Answers in Genesis has a nice post today called Evolution and Medicine. The author makes some very nice points, though the article is too superficial and doesn’t address the many contentions that might arise in such a discussion – in particular, Ed (one of our commenters) keeps claiming that diabetes treatment came out of an evolutionary view. I’ll have to research that. However, this article is a nice starting point, and summarizes the main issues regarding evolution and medicine.
…not one example could be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine.
Medicine and Antibiotic Resistance
Quite overlooked by the evolutionist are the multiple mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, none of which require or involve so-called evolutionary changes, which would add new information into the genome.
…any mutation will result in a loss of information due to the change in genetic material. Even in the very unusual occurrence of a so-called “beneficial” mutation, there is an ultimate loss of genetic information available to succeeding generations….Recently, similar arguments have been put forth to explain resistance in certain strains of the influenza virus. These arguments fail for the same reason. This loss of information is inconsistent with a biological model that proposes to explain how organisms become more complex over time. Loss of information is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, and fits well into a creationist model of biology. Thus, antibiotic resistance is not a valid argument for the Darwinian evolutionist.
Medicine and Vestigial Organs
It can be argued that this viewpoint actually hindered the advancement of medicine, as many accepted this concept of vestigial organs and expended no effort to seek out possible functions for these organs….In fact, there are “vestigial organs” in the human body – but left over from our embryonic development. That has nothing to do with “molecules-to-man” evolution.
Medicine and Questions of Why – Evolution Contrary to Compassion
Can one not argue that the evolutionist is inconsistent when insisting evolutionary thought is vital to the practice of medicine? Is it not more consistent to argue that there should be no doctors? If survival of the fittest is the mantra for evolutionists, where is there room for pity? Why does one show concern for his fellow man? Are these actions and emotions not at odds with the prime driving force of evolution – survival of the fittest?
The concept of helping the weak and the suffering is derived from a Christian outlook, not an evolutionary one. It has no foundation in evolution and its heartless process of survival of the fittest. To be consistent, a physician espousing an evolutionary worldview must question himself about his motives as he is actively working against the very natural processes that he claims have brought man to his present condition.
I’m sure many of our readers will have a problem with this conclusion, but this accusation can’t be simply dismissed by simply saying “just because you believe in evolution doesn’t mean you believe in Social Darwinism.” The weakness in this argument is that all disciplines of truth should be integrated, and because this world view can not be *logically* and simply integrated (or at all) with a worldview that includes compassion for the genetically “weak.” it is suspect.
Just another reason why the Creationist view is superior – not only is it more consistent with what we observe, it is more consistent with other disciplines of knowledge.