Thursday, February 12, 2009
Today marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, and despite mountains of evidence, many Americans still do not accept the biological theory of evolution. Kansans have had a particularly bad relationship with evolution ever since the school board tried to remove it from the curriculum nearly 10 years ago. Most of those who object to the theory may do so on ideological grounds, but many more seem disinterested in how the theory of evolution could have any importance in our modern society. Do Darwin’s evolving finches of the past really affect the world of the future? Doctors, scientists and others need to understand the importance of evolution, because the next generation of major medical challenges will require an understanding of Darwin’s controversial theory.
Because evolution is such an all-encompassing theory, sometimes it is easy to overlook its peripheral effects. Such is the case with many of our drugs. Aspirin was first extracted from the bark of willow trees, paclitaxel (an anti-cancer drug) was discovered in Pacific yew trees, and Botox is derived from the bacteria that cause botulism. Although these drugs may differ in many ways, they are all natural products of evolution. Developing new drugs for any illness, from cancer to viral infection, relies very heavily on natural products, the availability of which is due to the diversifying effect of evolution on all earthly life. Evolution is providing the raw resources in our fight against a wide variety of illnesses.
A prime example is our reliance on and overuse of antibiotics, which has bottle-necked many species of deadly bacteria into resistance. In the early days of antibiotics, infections from bacteria could be treated with simple penicillin without complications. Today, bacteria have quickly evolved to have a resistance to these drugs, forcing us to develop novel antibiotics at an alarming rate. There are already cases of lethal bacterial infections that are resistant to antibiotics. The most famous is MRSA. The Center for Disease Control has reported that, in 2005, this bacterium was responsible for more deaths per year than AIDS. And even as we implement one of our newest antibiotic drugs, Vancomycin, cases of resistant strains are already being reported.
Evolution is propagating this resistance as natural selection works to weed out weaker, less-resistant strains of bacteria. The only way to begin combating this growth of antibacterial-resistance is for scientists and doctors to understand the mechanisms and processes of evolution.
Our knowledge and treatment of viruses is also heavily dependent on our knowledge of evolution. The most infamous virus capable of potent evolution is HIV. This virus can mutate so quickly that there is diversity among strains within a single individual with HIV. The reason so many HIV drugs need to be given to patients is that the virus can quickly adapt resistance to them via evolution. Understanding the subtleties of evolution was absolutely essential in the development of these drugs.
From bacteria to drugs, evolution is inseparable from the practice of medicine. Clearly, when it comes to combating this next generation of medical challenges, everyone will need a solid understanding of the unifying principle of life: evolution.
— Folmsbee is a Topeka junior in neurobiology.
Armed robbers continue to threaten.
3 comments
A member of the Westboro Baptist Church holds ...
2 comments
Obama may be reconsidering his plans to open ...
1 comment
Good 'ol American hospitality...
1 comment
Junior right fielder Brian Heere gives teammates fist ...
1 comment
Lisa Donnelly, a 2002 KU graduate, sits at ...
1 comment
Comments
Folmsbee: Darwin day recognizes evolution's importance
As a Catholic I have never had a problem with evolution, so I have no understanding of the controversy that is in some peoples minds. Of course, Catholics do not take the Bible literally either, so that opens up a whole new can of worms with the radical Prots. I see science as the way we study the world around us and find out what makes it tick. I am fascinated by quantum physics though I only have a basic knowledge of it. As we develop better technology we will be able to see things we could never see before from the farthest star system to the quark. (Three quarks for Master Mark!) There was a time when there was no understanding of exactly how humans reproduce because there were no microscopes powerful enough to allow them to see the sperm or the egg. But, who today would deny they exist? Evolution happens in many ways, in increments, in fits and starts and in giant leaps in some cases. It is real and we are part of it.
Folmsbee: Darwin day recognizes evolution's importance
Evolution remains solidly incompatible with Christianity. Why? Three important reasons.
"Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought." --- Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition.
"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." --- Nature, "Evolution and the Brain", June 14, 2007.
"The image-of-God thesis does not go along with just any theistic view. It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man." --- evolutionist James Rachels, from his 1990 book Created From Animals.
Romans 5:12-17 links the historicity of Adam and the Fall (the big problem) with the historicity of Jesus and his atoning sacrifice on the Cross (the big solution.)
So if the former is non-historical and non-literal, so is the latter. But if Jesus and the Cross are non-historical and non-literal, then kiss Christianity bye-bye, forever.
So yes, evolution is BIG-TIME incompatible with Christianity. There's no doubt about that.
"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries..."
So let's not be so quick to buy what evolutionists are selling. Let's check out ALL sides of the science story, as much as possible, and insist on some healthy skepticism.
For example, Sai Folmsbee's essay cited antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution. But are there problems, are there weaknesses, associated with that particular example?
The answer is "Yes". Check out microbiologist Dr. Scott Minnich's explanation (and nice animation) on YouTube:
Is antibiotic resistance evidence for Darwinian evolution? by DiscoveryInstitute
A most interesting presentation!
Folmsbee: Darwin day recognizes evolution's importance
Who said anything about denying science?
Go take a look at Dr. Scott Minnich's discussion of antibiotic resistance on YouTube. Plenty of good science there.
Folmsbee: Darwin day recognizes evolution's importance
Hey Sai: I like your article. You did a nice job proving that evolution is true using the fallacious argument that has been taught to every American in every science class and on every science television show we have ever seen. You, and most apologists for evolution, are committing the logical fallacy of "equivocation." You are using the term evolution in your argument that actually means "MICRO-evolution" which is scientifically indisputable. Of course life adapts. A poodle and a labrador can be bred to create a labradoodle. Finch beaks lengthen when shorter beaked birds die off in a drought. The problem is, that in a verbal sleight of hand, you switch meanings on us.
Your argument is analagous to one like this: "Man needs oxygen, water and food to survive, but women are fine without it."
When you write that because we accept that micro evolution is true, we must also concur that MACRO-evolution (an unguided natural process for creating life) is also true, you are using a very common, sometimes convincing logically fallacious argument. Prove that macro evolution is true using a logically sound argument and scientifically supportable evidence. That is an entirely different article. All the best, The Logic Lady
Or login with:
OpenID