April 24, 2014

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

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

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.

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research.

Mathematical Proof vs. Scientific Proof: Are They the Same?

Mathematical Proof vs. Scientific Proof: Are They the Same?

Absolute proof is strictly the domain of logicians. In mathematics, for example, once a theorem is proven it is proven for all time and all circumstances. Mathematical proof is absolute. Mathematics, however, is not science. This is a point about which many are confused. Mathematics is a language used by science, but is not itself a science. Mathematical proof and scientific proof are not the same thing at all.

Scientific proof is not really proof at all, in the mathematical sense, but is either verification or disproof. Since scientists deal with a universe that is not of their own creation, they cannot prove their laws absolutely as can mathematicians. Although scientists use the term “scientific proof,” what they really mean is that a particular hypothesis has been verified or disproved. They don’t mean “proof” in the mathematical sense.

I Can Do All Things Through Christ: Natural vs. Supernatural

I Can Do All Things Through Christ: Natural vs. Supernatural

What is better: natural or supernatural? Is the supernatural available to us today? How can one experience the supernatural life?

More Evidence of Scientism as Religion

More Evidence of Scientism as Religion

As shown in our recent documentary C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, C.S. Lewis compared science to magic in three ways: (1) Science as Religion, (2) Science as Credulity, and (3) Science as Power. In the film, Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West explains that for many people, science (or better, scientism) serves as a quasi-religion. It gives their lives meaning. Evolution in particular provides an overarching, cosmic vision that many find satisfying: a view of something larger than their experience: the birth and ultimate fate of the universe, with mankind struggling against natural odds in its rise to dominance.

To further illustrate, here are a few recent cases from science news of evolutionary thinking serving in the role of religious faith.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!