Home » Biology, Comp. Sci. / Eng., Culture, Education » Darwin dissed by doctors, and a design revolution continues at MIT

Darwin dissed by doctors, and a design revolution continues at MIT

One of New York’s foremost brain surgeons, Dr. Michael Egnor, has repeatedly pointed out why Darwinism is irrelevant to modern medicine. See: Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?.

And it turns out, Michael Egnor’s claims are being supported by an uncomfortable admission by Catriona J. MacCallum, the Senior Editor at PLoS Biology. In the recent editorial Does Medicine without Evolution Make Sense? MacCallum writes:

Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution “antibiotic resistance” is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals. Despite potentially valid reasons for this oversight (e.g., that authors of papers in medical journals would regard the term as too general), it propagates into the popular press when those papers are reported on, feeding the wider perception of evolution’s irrelevance in general, and to medicine in particular

Darwinists claim how important Darwinism is to science, but MacCallum’s editorial makes an embarrassing admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance to medicine. She also reports on the protests from medical students who find themselves forced to study Darwinism for no good reason. In reading the excerpt below, ask yourself, “why is it that a campaign has to be waged to teach Darwinism in science classes.” Do we need campaigns to teach the theory of gravitation or the periodic table?:

Randolph Nesse (University of Michigan) and colleagues think otherwise [2], and have been campaigning for evolution to be recognized and taught as a basic science to all medical students (see also the Evolution and Medicine Network, http://www.evolutionandmedicine.org). It has been more than 10 years since he and George Williams published their classic book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine [3]. Other landmark texts linking evolution to health have been written since then, with new editions on the way [4], and the research field is blossoming. Still, as Nesse mentioned at the start of the York meeting, there are only a handful of medical schools in the United States and in the United Kingdom with an evolutionary biologist listed as such on the faculty.

the hardest task in adding evolutionary/Darwinian medicine to medical curricula may well be soliciting support from medical students. Although Paul O’Higgins thought a comparison of the brachial plexus to the pentadactyl limb was helpful, not all his students agreed…complaints were lodged that he was forcing evolution on them

[MacCallum, by the way, was the Editor of Trends in Ecology & Evolution for more than four years, from 1999 to 2003.]

Because Darwinism is irrelevant to modern medicine, Darwinists have to use sleight of hand propaganda to justify Darwinism’s relevance to modern medicine. (see: Blythian evolution explains antibiotic resistance, not Darwinism.)

But Darwinism isn’t just irrelevant to medicine, it’s irrelevant to most anything practical. Even Jerry Coyne admits Darwinism’s lack of utility. See: if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits and “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom”.

In contrast, the design paradigm moves forward at one of America’s most prestigious universities. In Wanted: Biologists who can speak ‘math,’ engineers fluent in genetics [1] we learn:

One-third of the engineers at MIT now work on biological problems, according to Graham C. Walker, MIT biology professor.

This demographic development has great significance to the ID movement because the design mentality is inherent to the engineering discipline. The two scientific disciplines most noted for sympathy toward ID are medicine and engineering. Individuals from these two disciplines have been actively involved in challenging Darwinism. The increasing prominence of these two disciplines bodes well for the design revolution.

Engineers, those who make a living studying the science of design are now invading biology in larger and larger numbers. The emerging discipline of Systems Biology, a design-friendly discipline which investigates biology from a design perspective, will eventually dominate the way biology is done from now on. In contrast, the discipline of Evolutionary Biology (with the exception of fine fields like Population Genetics) will possibly decline in prominence.

Also, an engineering specialty, computer science will play a major role [2]:

March 26, 2006
The Reading File

Bytes and Biology
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

The impact of computer science on science as a whole was considered by a group of leading researchers, led by Stephen Emmott of Microsoft Research, who debated the future of computing in summer 2005. Their report, “Towards 2020 Science,” is at research.microsoft.com.

We believe computer science is poised to become as fundamental to biology as mathematics has become to physics. We postulate this because there is a growing awareness among biologists that to understand cells and cellular systems requires viewing them as information processing systems, as evidenced by the fundamental
similarity between molecular machines of the living cell and
computational automata, and by the natural fit between computer process algebras and biological signaling and between computational logical circuits and regulatory systems in the cell”

These developments have been so undeniable, even Richard Dawkins, the self-appointed “Winston Churchill”[3] of atheism, had to admit:

Biology has become a sort of branch of computer science

Richard Dawkins

NOTES:

[1] (HT: Dr. Scott L. Page at KCFS for the MIT Article)

[2] (HT: stunney at telicthoughts.com for the NY Time article )

[3] Richard Dawkins likens himself to the courageous Winston Churchill who was Prime Minister of the UK during World War II. Given Dawkins’ disdain for Christianity, it’s ironic he likens himself to Churchill. Churchill committed himself and Britain to the defense of Christian civilization. When the Battle of France was over run in World War II, Churchill encouraged his nation by saying:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to
begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.

Winston Churchill

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

63 Responses to Darwin dissed by doctors, and a design revolution continues at MIT

  1. Did you read the conclusion of the article? MacCullum urges fairly strongly to include evolution into medical study.

    “But evolutionary medicine isn’t and shouldn’t be controversial, and the best way to challenge prejudice is through education. As the oft-quoted Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” [15]. The time has clearly come for medicine to explicitly integrate evolutionary biology into its theoretical and practical underpinnings The medical students of Charles Darwin’s day did not have the advantage of such a powerful framework to inform their thinking; we shouldn’t deprive today’s budding medical talent of the potential insights to be gained at the intersection of these two great disciplines.”

  2. I wonder if engineers friendly to ID are being organized into groups like IDEA in places like MIT.

  3. Great post, Salvador. The hat tip to Scott seriously cracks me up. I’m sure he’s fuming over that one.

  4. What a wonderful thing! Darwin fanatics trying to further their agenda by forcing already overburdened medical students to enroll in an irrelevant line of study. I can’t think of a better way for chance worshippers to alienate themselves even further from the world of practical science and engineering.

    This is like requiring auto mechanics to study high energy physics so they understand precisely how the iron in our automobiles was formed by fusion in the core of a dying star billions of years ago. No doubt that’s interesting trivia but completely irrelevant to their trade.

    Doctors are mechanics who diagnose and repair problems in the most complex machine on the planet. There’s no possible way any one of them can know everything there is to know about how that machine works, the range of problems that can occur, and all the best ways to fix them. Any additional knowledge worth crowbarring into their heads to make them better doctors is more medical knowledge not hypotheses on how life originated and diversified over billions of years.

    Chance worshippers are turning into a desperate bunch of wankers in a futile effort to prevent the study of Darwinian dogma from falling into well deserved disregard as no more than woolgathering.

  5. Sal, how come you didn’t quote the concluding line of the paragraph you quoted:

    “Yet an understanding of how natural selection shapes vulnerability to disease can provide fundamental insights into medicine and health and is no less relevant than an understanding of physiology or biochemistry.”

    Your comments on the meaning and import of the article are, for the most part, exactly the opposite of what the article actually says, as anyone reading the article for meaning and not a quote-mining opportunity will notice.

  6. “Yet an understanding of how natural selection shapes vulnerability to disease can provide fundamental insights into medicine and health and is no less relevant than an understanding of physiology or biochemistry.”

    Are you saying that students in medical school are not currently being taught that patients without resistance to a particular disease are more likely to die from that disease, and therefore less likely to have children?

  7. Jack, sorry, the quote said “HOW natural selection shapes…” not merely that it does. But I think my question is still works.

  8. “Your comments on the meaning and import of the article are, for the most part, exactly the opposite of what the article actually says, as anyone reading the article for meaning and not a quote-mining opportunity will notice.”

    Anyone can read can see that you aren’t simply misunderstanding it a lttle, you are representing it as saying the opposite of what the article says by omitting statements that would expose your 180 degree misrepresentation. This is disgraceful. You should remove this post or correct it.

  9. Yet an understanding of how natural selection shapes vulnerability to disease can provide fundamental insights into medicine and health and is no less relevant than an understanding of physiology or biochemistry.

    Understanding how natural selection works takes about 2 minutes for anyone bright enough to become a doctor and is covered in most high school biology classes and if not there then certainly in all Biology 101 courses in college. What pray tell is to be studied in the remaining 99% of the time left in a course devoted to evolutionary biology and how does that relate to the practice of medicine?

    This is, purely and simply, driven not by any need for doctors to study evolutionary biology at length but rather driven by an agenda of forcing the study of a widely and increasingly rejected philosophy onto an audience that neither wants it or needs it. The only benefit will be to evolutionary biology professors who will no longer have to depend on seats being filled in elective courses but instead guarantee them a large number of students taking a non-elective class. What utter, transparent dreck. Evolutionary biology is useless, hardly anyone wants to study it, and we already know the chance worshippers have no problem forcing their dogma on unreceptive audiences while at the same time squelching any criticism through legal chicanery, black balling, ruining people’s careers, and assorted other despicable means. None of them care a whit that this is an unnecessary burden for already overburdened medical students who can’t possibly study all the very much more important areas of focus in the practice of medicine. A grand thing for evolutionary biology professors taken at the expense of medical students. Isn’t that just lovely.

    Medical schools have been graduating doctors since before Darwin was born and every single year since then. Somehow medicine has advanced by great leaps and bounds with few of them knowing anything about evolution other than the basic concepts of random mutation & natural selection. Isn’t it just amazing that all of a sudden when dogmatic evolutionary biology is being seriously challenged we all of a sudden start hearing demands that evolutionary biology be changed from an elective to a required course for medical students. Somehow in the last 150 years evolutionary biology has never been deemed important enough to make it a requirement for doctors to know it in detail but now it’s suddenly indispensible. Spare me.

  10. Jack,

    Based on your post, I went out and read the article and am inclined to agree with you that, while the writer cites dissenters, MacCallum’s overall tone is in favor of teaching evolution in med schools.

    The problem though—as is so often the case in these discussions—has to do with the malleability of the term “evolution.” I’d like to offer the following quotations (whether “mined” or not, I don’t know) for your consideration:
    • “evolution can also tell us that the origin of HIV was precipitated by a jump across the primate species barrier”
    • [evolution] “enables us to predict the imminent arrival of avian flu and the mutations most likely to be responsible for that evolutionary leap from birds to humans”
    • “’Phylodyamics’ can also inform us about the timing and progression of pathogen adaptation…”

    In these examples, what is she really advocating? All of these sorts of microevolutionary changes are non-controversial and completely relevant to a medical education (or at least, a medical research education). If this is what is meant by evolution, by all means teach it. But do we really need a “campaign” for this?

    I think not. Seems clear to me that a campaign is only necessary (and this is why we see med students pushing back—good for them) when we jump from this sort of hard science to the grand creation story that describes how you and I have Evolved (with a capital E) from some distant, theoretical proto-mouse, and non-organic matter before that. If you can explain why this is important for med students to know, I’m all ears.

    Thanks,

    -sb

  11. 11

    My post was not about the issue itself, but about the fact that Sal presented a distorted interpretation of the article and misrepresented it by leaving out the last line of the paragraph he quoted.

    One may or may not agree with MacCallum – that is not the issue I’m interested in right now, but the fact is that Salvador presented a blatantly false interpretation of what she was saying.

  12. Sal, how come you didn’t quote the concluding line of the paragraph you quoted:

    “Yet an understanding of how natural selection shapes vulnerability to disease can provide fundamental insights into medicine and health and is no less relevant than an understanding of physiology or biochemistry.”

    Well gee Jack, there happened to be a link that I provided to the full article.

    And also I edited out what was distorted picture of reality.

    First of all the correct conception of natural selection is Blythian, not Darwinian. MacCallum inisist on natural selection as conceived by Darwin, and that is all wrong.

    And I already pointed out, anti-biotic resistance is Blythian evolution not Darwinian. Darwin’s work was on promoting the false notion that natural selection is the primary mechanism in the origin of species. Are we going to teach doctors that resistant bacteria are new species????? Blyth had the correct conception of evolution. See:

    Blythian evolution explains antibiotic resistance, not Darwinism

    The mechanism of anti-biotic resistance is a means of preserving bacterial species not originating substantially new ones. And that is Blyth’s conception of natural selection, and not Darwin’s.

    Given MacCallum’s misconceptions, I found little need to re-print the rest of her ill-conceived ideas.

    The point of citing the article was the fact a campaign was being waged to shove Darwinism down the throats of medical students.

    The point of the citation was to point out that medical school TODAY and for all time have found Darwinism largely irrelevant.

    The fact that a non-medical Doctor like MacCallum is prescribing what medical professors ought to teach only highlights further the irrelevance of Darwinism.

    Darwin has added next to nothing to our understanding medical science. It would be instructive to compare Darwin to a real scientist like the ID proponent James Clerk Maxwell

    See:
    Comparing Darwin to a real math and physics genius

    Darwin wrote of himself:

    I attempted mathematics [at Cambridge University ], and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps of algebra. This impatience was foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.

    Autobiography (p. 58 of the 1958 Norton edition)

  13. “but the fact is that Salvador presented a blatantly false interpretation of what she was saying.”

    I’m afraid you did not understand in the least what Salvador’s post here is about.

    Perhaps you’re Darwinist prejudice is blinding your discernment of content and purpose?

    You sadly mistake drawing logical conclusions from a pro Darwinist article for mere quote-mining. Salvador is not “falsely interpreting” but drawing logical conclusions from the articles implications – indeed from it’s very existence.

    It is clear that Salvador uses MacCallum’s article to demonstrate exactly what the article implies;(why do Darwinists always fail to see logical implications?) i.e. Darwinism is useless in medicine.

    Medicine has been getting along very nicely without Darwin and medical students are smart enough to see that adding Darwinian bs to the curriculum is a waste of time.

    It is also clear that ID has been having a far greater impact on advances in medicine these days than Darwinian evol. ever could.

    So your erroneous conclusions, IMO, merely demonstrate a lack of insight and interpretive on your part. :-(

  14. Jack Krebs,

    You are on record as being pro Darwinist and active in promoting Darwinism. Why don’t you take a crack at supporting Darwinism here for students in general and medical students in particular. And in the process enlighten us.

    That would be a lot more instructive than finding quibbles about how Salvador did or did not provide the proper quote.

  15. Also, an engineering specialty, computer science will play a major role [2]:

    Now this is good news!
    I’m studying computer science, and I love biology :D

  16. Jack said:

    My post was not about the issue itself, but about the fact that Sal presented a distorted interpretation of the article and misrepresented it by leaving out the last line of the paragraph he quoted.

    One may or may not agree with MacCallum – that is not the issue I’m interested in right now, but the fact is that Salvador presented a blatantly false interpretation of what she was saying.

    If you are accusing me of suggesting MacCallum is arguing for Darwinism’s irrelevance you are all wrong Jack.

    The point was to show MacCallum is forced to admit Medical Doctors today find little use for Darwinism. Her article unwittingly demonstrates Egnor’s point.

    I was highlighting the irony of the fact that while MacCallum is saying Darwinism is fundamental to medical science, medical doctors in practice to day find it inessential. Her own article does a good job of refuting the very point she was attempting to make.

    You totally misunderstood what I was trying to highlight.

    PS

    By the way, congratulations on receiving the NCSE’s 2007 Darwin Award. It was well deserved.

  17. 17

    Here is my own quote-mined gem from MacCallum’s editorial:

    One reason that evolution doesn’t figure prominently in the medical community is that although it makes sense to have evolution taught as part of medicine, that doesn’t make it essential. As explained at a meeting on evolution and medicine I recently attended in York, United Kingdom (the Society for the Study of Human Biology and the Biosocial Society’s 2006 symposium, “Medicine and Evolution”), medicine is primarily focused on problem-solving and proximate causation . . . .

    Well, if evolution is not “essential” in medicine, then why include it in the medical curriculum? Medical students certainly have plenty of much more important things to learn. This whole editorial is just too wishy-washy about whether evolution should be included in the medical curriculum.

    Actually, Darwinism hardly tells us anything that is of practical use. For something that Darwinists regard as a stroke of genius, Darwinism is surprisingly mickey mouse. Basically, all that Darwinism tells us about evolutionary mechanisms is that natural genetic variations occur (duh) and that fitter organisms are more likely to survive than less fit organisms (duh again). Biologists have an inferiority complex because biology is often treated as less scientific than the physical sciences — for example, Lord Rutherford once said, “all science is either physics or stamp collecting.” Because of this inferiority complex, biologists are waging a prestige war against other branches of science by trying to show that biology has something that other branches of science don’t have, a grand overarching unifying “theory of everything,” Darwinism. As for Darwinism having “mechanisms,” I don’t see the advantage of having mechanisms if they are implausible and unproven.

  18. “Yet an understanding of how natural selection shapes vulnerability to disease can provide fundamental insights into medicine and health and is no less relevant than an understanding of physiology or biochemistry.”

    This statement is absolutely false and shows that its author has little practical understanding of medicine.
    A truer statement would be:

    “Yet an understanding of how Genetic Entropy shapes vulnerability to disease can provide fundamental insights into medicine and health…”
    (still wouldn’t be as important as physiology or biochemistry)

    There are all kinds of diseases and disorders caused by defective genes. Genetic Entropy explains them far better than natural selection. How is a genetic defect selected for, anyway? Shouldn’t natural selection lead to diminishing defects in the genome over time as they are selected out? Deterioration of the genome, not its refinement through natural selection, is the reason for so many diseases.

    As someone who has been through medical school I can say with absolute confidence that a course on evolutionary biology would be a frustrating time-waster for all but the Darwinian ideologues in the class, who would smugly take it as confirmation of their philosophy. But it wouldn’t help anyone be a better doctor.
    I find the phrase “Darwinian medicine” (from the article) to be meaningless.

  19. 19

    Jerry writes,

    You are on record as being pro Darwinist and active in promoting Darwinism. Why don’t you take a crack at supporting Darwinism here for students in general and medical students in particular. And in the process enlighten us.

    This is off the topic of my point, and the thread really, but I find that in general when ID advocates talk about “Darwinism” they are really talking about the philosophy of materialism rather than just modern evolutionary science. I support mainstream evolutionary science, and am active in promoting it, but I am not “pro-materialist” nor active in supporting materialism as a philosophy. On the contrary, I am pro-religion, and active in promoting an understanding of the nature of religion and an appreciation for the diversity of religious perspectives.

    So I encourage people to keep these differences in mind.

    Now to the larger question.

    I am a public high school teacher. Right now I teach only calculus because I mainly have other administrative duties. Every year I explain to my students that one thing they will get from my class will be an understanding of some big ideas that will broaden their perspective on how the world works, so that even if they never do a calculus problem after they leave high school, they will benefit from having taken my course.

    On the other hand, I tell them, it may turn out that some of them, or maybe just one every few years, will take what I teach them and run with it – moving on to a field where calculus is an essential tool every day for figuring out important things about the world.

    And I explain that most of them will fall in between – they will be better at math and a little broader as a human being, but they will probably never use calculus outside of my calculus class.

    And finally I explain that I have no way of knowing which of them might fall in these various categories, and neither do they. Teaching is somewhat like casting your bread upon the waters – I act towards all that they might be the one who will grow because of grasping a big idea, or by using the tools I give them for great good at some later time, but I have no idea about when, how and to whom the fruits of my teaching might come.

    The same applies to teaching evolutionary theory to those who are studying medicine. Understanding the basics of evolutionary science broadens one’s understanding of the nature of life, and of the human beings that they will be helping. While many may not use specific aspects of evolutionary science on a daily basis, there will be others for whom the evolutionary perspective will play an important role at some point in their medical work.

    Let me tell a story to illustrate.

    I have a son with some difficult mental health issues, and at one time they thought he was bipolar, although now we don’t think that is true. He has never had regular sleep habits, and he also has a chronic viral infection which gets worse in the winter and better in the summer.

    Therefore, I was interested in a recent article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by Joseph Coyle, entitled “What can a clock mutation in mice tell us about bipolar disorder?” Coyle is a member of the Department of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School.

    The summary of the article here says,

    Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, is characterized by episodes of mania and episodes of depression usually interspersed with periods of relatively normal mood (1). During the manic phase, affected individuals exhibit elevated mood, irritability, increased activity, reduced sleep, hypersexuality, and increased goal-directed activities. Bipolar disorder in its various forms affects >3% of the population and is associated with a high risk for suicide, substance abuse, and vocational disability (2). Although several animal models for major depressive disorder have been developed, there are no plausible models for bipolar disorder (3). In this issue of PNAS, Roybal et al. (4) describe the results of a systematic analysis of the behavior of a mouse with a deletion of exon 19 in the Clock gene, which shows remarkable parallels to the symptoms observed in individuals in an episode of mania (1). The Clock mutant mice exhibit hyperactivity, decreased sleep, reduced anxiety, and increased response to cocaine, sucrose, and medial forebrain bundle stimulation. Furthermore, many of these behaviors can be reversed by transfection of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) dopaminergic neurons with WT Clock gene or by treatment with therapeutic doses of lithium (Li+), a commonly prescribed mood stabilizer.

    Considerable evidence accumulated over the last 30 years supports the notion that bipolar disorder involves a fundamental disruption in circadian rhythms (5). The episodes of mania and depression in bipolar disorder generally develop a regular periodicity, often linked to the seasons of the year (6, 7). Within an episode, disrupted circadian rhythms including sleep–wake cycle, hormonal secretions, and diurnal variation in mood are evident (8–10). Current treatments to prevent the recurrence of episodes of mania/depression emphasize maintaining a stable diurnal pattern of activity

    Well, here is a place where it is a good thing that someone in the field of medicine knows something about evolutionary science.

    From the beginning, organisms have been evolving in a world which has both daily and yearly rhythms, and thus many behaviors and processes flow with those rhythms. People like my son seem to have faulty regulation of some of these processes, and that takes it toll.

    Studying the genetic basis of these circadian rhythms in simpler organisms in order to perhaps some day better treat people with circadian rhythm disorders seems valuable to me.

    The longer summary of the study (not online, unfortunately) is full of references to evolutionary science. Here’s an example:

    The circadian clock has been shown by genetic analysis in Drosophila and mammals to consist of a time-delayed transcription–translation feedback loop (12). In mammals, a heteromeric dimer of the transcriptional activators, CLOCK and BMAL1, induces the expression of several genes by interacting with the enhancer elements of their promoters known as the E-box. These genes include Per1 (Period), Per2, Cr y1 (Cr yptochrome), and Cr y2, the protein products of which translocate to the nucleus to inhibit the activ it y of the CLOCK–BMAL1 complex, thereby repressing their own expression. Recent studies have identified a polymorphism in the 3f lanking region of Clock that is associated with more frequent episodes of mood disturbances and reduced need for sleep in bipolar subjects (13, 14). Nievergelt et al . (15) have reported a suggestive association of t wo other circadian genes, Per3 and ARNTL (BmaL1), with bipolar disorder. Mansour et al . (16) replicated the association of BmaL1 with bipolar disorder and also found an association with Timeless. Thus, clock genes are implicated as potential risk genes in this disorder of complex (non-Mendelian) genetics.

    Note well that all the genes and biological pathways mentioned have first been identified and studied in simple organisms, by scientists who accept that our genetic relationship through common descent to these simpler organisms is central to this work, as well as are some of the principles of how genes mutate and the actual histories of how those mutations and their effects have been passed on through the eons.

    So, as with my calculus students, students going into medicine need to learn evolutionary science. For many this will just be background knowledge that is not part of their daily practice. But for others – a critical set of others even though they may only be a few – their understanding of evolutionary science may prove to be a essential part of research or treatment that winds up making a tremendous difference.

  20. 20

    Sal: “This demographic development has great significance to the ID movement because the design mentality is inherent to the engineering discipline.”
    This is a true statement, but not in the way you meant it. Engineers do have a design mentality; we are probably the most mechanistically-minded people on the planet. Look again at the MIT article you cited:

    Lidstrom, who conducts an elective biology class for engineers, has found that biologists are motivated by the “what,” while engineers are motivated by the “how.”

    Engineers will, of course, learn nothing about the “how” of biology from the IDists, and this is one reason the great majority will continue to reject ID as science or as engineering.

    Sal: “Engineers, those who make a living studying the science of design are now invading biology in larger and larger numbers.

    Again, this is no help to the ID movement. These people are engineers. With all of our background in design (as engineers use the term), we engineers (as with the scientists) have found no use for invoking non-human, non-material intelligent agents in our work.
    Sal: “The two scientific disciplines most noted for sympathy toward ID are medicine and engineering.

    A discipline is a field of study, and thereby cannot have sympathies toward anything. People have sympathies. I’m guessing that you are implying that the medical and engineering professions are sympathetic to ID, but you don’t actually say that because it would be too obviously wrong.

  21. Jack Krebs,

    First of all I am sure everyone here wishes your son well and I am sure many of us know exactly how you feel as a parent about him and the prospects of medical science finding a solution for him and others. I have a very close friend with a son that has had serious bouts of depression and have watched his anguish.

    However, we can respectfully disagree that evolutionary science has anything to do with solving your son’s problem or those of others with genetic diseases.

    We understand the importance of looking at the genome of other animals, genetics and what was referred to above as Genetic entropy for insight into understanding medical problems. No one in ID doubts this. We know that mutations are real and maybe the likely cause of many of these problems.

    But I think you have to step back and look at what ID is proposing and see that there is nothing in it that would interfere with finding a solution to these genetic problems.

    If you disagree then you should state your case. Common descent is not the issue. Even those here who would argue against common descent will admit that similar organism behave the same and the genomes operate in a similar fashion so studying mice or other animals or plants would be fair game for solving medical problems. This has been common medical science for decades even before they understood genomes. Most of us here would fight anything that would prevent research into solving genetic diseases and believe ID may have actually provide better insight into how the genome works.

    So we wish you and your family well but be fair when you evaluate ID and evolutionary theory and don’t do it from an emotional view point.

  22. 22

    Thanks for the thoughtful and kind reply.

    Here are some comments in return.

    You write,

    But I think you have to step back and look at what ID is proposing and see that there is nothing in it that would interfere with finding a solution to these genetic problems.

    I really don’t know “what ID is proposing.” The majority of ID advocates don’t accept common descent and thus don’t accept that there are biological connections between the genomes of mice and men. Sanford’s idea of “genetic entropy” is inconsistent with common descent – John Sanford is a young-earth creationist who does not accept common descent and who believes that human beings were “created by a special creation, by God.”

    One can always argue that relationships that look like they have an evolutionary history were instead “designed” that way, but in my opinion that is somewhat similar to arguing that everything was created last Thursday: it’s a position incapable of being affirmed or denied by any evidence, and thus not very useful.

    On the other hand, evolutionary science holds that genetic changes passed on through the process of reproduction create a genuine biological relationship between organisms. Evolutionary science digs in and finds these relationships – trying to piece out the puzzle of how things work by looking at organisms that are related to each other to various degrees. This is a fruitful approach that is constantly being put to the test of new evidence.

    And last, while I do appreciate your thoughts of concern for my son, my support for modern mainstream science is not done from an emotional viewpoint – I could easily have found a story illustrating my point without discussing my family. I support mainstream science because I believe that the process, now close to 500 years old, is the best way humankind has invented for coming to a consensus about how the physical world works.

  23. Jack Krebs,

    There is nothing in ID itself that takes a position against common descent. You are confusing the fact that many YEC’s subscribe to ID and that this means that ID endorses YEC ideas.

    If most of us thought that, I and a whole lot of others would be out of here in a second. This blog would fall apart as it would loose all respectability. Also I would fight intensely any attempts to introduce YEC science into any public curriculum anywhere. I happen to think a lot of it nonsense despite some of the people being excellent individuals. It is ideology driven.

    Yes, there are many YEC’s here and they openly talk about their beliefs but many of us here also criticize their scientific beliefs. It is happening on another thread at this very moment.

    You mentioned in the opening of your comment about my request for you to discuss Darwinism, that I was interested in discussing the philosophy of materialism. Actually, I would rather never discuss it here and would prefer to keep all discussions to the science of evolution.

    I am well aware of nearly all the arguments in evolutionary biology as currently taught in the high schools and universities and it is these that I would like to keep the discussion to. So if you would ever like to have a dialogue on this basis, I am sure many here would like it and both sides would learn a lot.

    There are probably other pro-Darwinists here who would like to support you.

  24. 24

    Thanks, Jerry.

    I would be interested in knowing what ID proposes that is different than mainstream evolutionary science if

    a) common descent is accepted, and
    b) theistic or other non-materialistic philosophies are accepted as compatible with science.

    Another way of asking you this question is to ask what you mean by “pro-Darwinist.” Why not just ask to discuss evolutionary science?

    What exactly are the issues if common descent and philosophical perspectives are not at issue?

  25. 25

    P.S. It’s hard for me to see how Sanford’s “genetic entropy” idea fits with common descent. Can you explain that?

  26. Freelurker

    Engineers will, of course, learn nothing about the “how” of biology from the IDists, and this is one reason the great majority will continue to reject ID as science or as engineering.

    They won’t learn anything from Darwinian macroevolutionists either. Chance-driven macroevolution works too slowly, if it works at all, to have any practical relevance. Modern biology is experimental biology performed on living tissue. Living tissue is machine-like and genetics is information based. Machines driven by information processing systems are things that engineers excel at as well as excelling at the design and use of test and diagnostic equipment. Looking at fossils and using comparative anatomy to establish taxonomic classfications and orders of descendency yields no practical benefit.

  27. Jack Krebs,

    When I mean by pro-Darwinist is a theory that espouses that new species are formed only by small changes in the genome of an organism over time. The emphasis is on the word “only” in the previous sentence. This theory is often known as neo-Darwinism which is a combination of population genetics along with modifications in the genome through mutations gradually occurring over deep time.

    I personally have made the statement that ID encompasses neo Darwinism in the sense that it does not deny that any of the natural processes that are postulated by neo-Darwinism operate in the world. I also have made the statement that most writers in the ID movement also believe the same thing but not all. I know Behe holds this view and would bet that Dembski and O’Leary hold this view and this is their site. However, the ID point of view is that neo Darwinism is limited to relatively trivial cases in evolutionary history. It certainly has very important implications for medical science and genetics is an important area for medical research. Most cancer research is gene based.

    What ID does is say that there are other mechanisms besides a gradualistic approach that have operated at some time in the past to produce new species and one of these is the input of an intelligence.

    There is no denial of common descent by ID though some on this site will dispute it. I personally find it hard to argue against common descent in some form given the commonality of parts of the genome including sequences with identical deletions or additions in them across species. But that is something to be discussed.

    Most often we talk past each other here and I have made the comment that we talk about different things when we compare ID with neo Darwinism. See a comment I made #28 at

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....me-online/

    It is a thread about a prominent medical doctor who disputes neo Darwinism.

    I hope some kind of better understanding can come from a dialogue with people like yourself who have opposed ID. There are a variety of opinions here and at other places on this topic.

  28. Jack Krebs,

    I know almost nothing about Sanford’s ideas but maybe someone else could explain it further. The only thing I heard is he is a YEC who has made some contribution to genetics by inventing something called the Gene gun.

    However, this could be part of a common descent discussion when one comes up in the future.

  29. jack

    I have a problem with chance evolution being presented as fact in public education by authority figures and the censoring of any criticism or alternative explanations. Western civilization is profoundly effected by beliefs about origins and purpose. Evolutionary narratives are inferences drawn from selected bits of circumstantial evidence. This is presented not as inferential interpretation but as established fact. Other interpretations that fit the facts just as well are censored in public education and indeed even criticism based on factual evidence is censored as well. Biological science is largely taught but when it comes to evolution “science” it isn’t teaching it’s ideological indoctrination. I wouldn’t care if I didn’t think that ideology was having an adverse effect on the trajectory of western civilization but it does therefore it is a concern.

  30. Read my article,

    Wherever the Darwinists see evolution, the Engineers (of whatever kind) see design.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/.....ssage/7638

    Your comments to my article welcomed.

  31. (Cont’d) The article is about software design and programming, and the “evolution” seen in the genomes of living organisms.

  32. Any Potential Employers?

    (cont’d) O Yeah…I am available for employment. It will be very exciting and challenging for me to work in the field where it involves DNA and Bio-machines. Any potential employers ? I have a Master of Technology (Software Engineering) from National University of Singapore, which is ranked Asia’s No. 3 university after Tokyo U and Beijing U.

    Read my article (with my email address listed),

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/.....ssage/7638

  33. From Jack Krebs #19 above:

    “…analysis of the behavior of a mouse with a deletion of exon 19 in the Clock gene, which shows remarkable parallels to the symptoms observed in individuals in an episode of mania…
    “…Considerable evidence accumulated over the last 30 years supports the notion that bipolar disorder involves a fundamental disruption in circadian rhythms…

    “Well, here is a place where it is a good thing that someone in the field of medicine knows something about evolutionary science.”

    I would submit that these associations can be studied and used without any particular viewpoint paradigm on “evolutionary science.”

    It is interesting that a gene deletion may have something to do with certain types of mental illness. It is also interesting that circadian rythms play a role.
    Whether these features arose by Darwinian mechanisms, however, makes no difference in the use of this knowledge to help people.

    Genetic Entropy accounts for gene deletions much better than natural selection. The gene has deteriorated. What difference does it make in practical application how the gene was designed/evolved before that?
    What we have to deal with is the currect defect. If we can correct the defect we can help the person, whether the gene was built or evolved.
    Studying the effects of circadian rythms also does not require any particular belief system as to how it came to exist.

    We can argue whether commonality of function necessarily implies commonality of descent or design, but it really doesn’t matter when it comes to practical application of observation: Light therapy has been shown to help many people with seasonal depression. It works just as well whether they or their doctors believe they got their disorder via Darwinian mechanisms or not.

    I do believe that students should understand what Darwinism says, if only in support of a well-rounded education. But just try getting through high school and college and into medical school without a grounding in at least the basics.
    I maintain it would be a waste of time to have a separate course in medical school.

    (I don’t know how to show quotes in the fainter font as some do…hints?)

  34. dacook said:

    I don’t know how to show quotes in the fainter font as some do…hints?

    Surround the text to be quoted in a blockquote tag: <blockquote>text to be quoted</blockquote> — it should show as:

    text to be quoted

  35. “Sanford’s idea of “genetic entropy” is inconsistent with common descent”

    In what way exactly? Maybe inconsistent with a long timeline, but non-Darwinian common descent doesn’t necessarily require one.

  36. 36

    DaveScot: “Living tissue is machine-like and genetics is information based. Machines driven by information processing systems are things that engineers excel at as well as excelling at the design and use of test and diagnostic equipment.”

    I’m not at all surprised to hear that engineers are contributing to the study of biology. I’m disputing the idea that this is somehow good news to the ID movement.

  37. Apollos:

    Thanks.

  38. Jack Krebs,

    When Darwinists see homology in the genomes, they think of evolution.

    My article argues that homology in genomes can be explained by software engineering design. Read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/.....ssage/7638

    All homologies – the structure of vertebrate limbs, protein sequences, DNA sequences – can be explained by engineering design. Homologies are no big deal. It is compatible with both world views: blind evolution by common descent, and special creation by common designer. DNA homology is easily explained by object-oriented software engineering design.

    I will accept evolutionary theory if it is proven that the human genome contains vast proportion of non-functional “junk DNA” relative to “good DNA”. But we ID advocates (creationists and evolutionists) are betting that the human genome contains overwhelming proportion of functional “good DNA”.

    Evolution theory will be proven if there is vast proportion of non-functional “junk DNA”, and the “junk DNA” in human genome has the same sequence as that in lower organisms. It is unlikely that an intelligent designer will create large amount of “junk DNA”, and even more unlikely that he will “inherit” or re-use “junk DNA” from other (ancestral) organisms and repeat the same to all “descendant” organisms.

    Not only I am betting that the human genome consists of overwhelming proportion of functional “good DNA”, I am also betting some kind of “fine-tuning” in Biology, particularly the human genome. It is like “fine-tuning” in the physical universe. Perhaps 3 billion DNA bases, and 25000 (whatever the correct number) genes. Small deviations from this in the human genome and we will have genetic diseases, deformities, and death.

    Now, say 90% of the genome is really non-functional, then you can eliminate this 90% and the organism will still survive and reproduce. Any Darwinists want to be volunteer themselves as guinea pigs in DNA-elimination experiments?

    My thoughts about “fine-tuning” is an immature one, because I am not a biologist. I hope some ID biologists can do research and develop a good theory on this. The fine-tuning hypothesis must take into account back-up copies of genes and DNA sequences DESIGNED for contingency events and other vital functions such as DNA error-check and self-repair mechanisms. Note: in computer, there is such a thing called error-check-sum-number which appears to be redundant but it is not, and it is vital for damaged-code repair.

    Fine-tuning in biology is probably found in many bio-systems. One example is discussed here:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/.....ssage/7667

    I believe the emerging discipline called Systems Biology will proved to be fruitful in telling us a lot more about fine-tuning in Biology.

  39. dacook, you’re very welcome. These tags also work:

    <b>bold</b>
    <i>italic</i>

  40. Matthew

    Evolution theory will be proven if there is vast proportion of non-functional “junk DNA”, and the “junk DNA” in human genome has the same sequence as that in lower organisms. It is unlikely that an intelligent designer will create large amount of “junk DNA”, and even more unlikely that he will “inherit” or re-use “junk DNA” from other (ancestral) organisms and repeat the same to all “descendant” organisms.

    Retroviruses make copies of themselves by inserting viral genes into the normal DNA of a host cell. The host cell’s machinery then does the rest. The retrovirus genes in the host DNA are called a provirus. If the host cell is a reproductive cell the provirus is called an endogenous retrovirus. If it’s a human it’s called a human endogenous retrovirus (HERV). There may be preferred insertion points but a provirus can insert its viral DNA just about anywhere in the host DNA. About 8% of our DNA is made up of HERV remnants that have one way or another become deactivated. There are matching HERVs in other primates inserted at the same location in their DNA. They don’t match exactly but close enough to know they are the same virus. The mismatches correlate with the background rate of random point mutations in DNA that serves no purpose (the HERV serves no purpose for the organism so it will eventually be corrupted until it’s no longer recognizable).

    The only reasonable explanation for this is common descent. When any two primate species have homologous HERVs then it was because the retrovirus infected their common ancestor and the remnants remained with both species when they split from that common ancestor.

    This doesn’t prove primates descended from bacteria but it makes an awfully compelling case that all primates had a common ancestor.

  41. As Dave has said

    “When any two primate species have homologous HERVs then it was because the retrovirus infected their common ancestor and the remnants remained with both species when they split from that common ancestor.”

    An important part of evolution theory is not that both species split off but how did they split from the common ancestor. As far as I know there is nothing pointing to any specific mechanism causing the split. So this is one part of the big debate (but not the only part).

    If I have stated it wrong, please feel free to correct it.

  42. MatthewTan,

    “My article argues that homology in genomes can be explained by software engineering design.”

    All you have done is illustrate that the object-oriented paradigm can be used to model biological systems. This is not amazing; OO has been successfully used to model very many domains.

  43. Dave, Thanks for this info. Let me think about it.

    Jerry, so you are now more inclined to believe that man evolves from ape?

    You wrote something about this somewhere else, right?

  44. Dave,

    “an awfully compelling case that all primates had a common ancestor.”

    But we have enough hominid fossils to tell a story, I believe. And now given that “Lucy” and KNM-ER 1470 is out of the human ancestral tree, the several human species do not seem to have any more evolutionary ancestor.

  45. Matthew Tan,

    I actually have no beliefs in this area since the data is so confused and does not point to any specific mechanism.

    I did not delineate the possible mechanisms but I know of at least four categories of mechanisms and others may have additional thoughts.

    1. pre loaded evolutionary information put into one or more genomes at some deep distant time and over the course of time the information in these genomes were triggered and produced the various species. I am certainly not very knowledgeable on this so others may have better insight.

    2. sudden large changes in the genome cause by natural means. In the last year there have been discussion about various authors who have pronounced neo-Darwinism dead and that changes happened this way. Some specific mechanisms for these sudden and rather large changes to the genome are proposed but essentially they are only hypothesized to exist. Others may have better insight on this.

    3. gradual changes over time which is the standard fare taught in all the textbooks and universities as neo-Darwinism. However, there is almost no proof at all for this position. Darwin proposed it and nearly everybody has followed his lead and accepted it but with little proof and lots of contradictory information. It is an amazing intellectual positon for so many to defend without any backup.

    4. agency interfered at various times to change the genome. This is again only inference from available information and the small probabilities of the changes that occurred could happen by natural means. The last is the ID position that this mechanism happened at least once in the past and probably more.

    Under each common descent would be a reality but each provides very different implications.

    There is no conclusive evidence for any of them but in some instances, #4 looks very persuasive. Just what these instances are, is open to debate but I will go with OOL as one definite one.

    In other areas some naturalistic mechanism looks persuasive such as what best explains the geo disparity of life.

    By the way none of my religious beliefs is affected by whatever combination of mechanisms actually explain what happened. Which is why I like to keep religion out of the discussions.

  46. Matthew

    All the hominid fossils we have wouldn’t fill a single coffin.

  47. Dave,

    Several hundred pieces for each of the following human species: homo neanderthalensis, homo sapiens, homo erectus. That is telling a story.

  48. (cont’d) The big picture is the fossil record is good enough for evolutionist paleotologists to insist that organisms appeared in the fossil record abruptly and underwent stasis for millions of years, and then became extinct or survive till present era with no evolution. Stasis is real and pervasive. Abrupt appearance of life is real.

    This is not what one would expect if step-by-step gradualistic evolution happened.

    Unless we are all prepared to accept fast-paced big-leap evolution. That is as good as creation unless there is a plausible mechanism.

    Sudden large change systemic mutations – saltationist evolution – is heresy for genetics biologists.

  49. matthew

    Several hundred pieces for each of the following human species

    Sure. All tiny fragments that together won’t fill a coffin. Lucy was one of the most complete fossilized hominids available and they were certain she walked erect and was a human ancestor. For decades this was a given with utter assurance. Now it’s been brought into serious question. They aren’t even sure if Neandertal is in our line of descent or not and he’s almost contemporary.

    I’m well aware that the fossil record speaks to saltation. I’m a saltationist. The fossil record is the only real evidence we have since DNA is destroyed in just thousands of years. There are a few short proteins found in bone like osteocalcin that can survive for millions of years and have been recently sequenced but a 50 monomer protein doesn’t tell much of a story. Any story of molecular evolution must agree with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record. Back in Darwin’s time it was reasonable to think that the fossil record was largely unexplored and that it would eventually tell a story of continuous small changes leading from one species to another but that’s not the case today. There is no story of continuous small change in the fossil record and it isn’t because we haven’t looked hard enough – it’s because you can’t find what isn’t there.

  50. Given that, then the real story is either saltational evolution, or progressive creation, or six-day creation – if all the dating of fossils are wrong.

    So, I have to be extra-cautious about the retrovirus theory in the DNA.

    Could it be that the viruses took the DNA sequences from the primates, instead of the reverse? How do they know the viruses inserted those DNAs? They assumed that those are junk DNA, so must have been inserted by the viruses? More and more junk DNA have been shown to be functional.

  51. Matthew,

    I have never seen a complete and clear explanation of the retro viruses but apparently they exist at the same places on similar chromosomes in the various species. And are deteriorating in a marked fashion but still recognizable. Maybe someone here could provide a more complete explanation.

    So supposedly they are not functional and the odds are so small that identical sequences would show up at identical positions by chance that it would be absurd to hold it. If somehow the virus was inserted at multiple times, the odds of it showing up at the same place is very small. There are apparently lots of these retro viruses.

    There are other sequences besides retro viruses that supposedly are also present called short interspersed nuclear elements or SINE’s which appear at identical spots in the genomes of various animals.

    Both the retro viruses and SINE’s appear in the introns of the species and are cut out when a protein is being made. Whether they have function or not will have to wait for the future as science is not even as far as kindergarten yet in understanding how the genome works. They are at the block playing stage.

    These sequences are strong support for common descent. However, nothing exists from what I understand to indicate a mechanism for the cause of the origin of the individual species.

    Maybe someone else has a clearer description of this or can point to a source that explains it better.

  52. “Given that, then the real story is either saltational evolution, or progressive creation, or six-day creation…”

    Or sequential seeding of the earth with organisms, or at least new DNA programs. (To be inserted by retroviruses…which would probably leave signs of themselves in the genome…;))
    Panspermia :)

  53. dacook

    Exactly. There’s already at least one intelligent agency using viral vectors to modify genomes for their own purposes too! The possibility is thus confirmed beyond any doubt. The $64,000 question is whether or not there is more than one such intelligent agency. Call me old fashioned but I still believe in the idea that launched The Enlightenment – Copernican Mediocrity.

    Critics might point to Fermi’s Paradox as evidence that the Copernican Principle has failed. I suspect however that the answer to Fermi’s Paradox lies in the length of time that civilizations use radio communications. Once an intelligent species gets to the point of using radio communication then in very short order it either:

    a) destroys itself through its own technology

    or

    b) evolves so far beyond radio communications that they have no more reason for communicating with us than we have reason to communicate with plankton.

    The pace of technological evolution is not linear. It’s exponential. The more technology progresses the faster it progresses even more. Proposed is a technological singularity. If it’s good enough for Ray Kurzweil it’s good enough for me!

  54. Jerry,Dave

    At least a dozen of researchers have discovered that introns have regulatory roles – failure of which will cause cancer.

    http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

    It remains to be proved whether some or all the introns (and other junk DNA) are functional. I am betting that most introns are functional.

    I see the following possible explanations for the DNA sequences seemed to be “inserted” by retroviruses:

    1. the said sequences are extracted from a host genome into the virus rather than inserted into it by the virus;

    2. the said sequences are neither inserted into nor extracted out of host genomes. Rather, some viruses happen to have the same sequences as their hosts.

    3. the said sequences were inserted by viruses into particular loci for a reason – maybe it is at these loci that the viruses will survive and replicate in the host because of “software compatibility”

    By the way, if a virus inserted the said sequences, am I right that the viruses have to replicate into every contiguous cell until the said sequences are also inserted into the germ cells (sperms AND eggs) in order for them to be inherited? What if the sperm contain the said sequences but not the egg, and vice versa, or both sperm and egg contain the said sequences at different loci? In these hypothetical cases will the said sequences still be inherited? If no, then the probability of inheritance is very small, because it is very unlikely the said sequences were inserted into the sperm and egg at the same loci.

    Generally speaking, evolution has to overcome the “sexual compatibility” barrier – both male and female must co-evolve at the same time and same place in a sexually compatible manner.

  55. (cont’d) An after-thought.

    “In these hypothetical cases will the said sequences still be inherited? If no, then the probability of inheritance is very small, because it is very unlikely the said sequences were inserted into the sperm and egg at the same loci.”

    Actually, if the said sequences are inserted at different chromosonal loci in the sperm and the egg, then we should expect to see half the descendants having the “egg” DNA pattern, and half the descendants having the “sperm” DNA pattern. If this half-half pattern are not observed in living primates, then it is unlikely that retroviral insertion had taken place.

    Even then, before reproduction even took place, cancer would have taken place to wreck havoc.

  56. borne writes with genius:

    I’m afraid you did not understand in the least what Salvador’s post here is about.

    Perhaps you’re Darwinist prejudice is blinding your discernment of content and purpose?

    You sadly mistake drawing logical conclusions from a pro Darwinist article for mere quote-mining. Salvador is not “falsely interpreting” but drawing logical conclusions from the articles implications – indeed from it’s very existence.

    It is clear that Salvador uses MacCallum’s article to demonstrate exactly what the article implies;(why do Darwinists always fail to see logical implications?) i.e. Darwinism is useless in medicine.

    Indeed borne, you understood what my post was about. Compare that to Ed Brayton’s reading. Brayton fails to see the subtlety in what I wrote, you were able to correctly understand what I said.

    Sal Cordova’s Rank Dishonesty

  57. drx:

    Anyone can read can see that you aren’t simply misunderstanding it a lttle, you are representing it as saying the opposite of what the article says by omitting statements that would expose your 180 degree misrepresentation. This is disgraceful. You should remove this post or correct it.

    Consider the fictional statement:

    “Phlgiston is essential for chemistry. It’s dissappointment it’s not being taught in chemistry as it’s the most central theory of chemistry”

    Would such a statement, in your mind, be embarrasing admission of phlogiston’s irrelevance to chemistry. You fail to see the there is a comparable situation with MacCallum’s statement.

    The very existence of her editorial refutes the point she was arguing for. It was an unwitting admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance.

  58. “New Theory for Introns: Mutation Sponges” new evolution theory looks like ID theory

  59. 59

    “Anyone can read can see that you aren’t simply misunderstanding it a lttle, you are representing it as saying the opposite of what the article says by omitting statements that would expose your 180 degree misrepresentation. This is disgraceful. You should remove this post or correct it.”

    First time through I thought that as well, but look over it again, as it is completely missing the point.

    Sal did not quote the conclusion of the text because it was not relevant to his argument, if you look at what is bolded, you will realize that Sal was using the reluctant admissions in MacCallum’s article to demonstrate that Doctors were dissing Darwinism. Not that MacCallum was doing it.

  60. bi polar dis orders…

    bi polar, bi polar disorder, bi polar dis orders, manic depression…

  61. bi polar…

    bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression…

  62. bi polar disorder…

    bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression…

  63. bi polar disorders…

    bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression…

Leave a Reply