Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design News

Another Darwin profbot stumbles into the political arena

Spread the love

Against would-be US prez Ted Cruz (who was born in Canada, so that’ll be the next big thing):


Virtually all of modern biology and medicine has its basis in evolution. No serious scientist disputes that evolution is by far the best explanation for the species around us, and for a thousand other phenomena that scientists study every day. The debate about the fact of evolution is long over. As a scientist, I find it just embarrassing to have prominent U.S. politicians publicly deny evolution.

Aw, get real for once:

1. Virtually all of modern biology has its basis in the cell theory of life and the germ theory of disease. Even a seven-year-old can understand this: The history of life on the planet could be quite different from what we now conceive and that difference wouldn’t matter much. But if we were wrong about the other stuff, it would matter a lot. That is the true reason why it doesn’t matter in real science what people believe about evolution.

2. So far as I know, the United States still has rules like the First Amendment that allow people to think what they want about such matters. I do not know why this profbot is embarrassed by that fact. I’d have expected him to be proud of it. But at least he isn’t supporting the candidate, which is something, to be sure.

But maybe my standards for a profbot are too high.

In political science as opposed to real science, of course, it matters a lot. And political science is probably the only one many Darwinprofs have down cold. Or would even want to have, these days.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Another Darwin profbot stumbles into the political arena

  1. 1
    groovamos says:

    I studied the Guyton text on human physiology, and another text on cardiovascular dynamics, and do not remember a single reference to evolution in either, not to say that they don’t make such reference, but if they did, it was strictly tangential to my learning obviously. Both are/were medical school texts. I wrote my master’s thesis on a cardiovascular measurement problem at UT Austin and needed not one single moment to ponder evolution during the whole course of study in biomedical engineering.

    So let me state it right here: Steven Salzberg is an outright liar. And is doing it for political reasons. Not surprisingly because as a substitute religion, Darwinism is an ideology that demands power over the culture.

    Here is the less famous of the two books: http://www.amazon.com/Cardiova.....0721678475

  2. 2
    Paul Giem says:

    Prof. Salzberg says,

    Virtually all of modern biology and medicine has its basis in evolution.

    If so, it is a very well camouflaged basis. I managed to get through medical school in excellent standing, and did very well on (US) National Boards, without believing in evolution (except for change over time and what is commonly called microevolution, which I am sure is not what Salzberg was referring to). At least in 1976 and 1977, National Boards did not even ask about evolution.

    But it is understandable that Salzberg has not heard of me. Perhaps an example closer to home might joggle his memory. The recently retired chief of neurosurgery (still on staff) at his own institution, Dr. Benjamin Carson, “disputes that evolution is by far the best explanation for the species around us”. Would Salzberg say that Carson is not a “serious scientist”?

    The most charitable reading I can give is that Salzberg is blinded by political correctness, of the variety that says that not only are one’s opponents wrong, but they cannot even be serious (otherwise they would have agreed with oneself). The truth is more complex than that, to say the least.

    In fact, most of the time the grand sweep of evolution is of no assistance to medicine (if it were, much more specific examples would be given than antibiotic resistance). Some of the time it is a downright hindrance, as when the spleen used to be taken out because there might be a problem with it later, and it had no function other than to remind us that we had a common ancestor with dogs (where it is relatively larger and can give the dog an autotransfusion in case of blood loss). Nowadays, only doctrinaire evolutionists who haven’t kept up do that. We are much more conservative about preserving splenic function.

  3. 3
    Box says:

    Paul Giem,

    thank you for your outstanding series of lectures at youtube.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr. Giem, ditto what Box said:

    Biological Information: The Book – video playlist

  5. 5
    Paul Giem says:

    Box and bornagain77,

    I’m glad you like them. To be fair (and balanced 🙂 ), the material for the series of lectures is mostly from the authors. I just added a few comments (carefully distinguished from those of the authors) and made the material easier (I think) for a general audience to understand.

Leave a Reply