EVEN Creationists accept micro-evolution...they have no choice because of the appearance of antibiotic resistant pathogens from over use of antibiotics........, a direct result of Darwinism....SO..YES...Medicine must be conscious of evolution.
Ofcourse Science claims all forms of life on this planet evolved including man from apes. Creationists ...., who claim to believe the Bible is God's Word....believe man was made by God in HIS Image by "Intelligent Design." Ironically, Science is WRONG about man evolving from apes and the Creationists are RIGHT, however, Creationists have the mechanism all WRONG because they do not fully understand the plural Hebrew word for God ...."ELOHIM."
NOTE: The Christian Doctrine of the "Trinity" does NOT resolve the plural "ELOHIM" in the Book of Genesis because the plural requires "separate" parts and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE as Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ in Greek) revealed.
The mechanism for "Intelligent Design" for Creationists is "magic" or the "supernatural." The "supernatural" implies that the Laws of God are "violated." Since God is PERFECT..His Laws are PERFECT therefore the violation of those Laws is non-sequitur. (As the illusionist the "Amazing Kreskin said..."The supernatural is the undiscovered natural.") Ironically, Science KNOWS the mechanism of the Creation of man but because they reject God and the Bible they are unaware of it. Creationists would embrace the discovery of how God Created Adam if they had not created a "fear" that Science is incompatible with God's Word. Sadly..this "fear" has resulted in the acceptance of "pseudo-science" and the "elite power brokers" who are trying to replace God with secularism (Novus Ordo Seclorum) are quite adept to using ignorance of Science and fear to control humanity and bring in the "Secular New World Order.". The illusion of man made global warming is one of the biggest examples of how the "elites" are controlling mankind.....especially in attempting to remove the last obstacle to Novus Ordo Seclorum.....AMERICA! .
NOTE: Just today (5-29-15) it was revealed that the "Great chocolate diet" was a hoax. The researches who did the "chocolate" study revealed that the hypothesis was to test to see how the news media and government accept a lot of pseudoscience as fact. The study proves that Nazi Josef Goebbels postulate is true.."Tell a lie big enough and long enough and it becomes truth."
If Creationists really understood the "ELOHIM" and Science actually accepted the REALITY of the "ELOHIM" they BOTH would realize that the "Intelligent Design" of God used the Law of Recombinant DNA (rDNA) to Create Adam in His Image. The 95% common genome between ape and Homo sapiens implies ancestral relationship but the general mechanism of Darwinian Natural Selection cannot resolve the problem of chromosome number mismatch between the taxons of Phylum, Class and Order in the plant and animal Kingdoms. (An example of this mismatch issue is the cross between horse and donkey resulting in sterile mule offspring...."no offspring...no evolution!") (NOTE: Chromosomes are the "packaging units of DNA" for equal distribution in mitosis (cell division) I therefore suspect that the plant and animal Phyla were created by rDNA "Intelligent Design" as well.
In addition to this chromosome issue, ..the ONLY source of "new natural" genetic codes is DNA mutation caused by radiation, electromagnestism, chemical and spontaneous changes in DNA replication. The PROBLEM is that 99% of all mutations are "lethal" and less than 1% of the positive mutations occur in germ tissue that form the sex cells needed create offspring for Natural Selection to act on. This fact suggests that the "time" of the appearance of Simians (ape) to the creation of Homo sapiens by rDNA is no where near the "time" necessary to accomplish the creation of man, EVEN if it were possible. "Intelligent Design" by Recombinant DNA does explain completely the 95% common genome between man and apes and resolves the chromosome and lethal mutation issues and all objections to evolution raised by Creationists. It even supports the Biblical Scripture in Genesis where it states "each kind of plant and animal begets its' own kind." The "ELOHIM" is verified in rDNA and vice versa.
The Bible itself reveals the information that does explain the "ELOHIM" of Genesis and it was confirmed in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago and the following Scriptures reveal this TRUTH...... Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16......When one truly understands these TRUTHS....they realize that God is NOT separate from His Creation but that He dwells within and works through His Creation AND His PERFECT Laws. Scripture tells us that "The Heavens declare the Glory of God" so Creation has not "fallen"..it is "man who has fallen and is redeemed ONLY through Jesus Christ's Sacrifice on the Roman Cross. A :"hint" of the Image of God can be seen in the Scripture that tells us to be kind, courteous, respectful and hospitalble to everyone we meet because we never know when we are in the presence of an Angel of God...they look like us!
Does Medical Science Need Evolutionary Science?
Casey Luskin May 28, 2015 3:26 AM | Permalink
Recently the Christian Post interviewed me about comments by astronaut John Glenn on whether evolution is compatible with religion, and whether evolution should be taught in public schools. Although the vast majority of the interview was about science education policy, I was quoted as saying only one thing: "Some definitions of evolution are completely compatible with a belief in God and others aren't. That is a key aspect of evolution we need to remember."
Which is true, but there's so much more to talk about than that.
The article did quote extensively from Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education. And that's fine. I have no objection to him presenting his viewpoint on evolution, but it's too bad readers missed the other side of the discussion. Intelligent design theorists have potent scientific arguments and rebuttals to many evolutionary claims. Those deserve to be heard as well.
Rosenau said one thing that calls for a specific response since you hear it all the time. He claimed that "how well we understand evolution is critical to how we understand the human person and advances in medicine." What about that? Is evolutionary theory "critical" to medicine?
Well, there are many in the sciences who would disagree with Josh Rosenau. David Klinghoffer wrote about this last week, explaining that many doctors feel evolution is not at relevant to practicing medicine. In fact, a poll of doctors from 2006 (reported by the Christian Post, no less) found that at least 34 percent of U.S. physicians think intelligence played a role in the origin of humans. That's a very significant portion of doctors who support intelligent design.
On the flipside, evolutionary science has hindered medical research by promulgating the now-defunct concept of "junk DNA". That's the evolution-based idea that most of the DNA in human cells is useless junk. It's now known that the vast majority of our DNA has function, but evolution discouraged research into "junk DNA." In this regard, with its faulty understanding of "the human person" as being the result of strictly blind physical mechanisms, evolution has obstructed "advances in medicine."
Many other examples could be given. For another, evolutionary science has wrongly assumed that many organs are "vestigial" and thus unnecessary or unimportant. Those organs include the appendix, tonsils, coccyx, and thyroid. It's now known that each of those organs plays an important role in human physiology. By presuming nonfunctionality or reduced functionality in these organs, evolutionary science did great medical damage to many patients.
Want to know more? We discuss these topics in the curriculum Discovering Intelligent Design. See Chapter 12, titled "Poorly Designed Arguments." Now, we've made a new online component of our curriculum available as well, and it's free.
DID-FB-5.jpg
Of course the classic case where evolutionary biology is said to aid medicine is in fighting antibiotic resistant bacteria. And yes, those microbes are a serious problem, resulting from the operation of natural selection, a phenomenon that no one denies. The problem must be dealt with, but such resistance typically entails extremely small-scale change in bacteria. The important claim that Darwinism makes has to do with its supposed ability to account for major, not minor, change.
In fighting antibiotic resistance, Darwin's theory actually provides little guidance. Indeed, quite the opposite. As SUNY Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor has written here, "Darwinism tells us that ... bacteria survive antibiotics that they're not sensitive to, so non-killed bacteria will eventually outnumber killed bacteria. That's it."
To create drugs that outsmart evolving bacteria or cancer cells, biomedical researchers must use a process of intelligent design. They create drug cocktails that bank upon the fact that there are limits to how much living things can evolve on their own. Far from being evidence for Darwinian theory, antibiotic resistant bacteria point to what Michael Behe has called "the edge of evolution," beyond which unguided Darwinian processes are powerless.
As even evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne admits, evolutionary theory has yielded few practical benefits.
[T]ruth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
(Jerry Coyne, "Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?," reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)
I don't think the author of the Christian Post article was intentionally trying to leave out this information. It was probably just an oversight, or due to his newness to the issues. But as I mentioned, if you want a comprehensive introduction to the arguments for intelligent design, check out Discovering Intelligent Design and be sure to also use our new online component.
Image: © WavebreakMediaMicro / Dollar Photo Club.
