Wednesday, March 28, 2007
It Ain't Brain Surgery
You know Michael Egnor, the new kid on the block at the Discovery Institute? The one who is proving that brain surgery is nothing like rocket science? Maybe more like meat cutting than any of us would like to think?
He's got a new post up today proving that Darwin's theory of evolution isn't necessary to the practice of modern medicine or comparative biology.
Why should we need evolution today, asks Egnor, after all Aristotle, Galen, Vesalius, Harvey, and Linnaeus did just fine without it.
Of course, they got along just fine without antibiotics or the germ theory of disease, too. Hell, do we really need electricity? They got along just fine without it. It's just a theory, after all.
Apparently, Egnor took his head out of his Bible long enough to learn that Darwinists offer three reasons that evolution is essential for modern medicine: comparative medicine, molecular genetics, and bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Red State Rabble doesn't claim to be either a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon, but we'll offer a fourth reason Egnor hasn't thought of: The testing of new drugs for safety and efficacy in laboratory animals.
If as intelligent design activists like Egnor insist "life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." there would be no sound medical or scientific reason for testing experimental drugs in any organism other than humans.
The reason drugs are tested in rats and other lab animals is because we share a common ancestor -- a common genetic heritage -- with these other species, and that tells us a lot about how drugs will work in humans.
Hey, common ancestry, isn't that something Darwin observed?
He's got a new post up today proving that Darwin's theory of evolution isn't necessary to the practice of modern medicine or comparative biology.
Why should we need evolution today, asks Egnor, after all Aristotle, Galen, Vesalius, Harvey, and Linnaeus did just fine without it.
Of course, they got along just fine without antibiotics or the germ theory of disease, too. Hell, do we really need electricity? They got along just fine without it. It's just a theory, after all.
Apparently, Egnor took his head out of his Bible long enough to learn that Darwinists offer three reasons that evolution is essential for modern medicine: comparative medicine, molecular genetics, and bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Red State Rabble doesn't claim to be either a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon, but we'll offer a fourth reason Egnor hasn't thought of: The testing of new drugs for safety and efficacy in laboratory animals.
If as intelligent design activists like Egnor insist "life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." there would be no sound medical or scientific reason for testing experimental drugs in any organism other than humans.
The reason drugs are tested in rats and other lab animals is because we share a common ancestor -- a common genetic heritage -- with these other species, and that tells us a lot about how drugs will work in humans.
Hey, common ancestry, isn't that something Darwin observed?
