Re: Alternative Medicine (was Re: Skepticism - its uses and abuses)

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Fri Dec 23 2005 - 13:31:04 EST

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:26:24 -0500 "jack syme" <>
> Yes what you are talking about here gets to the heart of my
> questions.
> Lets take the cases of the failed treatments in traditional medicine
> and
> research. There are many examples of this. But, the ideas that
> these
> failed treatments are based on, are usually sound scientifically.
> Certainly
> the complexity of human biology is incomprehensible, and our
> knowledge of
> the basic sciences is far from complete. But in most cases any
> trial that
> makes it to human subjects, has to have well documented basic
> science theory
> and experimental evidence in the laboratory. So the underlying
> basic
> sciences are not proven wrong, just the application.
> That is not quite the case with acupuncture. Either the meridian
> and qi
> therories are true or they are not. If they are true, then doesnt
> this
> challenge Christianity? If sin is an illusion, and human ailments
> are just
> an imbalance of yin and yang, and altering the flow of qi can
> correct this
> imbalance, who needs Christ?

How do the Chinese theories challenge Christianity? They do not require
that evil be an illusion. They challenge conventional science, but I have
not found a physiological theory in scripture. I fear you are confusing
your faith with your science. Further, that meridians and qi are part of
a working application does not demonstrate their correctness as the
explanation for the function.

If you want a challenge to Christianity, consider heliocentrism. It moves
the sump of the universe from earth to sun, contradicts the scriptures
that speak of the immovable earth. It also contradicts the notion that
the heavenly bodies move in perfect circles because they are made of the
Received on Fri Dec 23 13:39:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 23 2005 - 13:39:06 EST