Darwinism and popular culture: Darwinism becoming the West's myth,
doctor says

I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics.

"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-culture-darwinism.html



Thursday, June 28, 2007

Darwinism and popular culture: Darwinism becoming the West's myth,
doctor says


My friend and colleague Deborah Gyapong reports on a recent talk by
Dr. John Patrick, Ottawa pediatrician and retired professor of
medicine, noting that

the "Darwinian myth" is becoming the "ordering myth" for the West,
replacing the Christian story, with potentially disastrous
consequences.

"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"

Darwin's theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest and of
evolutionary progress are making an impact on health care, even though
Patrick describes the art of medicine as "very anti-Darwinist" in its
care for the sick and the vulnerable. But that is changing as society
becomes "profoundly incoherent," he said.

Patrick was speaking at a conference of Christian medical doctors, June
3-9 at St. Augustine College in Ottawa. Unfortunately, other speakers
attempted to soothe the audience with tales of some kind of
accommodation with Darwinism, as long as the Darwinists would just
remember that Darwinism is not supposed to be the ordering myth of the
West. Yeah really.

The most interesting aspect of the current aggressive promotion of
evolutionary medicine (Darwinism in medicine and veterinaray practice )
is its sheer clinical uselessness.

The proclamations are grand, to be sure:

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution," is
the oft-quoted title of a 1973 article for biology teachers by the great
evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. In it, he writes, "Seen in
the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most
satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile
of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no
meaningful picture as a whole."

Evolution's role is equally central in the subset of biology addressing
human health and disease. The co-evolution of humans and our pathogens,
the rapidly shifting resistance of those pathogens to our antibiotics,
and our persistent vulnerability to chronic disease all gain
significance when viewed in the context of continuing evolution. These
subjects form the core of "Darwinian medicine," also known as
"evolutionary medicine."

But how exactly do these ills "gain significance when viewed in the
context of continuing evolution"? For the purpose of counselling and
treatment of the patient in the present day, it hardly matters when they
appeared or who - besides immediate ancestors and sibs, and people who
live nearby - has them.

Consider, for example, an illness for which there is apparently a
genetic predisposition: alcoholism. Fundamentally, the patient has
decisions to make (Will I drink or not? Will I get drunk or not?) What
if Alley Oop had the same problem? What if he didn't?

For that matter, what if there is really no genetic predisposition to
alcoholism? It makes no difference to the patient in the end. He either
drinks or he doesn't, and accepts the consequences.

One could say the same thing about obesity, that other scourge of the
family practitioner's office in prosperous countries everywhere. If the
Willendorf Venus was fat, so what? What if she had been thin? I doubt
that most Stone Age women were as certain of their next meal as she must
have been. But in the end, today's woman decides whether she wants
obesity, along with its problems, or not. And she's the only one who can
really do something about it.

Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics. We helped the bugs get where they are. We could stop
helping them. But that doesn't mean telling the old, old story of
Darwinism over and over again; it means getting patients to accept
alternative treatments. They will only do that if they can be persuaded
that other approaches work.

I suspect that Darwinian medicine will just go the way of evolutionary
psychology. I wonder how much harm it will do first.

"Darwinism Is Becoming The West's Myth" - Osama Bin Laden

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-cult...

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Darwinism and popular culture: Darwinism becoming the West's myth,
doctor says

My friend and colleague Deborah Gyapong reports on a recent talk by
Dr. John Patrick, Ottawa pediatrician and retired professor of
medicine, noting that

the "Darwinian myth" is becoming the "ordering myth" for the West,
replacing the Christian story, with potentially disastrous
consequences.

"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"

Darwin's theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest and of
evolutionary progress are making an impact on health care, even though
Patrick describes the art of medicine as "very anti-Darwinist" in its
care for the sick and the vulnerable. But that is changing as society
becomes "profoundly incoherent," he said.

Patrick was speaking at a conference of Christian medical doctors,
June 3-9 at St. Augustine College in Ottawa. Unfortunately, other
speakers attempted to soothe the audience with tales of some kind of
accommodation with Darwinism, as long as the Darwinists would just
remember that Darwinism is not supposed to be the ordering myth of the
West. Yeah really.

The most interesting aspect of the current aggressive promotion of
evolutionary medicine (Darwinism in medicine and veterinaray
practice ) is its sheer clinical uselessness.

The proclamations are grand, to be sure:

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution," is
the oft-quoted title of a 1973 article for biology teachers by the
great evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. In it, he writes,
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it
becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but
making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Evolution's role is equally central in the subset of biology
addressing human health and disease. The co-evolution of humans and
our pathogens, the rapidly shifting resistance of those pathogens to
our antibiotics, and our persistent vulnerability to chronic disease
all gain significance when viewed in the context of continuing
evolution. These subjects form the core of "Darwinian medicine," also
known as "evolutionary medicine."

But how exactly do these ills "gain significance when viewed in the
context of continuing evolution"? For the purpose of counselling and
treatment of the patient in the present day, it hardly matters when
they appeared or who - besides immediate ancestors and sibs, and
people who live nearby - has them.

Consider, for example, an illness for which there is apparently a
genetic predisposition: alcoholism. Fundamentally, the patient has
decisions to make (Will I drink or not? Will I get drunk or not?) What
if Alley Oop had the same problem? What if he didn't?

For that matter, what if there is really no genetic predisposition to
alcoholism? It makes no difference to the patient in the end. He
either drinks or he doesn't, and accepts the consequences.

One could say the same thing about obesity, that other scourge of the
family practitioner's office in prosperous countries everywhere. If
the Willendorf Venus was fat, so what? What if she had been thin? I
doubt that most Stone Age women were as certain of their next meal as
she must have been. But in the end, today's woman decides whether she
wants obesity, along with its problems, or not. And she's the only one
who can really do something about it.

Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics. We helped the bugs get where they are. We could stop
helping them. But that doesn't mean telling the old, old story of
Darwinism over and over again; it means getting patients to accept
alternative treatments. They will only do that if they can be
persuaded that other approaches work.

I suspect that Darwinian medicine will just go the way of evolutionary
psychology. I wonder how much harm it will do first.

alt.anarchism, alt.philosophy, alt.talk.creationism, rec.arts.sf.written

"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-cult...

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Darwinism and popular culture: Darwinism becoming the West's myth,
doctor says

My friend and colleague Deborah Gyapong reports on a recent talk by
Dr. John Patrick, Ottawa pediatrician and retired professor of
medicine, noting that

the "Darwinian myth" is becoming the "ordering myth" for the West,
replacing the Christian story, with potentially disastrous
consequences.

"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"

Darwin's theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest and of
evolutionary progress are making an impact on health care, even though
Patrick describes the art of medicine as "very anti-Darwinist" in its
care for the sick and the vulnerable. But that is changing as society
becomes "profoundly incoherent," he said.

Patrick was speaking at a conference of Christian medical doctors,
June 3-9 at St. Augustine College in Ottawa. Unfortunately, other
speakers attempted to soothe the audience with tales of some kind of
accommodation with Darwinism, as long as the Darwinists would just
remember that Darwinism is not supposed to be the ordering myth of the
West. Yeah really.

The most interesting aspect of the current aggressive promotion of
evolutionary medicine (Darwinism in medicine and veterinaray
practice ) is its sheer clinical uselessness.

The proclamations are grand, to be sure:

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution," is
the oft-quoted title of a 1973 article for biology teachers by the
great evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. In it, he writes,
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it
becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but
making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Evolution's role is equally central in the subset of biology
addressing human health and disease. The co-evolution of humans and
our pathogens, the rapidly shifting resistance of those pathogens to
our antibiotics, and our persistent vulnerability to chronic disease
all gain significance when viewed in the context of continuing
evolution. These subjects form the core of "Darwinian medicine," also
known as "evolutionary medicine."

But how exactly do these ills "gain significance when viewed in the
context of continuing evolution"? For the purpose of counselling and
treatment of the patient in the present day, it hardly matters when
they appeared or who - besides immediate ancestors and sibs, and
people who live nearby - has them.

Consider, for example, an illness for which there is apparently a
genetic predisposition: alcoholism. Fundamentally, the patient has
decisions to make (Will I drink or not? Will I get drunk or not?) What
if Alley Oop had the same problem? What if he didn't?

For that matter, what if there is really no genetic predisposition to
alcoholism? It makes no difference to the patient in the end. He
either drinks or he doesn't, and accepts the consequences.

One could say the same thing about obesity, that other scourge of the
family practitioner's office in prosperous countries everywhere. If
the Willendorf Venus was fat, so what? What if she had been thin? I
doubt that most Stone Age women were as certain of their next meal as
she must have been. But in the end, today's woman decides whether she
wants obesity, along with its problems, or not. And she's the only one
who can really do something about it.

Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics. We helped the bugs get where they are. We could stop
helping them. But that doesn't mean telling the old, old story of
Darwinism over and over again; it means getting patients to accept
alternative treatments. They will only do that if they can be
persuaded that other approaches work.

I suspect that Darwinian medicine will just go the way of evolutionary
psychology. I wonder how much harm it will do first.

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-cult...
[...]

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinism-and-popular-cult...

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Darwinism and popular culture: Darwinism becoming the West's myth,
doctor says

My friend and colleague Deborah Gyapong reports on a recent talk by
Dr. John Patrick, Ottawa pediatrician and retired professor of
medicine, noting that

the "Darwinian myth" is becoming the "ordering myth" for the West,
replacing the Christian story, with potentially disastrous
consequences.

"Who would you rationally trust when we legalize doctor-assisted
suicide?" he asked. "A Darwinist physician or a doctor who believes in
judgment after death?"

Darwin's theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest and of
evolutionary progress are making an impact on health care, even though
Patrick describes the art of medicine as "very anti-Darwinist" in its
care for the sick and the vulnerable. But that is changing as society
becomes "profoundly incoherent," he said.

Patrick was speaking at a conference of Christian medical doctors,
June 3-9 at St. Augustine College in Ottawa. Unfortunately, other
speakers attempted to soothe the audience with tales of some kind of
accommodation with Darwinism, as long as the Darwinists would just
remember that Darwinism is not supposed to be the ordering myth of the
West. Yeah really.

The most interesting aspect of the current aggressive promotion of
evolutionary medicine (Darwinism in medicine and veterinaray
practice ) is its sheer clinical uselessness.

The proclamations are grand, to be sure:

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution," is
the oft-quoted title of a 1973 article for biology teachers by the
great evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. In it, he writes,
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it
becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but
making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Evolution's role is equally central in the subset of biology
addressing human health and disease. The co-evolution of humans and
our pathogens, the rapidly shifting resistance of those pathogens to
our antibiotics, and our persistent vulnerability to chronic disease
all gain significance when viewed in the context of continuing
evolution. These subjects form the core of "Darwinian medicine," also
known as "evolutionary medicine."

But how exactly do these ills "gain significance when viewed in the
context of continuing evolution"? For the purpose of counselling and
treatment of the patient in the present day, it hardly matters when
they appeared or who - besides immediate ancestors and sibs, and
people who live nearby - has them.

Consider, for example, an illness for which there is apparently a
genetic predisposition: alcoholism. Fundamentally, the patient has
decisions to make (Will I drink or not? Will I get drunk or not?) What
if Alley Oop had the same problem? What if he didn't?

For that matter, what if there is really no genetic predisposition to
alcoholism? It makes no difference to the patient in the end. He
either drinks or he doesn't, and accepts the consequences.

One could say the same thing about obesity, that other scourge of the
family practitioner's office in prosperous countries everywhere. If
the Willendorf Venus was fat, so what? What if she had been thin? I
doubt that most Stone Age women were as certain of their next meal as
she must have been. But in the end, today's woman decides whether she
wants obesity, along with its problems, or not. And she's the only one
who can really do something about it.

Similarly, with antibiotic resistance (an often-cited passage in the
Gospel According to Darwin), I have it on good authority that the main
cause of the resistance is overprescription (and other overuse) of
antibiotics. We helped the bugs get where they are. We could stop
helping them. But that doesn't mean telling the old, old story of
Darwinism over and over again; it means getting patients to accept
alternative treatments. They will only do that if they can be
persuaded that other approaches work.

I suspect that Darwinian medicine will just go the way of evolutionary
psychology. I wonder how much harm it will do first.