Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
They have no credible argument for human progress if they do not emphasize health. Anyone who argues against medical progress is pushing an inhumane agenda and should not have an audience anywhere. Such an argument and accompanying agenda may be considered sociopathical and insane (Antisocial personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Keep in mind that in order for something to be considered a psychological disorder, cultural influence needs to be taken into consideration and the behavior needs to be distressing or harmful to the person or a danger to the community. Expressing an ethical or philosophical argument is in no way a disorder.
That said, your assertion is wrapped within your own social and ethical norms. They do not hold for everyone. This is the crux (in my opinion) of the evolution vs. creation battle (and why I chose the medical science issue to focus on). Two worldviews (cultural norms, specifically) clash based on different practical purposes. Evolution serves humanity in a scientific and technological way, and creationism serves humanity in a meaningful and psychological way.
The problem is, the shared view of reality isn't always shared. Which interestingly, is where "insanity" comes from.
Edit:
The argument is often for psychological health; qualitative over quantitative.They have no credible argument for human progress if they do not emphasize health.