August 22, 2014

Darwinian medicine is not new

pin it button Darwinian medicine is not new

evolution news 300x128 Darwinian medicine is not new

by Michael Egnor
Evolution News and Views

Jerry Coyne has a post on Darwinian medicine, which is a new branch of evolutionary biology that studies the evolutionary causes of disease and claims to provide evolutionary insights that are of therapeutic value.

I’m a professor at a medical school and I have several decades of experience teaching medical students. As you might imagine, I am quite skeptical about the value of Darwinian medicine in medical education. In this post and in posts to follow, I’ll briefly summarize my reasons for skepticism about Darwinian medicine in the medical school curriculum:

1) Darwinian medicine is not new.

During the first half of the 20th century, Darwin’s theory played a central role in medical education in the United States, as well as in continental Europe, primarily in Germany. Eugenics is the application of breeding principles to human biology based on the Darwinian understanding of man. The term eugenics was coined by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton (the concept, but not the word, appeared in Darwin’s Descent of Man).

Eugenics is the original Darwinian medicine. According to Darwin’s understanding of human origins, man evolved by a long brutal process of natural selection, and man’s highest qualities were evolved by a process of millions of years of often violent struggle. As man became civilized, the weakest members of the species — the ill and infirm, the handicapped, the mentally deficient — were unnaturally preserved in the population through man’s charitable instincts. Darwinists cautioned that compassion for the weak was diluting the human species, allowing defective humans to breed and spread their deficiencies. The solution to this Darwinian crisis seemed obvious: human beings must be bred, like farm animals, to produce the strongest individuals and preserve the species.

Eugenics (Darwinian medicine 1.0) was a central principle in American medicine from 1900 through the late 1930′s. It was ‘consensus science’, opposed only by a few deniers (mostly Christians and especially the Catholic church, which strongly opposed eugenics in any form) who insisted on respect for human dignity despite illness and infirmity. Eugenics was taught in medical schools and in biology programs, and was embraced by major medical and scientific organizations in the United States. Eugenics was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood), and countless universities. It was mainstream consensus science. Compulsory sterilization laws were passed, and 50,000 Americans were sterilized against their will in the first half of the 20th century.

The Germans deeply admired and emulated the American eugenics program, and took Darwinian medicine a step further. In the late 1930′s the Nazis organized the T4 program, which was an explicitly Darwinian approach to cleansing the German gene pool of weak people, most of whom were handicapped. Citizens were encouraged to report handicapped people to government authorities, who would take them into custody for medical evaluation. If they were deemed a genetic impediment, they were euthanized. By 1945, German doctors, acting on an explicitly Darwinian understanding of man, killed 250,000 handicapped people, a large number of whom were children.

At the Doctor’s Trial following the war, 23 doctors and administrators were tried for various crimes against humanity. Seven doctors, including doctors involved in the T4 program, were hanged.

Dr. Coyne:

[there are] few evolutionary biologists … on medical school faculty: almost none…

After WWII, eugenicists on medical faculties in the United States were generally shown the door, and eugenics, the first Darwinian medicine, disappeared as a explicit component of medical education.

Coyne is right: there are virtually no evolutionary biologists on medical school faculties in the 21st century. Part of the reason is mundane: evolutionary biology plays no significant role in medical science and practice. Medicine depends on actual scientific understanding of disease mechanisms and therapeutics, and speculation about evolutionary origins is of no tangible value to the medical profession.

There are also a few members of each medical school faculty who know enough about the history of medicine in the 20th century who greet the topic of Darwinian medicine with widened eyes.

More on Darwinian medicine in ensuing posts.

Cross-posted on Egnorance

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_and_darwinian_medi047691.html

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

Pin It

The evolution of consciousness is presently inexplicable: Can we really understand a transition from the excrement-throwing ape to the early cave paintings as a long, slow series?

Medicine: Idolatry in the Twenty First Century

Medicine: Idolatry in the Twenty First Century

Pin It

A honest look at our present day medical system and its relationship to idolatrous religious practices throughout history involving such activities as child sacrifices. Is modern-day medicine the new religion?

Study: Fats More Complex Than Previously Thought – Essential to Good Health

Study: Fats More Complex Than Previously Thought – Essential to Good Health

Pin It

Throughout most of the history of human nutrition, fats and oils (lipids) have been considered healthy and desirable. In the Bible, the most ancient writings known to man and the world’s best-selling book, oil is always mentioned in a positive light, whether it be aromatic anointing oils or dietary oils:

“He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil…” (Deuteronomy 7:13)

“When the Almighty was yet with me, and my children were around me; When my steps were bathed in butter, and the rock poured out for me streams of oil!” (Job 29:5-6)
“There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise…” (Proverbs 21:20)

Modern dietary history has been an anomaly in condemning certain dietary fats, especially since the 1970s when official USDA dietary guidelines condemned saturated fats, in spite of their long history of use in human nutrition. Much of modern science is based on Darwinian evolution, however, and faulty premises that often don’t hold up in real science. Much of the “science” regarding dietary fats and oils has today been proven false, and the field of lipids (fatty acids) is bringing to light what the ancients inherently already knew: that fats and oils were key nutritional components essential to good health.

Evolution and News brings a good commentary on the journal Nature’s June cover issue regarding lipids, showing how they are the building blocks of membranes, and pointing to a master designer rather than a result of pure chance via evolution.

The True Source of Energy Healing

The True Source of Energy Healing

Pin It

If you want to experience healing through “energy medicine,” which would you prefer? A practioner manipulating the created energy patterns, or the one who created it to begin with?

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Pin It

We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’

Here are 21 bad arguments that evolutionists should not use to help further their stance on evolution. Clearly, evolution is about keeping out God, not an open approach to the actual evidence.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!