Intelligent Design

Listen to your Doctors: They know the Truth.

Spread the love

I know quite a few medical doctors. Some are researchers, some limit themselves to private practice, and some do both. These are men and women of all ages and specializations. Not thousands or even hundreds of them – but maybe 30 or 40. Mind you, this is only one data point from a small sampling of physicians, but it is a good one: not one of these fine people believes in Darwinian Evolution. One told me that “Any physician who doesn’t see intelligent design in even his most troubled patient is either blind or stupid or just not paying attention.”

Here is an example of one doctor who is neither blind or stupid – he is paying close attention and just stating the obvious in a very intelligent way.

23 Replies to “Listen to your Doctors: They know the Truth.

  1. 1
    jasonng says:

    If you told this to a member of the Darwinian priesthood they’d just tell you those MDs are speaking outside of their field. 😉

  2. 2
    DaveScot says:

    My wife has been managing a small surgical practice for 10 years and subsequently I rub elbows with a lot of medical doctors too. My anecdotal evidence agrees with your anecdotal evidence. NeoDarwinian evolution is supported not by respect for science but by irrational fear of Christian influence in government. NDE’s support is almost exclusively from dogmatic science faculty and students who blindly accept their dogmatic teaching. Highly educated people in the real world outside academic settings tend to think for themselves and don’t have this irrational fear of Christian influence. Even people with lesser educations can see right through to the truth that NDE’s explanation of the distant past is nothing more than narrative and speculation. So basically anyone and everyone without an irrational fear of rightwing, conservative Christian influence in government sees NDE for what it really is. That’s why I harp on the political side of this so much. The macroevolution side of NDE has been a scientific failure for half a century and the failure just becomes more evident with every passing day.

    The article you link is what really terrifies the NDE dogmatists. They can’t dismiss the author as some religious hick with more missing teeth than years of higher education. That’s just so hilarious. Money can’t buy entertainment this good. 🙂

  3. 3
    Renier says:

    “DaveScot: The macroevolution side of NDE has been a scientific failure for half a century and the failure just becomes more evident with every passing day.”

    Seems like you have no problem with “microevolution” then. What causes microevolution? You don’t like RM, and you don’t like NS, so what alternative do you propose for “microevolution”?

    I don’t have a problem with RM+NS in microevolution although I believe the RM is overrated and most if not all microevolutionary adaptation is the result of more or less randomly selected permutations of preexisting phenotypic options – like shuffling a deck and dealing a hand of cards – no new cards are created even though new hands are created. I point to dogs as the model species for the limitations of RM+NS in microevolution. All are the result of 20 thousand years of selective breeding of a few natural ancestors – wolves, coyotes, and jackals. The result is variation in cosmetics and scale and all variations remain able to produce fertile hybrid offspring while no novel new structural elements such as cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans emerged. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that RM+NS can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans. Explanation of how these structural elements were created is required of any theory of evolution that attempts to explain descent with modification from bacteria to baboons and everything between and around, living or extinct, while remaining in complete accord with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record and experimental biology on living tissue. What do I offer instead? The best evolutionary hypothesis I’ve seen is the collection I placed on the sidebar under the heading John Davison. -ds

  4. 4
    physicist says:

    “If you told this to a member of the Darwinian priesthood they’d just tell you those MDs are speaking outside of their field”

    Isn’t speaking outside of their field twhat the biologists were accused of a few posts ago?

    It’s always possibe to say that people of different views from your own simply don’t know what they’re talking about….

    I fail to see how biology is outside the field of medical doctors. I took pre-med Human Anatomy and Physiology in college and I can assure you there was little if anything in it that wasn’t biology. Maybe some of the lab work where we learned how to use common clinical diagnostic tools wasn’t precisely biology even though it was about the metrics of biological systems. -ds

  5. 5
    Mats says:

    Doug,

    It’s funny you post this article. I did not read the article yet, but I can tell you of an incident I had with a man I believe had some medical training. He told me that, in order for us to know how could a complex system like the hearing system could arise via evolution, we need to go back to the time when we were still swimming in the seas. He used a portuguese word (“girinos”) which is the name we give to the first aquarian stage of frogs.

    Needless to say that I never got back to that laboratory 😉 (Ok. Maybe once or twice)

  6. 6
    Renier says:

    Ok Dave, so am I correct when I say that you don’t think any genetic information gets added, even after millions of years?

    Define “genetic information”. -ds

  7. 7
    Joseph says:

    Reiner,

    Throwing Father Time at any issue is not scientific. However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process sounds like a religious trinity to me. Is that what we should teach our kids?

    Read the following for another perspective:

    Extrapolating From Small Changes

    Accumulating mutations may give us a short, blue-eyed, anemic, red-head, but that is not the sort of thing that the theory of evolution requires. Heck there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. So why don’t you accept the data?

  8. 8
    Joseph says:

    As for the article- WOW- some great stuff there. People who think ID (the design inference) is a dead-end really don’t think at all. It’s a shame really…

  9. 9
    kvwells says:

    –Hepner states “in Biology, we see that life has evolved over time.”–

    As ID-ists we should be quick to agree with this, and then point out the doublespeak. Darwinists will point to the good doctor’s objection to Hepner’s statement and say “Ah ha! I KNEW he was a fundamentalist hickster, the fossil record clearly demonstrates that life has changed over time!” Our ‘Dr. Phil’ tells all about this textbook technique, used in political speeches everywhere. It seems to me one could bait-and-switch by leading the darwinite to insist on the sufficiency of the fossil record, then ask why he/she accepts its evidence only on this one point.

  10. 10
    Qualiatative says:

    My experience has been that Ph.D.’s who study evolutionary biology are already convinced of the efficacy of Darwinian principles before they decide to research. So, Ph.D. biology professors typically declare their loyalty to Darwinian evolution. On the other hand, my medical school colleagues and MD preceptors seem to lean towards ID. Only those who have been brainwashed into thinking “ID is religion and Darwinism is fact” still (faithfully) believe stochastic variables can model the progression of the complexity of life.

  11. 11
    Ben Z says:

    My dad is a medical doctor — a top researcher in lipids, and has a Ph.D. in physics and he believes in Darwinian evolution. I’d admit he does have a blind spot though.

  12. 12
    Barrett1 says:

    My wife is also a physician and teaches psychiatry as an “attending” physician at a large university (a relatively prestigious position). I have spent more nights stuck at a dinner table with doctors and professors of all types than I care to say. Contrary to what I’ve read on this thread about how Darwin doubters become pariahs in university settings, I find a tremendous willingness among physicians, biologists, zoologists, etc. to listen to the arguments for ID. Many would relish a discussion with Dembski or Behe. (I know one extremely prominent researcher who read Behe’s book “and really enjoyed it” and passed it on to another bigwig in the cell research area. No, there was no knee jerk flailing, angry reaction to Behe’s ideas). Instead of us ID supporters whining about how they won’t give us a seat at the table, perhaps we should concentrate on improving our scholarship, scientific research and so on. I think there’s a receptive audience out there. I really do. The problem may not be them. It may be us.

    I’ve also noticed something else whenever the subject of ID comes up as a topic of conversation. The God or Designer that emerges whenever ID is invoked seems to be one strange being. Now, I try to get everyone to lock in on the evidence and forget about what God would or would not do in His efforts to design life. But I have to say, this takes the wind out of the balloon. There’s a natural tendency whenever ID is discussed to form a picture of the designer in one’s head. You know, give Him the fatherly beard, benevolent intentions, etc. Why would He create a world where RM + NS drives micro evolution, but not macro evolution? Why would God spend his time designing a flagellum, but leave the making of a miniature poodle up to RM+NS? Yes, it is true that the fossil evidence suggests that life emerged quickly with few (if any) transitional forms, but now we have a God that intervenes once in a while and only to make big directional changes in a species? It just doesn’t add up. I can tell you guys and girls, asking scientists and physicians to give up their bias toward scientific naturalism won’t be an easy task given its success over the years, especially if the substitute (ID) gives us a designer that is one odd duck.

  13. 13
    johnnyb says:

    “Instead of us ID supporters whining about how they won’t give us a seat at the table, perhaps we should concentrate on improving our scholarship, scientific research and so on.”

    There is (a) a lack of funding and (b) a lack of places to publish, both of which are the death of scientific careers.

    “Why would He create a world where RM + NS drives micro evolution, but not macro evolution?”

    (a) I reject the premise (the beneficial mutations aren’t random, the founder effect is just as important, and NS is only a conservative mechanism)
    (b) even if your prenise were correct, WHY NOT? You haven’t said why there should be only one mechanism. As a scientist, one should let the evidence _show_ them the mechanism, rather than presuppose what it is.

    “Why would God spend his time designing a flagellum, but leave the making of a miniature poodle up to RM+NS?”

    Why not? I can think of many possibilities, but they aren’t even relevant unless someone were to point out why this is a problem. A simple answer is irreducible complexity. It takes a designer to get all the pieces of an irreducibly complex structure in place at the right time, but it does not take one to allow discrete, designed pieces mix and match for adaptive (and even non-adaptive) purposes.

    “Yes, it is true that the fossil evidence suggests that life emerged quickly with few (if any) transitional forms, but now we have a God that intervenes once in a while and only to make big directional changes in a species?”

    That is the view of the progressive creationists. Front-loaded hypotheses doesn’t look anything like that, and does not have God _intervening_ for the big jumps — they were pre-coded in the original organisms. In some of these views, evolution proceeds like ontogeny — speciation is just like tissue differentiation but on a larger scale.

    Then there is the view of the young-earth creationists, in which the fossil record is the result of the Biblical flood, with each strata representing ecological niches that were sequentially buried. The flood sediments are a snapshot of life at the time of the flood, and the only _actual_ evolution recorded in the fossil record is that of the late cenozoic.

    Then there is the view of Denton and others that the biological forms are fundamentals of nature — that natural law fixes specific points for evolution to proceed to. It isn’t coded into the organisms themselves, but instead pre-exists the organisms in the laws of physics. Evolution proceeds by switching from one pre-existant form to another. In this view, the intelligence is embedded in nature’s laws themselves, not necessarily in the organisms.

  14. 14
    dougmoran says:

    Barrett1 and Johnnyb: you have a great dialog going that hits most of the major issues. Thanks for making it a dialog we can all contemplate.

  15. 15
    dougmoran says:

    Ben Z.: With a dad into lipids and physics and MD’ing… I honestly can’t imagine a more interesting place to grow up. Let’s hope his “blind spot” serves it’s purpose soon so he can see the light. Thanks for your post.

  16. 16
    Barrett1 says:

    Johnnyb, thank you for your response. I’ll be contemplating. And thanks Dougmoran for the encouragement. I must say that I feel blessed to be part of the group here.

  17. 17
    dougmoran says:

    Barrett1: Ditto (twice).

  18. 18
    johnnyb says:

    Barrett1:

    If you are interested in looking further into these, here are some pointers:

    1) Prescribed and Front-Loaded Evolution

    I point to the main papers on it here. Telic Thoughts talks about Front-Loaded Evolution (they often abbreviate it as FLE) here.

    2) Progressive Creationism

    I don’t follow this one much, but I think this guy is the primary proponent.

    3) YEC

    I have a whole blog on YEC here (this is my position). If you don’t know much about the scientific outlook of YEC, I’d start at the beginning of the blog and work from there. The major arguments for YEC are summarized here. While the blog listed above is research-oriented, I also have a more argumentative blog here. A quick intro to fossil sorting is here. If you have any questions on YEC I’d be happy to answer them here, in one of my blogs, or in a personal email (johnnyb@eskimo.com).

    4) Natural law

    I have a short summary of Denton’s idea of evolution of natural law here.

    Also, be sure to read Shapiro’s Third Way. This is a must read for anyone interested in the debate.

  19. 19
    DaveScot says:

    Barrett1

    Why would He create a world where RM + NS drives micro evolution, but not macro evolution? Why would God spend his time designing a flagellum, but leave the making of a miniature poodle up to RM+NS? Yes, it is true that the fossil evidence suggests that life emerged quickly with few (if any) transitional forms, but now we have a God that intervenes once in a while and only to make big directional changes in a species? It just doesn’t add up.

    I’d tell them they need to ask those questions to a priest and that since you’re not a priest you can only speak to the scientific evidence – stuff that can be observed and measured – so please stick to the facts and leave the theological arguments to theologians.

    As soon as it’s pointed out to them that they are guilty of employing assertions about the supernatural in their defense of a scientific theory they get pretty sheepish. Sometimes angry but hey, if they can’t take the heat they need to get out of the kitchen.

  20. 20
    physicist says:

    Davescot and jasong

    “I fail to see how biology is outside the field of medical doctors. I took pre-med Human Anatomy and Physiology in college and I can assure you there was little if anything in it that wasn’t biology. Maybe some of the lab work where we learned how to use common clinical diagnostic tools wasn’t precisely biology even though it was about the metrics of biological systems. -ds”

    The claim was a few posts ago that biologists weren’t trained to spot design. Is the claim now that medical doctors are?

    You missed the point. It was obviously presented in a manner too subtle for you. Let me try to make it plain using small words. The point was that if biologists want to claim that they’re the only ones with the expertise to have opinions about biological evolution then by the same logic engineers should be the only ones with the expertise to have opinions about design. -ds

  21. 21
    jasonng says:

    I would think that the immediate reaction to the claim that there’s wide support for ID by MDs is that biologists are the only experts whose views matter when it comes to evolution.

  22. 22
    physicist says:

    Davescot

    “The point was that if biologists want to claim that they’re the only ones with the expertise to have opinions about biological evolution…”

    Well, I’ve not heard many biologists saying that!

    But I am still interested as to whether the doctors’ opinion is more valuable to you than the majority of professional biologists’. Is it?

  23. 23

    Medicine and Evolution, Part 4: Physicians seduced by “intelligent design” creationism

    I’ve been meaning to write about this topic for a long time. In fact, ever since our illustrious Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who also happens to be a Harvard-educated cardiac surgeon, came out in favor of teaching “intelligent design”…

    Dude! As an informed proponent of Darwinian Evolution Atheism you should be well aware that it’s Intelligent Design sans “creationism”. -ds

Leave a Reply