See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Evolution and medicine
Source:
Answers in Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1122medicine.asp
Published: Nov 22, 2005
Author: Dr. Robert “Tommy” Mitchell, M.D., USA
Post Date: 2005-11-22 23:40:14 by A K A Stone
Keywords: Evolution, medicine
Views: 96
Comments: 26
In the field of medicine, creationists are often considered by medical doctors as hopelessly behind the times. Endlessly we hear the same old rhetoric: “Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.” In a New York Times online article last month was the quote: “Evolution is the basis of biology, biology is the basis of medicine … You’re messing with something important when you mess with evolution.” (See “Seeing Creation and Evolution in the Grand Canyon,” http://www.nytimes.com, October 6, 2005.) As a practicing physician, I have had to examine these claims about the importance of evolutionary thought in my daily interaction with patients. I have also sought the input of many colleagues as to whether or not any evolutionary input is needed for them to adequately serve society in their capacity as physicians. Regardless of any individual’s particular religious persuasion (many of my colleagues are avowed atheists or theistic evolutionists who mock me for my young-earth creationist stance), not one example could be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine. Medicine and antibiotic resistance Evolutionists are quick to use many unsupportable arguments to promote their beliefs. The most-often-used example is that of antibiotic resistance. They argue (quite vociferously at times) that one must understand that bacteria will evolve to a state of resistance to a particular antibiotic if that antibiotic is overused. Quite overlooked by the evolutionist are the multiple mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, none of which require or involve so-called evolutionary changes, which would add new information into the genome. For instance, there are examples of antibiotic resistance found in bacteria recovered from the frozen corpses of people who died before the use of antibiotics. Much antibiotic resistance results from natural selection of populations of already-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics kill susceptible organisms, and resistant organisms survive. Another mechanism of resistance is what occurs when a mutation takes place that might, for example, cause a defect in the bacteria’s ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell, thus rendering the bacteria resistant to that particular antibiotic. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the cell, thus rendering it unable to kill the cell. What is never brought up, however, is the fact that any mutation will result in a loss of information due to the change in genetic material. Even in the very unusual occurrence of a so-called “beneficial” mutation, there is an ultimate loss of genetic information available to succeeding generations. Recently, similar arguments have been put forth to explain resistance in certain strains of the influenza virus. These arguments fail for the same reason. This loss of information is inconsistent with a biological model that proposes to explain how organisms become more complex over time. Loss of information is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, and fits well into a creationist model of biology. Thus, antibiotic resistance is not a valid argument for the Darwinian evolutionist. Medicine and “vestigial” organs Evolutionists have also, over the years, pointed out the many so-called “vestigial organs” in the human body. It was their contention that these many organs were leftovers from millions of years of onward, upward evolutionary processes that no longer had a useful function. It can be argued that this viewpoint actually hindered the advancement of medicine, as many accepted this concept of vestigial organs and expended no effort to seek out possible functions for these organs. For example, for many years the thymus gland was held to be a nonfunctioning leftover of evolution. Many children had this gland irradiated needlessly. We now understand the thymus gland’s important function in the development of a normal immune system. The appendix, pineal gland, tonsils and coccyx are further examples of organs long held to be leftovers from evolution, but now are known to have important functions in the development and operation of our bodies. Again, it would seem that evolution has been a hindrance rather than a help in the practice of medicine. In fact, there are “vestigial organs” in the human body—but left over from our embryonic development. That has nothing to do with “molecules-to-man” evolution. The eyes have it Another more recent controversy has revolved around the so-called “poorly designed eye.” Evolutionists argue that the human eye is poorly designed due to the photoreceptors being located behind the nerve fibers. When one understands how the photons of light are transformed into electrical energy in the retina, and the need for a massive blood supply, the marvelous design of the eye becomes apparent. For instance, the receptors respond to just one photon of light—the smallest unit of light! There is no “bad design,” just a faulty understanding (or, perhaps, faulty presupposition) on the part of the evolutionists. The eye has been wonderfully designed. Indeed, evolution has nothing to offer in regard to operational science—in medicine or otherwise. That is, any endeavor requiring scientific experimentation in the present can be undertaken adequately and completely without any input from molecules-to-man evolution and its tenets. Where, then, is the evidence of the foundational nature of evolution to the practice of medicine? It can only be concluded that there is an obvious need for evolutionists to hang on to a worldview that excludes a Creator God, regardless of the lack of empiric evidence to support such a view. Medical doctors and the question of suffering/death Thus far, we have explained that evolution cannot be shown to be in any way vital to the practice of medicine. But there is a further issue to be dealt with. What about man’s suffering? What about death? How does the evolutionist explain these things? If evolution is true (for the sake of argument, you understand), how does a physician understand illness and human tragedy? The entire basis for evolution is that, untold millions of years ago, life began spontaneously from primordial pond scum. Over the ensuing eons, life became more and more complex and progressed via the process of survival of the fittest. This unfeeling, merciless, pitiless, unstoppable process has resulted in countless creatures being killed, torn apart and slaughtered by the “survivors.” Those less able to adapt, less able to find food, injured or in some other way found less worthy in the eyes of evolution, fell by the wayside. As Carl Sagan said, “the secret of evolution is time and death” (Carl Sagan’s Cosmic Connection, 1973). Humans are supposedly the result of this process. Can one not argue that the evolutionist is inconsistent when insisting evolutionary thought is vital to the practice of medicine? Is it not more consistent to argue that there should be no doctors? If survival of the fittest is the mantra for evolutionists, where is there room for pity? Why does one show concern for his fellow man? Are these actions and emotions not at odds with the prime driving force of evolution—survival of the fittest? Even Darwin addressed this issue: With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature … We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind. (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., pp. 133–134, 1887) On the other hand, the creationist has answers to these issues. If the Lord did, indeed, create the world in six literal days and pronounced His creation “very good,” where did suffering come from? The answer is: it’s “our fault”! You see, when Adam rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden, he, in effect, said that he wanted to make his own decisions and live apart from God’s authority. This is where death and suffering arose. Since the time of the Fall, “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:22). Death and suffering have been the result until this day. The concept of helping the weak and the suffering is derived from a Christian outlook, not an evolutionary one. It has no foundation in evolution and its heartless process of survival of the fittest. To be consistent, a physician espousing an evolutionary worldview must question himself about his motives as he is actively working against the very natural processes that he claims have brought man to his present condition. Beginning with a wrong understanding of the origin of life will actually be detrimental to medicine and technology. However, starting with the correct history of life, and understanding how suffering is a result of the effects of sin (as recorded in Genesis), one has the ability to build a consistent worldview, enabling the development of a right approach in medicine (and every other area). Robert T. (Tommy) Mitchell, M.D., is a graduate of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and practices Internal Medicine in Gallatin, Tennessee. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians. For many years he has spoken and written on issues related to the creation/evolution debate. In 2005, Dr. Mitchell was asked to join Answers in Genesis–USA as a speaker. To inquire about having this dynamic speaker come to your area with well-illustrated presentations, visit our Request an event page.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Too funny. He's trying to use "survival of the fittest" to disprove evolution when that's a cornerstone of it? Remind me never to see this quack.
The appendix, pineal gland, tonsils and coccyx are further examples of organs long held to be leftovers from evolution, but now are known to have important functions in the development and operation of our bodies. Damn. I'm all geared up to see him expound on this idea and he let's me down. I guess there's no substance to his statement. I'd love to see sources. The entire basis for evolution is that, untold millions of years ago, life began spontaneously from primordial pond scum. Over the ensuing eons, life became more and more complex and progressed via the process of survival of the fittest. This unfeeling, merciless, pitiless, unstoppable process has resulted in countless creatures being killed, torn apart and slaughtered by the “survivors.” Those less able to adapt, less able to find food, injured or in some other way found less worthy in the eyes of evolution, fell by the wayside. As opposed to a flawless, albeit irritable creator who makes frequent forays into his living diorama to give such advice as what people should name themselves, their children, eat, not eat, how to settle disputes over cattle, which people make adequate slaves, how to properly make annointing oils (with only local herbs and ingredients, oddly enough), how to make a proper tabernacle with shiny metals and carbons which he is partial to, and at times be ready to destroy not only all of life (the great flood) but also his precious chosen, which Moses had to remind him he had a covenant with. Ummmm. I might believe the former.
This subliminal advertising is brought to you by The HonkeyMotherFucker Corporation for Internet Blogging ©2000-2010 all rights reserved worldwide
Yes, please don't see him. He's probably very kind and compassionate. We don't want you to waste his time.
One usually ends up getting into an argument with one's doctor over medical treatment if one has any brains whatsoever. I don't want to wind up with one who can't hold a coherent discussion when life is on the line. So yes, I won't waste my time. You may waste your life if you so choose.
well said and anyone who finds fault with 'survival of the fittest' is unrealistic and no scientist. i don't trust most doctors as far as i can throw them anyway.
My horoscope for today. Daily bad news reminds you that there will always be a colorful array of potential catastrophes available for your panicking pleasure. How appropriate.
You can't trust them. A family friend recently had a double-mastectomy [advanced breast cancer] and we had to sit on the hospital and the doctors and point out *to them* the conta-indicators on the medications and the crazy interactions of the stuff they were handing out -- and insisting they knew what they were doing! Its insane. We had to do the same thing with my Grandparents when strange symptoms started popping up due to drug interactions. A fellow I know down in California was told by some of the local quacks that his condition was untreatable - so, being an engineer, he did the research himself and wrote a presentation on how to do it and delivered that to these medical buffoons. They consented and now he is fine. *mutter*
On my God, by all means be proactice. In my vast experience, physicians that are Christians are most reasonable and listen. My profession is for sale these days. It's wonderful to find people that put their patients welfare first. That's a uniquely Christian trait, don't you know; people ahead of profits.
There are lots of Turd World Ragheads (TWR)
So what about the 3rd world Hindus or the Buddists?
It wasn't always. During the Crusades the Saracens had the best surgeons and the Christians preferred to lop off limbs with a Battle Axe than actually get a real surgeon. The so-called Christian "surgeons" back then were morons and refused assistance from the Saracens because of their own egos. Christians actually putting a patient's welfare ahead of anything else is but a recent development on the global stage.
That was the catholics.
No offense intended, but are you so ignorant you don't know the history of Christianity? Where do you think you Protestants got it from and what are you protesting now?
Where do you think you Protestants got it from and what are you protesting now? Us protestants got it from Gods word. The catholics have perverted much of scripture. No offense taken.
Then you really don't know history. Would you like a quick rundown?
I already know what you are going to say. That was just a short snappy answer. Go ahead and give me your quick rundown if you want.
Quite simply, the original organized Christian Church is the Catholic Church and it was the only Christian Church for 1300 years after they consolodated under Emperor Constantine. Protestants broke away from it starting in the 1500s and took the Catholic Bible with them. They did not, however, take Tradition with them, which also includes the items passed down from the Apostles that did not make it into written form. Martin Luther edited the Catholic Bible and kicked out what are now known as the Apocryphal Works and swapped out the OT for the Syrian Canon from the Alexandrian Canon which had been there for 1500 years. Luther also wanted to kick out the Revelation of St. John and James' Epistle. He called James' Epistle an "Epistle of Straw" because it clashed with his idea of salvation by faith alone because James claims that faith without works is dead. Fast-forward to 1905 (or so) when the modern American Fundamentalist movement which I assume you are part of is born. Since you value the KJV, I'd guess you're some sort of Southern Baptist and they didn't get a start until the 1800s and were formed to keep slavery going. Alas, you guys are "modern" and in a perverse quirk of fate, the Catholics are old-school in comparison. So, I ask again, what are you protesting now that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation has taken place and the hierarchy has cleaned up its act for the most part?
Your full of shit. I stopped reading right there. From Revelation Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. 6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. 7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. 8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; 9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. 11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. 12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; 13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. 14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. 17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. 18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; 19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. 24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. 25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. 26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. Psa 2:9 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Ludwig von Mises wrote somewhere (I wish I could remember where) that Charles Darwin was wrong. The principle of the survival of the fittest does not apply to the free market social order. The free market’s division of labor has enabled millions of people to survive – today, billions – who would otherwise have perished.
Then by your actions you show you are ignorant of history and willfully so. Why not get a standard history text and check what I said instead of just rejecting out of hand?
Why not get a standard history text and check what I said instead of just rejecting out of hand Because I posted out of the book of revelation. If you read what I posted it mentioned 5 or more churches. So your first claim was proven false.
Ok I read the rest of what you said. I don't reject all that you said.
Your initial reaction is precisely why fundamentalists are bashed horribly. You guys bring it on yourself. I just gave you a brief synopsis (with big holes because its brief) of Christian history in Western Europe and in America. And you think I'm full of it. Buddy, you just made yourself look like an idiot. Believe me, I've dealt with brighter than you and actually was able to educate them. For you, you better just take a western civ class because you're showing that you're hopeless. The Bible is not an exclusive item - its not "this and nothing else" - so get used to that thought.
What you said about the catholic church is a lie. Read again little mind what I posted. There were already several churches. Don't be dumb. I already took Western Civ moron.
Revelation was written *before* the churches were consolodated into the Catholic Church. The only real holdouts were the Egyptian Coptic Church, the Armenian Church, and a few other little dinkie ones that nobody cared much about and who did not use the standard "Bible" of the time. Like I said, you're full of it :)
Not true, The original organized Christian Church is the Eastern Orthodox (Greek and Russian) Church. The Roman Catholics were in fact the first schism from the Christian Church because of organizational issues. (The Romans believed in adding the college of cardinals and the all powerful "infallable" Pope to the church hierarchy while the original Eastern Orthodox Church believed that the hierarchy should go no higher than Archbishops in major cities and no higher than Bishops in the smaller towns, essentially the level of organization that Paul authorized for the Church.)
Not true again. ALL of Christendom merged into the Catholic Church under the Roman Empire (check Constantine for details) and the Great Schism of 800AD (or so) created the Eastern Orthodox Church as you know it today. Historically, there were two rites within the Catholic (which means 'universal') Church - Eastern (Byzantine) Rite and Roman Rite.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#3. To: mirage (#1)
#4. To: DoctorStrangeLove (#3)
Yes, please don't see him. He's probably very kind and compassionate. We don't want you to waste his time.
#5. To: mirage (#4)
#6. To: christine (#5)
i don't trust most doctors as far as i can throw them anyway.
#7. To: mirage (#6)
#8. To: mirage (#6)
#9. To: DoctorStrangeLove (#8)
There are lots of Turd World Ragheads (TWR)
#10. To: DoctorStrangeLove (#7)
In my vast experience, physicians that are Christians are most reasonable and listen. ... That's a uniquely Christian trait
#11. To: mirage (#10)
It wasn't always. During the Crusades
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
That was the catholics.
#13. To: mirage (#12)
No offense intended, but are you so ignorant you don't know the history of Christianity?
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)
Us protestants got it from Gods word. The catholics have perverted much of scripture. No offense taken.
#15. To: mirage (#14)
Then you really don't know history. Would you like a quick rundown?
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#17. To: mirage (#16)
Quite simply, the original organized Christian Church is the Catholic Church and it was the only Christian Church for 1300 years after they consolodated under Emperor Constantine.
#18. To: christine (#5)
... anyone who finds fault with 'survival of the fittest' is unrealistic and no scientist.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#17)
Your full of shit. I stopped reading right there.
#20. To: mirage (#19)
Then by your actions you show you are ignorant of history and willfully so.
#21. To: mirage (#19)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
Ok I read the rest of what you said. I don't reject all that you said.
#23. To: mirage (#22)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#25. To: mirage (#16)
Check out my new site (Coral Snake's Guns, Linux and Liberty Blog))
#26. To: Coral Snake (#25)
Not true, The original organized Christian Church is the Eastern Orthodox (Greek and Russian) Church.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest