|
 In
the field of medicine, creationists are considered hopelessly behind the
times. Endlessly we hear the same old rhetoric: "Evolution is the
cornerstone of modern biology." In a recent New York Times
online article is found the quote: "Evolution is the basis of biology,
biology is the basis of medicine…You’re messing with something important
when you mess with evolution." See "Seeing
Creation and Evolution in the Grand Canyon,"
www.nytimes.com, October 6, 2005.
As a practicing
physician I have had cause to examine these claims for the importance of
evolutionary thought in my daily interaction with patients. I have also
sought the input of many colleagues as to whether or not any
evolutionary input is needed for them to adequately serve society in
their capacity as physicians. Regardless of any individual’s particular
religious persuasion (many of my colleagues being avowed atheists or
theistic evolutionists who mock me constantly for my young earth
creationist stance), not one example could be put forth of the need for
evolution or belief in its tenets to practice modern medicine.
Evolutionists are
quick to use many unsupportable arguments to promote their beliefs. The
most often used example is that of antibiotic resistance. They argue
(quite vociferously at times) that one must understand bacteria will
evolve to a state of resistance to a particular antibiotic if that
antibiotic is overused. 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. For instance, there are examples of antibiotic
resistance found in bacteria recovered from the frozen corpses of people
who died before the use of antibiotics. Much antibiotic resistance
results from natural selection of populations of already resistant
bacteria. Antibiotics will kill susceptible organisms, and the
resistant organisms survive.
Another mechanism of
resistance is that occurring when a mutation takes place that might, for
example, cause a defect in the bacteria’s ability to transport the
antibiotic into the cell, thus rendering the bacteria resistant to that
particular antibiotic. Another mutation might change a binding site
used by the antibiotic within the cell, thus rendering it unable to kill
the cell. What is never brought out is the fact that any mutation will
result in a loss in 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 proposed to explain how organisms become more
complex over time. This 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.
Evolutionists have
also over the years pointed out the many so-called "vestigial organs" in
the human body. It was their contention that these many organs were
leftovers from millions of years of onward, upward evolutionary
processes and no longer had a useful function. It can be argued that
this viewpoint actually hindered the advancement of medicine as many
accepted this concept of vestigial organs and thus expended no effort to
seek out possible functions for these organs. For example, for many
years the thymus gland was held to be a nonfunctioning leftover of
evolution. Many children had their thymus gland irradiated needlessly.
We now understand the thymus gland’s important function in the
development of a normal immune system. The appendix, the pineal gland,
tonsils, and the coccyx are further examples of organs long held to be
leftovers from evolution but now known to have important functions in
the development and function of our bodies. Again it would seem that
evolution has been a hindrance rather than a help in the practice of
medicine. In fact, there are ‘vestigial organs’ in the human body—but
left over from our embryological development. That is nothing to do
with evolution.
Another more recent
controversy has revolved around the so-called "poorly designed eye."
Evolutionists argue that the human eye is poorly designed due to the
photoreceptors being located behind the nerve fibers. When one
understands how the photons of light are transformed into electrical
energy in the retina, and the need for a massive blood supply, the
marvelous design of the eye becomes apparent. For instance, the
receptors respond to just one photon of light—the smallest unit of
light! There is no "bad design," just a faulty understanding (or perhaps
faulty presupposition) on the part of the evolutionist.
Examination of the
issue reveals evolution has nothing to offer in regard to operational
science, in medicine or otherwise. That is, any endeavor requiring
scientific experimentation in the present can be carried on adequately
and completely without any input from molecules to man evolution and its
tenets. Where then, is the evidence of the foundational nature of
evolution to medical practice? It can only be concluded that there is
an obvious need to hang on to a worldview that excludes a Creator God,
regardless of the lack of empiric evidence to support such a view.
Thus far it seems
that evolution cannot be shown to be in any way vital to the practice of
medicine—but there is a further issue to be dealt with. What about
man’s suffering? What about death? How does the evolutionist explain
these things? If evolution is true (for the sake of argument, you
understand), how does a physician understand illness and human tragedy?
The entire basis for evolution is that untold millions of years ago,
life began spontaneously from primordial pond scum. Over the ensuing
eons, life became more and more complex and progressed via the process
of survival of the fittest. This unfeeling, merciless, pitiless,
unstoppable process has resulted in countless creatures being killed,
torn apart, and slaughtered by the "survivors." Those less able to
adapt, less able to find food, injured, or in some other way found less
worthy in the eyes of evolution fell by the way side. As Carl Sagan
said, ‘the secrets of evolution are time and death.’ Humans are
supposedly the result of this process.
Can it not be argued
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 of evolution, where is there room for pity? Where does one
show concern for his fellow man? Are these actions and emotions not at
odds with the prime driving force of evolution, that is, survival of the
fittest? Even Darwin himself addressed this issue:
"With savages, the
weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the
other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build
asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor
laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of
everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination
has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly
have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society
propagate their kind.
No one who has
attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must
be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want
of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a
domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone
is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which
we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result
of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of
the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously
indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our
sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature
... We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind." (Charles
Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134,
1887)
On the other
hand, the creationist has answers to these issues. If the Lord did,
indeed, create the world in six literal days and pronounced His creation
"very good," where did suffering come from? The answer is that it’s
"our fault"! When Adam rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden, he,
in effect, said that he wanted to make his owns decisions and live apart
from God’s authority. This is where death and suffering arose. Since
the time of the Fall, "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in
pain together until now" (Romans 8:22).
Death and suffering has been the result until this day.
The concept of
helping the weak and the suffering is an entirely Christian outlook. 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 needs question himself about his motives as he is
actively working against the natural processes that he claims have
brought man to his present condition.
Beginning with the
wrong understanding of the origin of life will be detrimental to
medicine and technology—only starting with the correct history of life
and understanding design suffering from the effects of sin (as recorded
in Genesis), will one have the ability to build a consistent worldview
to enable us to develop a right approach in medicine and every other
area.
* Robert T. (Tommy) Mitchell, M.D. is a graduate of
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and practices Internal Medicine
in Gallatin, Tennessee. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and
is a Fellow of The American College of Physicians. For many years he
has spoken and written on issues related to the creation/evolution
debate. In 2005, Dr. Mitchell was asked to join Answers in Genesis
Ministries as a seminar speaker. |
