The comments in the recent post over at Uncommon Descent titled "A Practical Medical Application For ID Theory" is a goldmine for the wild and wacky musings of the ID crowd. Here, in comment 23, we have "angryoldfatman" um, extending post author GilDodgen's attempt to turn the "science-stopper" accusation back on the evilutionists through the novel strategy of treating all infections with multiple biotics (don't ask how that works here!):
angryoldfatman:That's pretty much how it went, right? "Let's just carve these things out, since we don't know what they do!" There has been ongoing debate for decades about just when a tonsillectomy becomes advantageous -- benefits outweighing the risks. But here's some creative demonization of the process -- and putting cartoon characters to work in the service of the Devil, no less. Whether or not that's more dangerous than the promiscuous "Goddidit" answer I don't know, but it hardly matters because it's a fictionalized bit of medical history in the first place.
Another example of a little known science-stopping incident brought about by Darwinism: unnecessary harmful surgery.
I remember a big push back in the 1970s for children to have their tonsils removed even if they weren’t sick because tonsils were considered vestigial organs.
They went so far as to push this propaganda on Saturday morning cartoons like Fat Albert, if I remember correctly.
“We don’t know what these body parts do, and according to Darwinian evolution there are going to be body parts that are useless, so let’s just carve these things out.”
To me that’s a lot more dangerous than the results of a “God did it” attitude.
This observation triggered this from "Dog_of_War":
Dog_of_War:There you have it -- tonsillectomies, promoted by Fat Albert, as a starter kit for eugenics. It's inherent in the Darwinian model, doncha know? I guess the evilutionists can hardly blamed, since it is, after all, "inherint".
I think you are completely correct about the surgery line of thinking. It is very reminiscent of the something that Sal Cordova does a good job of reporting: a mild for of eugenics that is inherint in the darwinian model.
This kind of exchange just floats in the comment stream, and doesn't raise an eyebrow for any of the un-banninated. It's educational, I guess. This is the "background mindset" that many IDers bring to bear on this issue. Good to keep in mind in this debate.