Friday, June 03, 2005
Intelligent Design Meets Quack Medicine
"Darwinian evolution, despite the claims of its defenders, has been remarkably unsuccessful in guiding practical research in biology and medicine," says Jonathan Wells. "Although ID is still controversial in the scientific community, some of us are now using it to formulate testable hypotheses...
"The interesting thing here is that scientists are applying intelligent design theory to cancer research," said Discovery Institute President, Bruce Chapman. "Who knows what new avenues of research and experimentation this could open up. I think you will see more and more scientists applying intelligent design theory to their research in coming years."
A 1998 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, included in an online article on Quackwatch, "Be Wary of 'Alternative' Health Methods" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is well-worth reading in this context:
"There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking."
Barrett goes on to say:
Just as there is no effective alternative medicine, there is no productive alternative science. It is fascinating to Red State Rabble how the overblown claims of medical quacks who prey on those who are desperate to cure their physical ailments have now come to mirror so closely the predatory claims of the intelligent design "theorists" who appeal primarily to the psychically needy among us."Under the rules of science, people who make the claims bear the burden of proof. It is their responsibility to conduct suitable studies and report them in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and confirmation by others. Instead of subjecting their work to scientific standards, promoters of questionable "alternatives" would like to change the rules by which they are judged and regulated. "Alternative" promoters may give lip service to these standards. However, they regard personal experience, subjective judgment, and emotional satisfaction as preferable to objectivity and hard evidence. Instead of conducting scientific studies, they use anecdotes and testimonials to promote their practices and political maneuvering to keep regulatory agencies at bay."







