Of creationism and dentistry

The dentistAs I mentioned in my previous post, my dentist proceeds at a leisurely pace. As I believe punctuality to be a virtue, I usually arrive a few minutes before the scheduled time of the appointment and this means I have to wait as the previous appointment rarely ends on time. I usually beguile the wait by watching the receptionists of whom there are two. For some reason they are always unusually small women though whether this is due to chance or to a predilection of the dentist I do not know. They wear white lab coats and latex gloves, even when handling files and using the telephone. It’s possible that they wear gloves because they are sometimes called into the consulting room to assist the dentist, though I imagine (and hope) that they put on a fresh pair of gloves before doing any assisting.

When he is ready, the dentist emerges from his consulting room and calls my name. But for his sporty blue dentist’s pyjama suit, he could be a waiter summoning me to lunch or a butler informing me that “The master will see you now, sir.” I enter the consulting room and am invited to take up position on the chair. It is long and designed to support the while body – more a couch than a chair – but as I am rather tall my feet dangle off the end. I have developed a method of crossing my legs at the ankles and that seems to stop my feet sliding off the end of the chair.

While I am settling myself in the chair, the dentist squats down on a stool. He looks as if he is about to milk a cow. He smiles benignly at me and then reaches into a box to take out a fresh pair of latex gloves which he dons with that irritating snap beloved of medical personnel. I know from experience that we are as yet nowhere near the stage of dealing with my teeth. A good ten or fifteen minutes of conversation lie ahead before we get to that point. He will always have some topic prepared: a political theme perhaps, with a Tory bias, or some other matter in the news that interests him.

He one day vouchsafed his belief that there must be a God. When he was studying dentistry, he explained, he had also studied anatomy and could not believe that something as complex and suited to its purpose as an eye “could arise by chance”. I was appalled. Surely dentists, like doctors, belong to that noble company of people called Scientists, people whose acquisition of knowledge is guided by logic and evidence, not by the irrational ramblings of creationists and the so called Intelligent Design crowd.

I made no reply. Firstly, it’s not a good idea to antagonize someone who is about to poke around in your mouth with sharp instruments and secondly, I know from experience that holders of irrational beliefs are not easily turned away from them and I had neither the time nor the inclination to try. It was almost a relief when he rose from the stool, smiled and enquired “And how are your teeth?”

Advertisements

About SilverTiger

I live in Islington with my partner, "Tigger". I blog about our life and our travels, using my own photos for illustration.
This entry was posted in Thoughts and Ideas and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Of creationism and dentistry

  1. baralbion says:

    Yes, I too fail to understand how anyone with a scientific training (which I do not have) can reject Darwininan evolution. But then I don’t understand how anyone can believe in gods and fairies.

  2. Ted says:

    I don’t know if you provided a complete accounting of the dentist’s faith. From what you said, he merely told you that he believes in God. That’s not necessarily incompatible with a profession based on science.

    The incompatibility is with a “fundamentalist” belief in the Bible or other scripture, which contains pronouncements that science has repudiated. Someone who insists that scripture must be taken literally will have irreconcilable differences with science (although I knew a Christian engineering student in college who told me with a straight face that mathematics and physics were just artifices useful for building things but weren’t anything resembling “Truth”).

    Conversely, there’s no contradiction between “believing in God” and accepting the observed facts of evolution (or any other things discovered since Biblical times). God created the heaven and the earth– but She did so using the evolutionary processes over billions of years that we observe. Science can only answer “what” and “how,” but not “why.” The existence of God is a question that science cannot– and should not– answer.

  3. baralbion says:

    Where is your evidence, Ted?

  4. SilverTiger says:

    I disagree on both points. The dentist’s remark is not at all ambiguous and he was clearly saying that the eye would not exist if God had not caused it to exist. Science has no room for either creationism or “Intelligent Design” and the remark (and the belief it reveals) is thus at odds with science.

    Nor do I believe that one can believe in God and “accept the observed facts”. God is a supernatural being and science makes no room for the supernatural. God is therefore banned by science.

    There are indeed practising scientists who claim to believe in God but that in no way invalidates my argument. It simply demonstrates that people are capable of being illogical in order to preserve their irrational fancies.

  5. Pingback: Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

Genuine comments are welcome. Spam and comments with commercial URLs will be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s