Those who haven't had the experience of reading
Dr. Egnor's contributions to the creation/evolution conflict will not know that he is a neurosurgeon at Stony Brook who has trumpeted his support for intelligent design and against evolution. Dr. Egnor has recently written an
essay at the Ministry of Media Complaints of the Discovery Institute. Ever on-message, Dr. Egnor seems to think that doctors don't need to know evolution because he objects to the Alliance for Science's essay challenge. (Alliance for Science asked high schoolers to write an essay entitled and organized around the thesis, "Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution.")
Dr. Egnor has been the subject of multiple fiskings recently and this is a curiosity itself. I'm personally acquainted with at least four attending-level physicians who were creationists at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. Up at Minnesota, a chief resident in the department of surgery was a creationist. And now at Penn State, there's at least one creationist. The Discovery Institute, fresh off their defeat from Dover, put a lot of effort into developing a
five-page list of physicians who think evolution isn't such a big deal - so why is Egnor getting all the infamy for his incredulity? I don't have a good answer for that: maybe he's just the DI "Flavor of the Month" or the only physician willing to write essays. What I can answer are Dr. Egnor's claims that evolution is not needed in medical school.
And I'll do it on the flipside.
Egnor's Argument in Summary
For those who can't stomach Egnor's essay, permit me to summarize:
Isn't it "a funny question" whether we would want physicians to know evolution? There are basic sciences that are taught in medical school that must be "important to medicine" like anatomy and physiology. Doctors don't "study evolution in medical school", "there are no courses in medical school on evolution," "there are no professors of evolution" in medical schools," and "there are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools," and "no evolutionary biologists" would provide useful information to a medical team in hospital. Therefore, evolution just isn't important to the practice of medicine. I call upon my "20 years [of performing] over 4000 brain operations" to attest that I have never once used evolutionary biology in my work. How could I since evolution is random and doctors look for patterns, patterns that lie far afield from the randomness that is evolution? "I do use many" understandings provided by basic science in my work, such as population biology, "[but] evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine." "No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology." So I wouldn't want my doctor to have studied evolution; that answer wouldn't win the "Alliance for Science" prize, but it would be the truth.
Man, there's a lot of work fisking all that. I'll leave the simple stuff (selection ain't random and that's why it's called selection, dude) for others. Let me concentrate on the medical stuff, which I'll deal with in separate sections.
Section 1: Evolution is a Vital Basic Science for Medicine
I'll start off my fisking by criticizing an aspect of medical practice and, to make sense of it, those who aren't physicians need to know that there's a great divide in the practice of medicine between the physicians who practice to simply the "standard of care," (the kind of practice you're expected to know for quizzes, tests, and boards and the level of care you need to meet to not get sued) and the physicians who know the basic science behind why the standards of care are what they are.
For example, when someone is having a heart attack (and daily after they have one), they need to be on aspirin because of the pathophysiology of heart attacks. (I review much of it that pathophysiology
here.) Briefly, the aspirin irreversibly inhibits the platelet enzyme involved with forming clots. But you don't have to know about the irreversible acetylation of cyclooxygenase that occurs in the presence of acetylsalycylic acid in platelets; all you have to do is give people aspirins after heart attacks. The "divide" I refer to is between the physicians who know the biochemistry behind that reaction and the doctors who are content to know only that they should give aspirins after heart attacks. Make no mistake: one can be a great doctor and simply practice to the standard of care knowing not a whit of the basic science that provides that standard's underpinnings. But if you can know the reasons why the standard of care is the way it is, why on Earth would you limit yourself by choosing to not know it?
The example I've given here is limited to a single therapeutic regimen in cardiology, but ideally there's basic science that undergirds everything we do in medicine. There's a reason why it's no big deal if you're not wearing lead in the radiology suite (thanks to the inverse-square law, as long as you're three or four feet away from the radiation source, the dose you get is negligible). There's a reason why diazepam - a drug we use to treat seizures - can cause seizures (much of the brain's neurons are inhibitory and their suppression leads to increased seizure activity). There's a reason why two different rheumatological diseases can require separate therapies (diseases involving deposition of immune complexes wouldn't likely be amenable to an exchange of antibiodies as much as they would be to suppression of the immune system overall). Again, there are doctors who know or want to know the reasons behind the practice and there are doctors who don't know and/or don't want to know those reasons.
Doctor Egnor seems to like being in that latter category. More than that, he seems to recommend not knowing the basic science that undergirds the practice of medicine, to the extent that he perceives evolution might have had a hand in developing the state of the art. I see his perspectives as nothing more than ignorance advocacy for the basic sciences, writ large and not limited whatsoever to evolution.
Sure, he writes
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
as if to suggest that he has some interest in basic science, but I don't buy it for a second. First, how is it possible to separate evolutionary biology from genetics and population biology? Post-Darwin, pre-Mendelian evolution, Egnor might have made a weak case that they might be separable fields. However, the entire modern synthesis of evolutionary biology dealt in its essence with merging genetics and selection. Today, they are so fused as to render Egnor's phrase meaningless: the entity of population biology without evolution does not exist any more than water without wet exists.
Second (and this may be a bit snarky), Egnor quibbles at evolution being immaterial to the practice of medicine, but he says that he uses population biology. Man, don't I know it. I just can't get the vitals on patients referring to Hardy-Weinberg and Kimura at least once or twice per patient. Egnor knows as well as I do that if he isn't going to find evolution in his daily rounds, he's not going to find population biology, which leads me to suspect that his endorsement of it was a facile claim intended to stave off accusations that he's an advocate of ignorance.
Well, I think he is an advocate of ignorance, despite the rhetoric he wrote about population biology and genetics.
Let's move on to Egnor's claims about evolution in medical school. First, he mentions anatomy and physiology - courses offered in the first two, or "pre-clinical," years of medical school - and cites them as being important. But "Doctors never study [evolution] in medical school" so it's therefore not important. I should also point out that calculus is also not studied in medical school. Neither was statistics. Neither was inorganic or organic chemistry, physics - hang on a second while I fish out my college transcript - composition and grammar, or biophysical chemistry. Med schools aren't going to teach medical students how to write essays or how to add two and two. They also aren't going to teach elementary chemistry or evolution. They're going to assume that entering medical students have the barebones literacy to know certain things before they even get an offer to interview, let alone get enrolled.
Hmmm. Egnor might have a point though because that's a pretty big assumption. I wonder if there were a way to tell whether a future physician would likely have the requisite understandings to succeed in medical school. If only there were a test, some sort of standardized test that admission committees could use evaluate how well medical school applicants had prepared for their medical careers! Can anyone think of such a test?
Of course I'm being facetious. Go
here and do an in-PDF search for evolution. Dr. Egnor well knows that the MCAT is required to get into medical school and, according to the people who make the test, the MCAT in part tests one's comprehension of evolution. And, unsurpringly, pre-medical committees across the nation have strongly recommended to kids that they know evolution. (There's just something about a low med-school acceptance rates from pervasive failures to prepare students for the MCAT that makes a college or university unpalatable to parents.)
I tried to
find something specific from the AAMC about evolution advocacy.
Look what I found. (PZ may not have made much of Collins' book, but the AAMC is an organization of medical schools to whom premed advisors and medical school hopefuls look for advice regarding career preparation for their students, and this interview of Collins appears on their website. I consider this a significant statement and wish they would be even more explicit about the "Look, guys, you need to know evolution" hint that they just haven't brought themselves to say forthrightly.)
And I want to be the first to ruin the day of creationists when I say that you don't stop having to know evolution once you get in. For those who don't know, Step 1 (more formally known as the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1) is an exam you have to take after the second year of medical school in order to progress. And I can attest that, during my exam, a question that tested my ability to apply the central theory of population genetics - the
Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium - was asked, as was my knowledge of
whence cometh the mitochondrion into eukaryotes.
That's just getting into medical school. What about making sense of things once you are there? In the cardiovascular physiology block, we learned about the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. Whereas previous generations had to perform labs on dogs not intended to survive, we were spared this (so were the dogs) and instead watched a videodisk (it really was - this was before DVD-RW, I guess) of a dog being given various agents and seeing what affect it had on the blood pressure, heart rate, etc. I can't imagine the befuddlement Dr. Egnor must have had, had he my experience in my medical school labs, when he perfectly understood what happened to the dog, but couldn't allow himself to generalize the dog's experience to the human.
Or consider my anatomy lab. So we're learning the muscles of the back and having a dickens of a time trying to memorize their innervation. No problem, says my anatomy professor, and walks to the chalkboard. He draws a circle and puts in two perpendicular intersecting lines like crosshairs. Picking up the red chalk, he drew the musculature of the shark and with the yellow chalk he drew the nerves that innervate those muscles. Pretty primitive anatomy, really. Then he explained how, through phylogeny, the shark shape gets filleted down the middle, with the two inferior bits being the most lateral and the posterior being the medial, and there you've got the mammalian innervation. And the anatomy of it made perfect sense. There was no longer any memorization (past the damned names, that is); there was a theory that explained it all. And I can see Egnor refusing to admit the ease an evolutionary perspective of anatomy affords students, maybe to the point he would have refused the easy way of learning that material. His anatomy lessons must have been harsh, memorizing every muscle, compartment, bone and nerve, never once allowing himself to grasp the overall organizing patterns because he just knew that evolution was wrong.
Egnor reprised that theme often in his essay so let me make something clear here. Anytime you see comparative medicine, or comparative biochemistry, or comparative pharmacology, or anything comparative, that
is evolutionary theory. We test drugs in rats and it's not because we think rat pharmaceuticals are a lucrative industry. (
Since 1938, non-toxicity must be demonstrated in animal models before a drug can come to market.) We don't practice our surgical techniques on animals because we hate pigs. (Residents at SUNY Upstate have access to an
animal surgery lab, in which they can hone their techniques on animals before they operate on humans.)
Whenever you see stuff practiced or tested or homogenized or whatever on animals with the intention of applying those conclusions to humans or other species,
that is evolution being used in practice. Without evolution, animal testing is just making drugs for rats and patting yourself on the back at the sheer (reproducible) dumb luck that the drug you've designed for the rat would likely do a decent job in humans as well. (Just a bit of intellectual integrity is needed to make the leap.)
Egnor thinks can say that evolution is unimportant to medicine when he points out that no course entitled "evolution" is generally to be found in medical school curricula. As I've shown, he's dead wrong, and no medical school hopeful would be well served by avoiding an understanding of evolution. Word of advice to premed students: take the hint (which really ought not be a hint,
ahem) from the AAMC and learn it if you want to do well.
What about making sense of things after you finish medical school? Has Dr. Egnor never obtained
ATLS certification? I certainly don't want to be the unfortunate patient needing a chest tube on whom Dr. Egnor discovers to my cost that a large amount of pressure but not too much is needed to introduce a trochar through the parietal pleura of the lung. I'd just as soon it be an anesthetized pig, like the one I learned on back in Wichita, KS.
In summary, evolution is indeed important to get into medical school, it is important to succeed during it, and it is important after you leave. Egnor's perspectives are completely wrong.
Section 2: Professors of Evolution Do Teach in Medical Schools
There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no 'professors of evolution' in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.
This one is a simple claim to fisk. Andrea Bottaro, contributor to the Thumb is an associate professor of medicine at a medical school who has published explicitly evolutionary articles. Thanks for playing, Dr. Egnor.
But let's run with this a bit because it's so easy. Hans Thewissen, the dude who discovered
Ambulocetus natans, is
employed in the anatomy department of the Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy. He appears to have a dual appointment, both to anatomy and also as the
football program's head coach. (Note to self: I am so getting
one of these t-shirts.)
But he isn't the only one. Nationwide (probably worldwide), there's a push in medical schools to include specialists from non-medical disciplines in the basic sciences. It's for this reason that Thewissen, a palentologist, teaches anatomy at a medical school.
Egnor teaches at SUNY Medical Center, right? Well, just check out their medical school's website and look at their
department faculty. Anatomy looks promising. Okay, we see that
Sussman is interested in the "comparative morphology" of humans and apes,
Stern is interested in "The evolution of postcranial adaptations in primates,"
Rubin works on bones in animals and humans, ... Those were just the last three - you guys look up the rest.
Want to be a graduate student at SUNY and get your
doctorate in anatomy?
The program is concerned with the analysis and interpretation of gross vertebrate structure in relation to adaptation and systematics. Training and research focus on (a) an evolutionary perspective in the analysis of morphology, including the influences of function, structure, and phylogenetic history, and (b) the structural adaptations of bone as load-bearing tissue, including the physiologic mechanisms of osteogenesis and osteolysis.
And that's just the anatomy department. And that's just at SUNY.
The
University of Chicago's Department of Ecology and Evolution is part of an interdisciplinary medical program, the "Biological Sciences Division." The dean of medical affairs is the dean of the division. Best still, they call their interdepartmental evolution program "Darwinian Sciences."
For more examples, read Cammarata's
"The Anatomy Professor that Ate New York: Some Dinosaurs are Teachers,
and Some Teach About Dinosaurs." Read Baker's
"Darwin in Medical School." And go here to see Nesse's
list of medical scientists/professionals involved or interested in evolution.
No professors of evolution in medical schools? By any non-trivial parsing of that phrase, Egnor is dead wrong. Professors with evolution training and active research involving evolution are commonplace in medical schools and you'll probably see more of that, not less, as time goes on because these people make the material
so freaking easy.
Section 3: Nobel Prizes in Medicine Have Been Awarded for Work in Evolutionary Biology
No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology.
Creationists evolve, rolling out new arguments and angles like automobile prototypes at a trade convention. The argument that no one has ever won a Nobel prize for work in evolution was apparently first trotted out by Steve Fuller at none other than the
Kitzmiller trial:
And in a sense, one way you can see this is that, if you look at the Nobel prizes that have been awarded for physiology in medicine, which is the field, the biological field, essentially, you don't find anyone ever getting the prize specifically for evolution.
Ideally, I could simply turn to the cross examination portion of the transcript, but Steve Fuller was scoring so many own-goals with his testimony that our lawyers let him off the hook without much of a fight. Yay for the Kizmiller trial, but now I have to do the work.
Briefly:
- Insulin was first isolated in dogs and the research was subsequently applied to humans; Macleod and Banting won the Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1923.
- Neurophysiology was elucidated by studying squid, whose giant axons were large enough to pierce with the instruments of that day and the research was subsequently applied to humans; Hodgkin and Huxley won the Nobel Prize for it in 1963.
- Using an animal model of sea slugs, Eric Kandel deomnstrated how changes of synaptic function are central for learning and memory; in 2000, he won the Nobel prize for his work.
- The mechanism for olfaction and the genes giving rise to it were found; Axel and Buck won the 2004 Nobel Prize for their discovery and their seminal paper described the evolution of the genes over lower vertebrates and invertebrates. (See this article for a great writeup on it.)
I'm certain there are others (and living Nobel laureates should please not feel slighted by my not listing their work here). Feel free to include any examples you can think of in the comments. By way of summary, Egnor is, again, completely wrong.
Conclusion
In fact, I think it's safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That's a contribution which has brought shame---not advance---to the medical field.
So 'Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?' I wouldn't. Evolutionary biology isn't important to modern medicine. That answer won't win the 'Alliance for Science' prize. It's just the truth.
Dr. Egnor knows that he would be required to use glucocorticoids to prevent seizures in many situations in neurosurgery, but they were first tested in humans in 1948 - well after the FDA would have required the drugs to be proven non-toxic in animal models. Unless he isn't giving medicines approved after the 1930s - and one doesn't often find homeopathic surgeons - then he's using evolution, even if he refuses to recognize it.
But that's what his post is primarily about. It's not that evolution is useless to medicine; on the contrary, it is a non-controversial component of essential medical education and one needs to know it certainly to get into medical school these days, to say nothing of staying in and doing well afterwards, to say nothing of having any prayer of a chance of making sense of the science that others use to generate the "standards of care".
What's going on here is that Egnor dislikes evolution and is hoping to de-emphasize its importance. Why? It is possible that he earnestly and sincerely believes that evolution has not contributed to his art. It is possible that he earnestly and sincerely believes that recognizing the validity of evolution would render his life meaningless or without value. It is possible he is a cynical liar and he wants no readers of the Discovery Institute Ministry of Media Complaints who credit his perspectives to enter or do well in medical school. (Hey, if true, he wouldn't be the first
surgeon who knew better about evolution but still advocated for ID only to make a buck, gain a little influence, or exhibit some sort of other ulterior motive.) Whatever his motivations may be, readers should not credit his testimony: he is at least dead wrong.
Further, his perspectives are very difficult to distinguish from ignorance advocacy. Egnor first came to attention when a
blogger at Time magazine criticized him for not being an expert in evolution. He has stated that he does not use evolution, but this is more an admission of a willful disregard for the evolution he does use and upon which his art is based. Taken together, along with his assurance that the only contribution evolution has made to medicine was eugenics*, his writings bespeak the dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance, traits altogether common with creationists, but that shine in Dr. Egnor to such an extent that a neologism should bear his namesake.
Egnorance. (n) The egotistical combination of ignorance and arrogance.
BCH
*Recall please that Egnor endorsed population biology. I'm informed by my pal Reed Cartwright that the people to blame for eugenics were the early population geneticists. (D'oh!)
122 Comments
afarensis · 10 March 2007
Stony Brook also has Meave Leakey as an Adjunct Professor!
Reed A. Cartwright · 10 March 2007
Reed A. Cartwright · 10 March 2007
Chicago's "Darwinian Science" program is often considered the best evolution program in the world.
Reed A. Cartwright · 10 March 2007
Stanford's evolution and ecology programs are contained in the med-school as well.
Dave Carlson · 10 March 2007
Afarensis adds a few names to the non-existent list of Evolutionary Biologists at medical schools.
Egnor sure is turning out to be quite a piece of work. I hope the DI grants him a fellowship.
Nick (Matzke) · 10 March 2007
Erp · 10 March 2007
Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley won the 1963 Nobel for Medicine for the squid neuron research not Hodgkin alone.
Reed A. Cartwright · 10 March 2007
Then there is the 1994 Economic Nobel Prize given to Harsanyi, Nash, and Selten for game theory. The importance of Game Theory to evolutionary biology is one of the reasons they got the prize.
shiva · 10 March 2007
Pankaj the physicist asks Mukesh the mechanic "Do you know I could tell you why you need a new manifold to tune up any further, I study fluid mechanics."
"We don't need no steenkeeng physeex to learn how to soup up your car,"
Egnor's embarassingly ignorant essay sounds as wise as that
realpc · 10 March 2007
BlueIndependent · 10 March 2007
Thanks for this. I post at PZ's blog regularly, but this is one of only a few times I've read your blog. This is great stuff, and it shows that there are some absolutely committed to being wrong, and they feel it is OK to keep doing so.
Mr. Egnor never sold me on anything he said, because, like a lot of creationists, he always started from the incredulity soap box, and refused to get off of it. Creationism - any stripe of it - is nothing more than fallacy and disinterest in learning. I laughed some while reading this article, not because you tried to keep the mood light, but also because you provided the overwhelming evidence needed to utterly trash Egnor's "arguments". It is funny how easy it is to prove these people wrong; they don't even check their own backyard (your references to SUNY's faculty).
Excellent work. I shall be here more often.
Dave Carlson · 10 March 2007
natural cynic · 10 March 2007
Comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, comparative biochemistry, comparative molecular genetics ....
Yup, they must have been designed that way for the convenience of doctors.
Mark Perakh · 10 March 2007
Is there evidence that Egnor is a real name of a real brain surgeon? The transparent allusion (Egnorance=egomania+ignorance) and the senselessness of his question about biological information make me wonder - can't it be a hoax a la Sokal?
The question he asked is the same the team of Australian creationists disguised as TV interviewers asked Dawkins a few years ago (and Phil Johnson made a lot of noise about it because Dawkins kept silent for 11 seconds without answering). Those Aussies based their question on the notorious book by Spetner; since then Spetner was repudiated more than once, but Egnor (whoever he is) seems to be following Spetner's piffle. Well, with creos it is often hard to distinguish what is their serious attempt at argumentation and what is a parody.
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
realpc · 10 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
realpc · 10 March 2007
realpc · 10 March 2007
Egnor said:
you don't find anyone ever getting the prize specifically for evolution.
and you countered with, for example:
Insulin was first isolated in dogs and the research was subsequently applied to humans
That is NOT specifically for evolution, and you know it! Every scientist KNOWS that there are similarities between animals and humans. Everyone KNOWS that medical treatments are tested on animals before they are tested on humans. If there were no similarities between species, animals would not be used as test subjects.
Even unscientific people who don't believe in any kind of evolution understand that there are similarities between species!!!
So you're saying the Nobel prize for insulin was specifically for evolution??!!
Your argument is long, but completely irrelevent. And I'm sure you know it.
mark · 10 March 2007
I have noticed that very often one or more authors of evolution articles in Science are noted as affiliated with a school of medicine or a medicine-related field. Perhaps Egnor does not read Science.
A similar argument can be made for other professions--engineer, chef, and others--some practitioners follow the cookbook and generally succeed at what they do, while others, who actually understand engineering and cooking, are able to innovate, adapt to new situations, and advance their field.
RBH · 10 March 2007
As I wrote in a comment on Pharyngula, ignorance is no crime. Willful ignorance is unfortunate and intellectually debilitating. Advocating willful ignorance is profoundly immoral. Egnor's behavior is morally disgusting.
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
David B. Benson · 10 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
Dave Carlson · 10 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
realpc · 10 March 2007
Popper's Ghost,
Research on genetics does not equal research on evolution. Scientists can study DNA and RNA, but they cannot study evolution directly. Assumptions and inferences are made, but there are no direct observations. So it's hard to win a Nobel prize for evolution research.
Darwinism is based on the observation that evolution has occurred, and on the assumption that nature is mindless and without purpose. Given that assumption, purposeless variations and natural selection must be the explanation.
How can anyone win a Nobel prize for assumptions and observation-free inferences?
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
Nick (Matzke) · 10 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
normdoering · 10 March 2007
realpc · 10 March 2007
realpc · 10 March 2007
"Is there evidence that Egnor is a real name of a real brain surgeon?"
Yes.
http://www.upsb.org/xq/asp/code.966/qx/html_patient/physician.htm
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
MarkP · 10 March 2007
JohnK · 10 March 2007
realpc placing words in Egnor's mouth to make Egnor "obviously" say what he wants Egnor to say is rather pathetically unconvincing. Egnor's "no new information" BS implies far more than anti-NeoDarwinism.
Egnor's animus is partly motivated by his distorted view of the origin of eugenics, and has proven himself either an ignoramus regarding information theory or dishonest - not to mention the above fisking on his numerous claims. Please embrace him as one of your own, realpc. He fits right in with your disgusting crowd.
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
Laser · 10 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 10 March 2007
David B. Benson · 10 March 2007
Laser --- Are you sure that realpc has one?
After all, those things are extremely complex machines and maybe Egnor removed his. ;-)
Jeffrey K McKee · 10 March 2007
Having gone to grad school at Washington University, while creationist David Menton was on faculty; having taught anatomy at a medical school (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa), where evolution was a keystone to understanding the human body; and now being a paleoanthropologist back in the good ol' USA, with a wife who is a medical doctor, I can say the following:
Medical doctors and surgeons are not scientists.
Medical doctors and surgeons who understand science understand human anatomy and physiology better.
There are good doctors who do not understand evolutionary science.
There are better doctors who DO understand evolutionary science.
Egnor-ance may be bliss, but understanding evolution is divine.
Cheers,
Jeff
Keith Douglas · 10 March 2007
All of that is no doubt true - and there are the entire disciplines of microbiology, immunology, virology, nutrition, etc. which also draw heavily upon evolutionary insights.
Nick (Matzke) · 10 March 2007
PZ Myers · 10 March 2007
Has anyone else noticed the desperate retreat we're seeing from a lot of creationists lately, exemplified by realpc here? They're all crying surrender by shouting that they do too believe in evolution, they aren't arguing with common descent (although when you pin them down hard enough, they are), and they've just got some itty-bitty little nit-picky complaints about the mechanism.
That's the new face of creationism -- begging for a niggardly little scrap of doubt that they can hide in, while surrendering most of the game to science. Isn't it nice to see what weasely little cowards they are?
Nick (Matzke) · 10 March 2007
Well, there isn't alot on Google about Egnor and religion, but there is plenty of evidence that he a religious right culture warrior:
Egnor on an apparent miracle he witnessed in surgery in 2001 or so
Something about Egnor complaining about judicial power in 2004
Egnor on Terri Schiavo in 2005
Egnor speaks at a Christian young meeting in 2007 (held at a catholic church, so maybe he's a culture war catholic instead of a culture war evangelical)
Hey, I give the guy credit for being a really impressive neurosurgeon, but if he's going to spout creationist propaganda without even trying to check the statements first, then he deserves the same flack that someone would get if they started spouting about neurosurgery without knowing anything about it.
normdoering · 10 March 2007
Gary Telles · 10 March 2007
Thanks for the thorough and elegantly simple take-down of this willfully ignorant man. I can just hear my late father the MD, radiologist, pathologist bellowing "IMBECILE!"
Well done.
Gary
paul · 10 March 2007
Burt, thanks for this very thorough and devastating takedown. I always enjoy your posts.
I think I speak for all old biology majors (like me) and everyone else interested in this topic. Keep it up, and thanks for all the hard work you put in to keep us educated on this creationist nonsense.
And then there's realpc. Creationists are always so amusing!
paul
sparc · 10 March 2007
normdoering · 10 March 2007
normdoering · 10 March 2007
sparc · 10 March 2007
Actually, Egnor's comment I mentioned above seems to be part of a longer fight John Oro had with him in Neurosurgery. According to the journals web site it consists of the following articles:
Oro, John J.:
EVOLUTION OF THE BRAIN: FROM BEHAVIOR TO CONSCIOUSNESS IN 3.4 BILLION YEARS.
Neurosurgery. 54(6):1287-1297, June 2004.
Egnor, Michael Robert:
Evolution of the Brain: From Behavior to Consciousness in 3.4 Billion Years.
Neurosurgery. 56(3):E629, March 2005.
Oro, John J.:
Evolution of the Brain: From Behavior to Consciousness in 3.4 Billion Years.
Neurosurgery. 56(3):E629, March 2005.
Egnor, Michael Robert:
Evolution of the Brain: From Behavior to Consciousness in 3.4 Billion Years.
Neurosurgery. 56(4):E873, April 2005.
Oro, John J:
Evolution of the Brain: From Behavior to Consciousness in 3.4 Billion Years.
Neurosurgery. 56(4):E873, April 2005.
sparc · 10 March 2007
normdoering · 11 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 11 March 2007
sparc · 11 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 11 March 2007
Nick (Matzke) · 11 March 2007
normdoering · 11 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 11 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 11 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 11 March 2007
Also, pollsters don't assume that, because someone holds one view, they also hold another view. Your claim that "if what you are saying were correct, pollsters would be out of a job" is an effing stupid non sequitur. One of my points was that it isn't just anti-evolutionists who are intellectually dishonest and think illogically, and you've always been one of my most outstanding examples, Nick.
normdoering · 11 March 2007
normdoering · 11 March 2007
Nick (Matzke) · 11 March 2007
Nick (Matzke) · 11 March 2007
Marek 14 · 11 March 2007
In the previous thread, MarkP said:
"Atheism is not a philosophy, any more than a-unicornism is a philosophy, any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby."
That got me thinking. In this case, probably antitheism could be a philosophy, and a vigorous opposition to stamp collecting might make a good hobby (just imagine all those protest actions, chaining yourself to the post offices...).
When I called it a philosophy, I was using an example from my own life. As an Aspie, I am particularly bad in getting clues from my surroundings - because of this, I developed in completely areligious environment, because I simply did not realize anything like religion exists!
I never became an atheist - I was BORN one, and simply never had a reason to change the view. It's an unalienable part of my worldview. I'll give examples:
When I think of mainstream religion's main claim (the existence of superior being who loves us), I get goosebumps. My visceral reaction is "Why in the world would anyone PREFER such a world?" In such world, we would never be more than children. Nothing we did here would ultimately matter, everything we did could be easily undone. In my worldview, this might still happen, of course, but it would be just a bad luck. Not a deliberate action. I read claims that atheist's world has no meaning - well, I think that world with mainstream God lacks any "meaning", since its meaning is prescribed and cannot be changed, if an individual human decides that he would prefer a different one.
For me, a God is a win of human need for satisfaction over human curiosity - a win that is, by my opinion, not worth it. In my rejection of religion, I had a choice between easy happiness and constant possibility of discovering new things. I chose the second. Of course, it's very possible that I never HAD a choice. Maybe I'm simply wired to be skeptical, and I grew up in environment that never overrode this much.
That is my opinion, at any rate. Now, a word of caution. It is possible that I have misrepresented the religious position. Indeed, it's likely, as I never had a particular interest in religion, apart from the fact that I looked at it and considered it something I don't want. If any theist takes offense at what I've written, I deeply apologize. While it IS my opinion, I don't hold it especially truthful on the expense of all others. But for all those who become grossly offended, please take a minute to ponder whether you yourselves haven't been guilty of similar things in the past.
So, what does it mean for topic at hand? Simply that I don't understand creationism, and likely never will. For me, the nature is much more complex and more wondrous than would be possible to achieve by intelligence.
Finally, a personal note for realpc. I observed that the overwhelming sentiment in threads where you appear is that you make a distinctions between the parts of evolution you accept and the parts you disagree with. However, virtually everybody else claims that evolution doesn't actually say the things you claim you disagree with. My question to you: Are you aware of this?
normdoering · 11 March 2007
sparc · 11 March 2007
MarkP · 11 March 2007
sparc · 11 March 2007
sparc · 11 March 2007
Doc Bill · 11 March 2007
That Dr. Egnor is wrong about the science of evolution is undebatable. Clearly, Egnor is reciting the creationist playbook chapter and verse.
The more interesting question to me is why?
Egnor is a successful surgeon. He's done good work. He's done research. No quibble.
So, why is Egnor risking professional ridicule by repeating non-scientific creationist arguments, in public, on the Internet, to the exposure of the World?
My opinion is that Egnor is suffering from a huge crisis of faith where he has realized that the physical world no longer corresponds to his religous world, thus he is in denial of reality. And loudly.
It doesn't matter that he's wrong. It only matters that he can attract some supporters to shore up his faith, i.e. fellow creationists, and help him prove himself "right." Now, he's part of the press staff at the DI. Whoopdie, doo! Not exactly president of the AMA.
So much for my psychoanalysis.
realpc · 11 March 2007
Egnor is one more person with the courage to stand up to the dominant scientific mainstream and say that the Darwinist emperor has no clothes.
He understands the risk, I'm sure. But if enough respected scientific people take the risk, that poor emperor might finally get something to wear!
Dave Carlson · 11 March 2007
David B. Benson · 11 March 2007
But then by now we all know that realpc is suffering from a form of rationality disorder...
ofro · 11 March 2007
PvM · 11 March 2007
MarkP · 11 March 2007
The contrast between the two groups in this culture war couldn't be more starkly illustrated by the Egnor event. Egnor has posed no new arguments, discovered no new data. He has simply joined the ID gang. Can you imagine a scientific group making such a fuss over say, Duesberg suddenly accepting the HIV/AIDS link?
Scientists get excited over new discoveries that advance our knowledge and pose new and exciting questions. IDer/creationists get excited over new adherants that advance their PR agenda and repeat the same tired rhetoric. That pretty much sums it all up.
Marek 14 · 12 March 2007
One day ago, I wrote:
"Finally, a personal note for realpc. I observed that the overwhelming sentiment in threads where you appear is that you make a distinctions between the parts of evolution you accept and the parts you disagree with. However, virtually everybody else claims that evolution doesn't actually say the things you claim you disagree with. My question to you: Are you aware of this?"
From the evidence so far, I am forced to conclude that the answer is negative.
Peter Buckland · 12 March 2007
Great read! I forwarded it to some others who will no doubt appreciate its veracity and tenacity.
I agree with Mark P's last comment that the difference really can't be more different. The arguments have barely changed over centuries - they just evolve with changes in the language so that the watch turns into the computer - and there is nothing but begged questions, god(s) of the gaps, non sequiturs, straw men and endless appeals to ignorance.
And while I loathe to feed the troll, I'd just like to know how exactly common descent is not part of whatever the f*** your definition of neo-Darwinian evolution is? You talk about no clothes on the emperor? Where are your clothes? You keep giving them away to evolutionary science. Not to sound like too much of a recruiter, but give up the irrational dogma dude and get a new suit. Your's is like a scrap of shirt that's only covering your useless right male nipple.
Pastor Bentonit, FCD · 12 March 2007
Nobel prize for the research on genetic control of embryonic development in fruit flies: Nüsslein-Volhard, Wieschaus, Lewis (1995).
And do note that the HOX genes laying out the body plan are ubiquitous in metazoans. Ring any bell, cdesign proponentsists?
Cheers,
/The Rev
k.e. · 12 March 2007
Gah... I see the problem Egor is obviously a Sweedish name.
Perhaps Realpc could see if Dr. Egor can insert some much needed information into his skull.
I have this image of the Swedish Chef doing a little brain surgery (who needs to know where all the stuff came from, it was all on the grocery shelves right?).
Dr. Egor in his brain surgeons hat or toque blanche selects some suitable tools and attempts to perform brain surgery not on one person at a time but an entire population. The tool he selected was the DI or maybe vica versa .....the tool the DI selected was Dr Egor. It should be twice the fun.
Now what is our intrepid cook/brain surgeon going to do with this new tool?
Let's look in zee keetcheen shall vee?
Limp this way. Quiet please.
How to make Codnitive Dishsonance.
Furst ve-a teke-a zee preffruntel reesuner und replece-a it veet zee denurmeleezer und zee stoopeedizer. Next ve-a crunk up zee druuler und pooll slooly oon zee leg.Bort Bort Bort. Und Beengu .....luuk ma nu breeen. Yuoo tuu cun be-a thees smert. Cume-a und get a breeen check tudey speceeel desceleeng serfeece-a vheele-a yuoo veeet..
Dizzy · 12 March 2007
Flint · 12 March 2007
Raging Bee · 12 March 2007
realpc blithered thusly:
So obivously he is using the word "evolution" to mean "evolution merely by chance and natural selection."
And you, of course, are saying "creationism" when you mean "guided evolution."
You must be getting desperate if all you can do is blatantly lie about what we're saying, and what the Egnoramus is saying, when our own statements are posted here, in plain English, for all to read.
So the terminology is completely misleading...
Yes, the terminology YOU used is indeed misleading, which is why WE didn't use it. Whose fault is that? Perhaps you wouldn't be so misled if you actually addressed what we said, instead of what you say we said.
Egnor criticizes Darwinism, not evolution...
Please describe the difference in detail; and show us where Egnor criticises one and accepts the other. Note that in the passages quoted, Egnor uses the word "evolution." (I just did a search for "Darwin," and found no instances of it in the writings of Egnor quoted here.)
Grow up and get a job, Skippy. Oh wait, you can't, because you refused to get a decent education. Sorry, I guess that leaves you only four options: crime, welfare, televangelism, or a DI fellowship. It must really suck to be you.
Julie Stahlhut · 12 March 2007
Raging Bee · 12 March 2007
I don't own this blog, so it's not my decision to make, but I'm beginning to think realpc should be banned -- not merely because he's an ignorant and uncaring troll who changes the subject of nearly every thread he enters, repeats assertions whose refutation he ran away from in previous posts, and ignores the refutations and reposts the same crap in later posts; but also because, as his statement about the Egnoramus as quoted by myself shows, he's also a fucking liar.
Anyone who flatly asserts that someone who used the word "evolution" was not really criticizing evolution, is clearly not dealing honestly or in good faith with others, and has nothing useful to contribute to any adult debate.
Just my two cents...
David B. Benson · 12 March 2007
Raging Bee --- I am not convinced realpc is capable of distinguishing falsehoods from truths...
However, I certainly agree that he ought to be banned!
MarkP · 12 March 2007
I third Bee's Rage. The bottom line unforgivable problem with Realpc is he consistently misrepresents what others say, to the point of outright lying (see his made-up nonsense on James Randi in the other Egnor thread). There's nothing wrong with honest differeces of opinion. Realpc is not honest.
Peter Buckland · 12 March 2007
This is from my father-in-law, an anthropologist at PSU. We regualarly commiserate on the evo-creo stuff. He knows more of the evo and I know the political so it's a fun balance. He has good things to say. The too long is that we live a bit apart and are about to have a kid.
InSon:
Been too long. How are you doing? Thanks for giving me a stomach ache ;-) Try this on for size:
The Hardy-Weinberg "Law" is used in the study of genetics of disease to check for sampling biases. This is critical for understanding what the alleles code for and their evolution within human populations. This obviously has importance for the Pharma's, who apparently "believe" in evolution. Ken Weiss & I are now writing an article about the origin, maintenance & importance of The H-W Principle for evo-bio, anthro-genetics & genomics. BTW: The H-W is the founding equation for all of pop-genetics, which is the formal theory of evolution.
Evolution is necessary to understand the distribution of human genes across the globe = "race." Place of origin can be very informative for appropriate medical intervention. That is, until we have individually specific genomic profiles. Blacks have different response to drugs controlling cardiac issues, like high blood pressure, from which they suffer disproportionately.
The evolution of pathogens helps explain their virulence and hence how the bugs will evolve with respect to our antibiotics, changes in transmission avenues etc. Think TB, HIV-AIDS & ... ah, Avian Flu? Duh. This is critical for guiding public health & hygiene intervention and control, which the last time I looked, is part of medicine. Think Influenza, Polio. See Paul Ewald for details. Also, sickle-cell-anemia epidemiology is impossible to understand without the theory of evolution: balanced polymorphisms & heterozygote advantage explain why the fuckin' allele is at such how frequency, despite being effectively a lethal. Intervention? Spray to kill the mosquito vector which is a necessary part of the evo-ecol cycle. The latter is standard fare in any intro bio-anthro course.
Noble Prizes? Watson, Crick, McClintock et al. contributions only make sense in the light of evolution and have deepened greatly our understanding of evolution & in particular human evolution. Go to The Noble Prize site and peruse the winners for many other examples. PCR now allows us to do hip medical genetics. My hero, T. H. Morgan, won it in 1936 for The Chromosome Theory of Heredity, which provided the physical basis for genetics & ... ah, here we go again, evolution. I think chromosomes are medically relevant. The 1st pic of Sam in the Family Album is his karyotype, done because we were assaying for Down's syndrome, for which old foxes like Roberta are prone and which would have affected our lives, medical intervention. Heavy bioethics, dude. Evolution has ethical implications, but not the ones this motherfucker thinks.
Darwinian Medicine, codified by Randy Neese & Geo. C. Williams about 10 years ago. And now scores of researchers: see many issues of Evolution & Human Behavior. D. M. helps us understand the origins and maintenance of syndromes like depression, postpartum depression, suicide and yuk-critter-epidemiology (see Ewald above) etc. and hence medical/psychiatric/family/social amelioration.
And yes, of course, the use of lab models, from E. coli to Drosophila to Chimps only makes sense if you, forgiver me, "believe" in evolution.
It takes my breathe away to see that this flamer has the nerve to parade his ignorance in public and signal said ignorance as a fatal critique toe evo-theory & medical applications. But he does that by parlaying, the standard creationist rhetorical device, and the ignorance of his audience into nodding their ignorant heads about his wonderfully insightful argument. Also, I must say most critics, like this Dr. who posted his rejoinder, actually don't know enough evo-bio to make telling counter-arguments (see all my previous verbiage above.) IMHO: his was lame and wouldn't convince Bill Moyers.
OTOH: This Sky-God-Believer can in fact be a 1st-rate neuro-plumber without evo-theory. But then again he doesn't really understand the organ he's fuckin' with nor possible pathology & cures.
This is a 1st pass. My rant & rave may make some of these examples about evo-medicine forced. But some might be useful, if you wanna throw your hat into the wring. Not me. Can I go back to work? ;-)
Popper's ghost · 13 March 2007
Popper's ghost · 13 March 2007
Popper's ghost · 13 March 2007
Raging Bee · 13 March 2007
There's nothing wrong with honest differeces of opinion. Realpc is not honest.
...and he doesn't seem to have any opinion of his own.
guestarooni · 13 March 2007
AC · 15 March 2007
In the When Egos Go Before Brains thread, realpc said: "I know that science != atheism. There is absolutely no requirement for scientists to be atheists. Atheism is a faith." But atheism is not a faith. As Marek 14 observed in this thread, atheism is a null hypothesis. This is not the only word realpc has so abused.
Redefining words to serve rhetoric + defiance in the face of correction = tired old troll technique. PT has seen tons of it over the years.
realpc, there is only one "evolution" as far as the science of biology is concerned, and it doesn't involve a god because it doesn't need one. If you need one, that's fine. If Dr. Egnor needs one, that's fine too. But sophistry helps neither of you, especially not here. If you'd like to have a realdiscussion about these matters, you must first stop playing dishonest language games.
Steve Banks · 27 March 2007
I'm a physician. I agree with Dr. Egnor that belief in the "Blind Watch Maker Thesis" is irrelevant to the practice of medicine. It serves as more of a world view on how one looks at the source of biological information. It never enters into the differential diagnosis or treatment decisions for patients. One can simultaneously conclude that the source of the biological information is intelligent, and still have a very clear understanding of genetics, antibiotic resistance, etc.
I can understand that some individuals hold to the theory that the Cosmos is all that is, ever was, and ever will be. I can understand the arguments they put forward in favor of that theory. But, I don't understand the emotional outburst that is manifested when someone such as Dr. Egnor disagrees with their thesis.
ben · 27 March 2007
minimalist · 27 March 2007
Of course not, ben, there's only one possible reason why us evilutionists could get mad: the creationists really must have a point for us to get so "defensive"!
And to Steve Banks, one helpful way to find out the specific grievances we have against Egnor is to read the thread. Especially the big posts at the top.
Richard Simons · 27 March 2007
Steve Banks:
You refer to 'biological information'. As someone who is more biologist than anything else I don't know what this is. Please could you give a clear explanation of the concept.
MarkP · 27 March 2007
Steve Banks · 27 March 2007
Richard Simons,
When I used the term biological information I'm simply referring to the information in biological systems. An example would be the information contained within the genetic language.
Steve
Steve Banks · 27 March 2007
Mark P,
You question why an intelligence would design pathogenic organisms with the ability to develop resistance to antimicrobials. Isn't that really a metaphysical question? I'm trying to be difficult, but am I correct in thinking of this type of objection as a metaphysical objection? If it is a metaphysical objection, should that play a role in accepting or refuting the concept of intelligent design?
Steve
Steve Banks · 27 March 2007
Minimalist,
I understand that many on this site disagree with the concept of intelligent design. Its just puzzling to see such anger that this topic evokes in what I would assume to be dispassionate scientists.
Steve
gwangung · 27 March 2007
When I used the term biological information I'm simply referring to the information in biological systems. An example would be the information contained within the genetic language.
Define please. And operationalize. (Didn't someone ask this before? Are you going to be one of "those" people who ignore what people write).
Steve Banks · 27 March 2007
Gwangung,
You wrote, "Define please. And operationalize. (Didn't someone ask this before? Are you going to be one of "those" people who ignore what people write)."
If someone told me to operationalize, I must have missed it. I'm not really sure what you mean by "operationalize". I really didn't think there was any controversy as to the reality of biological information. I thought the controversy hinged on whether the source of this information required a designer or was the result of strictly material interactions.
Steve
Raging Bee · 27 March 2007
I really didn't think there was any controversy as to the reality of biological information.
As numerous respondents have said here before, the controversy is over whether, and how, "biological information" can be exactly defined, measured, and quantified. If you can't quantify and measure "information," then you have absolutely no way of knowing whether the "amount" of "information" in a given life-form has increased or decreased with a given event; therefore you can't possibly say whether any "law" about "creating new information" has been violated (which is what the ID crowd are trying to imply). Any assertion about such "information" is vacuous, meaningless, and useless, unless and until someone can come up with an objective means of defining and measuring "information."
When I used the term biological information I'm simply referring to the information in biological systems.
And when I use the term facts, I'm simply referring to facts.
An example would be the information contained within the genetic language.
Please define; your example clarifies nothing. Does DNA contain "information?" How about protein? If the protein re-folds, does that "information" change?
Richard Simons · 27 March 2007
Steve:
The problem with 'biological information' is that it is a term used by creationists/intelligent design proponents and virtually no-one else because it has no real meaning.
The reason scientists get upset with people who push 'intelligent design' is because it can only be done by lying, using part-quotes out of context and other forms of dishonest behaviour.
Michael · 27 March 2007
Richard,
You forgot another tactic of intelligent design creationists, attempting to paint their opponents as dogmatic, irrational individuals striving to suppress a legitimate competing theory, or accusing them of angrily defending an issue of faith rather than science.
I'm sure that Steve here wouldn't be doing that at all, even though he tries to call someone's argument metaphysical at the same time he (Steve) defends ID and its unnamed designer. I'm sure that when he asks people that appear to be providing considered and thoughtful answers...why they are so angry and defensive, that he's just confusing rebuttal with personal attacks. I'm sure he's not intentionally trying to smear anybody since he's trying so hard to appear a reasonable man!
Steve Banks · 27 March 2007
Raging Bee and Robert Simons,
The idea that biological information exists is not unique to ID proponents. Are you suggesting that when science journals or textbooks discuss "genetic information" that this is a term with no real meaning?
I think the difficulties facing information theory are not as dire as you fear. Using very generic qualitative terms, would you agree that within the last 4.5 billion years the amount of genetic information on planet earth has increased from "zero" to "lots"?
gwangung · 27 March 2007
The idea that biological information exists is not unique to ID proponents. Are you suggesting that when science journals or textbooks discuss "genetic information" that this is a term with no real meaning?
I think the difficulties facing information theory are not as dire as you fear. Using very generic qualitative terms, would you agree that within the last 4.5 billion years the amount of genetic information on planet earth has increased from "zero" to "lots"?
I ask again. Define. And operationalize.
These are basic methodological requirements for science.
Apparently you DON'T want to pay any attention to people.
Steve Banks · 27 March 2007
Michael,
I offer an open apology to anyone I've insulted. My questions have been sincere.
In my medical journals, even when opponents in a debate are presenting arguments for some controversy in medicine, the tone is generally courteous. I don't think I'm being unfair when I observe that there is anger (or at least marked cynicism) among some of the individuals posting on this site. Perhaps I should have kept that observation to myself.
Steve
MarkP · 27 March 2007
MarkP · 27 March 2007
Steve Banks · 27 March 2007
Gwangung,
I thought I had addressed your question in qualitative terms. I can give you a text book definition of genetic information: "The heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of dna or rna (certain viruses), such as in the chromosomes or in plasmids."
If you want me to spell out the precise quantitative terms that an information theorist would use to quantify the information, then I'm not willing to do that. There are accepted methods to measure information content.
This whole topic is very interesting. But, I'm not sure I want to devote the time that would be required to finally be able to engage on a more meaningful level.
I mainly wandered to this web site after hearing some information on Dr. Egnor. I still submit, as a physician in practice for many years, that Evolution ideologies have no impact on the practice of medicine. I'll leave the task of going through the more tedious groundwork to someone else. I'm going home to have supper with my wife and kids. I appreciate your time.
Blessings to all,
Steve
minimalist · 27 March 2007
Michael · 27 March 2007
MarkP,
An excellent reply. Eloquently stated! I should just leave this to the Pros and keep my two cents to myself. On the other hand, to not address these people is to allow them into our schools; to allow them to derail the educations of more American children; to allow them to waste precious school district resources fighting courts cases instead of building computer labs and buying books.
Steve,
I'm glad you decided to throw in the towel, but you leave me shaking my head in wonder that a Doctor, an educated man, would make the statement that medicine has nothing to learn from the study of evolutionary biology. But I must bow to your authority...please tell me what other areas of science can we safely ignore? Perhaps it's time to shut down the Patent Office, do you think? Have we learned all there is that's worth knowing, and all the rest is unimportant fluff? Please do tell me what other areas of research hold no promise to the future of medicine. You may consult with Dr. Egnor before you reply, if you wish.
Steve Banks · 28 March 2007
Hi gang,
I had to check back one last time just to see what had been said. Wow! You are some unhappy guys. Just a few closing thoughts:
Rational people on both sides of the debate acknowledge that DNA contains enormous amounts of information. Further, it is recognized that this information did not exist in the pre-biotic era. I read Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" a few years ago. He presents an argument for the gradual accumulation of information via strictly materialistic mechanisms. He didn't pretend that any attempt to talk about this topic was "vacuous, meaningless, and useless".
I know you keep explaining about the righteousness of your wrath, but I don't buy it. The hostility level is way out of proportion to the topic at hand. You won't garner any sympathy from me regarding years of education and hard work. I've been there and done that. It doesn't justify hostility or make your arguments right.
The health profession encounters a multitude of claims and theories. Some of the theories border on being bizarre. But these theories aren't met with hostility. Sure, scientists are people and have emotions. But, a wise man is able to control his emotions. Large portions of the responses I've encountered have been emotional rants.
I suspect none of you are medical doctors. If you were you would have realized that Dr. Egnor's basic assertion is true. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand that Darwinism does not have a meaningful impact on the practice of medicine. The same research and development and application of emerging therapies will proceed regardless of one's views on common ancestry or pre-biotic evolution. Some how you've got it in your head that ID proponents will have some impediment to carrying out basic research or treating patients. Your concerns are unfounded and quite puzzling to a practicing physician.
I'm not throwing in the towel on this debate. I welcome debate. But life is too short to simply engage in an angry shouting match with little hope of meaningful discussion. I'm sure I'll be labeled as stupid, dishonest, lazy. etc., but that is OK. I'm leaving with no hard feelings and wish nothing but the best for those that took the time to respond.
Steve
Steviepinhead · 28 March 2007
Actually, "Dr." Banks, some of the people who have roundly excoriated Egnor for his willful ignorance are physicians.
And, actually, Dr. Banks, I expect that some doctors might get just a little tetchy if they learned that, say, their women patients with family histories of breast cancer were foregoing regular mammograms for, say, "treatments" of magnetized water or apricot extract.
That a primary care physician, or even a neurosurgeon, might be able to get through the bulk of his or her daily round without drawing--in an immediate pragmatic sense--evolutionary concepts into his or her practice would probably not surprise us.
I expect an auto mechanic could get away without applying evolutionary concepts when he or she changed my oil or gapped my spark plugs.
Now, if you were to say the same thing about many research physicians, or medical school professors, or developers of devices or treatments or medicines who regularly rely on animal models...we would be surprised.
But then, however highly trained, educated, and effective, a primary care doc on most days is, frankly, a lot more like an auto mechanic (listen to complaint, isolate failure, apply approved repair technique) than like a research scientist.
I'd still regard either an auto mechanic or a primary care doc who preferred to go through life without understanding and appreciating evolution as an unimaginative, dull, and rather narrowly-trained technical specialist.
But at least the auto mechanic would have the excuse of NOT having all that expense education.
It's not clear to me yet exactly what your excuse is.
Dr. telemachus · 4 January 2008
As made abundantly clear above, there is a huge difference between a practicing physician who may or may not know the physical/biological basis for a particular treatment they administer, and a medical researcher who must ponder these mechanistic questions. I am PHD scientist, and my father is a physician, and I have many MD/PHD friends-- as such, I am intimately aware of how little many doc's know about the science behind the most basic medical practices. Do they have to know? No, but I would hope that they would take their responsibility to patients seriously enough to be slightly intellectually engaged in basic research. At least enough to know how much evolutionary theory informs critical aspects of pharmaceutical development (from model organisms detailed nicely above, to discovering the function of drug targets by genetic homology, etc.).
Part of the reason that the scientific/medical community gets so upset by ID advocates is that there is no creditable evidence that has passed the test of rigorous peer review that supports their theory, whereas there is a mountainous pile of scientific data assembled that is supports and requires assumptions of evolutionary theory. Yet these two theories are given equal airtime in public discourse.
Postings by Steve Banks are typical of the intellectual arrogance and laziness of the ID/creationist point of view. Steve, if you want to have an informed scientific discourse, please find a peer- reviewed evolutionary biology paper and assail its scientific merits, preferably an important paper published in a high impact journal. Better yet, invalidate such a paper with careful experiments that prove the contrary and publish these results in a similar high ISI impact factor peer reviewed journal. No such paper exists.
In science, disproving a prevailing theory (even one that is much less engrained into the fabric of modern science) requires very strong evidence to the contrary. Until this sort of thing occurs, it remains a political debate and not a scientific one. If you are having trouble reconciling your faith with something that is the product of extensive physical observation and rational thought, please do not drag others into your personal exitential crisis.
As a scientist, I am willing to admit that we will probably never know the details of the origin of life, whether simple self replicating chemical system or baby jesus gave rise to ur-cells/an RNA world. However, the bulk of useful evolutionary theory occurs much after this "event", so focusing on this dusty corner of evolutionary theory rather than what has happened from this "common ancestor" forward is counterproductive. Simplistically, selective pressure coupled with genome plasticity, and the resultant speciation and functional diversity that ensues are universally accepted evolutionary concepts in science. Phylogenitic analysis, homologus/paralogous gene structure/functional relationships are predicated on these simple evolutionary concepts and undergird breakthroughs in understanding mechanisms and pathways of the cell necessary for modern medicine.
The benefits to humankind resulting from scientific research that have tacitly required the principles of evolutionary biology are incalculable. You would have to be an Amish Christian scientist to not have already benefited in your quality of life. You could go through all of that messy training and form your own informed opinion, or you could accept the scholarly and well informed opinions of experts. I would suggest that you forgo the benefits of modern medicine until you are able to reconcile your belief-system with what the vast preponderance of doctors and scientists accepts as reality.
Regrettably, it is also difficult to disentangle more skeptical and rational ID's from creationists and these lines are blurred whenever convenient-- Look at Mike Huckabee's openly creationist beliefs espoused:
"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that, I just don't happen to think that I did."
This is coming from a presidential candidate that just won the Iowa primary. So it is clear that calling this political assassination attempt of the theory of evolution "a serious scientific debate" could be very dangerous for the US and its place of preeminence in world science and technology development (no small reason our economy is not completely moribund).
If we as a country want to continue our slide back into the middle-ages, while other countries invest increasing resources in the developing science and technology that drives 1st world economies, insulting and degrading established science and teaching ID to distract from legitimate scientific theory to our children is the way to go.