« Is Pregnancy Equivalent to Organ Donation? | Main | A Response to Artemesia »
December 30, 2005
Is a Naturalistic Worldview Necessary to Medical Education?
A few months back, the New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial decrying the inclusion of intelligent design onto any medical school curriculum. The Christian Medical and Dental Association replied here, and Dr. Paul Giem, who has commented on this blog in the past, e-mailed his reply to me. He makes a very interesting point - what about those schools that were either founded by or still presently adherent to a theistic worldview? Would you refuse treatment from an ER physician that was trained at Loma Linda? What about Georgetown or Loyola? Then you have situations like me; I did my training at two Big 10 schools but (hopefully) will have an advanced degree from Biola in the next year. I even believe (gasp!) that a naturalistic view may not explain everything in the universe. Here is Dr. Giem's response:
Recently the Journal printed an article (1) decrying intelligent design
(ID). We were told that although ID was "articulate and sophisticated" and
"cannot be easily dismissed", it was "pseudoscience" and, the title implied,
might lead to "faith healers". Apparently, if we believe ID, we might be
inclined to withhold a treatment for cancer because it is not in accord
with the plan of the intelligent designer. This insidious menace to
medicine may soon reach medical schools.There is good news and bad news for the author of the article. First, the
bad news: The situation is worse than he thinks. There is already a medical
school in the U. S. where the proponents of ID are in control; in fact they
have been in control for almost 100 years. Worse yet, the Protestant
denomination that sponsors the school actually believes, not just in ID, but
in a six-day creation.But there is also good news. That medical school, Loma Linda University,
teaches its medical students to treat cancer using all the standard
therapies, and even has gotten involved in experimental therapies such as
proton beams. Classic faith healing is not part of the curriculum.It is of interest that, although there are Presbyterian hospitals, and
Methodist hospitals, and Adventist hospitals, and Catholic hospitals, and
Jewish hospitals, there are not too many atheist or freethinker hospitals.
That is not to say that there are not any. But it does suggest that
believing in religion, even religion that could agree with ID, does not
automatically destroy one¹s compassion for humanity, or one's willingness to
alter the natural course of disease for the benefit of one's fellow humans.
From an ID perspective, it is still permissible to treat deep venous
thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.The author of the article is obviously out of his depth when discussing the
theological ramifications of ID. If we see an automobile with a dent in its
side, it is not necessary to believe that if the automobile was designed,
the dent had same designer. The dent may not have been designed, or it may
have been designed by someone else. Similarly, if the human body was
designed, it does not follow that cancer or pulmonary emboli were designed,
or that they were designed by the same designer as the body. It therefore
does not follow that one should not try to fix those defects in the body.The article apparently believes that either naturalism or evolution (the
context appears to suggest godless science that has no place for a
Creator) is the very basis of science. This would appear to be
overstated. Many of the graduates of the aforementioned medical school have
done quite well on board exams, and seem to have practiced medicine well in
real life, without a firm belief in megaevolution, let alone naturalism.
One can argue that such belief is helpful, but not (at least not rationally)
that it is essential.The article misunderstands one other fundamental point. While it is
undoubtedly true that some believe in ID because of theological bias, it is
also true that others, such as Antony Flew, (2) believe in ID because of the
scientific evidence. In order to deny that ID has validity, one must
believe in the spontaneous generation of life. At present, that is just too
much faith for me. Perhaps considerations like this, rather than (or in
addition to) pure electoral politics, accounts for the stated belief of
Harvard Medical School graduate Bill Frist.The article seems to concede as much, when it acknowledges of Philip Johnson
(another Harvard grad, although not medical) ³His criticisms have merit².
It then goes on, inexplicably, to state that ³his focus on precisely those
things that we do not yet know blocks any rational dialogue.² How this
blocks rational dialogue is not clear. It would appear that what Johnson
has done is, in fact, "rational dialogue." What, precisely, is wrong with
pointing out the explanatory weaknesses of a theory when comparing it to an
alternate theory?In fact, the article seems to advise the avoidance of rational dialogue.
Engaging in a public debate about intelligent design is probably not a good
idea. Rather, it appears that we are called to suppress ID; ³More
desirable are education and acting to protect the profession and the public
from pseudoscience.² It appears that the article logically should favor
closing down Loma Linda University, or at least a purging of ID adherents.
Does this approach look more like an open view of science, or a closed view
similar to that of Stalin?The mention of Stalin here is not gratuitous. The article correctly noted
that Stalin was an enemy of Darwinian evolution later in life; Stalin
preferred Lysenko. But Stalin was no friend of ID, and his official
propaganda acknowledged the critical value of Darwin in his formative years.
(3)The author misses the major reason for neglecting to mention the identity of
the designer. If one is to keep from going beyond the evidence available
from the designed object itself, all that one can say is that there was a
designer, and perhaps give a minimum intelligence and skill. The identity,
theological orientation, and even the benevolence of the designer are not
necessarily evident from an examination of the designed object. If ID were
to identify the designer, its opponents could rightly object to its going
beyond the evidence.The author is even out of his depth discussing traditional creationism. The
article uses perhaps the poorest possible argument against traditional
creationism, namely carbon-14 dating. The author is apparently unaware that
carbon-14 dating at present appears to give evidence for a short age for
life on earth.(4,5) Perhaps the next time the author writes on ID, he will
consult more widely and write more carefully.Paul Giem, M.D
Update: I neglected to include the references for Dr. Giem's article:
(1) Schwartz RS. Faith healers and phyusicians‹teaching pseudoscience by
mandate. N Engl J Med 2005;353(14):1437-9 (link in introduction)
(2) Flew A, Habermas G. My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism. Philosophia
Christi, in press. Available at <A
HREF="http://www.illustramedia.com/IDArticles/flew-interview.pdf ">http://www
.illustramedia.com/IDArticles/flew-interview.pdf</A>
(3) Yaroslavsky E. Landmarks in the Life of Stalin Moscow,Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1940, p. 8. Quoted (accurately) in< A
HREF="http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view &ID=276">http:
//www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276< /A>
(4) Giem P. Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon. Origins 2001;51:6-30.
Available at <A
HREF="http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm">http://www.grisda.org/origins
/51006.htm</A>
(5) Baumgardner J. <SUP>14</SUP>C evidence for a recent global flood and a
young earth. In Vardiman L, Snelling AA, Chafin EF: Radioisotopes and the
age of the Earth: Results of a young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative.
El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 2005, pp. 587-630. An
earlier version is available on the web at <A
HREF="http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html">http://www.globalfl
ood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html</A>
Posted by OMFSerge | December 30, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8342034c553ef00d834a3a0ee69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is a Naturalistic Worldview Necessary to Medical Education?:
Comments
I don't think a Dr.'s "school of thought" has any relevance on whether or not they should become doctors. I don't care if a Muslim Fundamentalist Doctor is treating me as long as he treats me the same as an athiest, or a Christian doctor would all things being the same. However, that being said, their "school of thought" should not affect they decision to treat their patients with the appropriate medical treatment for the condition or situation that the patient is in. For example, certain "Pharmicists" will not dispense birth control pills to patients that are prescribed the pills by their doctors. This is wrong. One's personal views or "school of thought" should NOT affect the PATIENTS treatment or right to what a DOCTOR has prescribed them.
Posted by: RealmKnight | Dec 30, 2005 3:17:23 PM
It may surprise you that I do have some discomfort at pharmacists not dispensing OCs (http://www.imago-dei.net/imago_dei/2004/09/conscience_clau.html). However, how far do you wish to take this. Should someone who believes in the sancitity of life be required to perform abortions as part of their training? Should a nurse anesthetist be required to provide anesthesia for an abortion? I think not in both instances.
Posted by: Serge | Dec 30, 2005 10:52:56 PM
Abortions, it seems to me, are a specialty area of medicine. I don't think that any medical institution would "require" anyone to perform any part of an abortion procedure. That is why there are special clinics whose only urpose is performing abortions. Those that wish to not participate in this activity need not apply for a job at those clinics. I do believe that one should consider the FULL scope of possible job duties before accepting a position that on may not be in complete agreeance with. If one's personal views are going to affect the ability of one to do their job, they should not have that job. For example, I was a manager of one of those Payday loan companies a while ago. I could not stand taking advantage of the already distraught people. Therefore, I changed employment. I did not "refuse" to give out loans, but I knew I couldn't stay there very long and continue to appreciate my life.
Posted by: RealmKnight | Dec 31, 2005 11:16:25 AM
What are you talking about? ID is in opposition to a naturalistic worldview? Why haven't you listened to 'scientific' ID supporters patiently explaining that they do not presume a designer was a supernatural agent or diety? By their very words IDers embrace naturalism!
Well actually they embrace naturalism when it fits who they think their audience happens to be, give them a different audience and they will explain that hostility to ID is about hostility to religion. In fact the problem with ID is that it is not scientific and not even very honest either as a religion or 'scientific theory'.
Posted by: Boonton | Dec 31, 2005 10:28:09 PM
Booton,
I'm not certain how you have arrived at this conclusion. There are certainly proponents of ID who are religious, as there proponents to evolution who are religious.
It seems that the point of ID is not to specify the intelligence. That is another argument it seems. I think that the ID folks are trying to consistent in not assuming the nature of the designer from the outset. As I mentioned in another thread, there are folks like Antony Flew who have become proponents of ID, and theists, but they haven't committed to any specific religious worldview. (Mormonism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism... )
JJR
Posted by: John | Jan 2, 2006 12:28:51 AM
It is folly to suggest that a person's worldview does not impact everything that person does... one does not check their worldview at the door of the office. Though I agree, RealmKnight, that the best course of action in most cases is to simply choose not to work in an environment in which one cannot conscientiously do what is being asked of them, to think that a person is even capable of divorcing themself from their worldview doesn't work.
If you say... "My worldview is Christian, but I don't take that to my work at the abortion clinic." You are telling us something about your worldview... specifically about the brand of Christianity to which you ascribe.
Behavior follows belief in the same way that gravity causes the apple to fall to the ground... it always works... always... always. Anyone who suggests that, as an atheist, or a disciple of naturalism, they don't bring their belief system fully into all the environments of their lives is kidding themselves.
JJR
Posted by: John | Jan 2, 2006 12:39:58 AM
But the apple falls to the ground whether you are an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim or whatever. It's a bigger folly to pretend that the apple falls in a different way for a Christian than an atheist.
The problem I was referencing is that IDers will tell you on one hand that they are fighting against 'naturalist worldviews' (whatever that is) and on the other hand that their theory does not require anything supernatural. If the designer is not a supernatural beign, guess what? Your theory is no less 'naturalistic' than evolution.
The other problem here is that too much is being demanded of evolution. This is probably due to it being so successful as a theory about a topic many people find interesting. This has lead people to imagine the theory tells us anything about 'worldviews', it doesn't. As you pointed out very well plenty of people who understand evolution come from numerous different faiths.
Yet to the main critics of evolution you would imagine that evolution had purported to 'disprove God'. Again a case of people reading too much into a very good theory. Similar things have happened with Einstein's theory of relativity. A lot of silly stuff has been written about its implications for ethics, morality, philosophy etc. This isn't the fault of the theory, though, but rather the people who don't really understand it. When was the last time you heard some science critic bemoan the inherent naturalism of the Kenetic Theory of Gasses?
Posted by: Boonton | Jan 2, 2006 7:13:28 AM
Another point on 'worldviews':
If you say... "My worldview is Christian, but I don't take that to my work at the abortion clinic." You are telling us something about your worldview... specifically about the brand of Christianity to which you ascribe.
Because, of course, in order to work in an abortion clinic while also being a Christian one must:
1. Acknowledge the contradiction and assert that making a living is more important than one's religious beliefs.
2. Reconcile the two by asserting that Christianity does not prohibit abortion or at least working in an abortion clinic.
One can make up similar examples of Christians who work in casinos, bars, go-go joints, even the military and other fields that is considered wrong by some or many Christian denominations.
But what does having a Christian worldview say about choosing Coke over Pepsi? What your hypothetical fails to note is that there are many areas where one's worldview is totally irrelvant to various choices that one can make. How one feels about the kenetic theory of gas, for example, hardly seems to be a matter of religous belief. Being that most mature Christian groups have accepted that evolution could be true without contradicting the fundamentals of Christian faith what then does 'worldview' (which seems to mean religion) have to do with it really?
Posted by: Boonton | Jan 2, 2006 6:07:23 PM
John,
I agree that one cannot "leave their worldview at the door", but I also believe that one CAN conduct themselves in a way that is appropriate to one's WORK even if that does not coincide with one's worldview. The amount that the individual lets their worldview influence their daily lives is completely up to the individual. That is to say, it is a CHOICE in all instances, where to work, what duties to perform, why you won't perform some duties, etc., etc. And back to the topic of the post, one's worldview, or background education, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it, may decide why a patient chooses a particular practitioner over another, but should not be a factor in Med School. The purpose of Med School is to train the individual to become a doctor, not to offer up "new" worldviews. College is a place where "new" worldviews should be explored. Once an individual has advanced to Med School, training is what they should be after.
Posted by: RealmKnight | Jan 3, 2006 3:22:26 PM
I am interested in how quickly the discussion turned to reproductive issues. (I am pleased to see that RealmKnight made an attempt to return to the original subject.) The point of the discussion was supposed to be whether the editorial was a sound one, and the editorial never actually mentioned reproductive medical issues. (One could argue that reproductive medical issues is the real reason for the editorial, although I think that it is more likely that the editorial is simply the product of someone concerned about ID itself.)
I agree with RealmKnight (and later, apparently, Boonton) that if one is not prepared to participate in abortions, one should not work for Planned Parenthood. I am not sure what relevance that has to the editorial.
Whatever the merits of Boonton's attack on ID's official stance on the identity or identities of the designer(s), the fact remains that the editorial was grossly in error, in a manner that could reasonably be described as paranoid.
I also agree with Boonton that the kinetic theory of gases has little relevance to the ID controversy. That was one of the general points I was making. When the article implies that "Godless science that has no place for a creator" is "the very basis of science", it is just plain wrong. One can study most aspects of science without having to take sides on the question of random processes and natural law versus ID, or even the standard geologic timescale versus young-earth creationism. Evolution is not central to science, unless science is defined as the attempt to explain all of nature without recourse to the supernatural. Medicine is not about that question, but rather how to help patients enjoy better health.
In fact, it is arguable that an antisupernatural stance is detrimental to medicine. Multiple studies have documented the healthful effects of at least some religious beliefs, and one who cannot agree with those beliefs would find it difficult to sincerely encourage them. Certainly one who does not believe would be less able to encourage belief than one who does believe. The editorial should have been more reasonable, and more respectful of and accurate with ID.
Posted by: Paul Giem | Jan 10, 2006 1:24:44 PM
Belief in a deity isn't the issue. I note that Loma Linda medical center does not eschew the evolution-based cancer treatments developed by the National Cancer Institute (nor even proton-beams, those nasty little radiation thingies that operate God's clocks in the geologic realm that reveal the Earth is some billions of years old). So long as Loma Linda sticks to the best medical care and does not stop delivering evolution-based medicine, Loma Linda can continue to be a leading medical center.
The question should be, I suppose, why does Loma Linda use evolution-based medicine at all? Why do they use insulin from mammals to treat human diabetes, for example? If we're not related as mammals, if we're not evolutionarily related to those species, there is no way to explain how or why the therapy works, and certainly no theory to suggest how to avoid transmission of disease from one species to another . . .
Applied evolution theory is essential to modern medicine. When Loma Linda does organ transplants, I hope they at least do tissue matching. Organ transplantation is one of those areas of medicine where a failure to understand evolution and the whys and wherefores of matching tissues and suppressing immunity systems can lead to disasters.
Since Baby Fae, does Loma Linda do organ transplants?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Jan 12, 2006 3:09:18 AM
I note the CMDA press release calls for fair, scientific consideration of the scientific claims of intelligent design.
One of the important chunks of evidence at Dover was that there are no scientific claims of intelligent design. Is CMDA being disingenuous, or are they holding out on everybody else? What science claims are they talking about?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Jan 12, 2006 3:12:39 AM
Ed,
What makes you think that cancer treatments are "evolution-based"? Initially, they were strictly empirical. Later, they were based on the discovery of common design flaws. To my knowledge, none of them were based on considerations that would be valid if common descent, for example, were true but not if common design, rather than common descent, were true. If you have a counterexample, I would be interested to see (or rather read of) it.
Perhpas you have always been taught that evolution is central to all biology, so you do not see how biology can be viewed apart from evolution. But it can. Perhaps a better acquaintance with non-evolutionary biologists might help you understand, or at least be more tolerant.
Your example of insulin reveals your ignorance in this area. If all mammals share similar designs, one might expect proteins from one mammal to work, at least sometimes, similarly in other animals to the way it worked in the original animal. In this specific area, evolutionary theory isn't much help. Who knew that we were more closely related to cows than to sheep, and even more closely related to pigs? (Don't answer that!)
Loma Linda has an extensive pediatric heart transplant program, as well as kidney, liver, etc. transplants. But what does intrahuman (acknowledged by all sides to have common descent) tissue matching have to do with common descent with animals? BTW, the pioneers in pediatric heart transplantation at LLU were firmly in the ID camp.
I don't know precisely the scientific claims that CMDA was talking about. However, I can list a few:
1. Life appears as if it could reasonably have been designed. There is no remotely plausible pathway from inorganic materials to life using solely random methods, and natural selection requires differential reproduction, which requires reproduction. So chemical evolution is a misnomer.
2. Many forms of life appear to be designed. Yet they give no evidence in the fossil record of having been evolved from other organisms. For example, there are no fossil ancestors for the early arthropods. (Fair warning: Do not contradict until you have done your homework carefully. Failure to do so may result in embarrassment.)
3. Early claims of up to 97% of DNA being "junk", based on (pehaps overenthusiastic) application of evolutionary theory, have had to be drastically revised downward. Even pseudogenes, the "classic" example of "junk DNA", have been found to be at least sometimes useful for the organism. This was predicted by ID theory. (Again, be careful how you challenge.)
Just because a judge did not recognize any evidence for the theory does not mean that the evidence does not exist.
I would like to come back to the point of what I wrote originally. Was the article in the NEJM giving an informed, balanced perspective, or was it paranoid, particularly with respect to what ID proponents would do if they ever got control of medical education?
Posted by: Paul Giem, M.D. | Jan 13, 2006 6:42:22 PM
Paul,
If you could point me to a directory, journal, or other published work that describes the ID theory you propound I would love to read it. I have been through Dembski's and Behe's work extensively and have found NO scientific claims.
This is your statement "3. Early claims of up to 97% of DNA being "junk", based on (pehaps overenthusiastic) application of evolutionary theory, have had to be drastically revised downward. Even pseudogenes, the "classic" example of "junk DNA", have been found to be at least sometimes useful for the organism. This was predicted by ID theory. (Again, be careful how you challenge.)" and I would love to see the theory that you describe. I have done my research into ID (albeit I admit my research into genetics is lacking so I will not comment on that) and I have found NO predictions offered by this theory. There is no empirical evidence, no testable hypothesis, NO science. If you could correct me on this I would love to see the evidence.
You also claim "1. Life appears as if it could reasonably have been designed. There is no remotely plausible pathway from inorganic materials to life using solely random methods, and natural selection requires differential reproduction, which requires reproduction. So chemical evolution is a misnomer." This has been shown to be, at least as far as "no remotely plausible pathway from inorganic materials to life", to be false. See here for a better discussion of ID. Also this statement is arguing form a human perspective that a designer would have "human" design qualities. This is a flawed line of reasoning. The assumptions you make at the outset are falliable and therefore this argument does not hold water.
Also, in #2 you claim "Many forms of life appear to be designed. Yet they give no evidence in the fossil record of having been evolved from other organisms. For example, there are no fossil ancestors for the early arthropods. (Fair warning: Do not contradict until you have done your homework carefully. Failure to do so may result in embarrassment.)". Where is you EVIDENCE for this design? Lack of evidence on the evolutionary side does not mean that the evidence does not exist. It is the same to say that YOU cannot prove that GOD exists, therefore he does not exist. I recognize this fallacy hopefully you can too. An argument form LACK of evidence is not proof of the other thesis.
Posted by: RealmKnight | Jan 16, 2006 10:32:59 AM
RealmKnight,
You will note that the question to which I was responding, posed by Ed, was what scientific evidence CMDA had for design. I prefaced my answer by "I don't know precisely the scientific claims that CMDA was talking about. However, I can list a few:" One can find references to some of these claims in various places. I am not immediately aware of any published work that collects all these claims together in the same place. This is my own collection.
You appear not to have read either Dembski or Behe with very much understanding. Dembski states that an event has not been found, and predicts that one will not be found, that is independently specifiable, that is not required by natural law, and that has a probability of less than 10^150, that was not designed and at least partly created by an intelligent agent. That is an empirical claim, and can reasonably be considered scientific. It also appears to be true, outside of various forms of life, the origin of which is disputed and which therefore cannot logically be used as a counterexample without begging the question.
Behe states that some subsystems of life are irreducibly complex. That is, they are not operable until they are essentially completed, so there is no selective pressure to improve them until they are 99+% complete. Darwinian natural selection is fundamentally incapable of producing such systems. Assuming a variety of neck lengths, Darwinian evolution is capable of gradually selecting for longer necks (because a 3-foot neck could reasonably be better than a 2-foot neck, etc.), so that the Darwinian explanation for the neck of the giraffe could have a certain plausibility. But Behe makes the (scientific) claim that Darwinian evolution cannot account for such systems as the flagellum, because if one has 29 of the 30 proteins, the flagellum does not convey any more of a survival value than if one has, say, 15 of the 30 proteins. That is a testable claim. The fact that you missed it suggests not vey careful reading.
On my point 3, three references may be helpful. A recent statement of the general theory can be found here. An article that discusses early evolutionary expectations of up to 97% of DNA being "junk", and gives a fairly modern overview of the subject, can be found here. An article predicting that DNA would be found to have less "junk" than was predicted by naturalistic theoreticians at the time, and specifically predicting that pseudogenes might have some function, can be found here. Hopefully these resources will point you to some of the evidence (and be some evidence themselves).
You say,
"This has been shown to be, at least as far as "no remotely plausible pathway from inorganic materials to life", to be false."
I assume from your statement that you believe that there is at least one "remotely plausible pathway from inorganic materials to life. This means that either you know this pathway, in which case I would like to see it detailed, or you do not. In that case you simply have faith that someone else knows the pathway without ever having checked it out yourself. Forgive me if I do not share that faith.
My lack of faith is not just because I have faith in something else. It is at least partly because I know at least some of the roadblocks in the way of such a pathway. A few of them are as follows:
1. Not all the amino acids needed for proteins are formed by Miller-Urey type apparati, certainly not in amounts compatible with inclusion in relevant proteins.
2. No method not requiring intelligence has been found at present to effectively separate L-amino acids from D-amino acids (or sugars, for that matter-modern life contains L-amino acids and D-sugars).
3. Adenine (and possibly traces of guanine) have been made by Miller-Urey type apparati, but not cytosine, uracil, or thymine.
4. Sugars, necessary for RNA, are formed only with poor yield, with high concentrations of formaldehyde, and without the presence of ammonia (which turns them into amino sugars but is necessary to form amino acids).
5. No mechanism not requiring intelligence currently is known to create nucleosides (RNA or DNA bases bonded to the 1-carbon of ribose or deoxyribose).
6. No mechanism not requiring intelligence currently is known to create nucleotides from nucleosides (that is, to attach a phosphate, let alone a triple phosphate, to the 5’-carbon of a nucleoside).
7. Nuceotides (triple phosphate) are hard to polymerize spontaneously, and when they do, ribose-containing nucleotides tend to polymerize with 2’-5’ links rather than the 3’-5’ links found in RNA
8. Soup from Miller-Urey type apparati does not form long-chain peptides. The only long-chain peptides that have been formed took purified amino acids, with aspartic and/or glutamic acids making up approximately 2/3 of the amino acids, and heating them dry to a carefully controlled range. The polymers formed contained 2/3 aspartic and/or glutamic acids (not surprisingly) and did not show significant catalytic activity.
9. RNA that was formed catalytically from nucleoside triphosphates tended to shorten to the smallest RNA that would reproduce.
10. The probability of getting either DNA or RNA to code for the proteins and structural RNA necessary for the smallest free-living cell are vanishingly small, even given the entire time and mass of the universe. Natural selection cannot help this process, because natural selection requires differential reproduction, and differential reproduction requires reproduction.
11. Simply mixing the proteins, RNA, DNA, and membranes does not produce life. That is why Aristotelian spontaneous generation was finally abandoned.
Since you referred me to your (relatively fact-free) discussion of ID, it is probably fair for me to note that the above 11 roadblocks were detailed (and later discussed) here, about 2/5 of the way down the comments. (The list, again, is my own.)
I don't understand why one should assume that a designer that created life must be completely different from human designers. You go on to state that "The assumptions you make at the outset are falliable and therefore this argument does not hold water." All assumptions are fallible, including ones that state that the supernatural does not exist or that naturalistc explanations are preferred over supernaturalistic ones. Does that mean that every argument for naturalism "does not hold water"?
To my statement ""Many forms of life appear to be designed", you ask, "where is the EVIDENCE for this design?" It is staring you in the face. It is one thing to insist that the appearance of design is deceptive. It is another thing entirely it insist that there is no appearance of design at all. I will grant that it is at least theoretically possible that the appearance of design is deceptive. But to insist that there is no appearance of design whatever is to be ignorant or willfully blind. Even Dawkins doesn't go that far:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Or, as George Gaylord Simpson put it:
"A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously, its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that purpose. An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature."
So there is abundant evidence for design.
You go on to state, "Lack of evidence on the evolutionary side does not mean that the evidence does not exist." If you mean that the fact that we don't have evidence now doesn't mean that wecan't possibly find it later, I would agree. But notice what you are arguing for. You are arguing that we should ignore the positive evidence for design, and the lack of evidence for naturalistic explanations, and believe in evolution anyway. This would appear to be a leap of faith against the evidence. Please forgive me if I stick with the evidence.
Let's come back to the original point. Was the NEJM article being reasonable or paranoid about what ID advocates would do if they got control of medicine?
Posted by: Paul Giem, M.D. | Jan 20, 2006 12:03:07 PM
