In #19 you ask about research on adeno associated virus, appearing to imply that it was “evolutionary medicine”. I am having difficulty understanding why you would characterize the research in this way.

First, I do not see how this research gets us closer to understanding how edicaran fauna changed without guidance into trilobites, or starfish, or nautiloids, or even whales from wolves (or was it hippos?). Second, it would appear from the article that intelligent design is being used:

In order to overcome the constraints of wild-type AAV serotypes, numerous groups have recently begun to develop novel strategies to engineer “designer” AAVs tailored for the therapeutic transduction of clinically relevant organs”.

Could you please explain briefly why this particular research supports unguided evolution above the family level, or why it was particularly predicted by that theory.

In #18 you apparently agree with me that the mere possession of a PhD does not guarantee competence, although in fairness it probably does give some kind of minimum. However, you go on to give advice regarding young earth creationism:

It’s my personal belief that for Intelligent Design to even have a chance at being taken seriously it must distance itself, even if that includes ridicule as one of the mechanisms, from young earth creationists and creationism as a whole.

So that we can more accurately judge the value of such advice, is it your personal belief that ID at present should be taken seriously? If not, would ID distancing itself from YEC cause you to believe in ID or would there then be merely a “chance” that you would take ID seriously? If you are not a friend of ID, it would be reasonable to take your advice with a bit of skepticism.

You hopefully are aware that both William Dembski and Michael Behe are on record as disavowing YEC. Why is that not enough? Why should ridicule be used? Isn’t it the mark of a small person to ridicule the beliefs of another? In what other ways should ID distance itself from YEC that it does not already do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....ated_virus

And was wondering if you would also consider that to be a waste of time also?

The recent news of a potential breakthrough using this “evolutionary medicine” appears to belie the main thrust of your blog post, a paper by Dirk Grimm goes into detail:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....d=18400866

Thoughts?

MD’s are not all totally dependent on PhD’s, regardless of your experience. Stick with the arguments, not the ad hominem.

I agree with the idea that a PhD is not a meaningful measure of a persons ability to function. I mean, there are plenty of PhD endowed people out there claiming all sorts of absurd ideas are true, not least the idea that a young earth is a plausible possibility, even now, after all that has been discovered.

It’s my personal belief that for Intelligent Design to even have a chance at being taken seriously it must distance itself, even if that includes ridicule as one of the mechanisms, from young earth creationists and creationism as a whole.

There are doctors and there are doctors, whether MD’s or PhD’s. Some MD’s do come up with theories on their own, and even do research. MD’s are not all totally dependent on PhD’s, regardless of your experience. Stick with the arguments, not the ad hominem.

allanius (#15),

The antibiotic resistance is constantly dragged out, not just because it is the only really good example of evolution in action, but also because it is partly true. I agree that it is more complicated that that, but there is some truth in it and we should not deny any truth simply because our opponents find it useful. Otherwise we turn the debate into a postmodern power struggle, and I don’t think we should go there.

Why does a doctor have to think of Darwin and his theory to reach the commonsense conclusion that overuse of antibiotics is counterproductive?

By doctor I assume your meaning is medical doctor and not scientist PhD. Forgive me if I am wrong.

As a scientist who has worked in both academia and in applied research, I can tell you that Meds don’t come up with any theories on their own, they basically do what scientists tell them to do. It only seems like common sense now because a scientist figured it out.

Two questions:

1. Why does a doctor have to think of Darwin and his theory to reach the commonsense conclusion that overuse of antibiotics is counterproductive?

2. Why do Darwin’s apologists always cite antibiotic “resistance” to support their grandiose claim that “nothing in biology makes sense without Darwin”? Could it be that they can’t think of anything else?

Oops, sorry; third question: Are you aware, Dr. Paul, that the question of antibiotic resistance is actually quite complicated and cannot necessarily be counted as a win for natural selection?

In #8 you comment on mechanism,

But the impression I get (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that you think all these unexplained aptitudes are essentially magic, because to me, anything that is not a mechanism is magic.

Would you then label quantum mechanics as magic? It has no known mechanism (plenty of mathematics, but no mechanism). Furthermore, if relativity is right, quantum mechanics can have no mechanism. Does that mean that quantum mechanics is really magic and not science (at least at present) because we don’t know of a possible mechanism?

You also write,

On the second argument, I guess he must think that computers are unable to ascertain the truth of things as they are just mindless mechanisms.

As a physician I have contact with computers that do such tedious jobs as “reading” electrocardiograms (EKG’s–The German spelling) and monitor strips. They are valuable, as they can point out problems that can slip past us humans when we are insufficiently attentive. However, they have trouble dealing with exceptions, they have no “common sense”, and they are not even close to replacing humans in reading EKG’s or even monitor strips, let alone such complex images as x-rays.

So, yes, it is fair to say that computers are “just mindless mechanisms” and are “unable to ascertain the truth of things”. I don’t really trust computers to read EKG’s without a competent human to overread them. I certainly would not trust a computer to evaluate a scientific theory of the universe.

In #9 you say,

Is the programmer less human because he was told, “Go accomplish this.”

Have you ever heard of dehumanizing work? It is arguable that the programmer is still just as human, but he/she can certainly feel and act less human if there is excessive management.

To the rest,
Be careful how you say that evolution is not relevant to medicine. I agree that the overarching theory, the really important part, is not relevant to medicine. But there are still aspects of the theory that are relevant, as the resistance of microbes to antibiotics. It’s just that, as Behe has pointed out, there is a limit to what evolution can do, and that limit is well below the claims of the grand theory. Be careful not to trash all the theory when you trash the grand theory. (I’m starting to sound like jerry.)

The idea that Darwinism has any impact at all on the practice of medicine or even on the practice of medical research is a feverish apparition of those who are cloistered in the academy and know nothing at all about applied science. Nothing.

And that’s the point, isn’t it? Darwinism is all fine and good in theory—in the classroom and in textbooks, where, after all, it can’t really hurt anybody—where adults have the freedom to perpetuate their childhood. But in the real world, it has no healing impact whatsoever.

“Physician, do no harm.” A real, live practicing doctor can’t afford the luxury of pristine theories. He has a moral obligation to heal. He must acquaint himself with what is real. And under this obligation, no good or sensible physician—no, not one—ever uses Darwin to aid him in the practice of medicine.

“What does this mean?”It means there is a disconnect between theory and reality. It means the theory—which, for all we know, may be nothing more than a feverish apparition—has nothing to do with actual, applied practice.

Synecdoche, Alfred. Yes, the time has come to connect the dots. We can build our castles in the air for just so long. At some point our beautiful theories must stop preening and admiring themselves and reenter the real world.

And at that point, dear Seinfeld, Darwinism shrinks away to nothing.

Next semester, I had a different textbook with absolutely no mention of evolution at all.