Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done


Where is the best place to find low-cost, easy-to-produce, natural, robust and non toxic antibiotics? Easy, in our own bodies. Nature so often provides the solutions we are looking for and, as an aside, that is why the preservation of species from extinction is so important. In this case the solution is natural antibiotics which University of California at Berkeley researchers have confirmed to exist in the tails of certain proteins called cytokeratins. These proteins help our eyes, for example, ward off infections. The eye’s cornea is remarkably free of pathogens and the research reveals something about how these wonderful proteins work. Once again, however, the research was not motivated by evolutionary theory.  Read more

'Take up your cross daily and follow me.' Is that the watch-word of a go-getter, fittest survivor? Apparently - but not ostensibly! Axel
Also, Christians are enjoined to deny themselves, to die to themselves, even sometimes to the point of a martyr's death. The ideal, indeed, is arguably, a hermit - about as unimpassioned as regards their personal survival as it's possible to imagine, short of a single act of suicide. 'Survival of the fittest' hardly applies to Christianity's adherents - unless one takes into account its crucial benison, in terms of the extraordinary lead it has afforded the West in empirical science. So, how is it that it has lasted 2000 years (arguably more including its hebrew matrix), and, while currently declining apace in the West, in Africa it is by far the largest religion, and growing; as well as growing elsewhere in Asia. OK. Christianity's contribution to science must have paid a large part in last two or three centuries, but hardly before. Axel
OT: The paper airplane guy - video http://www.wimp.com/airplaneguy/ bornagain77
as to:
Once again, however, the research was not motivated by evolutionary theory.
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html Evolution Rarely the Basis of Research: Nature's "Evolutionary Gems" Just Narrative Gloss - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-20T17_33_56-07_00 Where are the Scientific Breakthroughs Due to Evolution? (None!) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSYoWHaBIwI Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096
Ironically, science is not even possible if Darwinism were true:
Evolutionists Are Now Saying Their Thinking is Flawed (But Evolution is Still a Fact) - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012 Excerpt: But the point here is that these “researchers” are making an assertion (human reasoning evolved and is flawed) which undermines their very argument. If human reasoning evolved and is flawed, then how can we know that evolution is a fact, much less any particular details of said evolutionary process that they think they understand via their “research”? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-are-now-saying-their.html Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

Leave a Reply