Intelligent Design is not creationism

Hi Teleologist

You mentioned that you inferred that the first cells were the product of intelligent design, and that you had empirical data which supported that inference.

Could you provide a link to that data?

Thanks
Nik

 

‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’

The folks at the Alliance for Science have sponsored an essay contest for high school students. They ask students to write an essay on ‘Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution.’

Really, it’s a funny question. Think about it. Would anyone sponsor an essay contest on ‘Why I would want my doctor to study anatomy’ or ‘Why I would want my doctor to study physiology’? Of course not, because we all know that these kinds of science are important to medicine. Is evolutionary biology important? If it is, why do they have to ask the question?
Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. 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.

If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.

I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.

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.

Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. 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.

Posted by Michael Egnor, M.D.
March 9, 2007

 

Hi Teleologist

You mentioned that you inferred that the first cells were the product of intelligent design, and that you had empirical data which supported that inference.

Could you provide a link to that data?

Thanks
Nik

 

I strongly urge everyone to avoid doctors who do not believe evolution. This is a matter of life and death. The problem of drug resistant strains of bacteria is very real. A doctor that doesn't understand evolution cannot correctly treat infections without leaving time bombs in your body.

I repeat, this is the matter of your own life.

Of course, if you're a scientologist, then it doesn't matter. You're not going to see any of these doctors anyway.

 

Doctors prescribe medicine based on what drug companies say, colleagues, studies they have read the results of and medical journals recommendations, as well as what they have seen work while in their practice....

As if the doctor you go to see actually participated in the research of all the possible medicines he may prescribes.

Much too funny...

A doctor's belief in evolution or disbelief in evolution has nothing to do with his being a good doctor.

Just waaay too ridiculous...

Talk about an argument from ignorance...

 

This is one for the Top Ten List of idiotic, obligatory rhetoric from this intellectual bankrupt. Thankfully I don't have to go through the tedious process of dismantling this garbage, either as it stands or in its distorted relation to the statement it is (falsely) addressing.

 

What constitutes valid definition?
The answer to that it appears as far as you are concerned , is only a dictionary's , which is being simply too narrow minded in my view.
As dictionaries do not predict change of use and contain incomplete definitions, dictionaries are prone to vary and alter over time.
Can you not accept valid definitions are continuously made on logical grounds outside of dictionary listings alone? The dictionary then catches up....eventually.

The definitions for both contain concepts of… a doctrine or philosophy…. OR…. a normal state or condition. The –ism definition allows for both. You want to argue it does not and break your own rule for definition?

There is, it appears, no problem is confirming babies are in a normal state of being without God. I argue there is a word which defines that state. You argue there is no such word.

Theist, with God. Atheist, without God.. Correct. You have provided no definitive reason why that is not so

Dictionaries, accredited or not as I have said above, can vary, even between themselves. That is on its own hardly the basis for an unswerving adherence in treating their content as inerrant proclamations.

I disagree and in addition say you are wrong. The original use of the word does nothing else logically or etymologically but allow for the conceptualization I put to you. In this manner…..

root form:
"theo" (Greek: God, god, deity)
prefix "a-" (Greek : "without" , "not" )

a-theo, "without God."

You would argue with that conceptualization!? An accredited etymologist would argue with that as fact or as concept!? Really?

I remain surprised the way in which you express such little regard for babies, that any state they may or may not possess, you consider does not say much.

Please do me the courtesy of trying to read what I actually said in my previous posts.
It is about a logical understanding to do with a conceptualization of atheism. I am arguing that you are overlooking and denying it .

The babies question is illustration only of how I suggest your refusal interferes with being able to accept the actual point being made. I too am little concerned if babies are labeled atheist or not. You would have realized that were you to have bothered to take more careful notice earlier of what it is I am actually putting to you, and not so keen to make ungrounded accusation as a part of your argument

It may or may not be the case people define words in different ways. That you cannot accept definition because you do not see it as "official" although the definition is from the root and a logical conceptualization thereby is made from it, is somewhat astonishing given the clarity with which you otherwise articulate your thoughts.

Yes agreed. There has to be official definitions, There must be that standard to work from, but not as ultimate reference or ultimate received understanding. Otherwise words would obviously never have anything else but one meaning or understanding dictated by officials.
Is that what you would want? Do you expect language would have evolved to become adequate or fit for purpose under those conditions? .
Were that the case however , you might still be speaking Greek and the one definition for atheist could only be the original one, "without God". .

Of course people will define any word in anyway they like. Whether a definition can be reasoned and supported logically is the issue.
To argue atheism is a religion, first requires logical confirmation to explain how "non belief" is "belief”. It seems to me the argument that non belief is belief is something contrary to the proper usage of words which you (discriminatingly!) insist upon.

On the other hand to define the word "theo-" as "God" from its etymology is logical and reasonable.
To define theist as " of God " or " with God" seems logically valid , as does defining theist also as " believing there is God "'.amongst other definitions

Likewise then to define prefix "a-" as "without" , or " not " from its etymology is logical and reasonable.
To define atheist as "not of God" or "without God" seems logically valid, as does defining atheist also as "not believing there is God "', amongst other definitions.

For you to ignore or deny one in particular of those definitions, and the reason why you would do that, is what I questioned.

 

James bond 3rd:

The article I posted was pointing out that doctors don’t study evolution. It didn't say anything about doctors not believing in evolution. Doctor don't need to study evolution in order to know which antibiotics are effective against certain bacteria.

 

You don't know antibiotics, you don't know bacteria, and you certainly don't know evolution. This is nearly as idiotic as the post by z10.

 

Let's see what we have.

You think you know more about prescribing medicine and the practice of medicine, bacteria and antibiotics because you believe in evolution than an MD who does not believe in evolution....

Fascinating....

Reminds me of a certain practicing drug addict who thinks he knows more than doctors, and thinks he can determine for other people what medication they can take just by communicating with with someone via PM's on ET.