertion wrong.
And good luck with those Turing-denying programmers you hired. Let us know how they work out in the long run. There's a difference between someone who doesn't completely understand a given theory but accepts the process that led to it, and someone who actively denies the theory and, in doing so, rejects the entire epistemological framework it rests on.
I'm still waiting for you to give a concrete example where not knowing or believing evolution will cause a doctor to make a wrong choice. At is typical, people like yourself rely on hand wavy "you just don't understand" nonsense.
>And good luck with those Turing-denying programmers you hired. Let us know how they work out in the long run.
What I'm telling you is that most of the PHP sites on the web are made by people with little or no understanding of the fundamentals of the technology they use. And they make a living just fine. Honestly, I suspect Zuckerberg would be in this group as well. Fundamental understanding is never required to get results, no matter how much we may wish it so.
Aside from ways in which it is good for the wealthy generally, I don't see how it is good for the "tech industry".
> Is it that the right is so bad they are voting against it, or they actually think the left cares about their interests?
I don't think those are the only two options; I can easily believe, for example, that the policies a particular party is likely to pursue in office will, in fact, be better for my interests than any of the alternatives without thinking that the politicians in that party actually care about my interests.