Last month I pointed out the unwitting admission by some Darwinists that Darwinism is useless to modern medicine (and for that matter modern science). [see: Darwin dissed by doctors, and a design revolution continues at MIT]. This month I’m pleased that world’s most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, has published a letter from a biophysicist who has (perhaps unwittingly) shown that the design revolution continues, and Darwinism is slipping into total irrelevance. Look at biological systems through an engineer’s eyes Physiologists have successfully analysed a large range of biological systems using this ‘device-oriented’ approach. For more than a century, medical students have used it to learn that the kidneys filter blood to make urine; the lungs transport oxygen from air to Read More ›

Recently, a comment by a Lance Duval appeared in the combox for the Post-Darwinist’s “Marsupial frogs: Another reason to check out of Darwinism”. Duval trashed ID embryologist Jonathan Wells, arguing that Darwin never really believed in recapitulation of embryos and that it has not been taught in textbooks since the 1920s.

Now, a little background: Jonathan Wells is possibly the most hated of the ID guys because his books, Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, catalogue many unsubstantiable claims made in recent textbooks in support of Darwinian evolution. So I asked Wells for a response, and here it is:

Lance Duval really should do his homework … here are some quotes you might find useful (all of them in Icons of Evolution, 2000): Read More ›

The recent dustup surrounding the SMU design conference highlighted a rhetorical tactic that has become fashionable in the anti-ID herd.  This tactic is to smear IDists with the “denier” tag, as if mere denial is self-evidently bad.  Herewith, a reflection on famous deniers in history from another forum in which I participate (used with permission): I think that there may be some fodder in the current “witch hunt” attitude towards “deniers” for us to use. Consider the following example:   There were a couple of doctors who were “stress deniers” in that they denied that stress caused peptic ulcers. They had the audacity to suggest that ulcers were caused by a bacterial infection. As a result, they were marginalized and Read More ›

In a piece at Time Online, More Spin from the Anti-Evolutionists, senior writer Michael Lemonick attacks ID, the Discovery Institute, the signatories of the Dissent From Darwin list, and Michael Egnor in particular.

Dr. Michael Egnor (a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York’s best doctors by New York Magazine) is quoted: “Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology.” You can imagine the ire this comment would provoke from a Time science journalist.

The comments section is very illuminating as Dr. Egnor replies to and challenges Lemonick.

Read More ›

Pro-ID anti-Darwinism doctors are on the rise. Check out Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity and note their member list.

Over at Respectful Insolence, Dr. David H. Gorski (a.k.a. Orac), goes off on a rant about how medical doctors, in this case Uncommon Descent contributor and surgeon Dr. David A. Cook, aren’t qualified to evaluate claims made by evolutionary biologists. Yet Dr. Gorski, also a surgeon, somehow believes himself qualified to evaluate evolutionary claims made by other medical doctors. Spare me. Practice what you preach, Dr. Gorski. If medical doctors aren’t qualifed to evaluate evolution claims then YOU should STFU too. Got that? Write that down. 🙄

Over on Panda’s Thumb Steve Reuland uses Darwinian methodology to dispute the notion that medical doctors tend to accept ID in greater percentage than scientists in general. So what’s the first thing ole Steverino does to make his case? Why, he trots out a strawman – ID and “evolution” are mutually exclusive. Here’s a clue for Stevie. You can accept ID, descent with modification from a common ancestor, and a 4 billion year-old earth all at the same time. Not all IDists do but many of us do including me. What you can’t accept if you accept ID is that random mutation filtered by natural selection turned mud into man or bacteria into baboons. Got that? Write that down. I Read More ›

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 Read More ›

[update: I just added the original text of Casey Luskin’s letter in addition to mine ]

In my post, UVa faculty alarmed by ID’s presence on their campus, I wrote about my concerns that another witch hunt was in the making.

I would like to thank the University of Virginia Magazine for publishing an abbreviated version of the letters to the editor which Casey and I wrote. The ID debate has dominated the last two issues in that section of the magazine.

The published version of the letters (including several by highly articulate pro-ID UVa alumni) can be found at: Origins of Life Revisited.
Read More ›

In Of Designers and Dunces, Roddy Bullock entertaininglyly addresses the claim made by Professor Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts that defects in the human body show that there is no design in nature. Unwise person: I’ll admit it’s art, but it’s bad art. Wise person: But you will agree that it is the work of an artist. Yes? Unwise person: No. A “bad design” claim, if sustainable, might come better from a medical doctor than a geologist, but medical doctors do not appear to be among materialism/Darwinism’s fans.

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 – 7PM USF SUN DOME DARWIN or DESIGN?   On September 29, 2006 at 7PM, the debate about Darwinian Evolution continues as well known speakers on the topic  attempt to further ‘resolve the conflict.’  This event will occur at the University of Southern Florida (USF) Sun Dome.  Get your tickets now!! Featured speakers include Dr. Michael Behe – Biologist and author of “Darwin’s Black Box” – and Dr. Jonathon Wells – Biochemist and author of “Icons Of Evolution.”  Both are experts on the current debate regarding Darwinian Evolution and the Intelligent Design Movement.  This event is sponsored by Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) ( www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.org).  PSSI is dedicated to educating the public on the inadequacy Read More ›

In addition to the engineers, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians who dissent from Darwin, anywhere from 33% to 60% of medical doctors dissent from Darwin (see Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, HCD Research Poll, also check out PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM).

Pro-ID sympathies are reflected by the fact a moderately pro-ID book received an endorsement by the Dean of Harvard’s medical school, Dr. Joseph Martin.

Read More ›

Ultimate Questions

“Scientific knowledge is a malleable body of information that changes over time, as new tools are applied and new facts are integrated,” says Bryce Paschal, an associate professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at U.Va. “Good science identifies weak links in what is known. Science should acknowledge the shortcomings in evolutionary science, especially as regards what is known about transition species.”

An expert on nuclear transport and cell signaling, Paschal might seem an unlikely candidate to serve as faculty adviser for the IDEA Club….

“Regardless of the number of simple organisms on this earth, and regardless of how many simple molecules are found on other planets, the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

Much to the IDEA club’s relief, Bryce Paschal was tenured a few months before becoming the IDEA faculty adviser. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that some individuals who would otherwise be willing to be IDEA advisers declined to do so because of job risk. I’m very grateful for Dr. Paschal’s willingness to be an IDEA adviser.

(thanks to Russ for alerting me to the article)

Read More ›

May 2006, Scientific American, Letters

Assessing Deadly Certitude

In “Murdercide” [Skeptic], Michael Shermer is once again dead-on (forgive the pun): it is inapt to think of suicide bombers as typical suicide victims. Rather than succumbing to despair and depression, they are committing what they consider affirmative acts of faith. In short, they are religious fanatics, hardly different from the murderers of abortion doctors, except that the latter zealots don’t kill themselves as well.

Shermer cites Princeton University economist Alan B. Kreuger’s finding that some countries that have spawned many terrorists (Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) are economically well off yet lack civil liberties, whereas poor countries that protect civil liberties are unlikely to spawn terrorists. That might be a good correlation, but a better factor than civil liberties is probably the degree of fundamentalist religious extremism present in a country. The murderers of 9/11 were Islamic jihadists first, citizens of their various nations second.

Kevin Padian
Kensington, Calif.

It appears Kevin hates and fears religious fundamentalists of all stripes and considers them murderous fanatics. Note how he equates suicide bombers with those who kill abortion doctors saying only killing themselves afterward is what separates the two. Kevin Padian is one sick puppy with an irrational hatred of religious fundamentalists.

Read More ›

Thanks to Uncommon Descent subscriber Mats for the heads up. Tell all the doctors you know! Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory. Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in America and other countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution. Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and teachers have been censored and even removed Read More ›