Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Cost of Mistakes

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the comments of Gil’s article about why a greater percentage of engineers vs. scientists are open to the idea of life being a result of intelligent design I remarked that medical doctors are another occupational outlier in there being a larger than expected percentage open to ID. I asked the MDs here if they could comment on that because while I can understand the POV of engineers and mathematicians I couldn’t figure out why MDs would also be an exception.

After thinking about it a while it occurred to me that medical doctors, like engineers, understand the cost of mistakes in complex systems better than academic scientists. Orthodox evolution theory is based on the notion that sometimes a mistake in a complex system will result in better fitness for purpose. Doctors and engineers however know that mistakes in complex systems seldom if ever result in improved fitness but rather more often result in loss of fitness (often catastrophic loss of fitness resulting in death).

When a doctor or an engineer makes a mistake it can cost lives. When an evolutionary biologist makes a mistake like saying whales are more closely related to horses than hippos there are no lives lost because of it. The consequences of their mistakes are entirely academic. So they have a whole different mindset about the cost of mistakes than do medical doctors and engineers.

Comments
[...] The Cost of Mistakes. [...]Darwiniana » The cost of mistakes
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
I think the problem of mistakes goes even deeper: There are significant career disincentives for mistakes in the engineering and medical professions (gosh, that bridge collapsed, what a bummer; the patient just died, I really should be more careful the next time I perform brain surgery). On the other hand, there are significant career incentives for embracing sheer fabrications that are likely to be mistaken in evolutionary biology (e.g., Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, the supposed evolution of the mammalian eye from a light sensitive spot). Here speculative scenarios are put forward as brilliant advances in our knowledge of biology even though they are almost sure to be wrong. But since they can rarely be completely disproven (e.g., "prove to me that there isn't a gradual evolutionary path to the mammalian eye"), evolutionary biologists can remain comfortable in their delusions.William Dembski
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
As medical doctors we have to deal with what is real and what works. We see at the same time how marvelously well designed we are and how resilient we are to attack. I remember spending lunch times with our Immunology professor discussing how it could be that the known immune proteins far exceeded the capacity of the genome to code for them one at a time. There was some theory around about random mutations occuring in each cell line to give the resulting astounding array of immune proteins. This turned out to be wrong. What actually allows for the vast array of these amazing proteins is using combinations of different shaped components and systematically assembling them in all their possible combinations and eliminating the dangerous ones. This is just a small story about a small component of one of the systems that enable us to survive and thrive. Every body system we study we find not good engineering but brilliant engineering. There are those who complain about their prostates, or that they don't have X Ray vision, or that their retinae are supposedly wired backwards. I have not heard of anyone who has been smart enough to suggest any changes at the molecular level to achieve any of the "improvements" they think should be made. Hey, when they can teach an old worn out pancreas to make a simple thing like insulin in response to rising glucose levels, or even make an artificial, tissue based pancreas, then they may dare to make comments adverse to the Brilliant Designer. A good friend of mine, an eye surgeon says the rubbish spoken about the poor design of the eye is not even worth writing against. He spends each day marvelling at the design of the human visual and perception system.idnet.com.au
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
MD's are kind of biological engineers--they have to make biological systems work--and they know full well the cost of making even a simple mistake. I was, once upon a time, a pre-med.PaV
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
I don't quite have my MD yet, but will here in a couple of years, so here are my 2 cents: The sheer complexity (the parts) and fine tuning from the micro to the macro level and having to deal with the results of something wrong everyday. The one thing we get pounded with here is knowing what are the components, how they work, what happens when something is missing or defective, and how to fix it. Looking at it this way, the first piece of skepticism comes from thinking "How did all these pieces get here?" Mind you we have to go through, mind numbing details including the stuff on the plasma membrane that make a hepatocyte special all the way to every single vein, artery, nerve, and feature of the gross liver to the point we can point it on a cadaver (mind you we have to recognize stuff on microscopic level too EMs and Histo). Second, our business is to know what happens when you take out one of those parts or what happens when something is altered in the system. Like something on the micro level like ONE weird protein or ONE weird receptor off by like a base or something can really destroy the whole system. On the macro level we learn what happens when there is a back up of bile and blood from just ONE obstruction and the massive damage that can occur from that blockage. This combined with the fact that nothing is never really "fully cured" makes us scratch our heads going "how could this system come to be with all these parts missing when we see people suffering from them all the time." The last thing, is all the stuff we have no clue about! Why the liver regenerates, how we can have such fidelity in development (study genetic diseases and embryology and you'll be amazed you're normal), the CNS, etc... I imagine myself making a list of all the stuff that makes a human unique from say primates and all the things that must be in exactly the right place - from natural selection! This is not even taking into consideration culture, language, etc... Since doctors need to know all the gory little details and since those details in many instances determine life or death, combined with the fact that we are constantly tested to know all those ridiculous details, we naturally want the details for evolution. The explanations given are so vacuous and full of so much wild conjecture it's hard for me to take them to the point of scientific dogma, let alone the truth.jpark320
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
I am an M.D. Orthopaedic surgeon with a B.S. in Biology. I first began to seriously question the standard Darwinian line in the gross anatomy lab during my first year of medical school. How could all that incredible inter-related complexity have come about by chance, no matter how dressed up? I tried questioning the professor about it but only got flippant responses ridiculing creationists. For the most part I just kept my doubts to myself during the rest of school and residency. After residency I finally had time to start seriously reading up on the issue. I encountered Darwin's Black Box and later other books and was quite gratified to see that other intelligent, educated people had similar serious doubts about the orthodox dogma. I now consider myself a "post-Darwinist." I don't know how life got the way it is but I'm convinced it wasn't the way I was taught.dacook
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
I think the recent experience of the pharmaceutical industry can illustrate why MD's are so skeptical of Darwinism. Just over a decade ago the pharmaceutical industry attempted to move away from what is called "rational drug design" to a more Darwinian method called "high throughput screening." Basically, what they tried to do was to bypass the traditional methods of intelligently designed drugs and instead attempt to screen every possible combination of a molecule, not unlike RM+NS. Here is a quote from the Wall Street Journal about how this worked out.
A decade ago, pharmaceutical companies announced a revolutionary new way of finding drugs. Instead of relying on scientists' hunches about what chemicals to experiment with, they brought in machines to create thousands of chemical combinations at once and tested them out with robots. The new technology was supposed to bring a flood of medicines to patients and profits to investors. Today, some leading chemists are calling the effort an expensive fiasco. Machines churned out chemical after chemical that didn't produce useful results. And chemicals that seemed promising often turned out to have big flaws that traditional testing might have caught earlier on. Some drugs couldn't dissolve in water or be turned into pills, for example. Critics believe these problems help explain the pharmaceutical industry's drought of new products. "That's the secret of why they're spending billions of dollars and getting nothing," says James Hussey, a former Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. manager who now leads biotech company NeoPharm Inc.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Drug-Industry-Falls-Short24feb04.htmJehu
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
It might be worth noting, one of the founding fathers of modern ID, was Michael Denton who is a Physician in addition to being a molecular geneticist. Actually, medicine was his first profession, if I recall correctly.scordova
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply