Is Darwinism essential to understanding bacterial resistance to antibiotics? Consider the following conversation, at the bedside of a patient with a serious antibiotic-resistant infection: Nurse: Nothing’s working, Doctor! Doctor: I know. All of our antibiotics have failed. Penicillin, Cipro, Tetracycline. Nothing is working. Nurse: Let’s ask the Darwinists for help! Doctor: (Slaps forehead) Of course! Darwinism is the foundation of our understanding of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Quick, Nurse, give the patient a tautology! Darwinists claim that Darwin’s theory, which is the theory that all biological complexity arose by random variation and natural selection, is essential to our understanding of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. What exactly does Darwinism teach us about antibiotic resistance?
This is your assignment. You are to read the mind of someone named “Lucy.” Actually, you are to find out where Lucy’s mind came from. You can’t meet Lucy. She’s been dead for 3.2 million years. Your only data will be a fragment of Lucy’s fossilized skull and genetic analysis of some apes, men, and lice. This isn’t a bad dream. This is an exciting new branch of evolutionary biology, and it’s on the cover of Newsweek magazine. And they’re serious.
Darwinist blogger and computer scientist MarkCC (why don’t they use their real names?) called me a lot of names a couple of days ago. The most profane was that I am a ‘bastion of s***headed ignorance.’ Profanity seems to be a particular problem with the computer-math Darwinists. A dysfunctional clad, perhaps. They’re dysfunctional because, as Aristotle wrote, effective rhetoric has three characteristics: logos, ethos, and pathos. Effective rhetoric appeals to the best in reason, ethics, and emotion. When I’m called unprintable names merely for expressing my skepticism about the relevance of Darwin’s theory to the practice of medicine, I’ve already won the ‘ethos’ and ‘pathos’ skirmishes. I can concentrate on the logos. Mark’s blog is worth reading, if you’re over Read More ›
I have written in this blog that Darwinism is irrelevant to the practice of medicine. The truth of my assertion is, I think, fairly obvious, except to Darwin fundamentalists. Most of the Darwinists’ comments on my posts have been personal attacks on me, rather than carefully reasoned arguments. The thoughtful arguments that have been put forth are, I think, misguided, as I will discuss in upcoming posts. The assertion that Darwinism is essential to medicine is usually is based on the argument that one or more of the following areas of science are dependent on Darwin’s theory: 1. Comparative medicine, which is the study of the similarity and the differences between humans and other organisms. 2. Medical genetics and molecular Read More ›
My recent post here about the irrelevance of Darwinism to the practice of medicine seems to have gotten under the skin of a medical resident at Penn State. Dr. Burt Humburg, blogging at Panda’s Thumb, unleashed a tirade, including a very clever word play on my name in the title of his post (Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and Arrogance) and his very serious doubts about my competence and integrity. Burt has also been involved in the Kansas evolution struggle. You might say he has a dog in this hunt.