Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Anatomical redesign
- Kenneth Campbell (2 June 2006)
-
Format and Edit Human Body
- Kirti Kain (2 June 2006)
-
Inimitable contrivances......
- Andy Wood (3 June 2006)
-
PPS.
- Dominic C Horne (7 June 2006)
-
A supplement please
- Mussaddaq Iqbal (11 June 2006)
-
A reply-from a human view point
- Biji T Kurien (12 June 2006)
-
Other requests
- Jo Ann Rosenfeld MD (14 June 2006)
-
Not least
- Joseph More (18 June 2006)
-
An excellent blog but...
- Ivan Y Torshin (19 June 2006)
-
Shame on you!
- Said A H Abdallah (20 June 2006)
-
A Christian viewpoint
- elizabeth j murray, paul brown (20 June 2006)
-
The real problems with Human Being version 1.0
- Richard J Roberts (20 June 2006)
-
Re: A Christian viewpoint
- Jay Ilangaratne (21 June 2006)
-
Erm......?
- Andy Wood (22 June 2006)
-
Washing machines are not perfect
- Richard J Roberts (28 June 2006)
-
Refund available?
- Andy Wood (30 June 2006)
-
Believe, imagine, suppose, BELIEVE!
- Stephen Hayes (5 July 2006)
-
Retina or Cornea
- Andy Wood (8 July 2006)
-
The eye and all living organisms show evidence of design
- Richard J Roberts (17 July 2006)
-
Re: The eye and all living organisms show evidence of design
- stephen black (20 July 2006)
-
The retina again
- Andy Wood (20 July 2006)
-
Which model best fits the scientific data?
- RichardJ Roberts (23 July 2006)
-
Once again....
- Andy Wood (25 July 2006)
-
Hope for the blind
- Richard J Roberts (12 August 2006)
-
It's life Jim..........
- Andy Wood (13 August 2006)
-
Epilogue
- Richard J Roberts (15 August 2006)
|
|
|||
|
Kenneth Campbell, Clinical Information Officer (posted in private capacity) Leukaemia Research Fund
Send response to journal:
|
Perhaps I could offer a postscript to Paul Brown's "Letter to God". If, God, you wish to make life simpler for man, perhaps any redesign could supply us with six fingers, rather than 5 on each hand. The logical consequence of this would be the development of a base 12 numeric system rather than base 10. Just think of the convenience - 12 is exactly divisible by 2,3,4 and 6 whereas 10 is divisible only by 2 and 5. Those who have an extra digit due to polydactyly appear to cope very well. It would also seem a good idea to modify the testes so that they can produce sperm at a higher temperature and then perhaps you could safely tuck them out of harm's way inside the pelvic girdle? It has been many years since mine were last struck by a high speed projectile when playing sports, but I still vividly recall the intensity of pain which results from such impacts. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kirti Kain, Senior Lecturer Academic Unit of Molecular Vascular Medicine, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT
Send response to journal:
|
I would like to add to Dr Brown’s requests' to God if I may to improve upon the human body. God, when you fashioned us although your intentions for creating body hair were noble, in the present climate neither men nor women desire it except for on the scalp. Perhaps you could increase the density of scalp hair at the expense of body hair. Although it is creating jobs for cosmetic surgeons and beauticians, body hair is unsightly therefore please could you create the new version of a human being without the body hair. Maybe you could avoid extreme skin colours and just give everybody a uniform but a different shade of a suntan. Some sort of robust framework (internal bra) for the breasts in women would be beneficial for management and organisation of mammary tissue. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andy Wood, SHO Opthalmology Glasgow
Send response to journal:
|
Consider for a moment the eye. An organ of unsurpassed beauty, its evolution thought to be “absurd in the highest possible degree”. (1) Of course Darwin was a genius and went on to outline a possible pathway of eye evolution, a lesson lost on modern day “Intelligent Design” advocates. But the eye is hardly a perfect organ, or represents perfect design. Its lens becomes cloudy causing visual loss; its anterior chamber may be too narrow predisposing to angle closure glaucoma. The vitreous detaches causing visual obscuration and predisposes to retinal detachments. The retina is back to front, prone to holes and tears, the blood supply of the retina and optic nerve prone to occlusion or inflammation with the resultant irreversible visual loss. The nerve supply of the extra ocular muscles is another example, they show quite remarkable design flaws, in their origin, their pathways and terminations. The optic pathways are hardly organised in a sensible fashion, indeed they may be affected by a stroke, resulting in visual loss with anatomically untouched eyes. If the eye was designed, the designer is in need of urgent re- appraisal; of course the designer of human anatomy is natural selection, with its associated flaws and wasteful nature. As Darwin may have remarked about his theory and its objectors, once we understand his way of viewing things the objections will diminish or disappear. The subsequent results of over 150 years of research into Darwin’s theory have caused the objections to gradually diminish. We can only hope that in due course they disappear entirely. 1. Darwin, C. 1872. The Origin of Species, 6th Ed. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dominic C Horne, Salaried OOH GP GMED, Aberdeen AB25 2ZP
Send response to journal:
|
Another sensible modification would be the separation of the pipework for swallowing and breathing, greatly reducing the risk of choking and eliminating the risk of aspiration (thereby rendering the job of anaesthetists a lot less interesting). That wasn't very intelligent design, was it? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mussaddaq Iqbal, GP 63 Clarence Road, Derby DE23 6LR
Send response to journal:
|
Knowing God, set in His ways for mellennia and not apparently adept to the current culture of 'change',He is hardly likely to consider a re- design especially while so many suggestions are pouring in. As His ways are mysterious and beyond our comprehension, we do not know whether any costs are involved in re-designing and further more it seems highly unlikely that He will consider out sourcing as this will be against the spirit of being omnipotent. He might however consider, a little more favourably, adding a little supplement which in worldly terms will be not very difficult to make, will not affect the main design of the body at all (so His pride will not be hurt)and if for no body else, will be very cost effective for the NHS and convenient for patients and GPs alike. And that supplement is a THIRD EYE, strategically placed at the tip of the right Index finger for the right handed, and left for the left handed, under the hard protective shell of our nail, doing away with nail cutting at the same time. It will however need certain modern 21st century high tech modifications, i.e., ability to see through opaque materials like gloves and in the dark, may be xray vision as well. It will have to be stressed that no need for glasses ever or the whole design and its usefulness will fall apart. The technology is already available, only copy right and patent issues will have to be taken care of which I am sure should not pose any major problems for an Omnipotent with vast staff of competent angels. One of the many useful applications of this divine gadget will be during digital rectal or vaginal examination. It will cut down tremendously the need to refer for "further assessment" to secondary care for a host of presentations if the cause is not immediately visible to the conventional eyes or palpable by the finger not equipped with this, in my mind easily achievable, low cost blessing. The benefits for patients are not hard to fathom either. Think of the savings it will make by reducing the number of referrals and its implications for Practice Based Commissioning. Given that this will be the only provision that I know, with benefits for all parties concerned, that is, patients, doctors and politicians (by improving finances), I think this request should be submitted to God by BMA via BMJ and at the same time LMCs and GPC should get involved as well. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Biji T Kurien, Senior Research Scientist Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, USA, 73104
Send response to journal:
|
Even though it is tempting to write a "reply" from God's view point, such an act is dutifully refrained from for obvious reasons. However, succumbing to the temptation to post a reply from the point of view of a mortal the following is being written. It is true that the placement of the excretory and reproductory organs in close proximity makes women more vulnerable to urinary tract infections. So the author may be justified in saying that it would be better to have them positioned at different places. However, it is not clear from the article (1) the organ that the author desires to be positioned, using a retractable mechanism, possibly under the armpit. Now let's assume that it is the excretory part. Imagine the predicament of lying down or being crouched in the bathroom for a while for defaecation and the proximity of the armpit to the nose. The market is already flooded with various types of deodourants for the armpit. It would be hard to imagine the type of deodourants that would have been necessary in such a scenario. If we assume that it is the reproductory part, it would have been equally hard for a lot of reasons. First of all urinals would have to be redesigned for men and women. One will have to keep lifing the arm for urination. Even as it is, it is kind of hard for men to direct the stream correctly inside the urinal at all times. It would be even more difficult if it is to be directed from such a height. Spillage on clothes would be a common problem. Women would lose their privilege of squatting for the purpose of urination and would have to really hold their arm very close to the urinal. What will women do during their menstrual periods? The scenario of sexual engagement and its aftermath under such conditions is left to the reader's imagination. Crushing of testes, and for that matter the reproductory organ, would have been a real problem especially in men with huge biceps and triceps. The author further requests God to limit the supply of ova to just two or three so that women will not have to suffer an endless succession of menstrual periods. It is an interesting thought. However, it would be important to specify the time of release of the eggs. Should it be after a woman graduates from medical school or graduate school? And there would be other problems to attain conception with just two or three ova compared to the 500 or so ova that a woman now has in her possession from puberty. The author very rightly acknowledges the marvel of design. In this context, it would be very interesting to consider how different our lives would have been if our noses had been positioned bottom side up, with our nostrils facing upwards. Reference 1. Brown P. Reviews. Personal view. Letter to God. BMJ 2006;332:1341 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jo Ann Rosenfeld MD, Physician Johns Hopkins 21136
Send response to journal:
|
Could you also add that on the next model, there should be ears that can close? Like eyelids. Silence is a rare thing today, and as any mother of teenagers can report, there is a lot of conversation you wish you could easily ignore, or not hear. Thank you. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph More, Retired Retired
Send response to journal:
|
Last but not least, we could do with a less belligerent disposition. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ivan Y Torshin, Dir of Bioinformatics Consulting, LLC 125239, Moscow, Russia
Send response to journal:
|
If memory serves, BMJ decodes as "British Medical Journal". That is to say, it is a journal that publishes scientific evidence to certain points dealing with biomedical research in the form of controlled trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses etc. In this discussion, no evidence whatsoever was presented for either of the sides. However, a large amount of mockish sentimentality, emotional prejudices and what is known as 'proof by ridiculous assumptions' was, indeed, presented. Then why, we might ask, BMJ allowed to publish these unsubstantiated, illogical and highly emotionally charged exclamations? It is, perhaps, in order to allay the inherent restlessness of the authors. We can then infer that it was a form of psychotherapy thus explaining the relation of the sentimentalism to medicine. However, dear colleagues, natura non contristur and so is the science... P.S. For reference, natura non contristur means "nature isn't sentimental". Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Said A H Abdallah, Chest Physician Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, God is perfect. His creation is perfect. if we have problems understanding the human design, it is because God did not give us the knowledge. Our brains have limits. This is the way we were created and there must be a good reason for it. Only God knows. In our state of ignorance, there are many things in medicine that we do not know or understand. There are so many conditions that we can not find causes for. We label them idiopathic. We do not know what causes multiple sclerosis for example. Dr. Brown's personal view and the subsequent letters were blasphemous and served no good purpose. If they were meant to be humorous, then it was humour with a very bad taste. Shame on all of you! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
elizabeth j murray, GP bellingham Green surgery se6 3jb, paul brown
Send response to journal:
|
I was surprised and disappointed to read " A letter to God." Perhaps to many people who do not take God seriously, the letter was amusing. But as a bible believing Christian I believe it wrong to make a joke about and criticize the way we have been made by God. God says in the bible that we are " fearfully and wonderfully made" Psalm 139 v 14. May I respectfully suggest to Dr Brown and others who have added suggestions to his letter that they would do well to read the bible and give its truths careful consideration. I think it would then become clear that it is right to stand in awe of God and all he has done, and not to write words which show such disrespect for him. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard J Roberts, Head, Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme National Public Health Service, Abton House, Wedal Road, Cardiff, CF14 3QX, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Paul Re: Human
Being version 2.0 Thank you
for suggesting improvements to the most remarkable of my creatures, the human
being (Brown P. Letter to God. BMJ 2006;332:1341). It is endearing to have one of your children
offer you advice. But if you’ve read my best
selling book then you’ll know the design was originally much better, and I
already have plans. Let me explain. When I
made gluons and galaxies, and everything in between, from scratch with no help,
I was particularly proud of my human beings.
The brain caused a few gasps, not to mention the self-replicating self-repairing
DNA information system so refined that a pinhead’s volume of it could contain
all the information in all the books in all the world (in fact I used that
feature in the other creatures too). Not
that decorating the cosmos with a billion billion thermonuclear
reactors of over a billion billion billion tons each with a lifetime guarantee for a billion years
wasn’t pretty awesome too. But making a
human that could live, love, think, feel, communicate, relate – that was some
of my best Anyway, some
stuff happened, and it just wasn’t the same after that. So, I had to make some modifications, a few
of which you listed, along with a quite a few others you missed – nature red in
tooth and claw – that was me too. I had
my reasons but I can’t go into the details here – read my book (hey, don’t I
sound like Dan Brown, except he writes fiction). As for your
suggestions for human being version 2.0 ... let me see … solid sinuses,
stronger neck, spare organs, pain free childbirth…hmm. I’m afraid these modifications are not really
radical enough. I can fix those things easily
but the things that really bother me about version 1.0 are selfishness, greed,
indifference, hatred … I could go on but you get the picture, the sort of
things that mean:
So much
more significant than sinus trouble – don’t you think? Dealing
with a cavity here or joint there won’t help.
No, I’m not planning minor repairs - I’m planning a whole new version. And for a limited period I’m offering free
upgrades. If you want one, just ask. Anytime. PS:
You’re right - I do have a sense of humour (where do you think you got yours,
do molecules smile?) but it’s not just adolescents who are disobedient and
think they know it all – that’s a human problem, which I think brings us full
circle. Pop0nline@gmail.com References 1.
Make Poverty History [ 2.
Labonte R, Schrecker
T, 3.
UNICEF. Progress
for Children: A report card on nutrition. No 4.
4. Amnesty
International [page on the internet]. Stop Torture. Competing interests: The author has applied for an upgrade to Human Being 2.0 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder www.medical-journals.com
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Murray's protestations are based on the premise that Brown's well- written piece[1] is addressed to the Christian God as identfied in the Bible.In fact, there is no reference to the Bible or specific mention of christianity in Brown's 'Letter to God'.Brown may not be a follower of Christian faith,either. After all, identity of the God is not exclusive to one religion or faith;there are several very personal 'gods' who we believe were responsible for our creation.As to the God that I have some faith in,as far as I'm aware, certainly doesn't mind thought-provoking suggestions as put by Brown; in fact, my God, actively encourages critical analysis in a very transparent manner. So there is really no strong reason to be either offended or take an extreme view of Brown's light-hearted requests to God.An actual reply from God could be even more interesting! References [1]Paul Brown. Letter to God. BMJ 2006; 332: 1341. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andy Wood, SHO Ophthalmology Glasgow
Send response to journal:
|
If god is perfect and his creation is perfect. Blasphemy as part of that creation is of course equally as perfect as any other human activity or attribute. If we find this difficult to understand, then obviously god meant it that way. Of course another way of looking at it is as evidence of further requirements of redesign in our understanding of logic. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard J Roberts, Head, VPDP National Public Health Service, Cardiff, UK
Send response to journal:
|
It is tortured logic to conclude that because complex biological machines like human bodies are not perfect that this is evidence of the designer’s incompetence or even absence. Washing machines are not perfect. The imperfections are designed - built-in (or planned) obsolescence. Their purpose in both cases is to keep the owner coming back to the creator. But the outcomes differ – in one transaction we lose, in the other we gain. pop0nline@gmail.com Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andy Wood, SHO Ophthalmology Glasgow
Send response to journal:
|
The main thrust of ID and Paley’s argument from design is that something’s in nature are so complex that they denote a creator or intelligence. It is hardly tortured logic to ask what evidence there is of this intelligence. It would seem that the purpose of cataracts, retinal detachments and strokes is ad hoc evidence of this manufacturer. Indeed the purpose of loss of sight is strangely to provide a guiding light leading to our creator! The analogy given is flawed, washing machines are not made of biological material so do not act the same way as biological organisms. Washing machines are expected to function perfectly, only replaced upon completion of their working life. If one does not function which no one expects, a replacement is sought or repair is made. The flawed intelligence responsible for their creation is writ large across their substance. Human beings on the other hand regretfully do not function perfectly throughout their biological lives; indeed disease and pain are inherent to our flawed evolved selves. Repairs are not always possible, pain is not always controlled. We cannot replace our lens, retina or occipital lobe within 30 days of purchase on presentation of a receipt. Either there is no creator or ID, or the creator is malevolent. It would appear that this creator needs to be reported to trading standards! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stephen Hayes, freelance GP, GPwSI in dermatology Bitterne walk in centre, Southamptoon
Send response to journal:
|
I hesitated to respond to this item since when I last argued here that Darwinism had been falsified, the editor closed the correspondence and compared the debate to AIDS denial. I hope he didn't mean me, since I was involved in setting up an AIDS charity in the 1990s, but no matter. Dr Wood repeats familiar arguments about the eye being poorly designed, because like the rest of the body it wears out and sometimes fails and because the cornea allegedly is on the wrong way round. AND YET...it does work rather well, does it not? >>>Of course Darwin was a genius and went on to outline a possible pathway of eye evolution, a lesson lost on modern day “Intelligent Design” advocates. <<< In my copy of Origin of Species (1), Darwin deals with the evolution of the eye by saying 'I can see no very great difficulty...in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.' further down the page Darwin uses expressions such as 'We ought in imagination', 'We must suppose' and 'May we not believe?'. This is not to 'outline a possible pathway of eye evolution' but to speculate imaginatively. Darwin did not offer any evidence that the eye arose by a series of accidents, but reversed the normal process of science by starting with a conclusion and then stretching facts to best fit, inviting us to use our imagination to paper over the cracks. Subsequent discoveries about the biochemistry of sight rules out the possibility of gradual evolution by numerous gradual changes. You can get an artist to do a series of imagined drawings to create the impression of progress from an optic cell (as if there was such a thing as a 'simple' optic cell) to a vertebrate eye, but the biochemistry is impossible to fudge in this way. Behe (2) has shown that not one single pathway has been written up in the world evolution literature of a biochemical sequence 'gradually developing'. For Darwin's imagined progress to occur, each step in the long sequence would have to offer an improvement on the previous one at the biochemical level, which would of course have to be coded for by random DNA changes which would then have to get past DNA check and repair. >>>As Darwin may have remarked about his theory and its objectors, once we understand his way of viewing things the objections will diminish or disappear. The subsequent results of over 150 years of research into Darwin’s theory have caused the objections to gradually diminish. We can only hope that in due course they disappear entirely.<<<< Indeed, Darwinists continue to hope that objections to the concept of atoms to us by accident will dissapear entirely, just as Darwin hoped that the fossil evidence of the millions of intermediate kinds his theory predicted would turn up. But anyone who reads Origin of Species will see that Darwin's way of thinking consisted of supposing, imagining, and believing. His words, not mine. I prefer to keep science scientific. (1)'on the origin of species ny means of natural selection or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life' Charles Darwin (2) 'Darwin's black box.' Michael Behe Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andy Wood, SHO Ophthalmology Glasgow
Send response to journal:
|
I suspect Dr Hayes is confusing the cornea and the retina. The Retina is organised backwards in mammals, yet surprisingly not in all animals. It would appear that some organisms are intelligently designed and others seem not to be. Evolution is not a series of accidents, rather the action of natural selection and other processes sifting and choosing the best genome. Accident has nothing to do with it. Does the eye work well? Considering every hospital in the land has an Ophthalmology department it would seem it does not. Considering the small band of the electromagnetic spectrum we are capable of seeing it would seem that we are optically deprived. Undoubtedly Darwin was producing hypothesis, which latterly have been shown to be correct. One would assume that producing hypothesis and looking for evidence of their truth is keeping science scientific. The claim that there has been little research on biochemical evolution is surprising to say the least. Indeed such a point was addressed in the Dover Intelligent Design trial in America, where such claims were shown to be incorrect. Evidently we have to add, not only must we see like Darwin but also be capable of understanding him. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard J Roberts, Head, Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme National Public Health Service, Abton House, Wedal Road, Cardiff, CF14 3QX, UK
Send response to journal:
|
In the
opinion of Moorfields trained Consultant
Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney there are good reasons for the inverted (“back to
front”) configuration of the human and vertebrate retina. These are related to
the physiological need for both the retinal pigment epithelium and choroid to be closely anatomically related to the
photoreceptor cells to withstand the toxic and heating effects of focussed light
(1). The verted retinas of cephalopods, such as the
squid and octopus, which evolutionists imply would be an improvement, are
designed to It’s a
misunderstanding to state that either historical or current arguments from
design are limited to just some complex systems. Since Paley and As the Dover
School Board case has been raised in response to this article it seems
important to be clear what it did and didn’t establish. The court took no position on whether
evidence supports the argument from design.
Leaving aside the church/state/constitutional issues, the primary reason
given for not allowing intelligent design to be taught as
science in pop0nline@gmail.com References 1.
Gurney PWV. Is our inverted retina really
bad design? Technical Journal 13(1):37–44. Available at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1683
2.
Dawkins R. The Blind Watchmaker. 3.
Roberts RJ. Is believing in creation rational and evidence
based? http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7553/1294-e#135522 4.
Judge John E. Jones.
Memorandum Opinion. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
stephen black, management consultant london sw1w 9sr
Send response to journal:
|
The creationist argument that there are good reasons for the (suerficially dodgy) design of the mammalian eye compared to cephalopods misses the point even if its basic assumptions stack up (I'm not equipped to judge the detail). The mystery creationists have to explain is why creatures in a similar environment (eg the sea) have different models for the eye. Evolution has an easy explanation based on history: once a basic design choice is made in some creature its descendants are stuck with it. Their eyes can be further "designed" by natural selection but only within constraints. So there are several models of the eye based on descent not environment. An intelligent designer has no such constraints and could, in principle, give sea-based mammals eyes like an octopus. Such patterns across nature (and there are many other examples) are a problem for the creationist view, however many plausable design arguments they stack up for an individual creature. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andy Wood, SHO Ophthalmology Glasgow
Send response to journal:
|
To presuppose intelligent design, denotes a greater intelligence. Does the eye represent evidence of this intelligence? Undoubtedly the photoreceptors are embedded in the pigment epithelial layers which perform important functions, but this misses the point. There is no need at all to have the neural processing in front of the photoreceptor cells. An intelligent design would be to have the photoreceptors lying on the pigment cells, the neural processing beneath these layers. Indeed a similar organisation is found in the olfactory tract of humans. A similar organisation is found in cephalopods. It would appear that some animals have intelligently designed eyes and humans do not. There is no notion of direction in evolution; there is no evolutionary scale of improvement that those dubious “evolutionists” adhere to. Indeed it matters not a jot whether cephalopods see any better or if they live in water or for long time. What matters is the design of their eye which evidently is better in cephalopods that the topsy-turvy human eye. What denotes good or bad vision is not just the orientation of the retina, rather the anatomy of the whole eye. The human eye is terrible fudge. Human vision would be better if we had no blind spot, if the intelligence had moved the neural processing tissue and blood vessels to the rear of our eye. It would have also removed the problems of diabetic retinopathy for good. Where disease is concerned, it seems the designer is intelligent, but not that intelligent! Richard Dawkins has written numerous times that “design” can be split into two groups. The blind design of natural selection and the design one finds for example in human manufactured objects. The designs of humanity have our cultures writ large across them; their faults are evident, especially in the faulty designs of washing machines. The faulty designs of natural selection are self evident, these designs are hardly worthy of commendation. The Dover school case was concerned with whether ID is science. It found that ID was creationism and not suitable for teaching in science classrooms. To declare that Judge Jones summing up is proof of evolution being “one-sided synthesis of hypothesis and assertion in defence of an atheistic world view” is simply false (1). 1). http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/index.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
RichardJ Roberts, Head, Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme National Public Health Service, Abton House, Wedal Road, Cardiff, CF14 3QX, UK
Send response to journal:
|
The scientific basis
of these arguments make an interesting post script to this discussion. Our understanding of the physiology
of human vision provide good scientific reasons for the inverted retina
(1). Atheistic evolutionary counter
argument is based on hypothesis (that the verted
retina is in principle superior) and assertion (that the design found in a
group of exclusively marine invertebrates will provide better vision in full
sunlight) and is unsupported by any scientific data at all. Why
create several mechanisms of vision for aquatic animals and share them with
land animals? Why not? Biological diversity
and homology (recurring patterns or common mechanisms) fit either creation or evolution
models. The theistic creationist
explanation for homology is common function.
For example, we all have many four legged objects in our pop0nline@gmail.com 1.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7553/1341#137867 2.
Dawkins R. The Blind Watchmaker. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andy Wood, SHO Ophthalmology Glasgow
Send response to journal:
|
There is a proclivity for Creationists to try and equate evolution with atheism usually in a pejorative manner. Whilst this may be true for some, both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have criticised Intelligent Design. Indeed the Popes own astronomer called it “a type of Paganism”. Last time I looked neither organisation was “atheistic”. Judge Jones III in his summing up at the end of the Dover trial specifically addressed this question; he saw no conflict between the acknowledgement of evolution and a religious belief. The physiology of human vision most definitely does not account for the inverted retina and no amount of “assertion” will change that. If one is to postulate common design as Science, one must specify what is expected of the designer, when should we expect similar forms, when different? Creationism cannot do that, indeed we are only offered, Why not? as an argument in the previous post. Evolutionary biology does explain similarities and differences. If similarity of structures in different life forms reflects the fact that they were created for similar purposes, then we must compare known design with the biological world. In the designed world, form follows function; there are similar forms for similar functions. But biologically this is not the case, the form of bats wings are quite different from birds or for that matter pterodactyls. Indeed we can see similar forms for different functions. In the human world no single designer would be responsible for the design of complex systems. One must assume if the comparison holds water, that there are many Intelligent Designers. Each with a somewhat limited field of knowledge by the look of things. It would equally seem that the postulated designer is somewhat capricious having designed the biological world to have every apparent facet of descent with modification. I too find evolutionary convergences amazing, but whether something is amazing or note does not reflect on its possibility. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard J Roberts, Head, Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme National Public Health Service, Abton House, Wedal Road, Cardiff, CF14 3QX, UK
Send response to journal:
|
To argue
that the physiology of human vision “most definitely does not” account for the
inverted retina one has to ignore the available evidence. A recent exhaustive review of over 650
scientific papers concluded “Initially only regarded as the dark cover of the
inner wall of the bulbus, today’s
understanding of the RPE [retinal pigment epithelium] shows it is
essential for visual function providing multiple functions that support normal
photoreceptor function… The view of the RPE has been refined to
the point that RPE and photoreceptors are together considered a functional
unit” (1). This view explains retinal diseases and opens avenues to new
therapies. QED. Calling evolution
atheistic is simply to make explicit the indisputable fact that underlying the
theory is an untestable a priori assumption that God was not involved. Creationists base their assumptions on a far
more reliable source than the ex cathedra opinions of popes, archbishops,
or scientists, which even a passing acquaintance with the history of science or
the church will show are fallible. The
ability to systematically arrange living organisms based on genes, proteins or
physical characteristics does not logically lead to the theory of descent from
a single common ancestor. Almost anything, animate or inanimate,
may be classified into “related” groups according to some taxonomic
scheme. Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy, and a highly
accomplished physician, held scientific views which would today be called
creationist (2). He saw evidence of
God’s design and order in the similarities between the organisms he classified,
not evidence of His absence. The
reason “evolutionary convergences” are considered “amazing” is in fact a direct
reflection of the possibility of such events occurring. Evolutionary theory
predicts that the probability of the same evolutionary events happening twice
is “vanishingly small” (3), yet the eye, to take only one example, according to
a leading British evolutionist “evolved” not twice but fifty times (4). Those who take comfort that professors assure
us such improbable coincidences “must have” happened, because evolution “must”
be true, are failing to hear the alarm bells of objective reason. And such alarm bells ring even louder when
considering other evidence. Calculations based on the minimum molecular
machinery necessary for life (unknown to Darwin) show the probability of a
living organism arising spontaneously from inanimate matter to be so
unimaginably small that on its own abiogenesis represents a fatal objection to the
theory of evolution from molecules to man (and unlike some modern apologists
Darwin did accept there may be fatal objections to his theory). The memorable analogy of Cambridge astronomer
Sir Fred Hoyle that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might
assemble a Boeing 747” seems understated in the face of a probability of abiogenesis of 1 in 1040,000
(1 followed by 40,000 zeros covering 12 pages) considering the number of atoms
in the known universe is “only” of the order 1080 and 4 billion
years is 1017 seconds. And what of other objections? Does the fossil record contain the necessary intermediate
kinds? No. Does genetics supply the necessary mechanism to increase genetic
information? No. Do experiments in breeding and mutation show the capacity for
adaptive change is unlimited? No.
Richard Dawkins is in favour of belief based on evidence, and for once I
couldn’t agree more. Creation
science has many postulates which are regularly compared with existing and newly
published scientific data from biology, geology, astronomy, etc. Anyone with a mind open to the possibility
that in the beginning God created can (without embarrassment!) explore whether
this view fits the scientific evidence on any one of several websites (5). pop0nline@gmail.com 1.
Strauss O. The Retinal Pigment Epithelium in Visual
Function. Physiol. Rev. 2005;85:845-881.
(Available at http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/845) 2.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html 3.
Dawkins R. The Blind Watchmaker. 4.
Jones S. Almost like a whale: The Origin of Species
updated. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andy Wood, SHO Ophthalmology Glasgow
Send response to journal:
|
The claim made by those who believe in ID is that the design of the biological world is such that it denotes intelligence. The hotchpotch of the human eye does not reflect intelligent design. The claims that the “intelligence” created the eye with an inverted design fail simply as it would have been far more intelligent not to. If one is supreme one can expect perfection, sadly it seems this is not the case. The great failure of ID is ex post facto reasoning. Contrary to the claims above, the photoreceptors came first followed by RPE, when one reasons backwards it appears amazing the RPE is there to support the photoreceptor cells. In much the same way, Douglas Adams reasoned a puddle would think the world designed for its existence right up to the point it evaporated. It is this delusion which runs throughout ID’s reasoning. I try and stay away from theological arguments but the fact remains that the Church of England and the Catholic Church do not see evolution as atheistic. Indeed this seems a majority view in theological circles. The organisation of related groups most definitely does denote common descent, the fossil record and observed speciation confirms this. Repeating a Creationist canard about the lack of transitional species which are replete in the fossil record and observed instances of speciation is sadly not “scientific” or “evidence” by any stretch of the imagination. It is assertion and I suspect we can all see its origin, even though we may not be sure it descends from an angel or an ape. Linnaeus may well have been a creationist although sadly living before Darwin his choices was somewhat limited. Sorry but there you are, no evolutionary biologist on the planet believes in the spontaneous creation of life, indeed the same false argument is repeated and correctly attributed to Fred Hoyle. Sadly he was wrong. Why produce junk scientific calculations to debate a point that no one is discussing is quite beyond me! As for being scientific, Creationism has recently been put on trial, the decision of the Judge was “ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory……” (1). (1). http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/waterloo_in_dov.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard J Roberts, Head, Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme National Public Health Service, Abton House, Wedal Road, Cardiff, CF14 3QX, UK
Send response to journal:
|
I’m sure we can all agree from history that the
majority view in theological, scientific or any other circle is not an
infallible guide, and “follow the crowd” is poor advice for those seeking knowledge (L. scientia). It is a misunderstanding to equate different views
of creation. ID does not specify a designer, multiple or benevolent, or a
method of creation, while Biblical creationists believe in a personal loving
Creator and that the Bible’s creation account is historical. A fallacy often repeated in this correspondence,
and perhaps even underlying Brown’s original article, is that one should expect
a created world to be perfect. You do
not have to read far in the Bible (only to chapter 3), to see this belief has
no basis in the world’s oldest monotheistic faith (1). In fact, the opposite is true, and the foundations
of fractured relationship, moral disintegration, suffering and death are
revealed. And as if to underline all
four realities, the first murder occurs in chapter 4. To argue that “transitional species… are replete in
the fossil record” is unsustainable in the face of two centuries of palaeontological discovery which shows their troubling
absence, and is something not even the most zealous well read evolutionists
do. Instead some still adhere to To bring the discussion back to medicine, the
current vogue for using pathogenic viruses as illustrations of evolution in
action is an interesting one. In fact those who heard Prof. Steve Jones’ recent
Royal Society lecture on “Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right” will
have been surprised that he spent a great deal of time on HIV and changes within
immunodeficiency viruses as evidence for evolution. However, change and the capacity to generate varieties
or similar species within built-in limits is a creationist principle which
pre-dates Darwin back at least as far as Linnaeus, and has more observational
and empirical scientific support than the Darwinian view that adaptive change is
unlimited. Changes in HIV are evidence
of no more than such limited change. To judge
between theories of origins one must engage with other data, which, to my disappointment
but not surprise, Steve Jones did not do.
Perhaps the reason is that creationists have done precisely this with
great success in public lectures on university campuses in the However, I am encouraged by the fact that in its
accompanying statement the Royal Society still describes evolution as a theory,
and not the only explanation of life on earth.
In support of evolution it cites antibiotic resistance, influenza, and
AIDS, adding “ As expected the Royal Society does attack Biblical creationism.
However I fully support their final paragraph, in particular
that young people should be encouraged “to explore the compatibility, or
otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs”. I also applaud their
censure of “deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific
knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs”,
and I would include atheism within that compass. I do reserve the right, however, to disagree
on where origins science leads. Because,
having had my mind unshackled from the untestable atheistic assumption of
scientific naturalism, I for one find the evidence of the natural world points not to
absence, but to the unavoidable need for a Creator. pop0nline@gmail.com 1.
Book of Genesis http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%201:1-4:10&version=31 2.
Jones S. Almost like a whale:
The Origin of Species updated. 3.
Why antibiotic resistance is
not evidence of evolution in action. BMJ online http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7553/1294-e#135914 Competing interests: None declared |
|||