Hey Dr. Egnor: At Least Galen Dissected Animals, Not Straw Men

Hmm, I guess Eg never saw the article Evolution and the Origins of Disease from Scientific American, November 1998.

As it explains, "The principles of evolution by natural selection are finally beginning to inform medicine." (Note that the article was written almost 10 years ago!)

I read Dr. Egnor's rebuttal piece today, and I was aghast. His intellectual arguments are indeed weak.

I really think that the Disco Institute is getting more and more desperate. They continue to lose ground in almost all venues. I might be completely wrong, but I sense that the DI is more and more playing to their donor base . . .trying to justify a relevance that just doesn't exist.

Anyway,I say "thanks" to Dr. Humburg for his persistence and intellectual honesty.

Nice smackdown, Dr Humberg.
Logical, informative and a good read.
Yet it lacks that certain something.
Something to give it that extra "ooomph".
If only you'd taken the ID approach to an argument and included an audio file of somebody farting, then it would be just perfect. :)

I taught anatomy at a medical school (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa) for ten years. The evolutionary insights our medical students gained from paleoanthropological/human evolution perspectives were key to their educations. It was not just that the resources were there -- we'd take them to fossil sites and give lectures on South African fossils -- it was that they could truly understand the nuances of human anatomy, and the medical implications of our evolutionary heritage. It it explains a lot of the brain, and Egnor should understand that, but apparently he does not.

It is true that medical doctors are not scientists. My wife is a medical doctor, and although she has a Masters of Science degree and understands the scientific method, she does not characterize herself as a scientist. On the other hand, she can certainly apply evolutionary knowledge in her daily practice, and can easily debunk the nonsensical dismissal Dr. Egnor gives to the solid science and applicability of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary knowledge is everyday stuff in medicine.

Engor, like David Menton, at my alma mater of Washington University, is an anomaly among medically trained individuals. They are inconsequential to the scientific community UNTIL they actually provide some cogent research regarding their wanton posts on creationist/ ID web sites.

*sigh*
Jeff

wildteufel observed "...I sense that the DI is more and more playing to their donor base ...trying to justify a relevance that just doesn't exist."

I think you're right, but then I think that's what they've always done. They have never been seriously interested in joining a debate with evolutionary biologists, other than to gain some street credibility for being on the same stage. I've always seen their on-line comments, especially the Media Complaints Division, as a play to their base and an effort to justify their support. I don't think they seriously think they're having an impact on biology. Are they? Surely they're not that deluded? After all they've never put forth serious testable hypotheses, proposed anticipated consequences of ID, or placed ther ideas at risk in the professional sphere, where other scientists risk all. They much prefer to engage school boards and church congregations where they know they'll be welcome and no one will punch holes in their dreams.

And by the way, a big thank you to Burt for his dissection of Egnor's two-stage nonsense. This non-biologist very much appreciates it.

While reading some Mark Twain tonight I came across an observation of his that addresses the frequent tarring of evolution as the Church of Darwin by the IDiots. To wit "A scientist will never show any kindness for a theory which he didn't start himself." Another in a different vein, which the IDiots should take to heart: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt," the latter being what the DI, recently in the person of Casey Luskin and now Dr. Egnor, does daily.

"Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice."

Hmm, I'll have to let all the MD's in my cytogenetics lab to stop using evo theory, especially in reference to robertsonian translocations (such as in the creation of the current human Chromosome 2). Also any microduplications and/or balaced non-robertsonian translocations. yeah, what does clinical medical genetics at any level (molecular, locus, or chromosomal level have to do with evolution?

I suppose that Egnor's the only thing happening at this time, otherwise I can't see why his drivel is given so much space. I think it's at least as interesting that the latest paper C & EN (Chemical and Engineering News, letters) has the old boy Phil Skell giving us the same old nonsense that evolution has had no practical consequences. Nothing worth repeating, just flat-out denial based on the opinion of some hack he asked once upon a time (he doesn't say so in his letter, it was elsewhere that he admitted to it).

Of course I applaud the fisking by Humburg, but hey, they sure don't make it hard in any intellectual sense. Just Egnor displaying his ripe ignorance, indicating that he lets others cut and paste everything for him, as he knows nothing of what goes into the science that he uses. No doubt it'll go down with the people who think Conservapedia is on to something, but they're educationally a lost cause at this point.

Galen, huh? I wonder if he was really up on the differences between mouse physiology, chimp physiology, and human physiology. No? Gee, why not? Maybe he lacked a theory that would relate morphology, genetics, and physiology according to divergence patterns. I mean, why would we want to move beyond Galen, since we're (well, they're) willing to use scholastic methods to discern the origins of humans? Down with the anti-Galenic Harvey and his absurd notions about blood circulation, and the even more radical Darwin with his ideas that chimps are "related" to humans.

Sure Egnor, we're going down that path. Oh, or does that actually strike at what you actually know, instead of at the masses of information that haven't yet glanced off of your pathetic little neurons?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Oh, I said there was nothing worth repeating in Skell's letter in C & EN, but there was one thing that was amusing. He noted that there are no divisions of evolutionary science in the drug companies, as if somehow companies have the sorts of divisions that academia might have.

You caught us out, Skell, the pharmaceuticals merely utilize evolutionary knowledge in their research, they're not doing basic research into the origins of life, etc. It's called the "fruits of evolutionary study," not evolutionary study itself. And BTW, Skell, there also aren't microbiology, biochemistry, and organic chemistry divisions in the drug companies either. Perhaps it's time that you learn about that industry, rather than parroting the line of your favorite pseudoscientists.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Employing "Darwinism" or it's cognates/declensions invokes ambiguity, and strategically ambiguous phrasings are a staple of creationists and their ilk. We at the Thumb strongly recommend people to avoid playing into the creationist's strategy in this fashion: call it evolution only, please, Michael Ruse.

— bhumburg

The use of the term "Neo-Darwinian" is not only perfectly appropriate, it is in fact far preferable to simply "evolution".

The term evolution can apply to any number of crackpot theories ranging from Lamarck to saltationism to orthogenesis. Neo-Darwinism describes a paradigm/research program/research tradition (pick your term).

What is the point of denying that scientists work in paradigms and that paradigms are ordered by interrelated concepts, theories,ontological assumptions, methodological rules, etc.?

Though I took the MCAT a couple of years ago (theyve switched formats since then)-- My biology section had a huge phylogenetic tree, questions on the evolution of the immune system, etc. And there were rumors at the time of the AAMC still wanting to increase the number of evolution questions.

Sure you can get into med school with a 7 or 8 in the biology section, but your chances are severely crippled.

Doctors don't study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution...

And doctors still prescribe penicillin because they never studied how bacteria have evolved to resist it since the 1950s. Right, "Dr." Egnor?

The term evolution can apply to any number of crackpot theories ranging from Lamarck to saltationism to orthogenesis.

Neo-Darwinism describes a paradigm/research program/research tradition (pick your term).

What is the point of denying that scientists work in paradigms

and that paradigms are ordered by interrelated concepts, theories,ontological assumptions,

methodological rules, etc.?

"If there were some factional equivalent of creationists to astronomy..."

Wouldn't the flat-Earthers and the fixed-Earthers fit that bill pretty well?

I have heard over the grapevine that medical schools are beginning to consider specifically including evolution in the curriculum.

When I was in medical school, we didn't specifically study evolution as a seperate course, but evolution is as unifying and explanatory as it is in any other biological field. Medical students study microbiology, biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, physiology, etc.

Obviously, despite his clinical brilliance, Dr Egnor must be a right wing political ideologue. That's the unifying theme of ID.

Whether the term "scientist" should be denied to the applied scientific fields like medicine, veterinary medicine, forensics, engineering, and so on, and apply only to academics doing original research, is a debate I won't enter.

The term evolution can apply to any number of crackpot theories ranging from Lamarck to saltationism to orthogenesis.

I just read Egnor's "response," and it's nothing but diversionary hyperbole. Every word I read leaves me less inclined to let him mess with any part of my body. Or my brain, which he's already trying to mess with without my consent (will he bill me for that?).

Of course we can do comparative physiology, comparative anatomy, and comparative pharmacology without Darwinism...

We can also fly across the Atlantic without heliocentrism. The non-use of a theory by this or that person does not make the theory false.

And if Egnor doesn't use evolution, then I guess he won't be able to tell us why a certain "wonder-drug" invented during WWII isn't being used anymore.

None of this raises any questions about Egnor's talent as a neurosurgeon; but all of it raises serious questions about his integrity, and his ability to think sensibly. A surgeon who flatly denies the usefulness of a theory as ubiquitous as evolution, is not a person who should be trusted to handle life-or-death issues. He's worse than a carpenter who brags about not having any use for levellors/levellers/those thingies you use to see if something is level.

Btw, some seem to object to neo-darwinism as not containing all of the current research?

continuing from above:

As far as I can tell, some would include what Eric Davidson is talking about within the term "neo-Darwinism," while he does not. My sense is that it's probably best to move on, as there was a distinct "neo-Darwinian" synthesis, while modern theory utilizes so much more than it did. I mean, why didn't biologists back then just stick with "Darwinism" as a term? It's sort of like moving beyond "modernism" in the art world---no matter how odd it seems to suggest that to be "modern", art has to be a few decades old.

I don't see "neo-Darwinism" used in the journals much, so it seems that in practice most have gone to just talking about "evolutionary theory". Mere convention evidently is ruling against "neo-Darwinism" as the usual label for today's evolutionary theory, and it actually decides semantics in the end.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

The sheer lameness of Egnor's arguments is growing on me. So what if he doesn't use evolution? Plumbers, pilots, truck-drivers, technical writers, economists, baseball players and artists don't use it either. What's Egnor's point? All he's proven is that he has no use for evolution, and didn't study it, therefore he has no clue what he's talking about, so he should just shut up and get back to work.

I guess this shows how low the creationists have sunk: they can't disprove evolution, they can't get their creation-stories accepted as "science," they can't conceal ID's religious origins; so now they're trying to insist (in places where replies aren't alowed, of course) that certain people don't use evolution, and that that's somehow significant. Sort of like the old plumber who's always done his job the same way since he learned it in 1935, refuses to use any of those newfangled tools that came out after WWII, and claims that makes him some sort of paragon of stability, or authenticity, or martyrdom, or something...

"Argument from authority" meets "argument from ignorance?"

Egnor again:

Burt has also been involved in the Kansas evolution struggle. You might say he has a dog in this hunt.

We all have a dog in this hunt: our freedom of speech and freedom of religion -- not to mention our kids' futures -- are threatened by a political campaign to disguise a narrow religious doctrine as science, for obvious purposes of forced indoctrination.

Doctors don't use Darwinism, at least not since eugenics lost its luster.

And law-enforcement doesn't use specious religious arguments to determine guilt or innocence, at least not since witch-hunting and the Inquisition lost their luster.

"He's worse than a carpenter who brags about not having any use for evellors/levellers/those thingies you use to see if something is level."

I would say he is more along the lines of a builder who refuses to accept that incline planes work and asserts that no builders use them or build them. Despite this he still uses screws, nails, ramps, hammers, ladders, crowbars, shims, axes, and many other dozens of tools that involve incline planes in some way. He still builds stairs, gutter, drainage pipes, driveways, bridges and many of the things that are based off incline planes.

He is rejecting one of the fundamental tools used by the field while still making use of it, rejecting one of the fundamental objects he builds while still building it. He says that there are no construction tools called "incline planes". He says that he never builds something called on "incline plane". When it is pointed out to him that all of those things require the use of incline planes, he says that he does not have to believe in incline planes to use them or build them. He claims that you can accept that a wedge-shaped tool can separate two objects apart without accepting that it reduces the force needed to move two objects away from each other. The fact that these statements are nearly equivalent escapes him.

He claims that on-site training of contractors does not include a section on incline planes, and that tool manufacturers do not employ anyone who is an expert on incline planes. When someone points out that it is expected that they know that water runs downhill, or that a wedge can force things apart, or that walking up a staircase is easier than jumping 15 feet in the air, he ignores them. When people point out that to get a contractor's license in the first place you have to show you understand incline planes on an exam, and that this is heavily emphasized in contractor training courses, and that contracting companies say that they expect their employees to know about incline planes he ignores that as well. When it is pointed out that tool companies do in fact employ people people who are experts on incline planes he ignores that as well.

He then goes on to say that his critics are stupid for criticizing his statement that "incline planes are not the only tools ever used by builders and the not only tool they ever will use". His critics are obviously baffled, having never heard him make this statement and having absolutely no disagreement with it whatsoever. He then proceeds to refer to them as "halberds" and says that it seems obvious to him "contractors don't use halberds". He either intentionally or unintentionally ignores the fact that halberds, although a type of incline plane, are outdated and just not useful anymore outside of historical study and where never really that useful to contractors to begin with.

What is the point of denying that scientists work in paradigms and that paradigms are ordered by interrelated concepts, theories,ontological assumptions, methodological rules, etc.?

— Chip Poirot

Since "Dr." Egnor has offhandedly blamed evolution for the atrocity known as eugenics, I have to ask him for clarification on one point: was eugenics actually practiced by evolutionary biologists, or by doctors?

And since Egnor just spent a LOT of bandwidth asserting that doctors don't use evolution, then who, exactly, is really to blame for eugenics?

If Dr. Egnor could reply to this point here, it would go a long way toward restoring his credibility.

Thsnks, BlackCat, your analogy was better than mine, which was cobbled up in haste.

If, as Mr. Egnor claims, doctors don't learn or use evolutionary theory, then he has no basis as a critical authority, has he. At least Wells has his "education" he can ignore.

Sorry, RB, I just noticed you said it first and better.

The terms Darwinism and neo Darwinism lack specific meaning and are essentially a bad habit. Evidently the neo form was started in the 1890's by Romanes - John Wilkins knows the details. To a rough approximation, neodarwinism often means evolutionary biology as it was 20 or thirty years ago. In other cases darwinism with or without neo refers to sundry strawman versions of evolutionary biology, panadaptationism for instance. Ironically, Gould, the scourge of this straw man, called himself a Darwinian. At other times the term refers to evolutionary biology as it is at the time of writing. As Burt says, Darwinism may also refer to Darwin's understanding of evolution - which may be better that some latter day straw man versions.

Chip is of course right that the term "evolution" is also subject to misuse. For instance, creationists may use it as an umbrella term for all the things they think God got wrong when he set up the universe.

Still, the correct term for evolution (the history of life and the processes by which it occurred)  is   "evolution".

For usage or, usually, not, in the professional literature,  see here.

Skell is much like a broken record, sending out (spamming) the same text over and over again. For example, a couple years ago he sent it to everyone at Penn State's department of mathematics. Why? I don't know.

His rant hasn't changed the least bit over the years. No original research to advance any of the alternatives to evolution, no new angles on the subject, no new ideas. Just mailing the same essay: he has never seen evolution used.

Is that any way to spend retirement? This guy was a researcher, so he ought to know that what he is doing just doesn't cut it in the academic world. It doesn't even cut it in the PR world of creationism/ID. His ramblings are on the level of amateurs who claim to have found an elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and disproved Einstein by coming up with a theory that explaines why UFOs fly. This is senility.

There are other things, like collegiality, which factor in...

Dean Edell has always pointed out that collegiality and bedside manner in general, are often sorely lacking in surgeons, and he further points out "who cares?" because in his view, what you want in a surgeon is not what you want (and need) in a GP or most other types of doctors. What you want is good hands and a good knowledge, along with experience if possible. In a surgeon collegiality and bedside manner are the last things on the list you want, as they are pretty much the last things on the list of what makes one a good surgeon.

Judging from Egnor's writings, he's a good surgeon.

A comment on the terminology "neo-Darwinism" or "Darwinism" -

What's wrong with just talking about the theory of evolution?

Yes, it's true, totally ignorant people don't understand the use of the term "theory" in science, but that doesn't stop scientists from talking about the theory of relativity. And they almost never call it "Einsteinism".

There is a good reason to avoid "nameism" labels. They tend to imply an ideology or religious sect dominated by a single charismatic figure, with adherents who struggle for purity. Eg Marxism, Hicksism, etc. Such "nameism" labels are rarely complimentary. Creationists are trying to falsely put the theory of evolution in this company.

Referring to the theory of evolution clarifies that one is referring to the modern, unifying theory of evolution, and not incorrect past hypotheses of the mechanism of evolution, such as Lysenkoism or Lamarckism (note the use of "nameism" labels, unfairly in the case of Lamarck, to refer to these in an uncomplimentary manner).

The central point of the modern theory of evolution is that natural mechanisms of offspring divergence from parent, coupled with different rates of reproduction for different phenotypes, can explain the diversity of life.

Differences between parent and offspring genomes are often called "mutations", and sometimes referred to as "random", which is true in the sense that they result from physical events, not magic, and cannot be based on specific predictions of the future. Of course it can get complicated (mutations that make other mutations happen more often can be selected for in some environments, or the opposite can happen in other environments, etc). But the basic principles hold.

As for Egnor, I'll say it one more time. ID is a reflection of a political movement. Although virtually all ID advocates will claim to be religious, usually to be evangelical or Catholic, that is not the true underlying unity. Although they are usually uneducated in science, that is not the underlying unity either, as Egnor to some degree may illustrate. They come from diverse educational and religious backgrounds. The underlying unity is that all creationists are "conservative movement" ideologues. If ID were a religious, philosophical, or scientific movement, we would see some diversity of technically irrelevant political views, but we don't. I'll lay you ten to one that Egnor is a Rush Limbaugh fan. Why? Because this is what the evidence to date predicts. They all have been before.

The converse does not hold. The theory of evolution is not accepted only by "liberals", nor only by any other group unified by a characteristic technically irrelevant to examination of the evidence. In fact, even though there is clear pressure on "conservatives" to at least give lip service to ID, we even see a few conservative ideologues critiquing it.

ID is a manifestation of right wing politics. If a brain surgeon says he supports it, what he really means is that he drinks "conservative movement" political kool-aid. End of story.

harold --- I agree. Although I do wish it to be named properly: The Theory of Biological Evolution.

Raging Bee said: Since "Dr." Egnor has offhandedly blamed evolution for the atrocity known as eugenics, I have to ask him for clarification on one point: was eugenics actually practiced by evolutionary biologists, or by doctors?

I find the remarks about not letting Dr. Egnor doing surgery "on me" a display of the profound ignorance of the reality of neurosurgery in the United States. How many of you bothered to see how many Neurosurgeons practice near where you live? Particularly those who have not limited their practices to spine only. In fact there are 50% fewer of them licenced to practice in the USA than there were 10 years ago. Neurosurgery residency slots routinely get fewer applicants than there are slots for them. Neurosurgery is mostly emergency interventions and perfect outcomes are rare. Neurosurgeons spend half their lives working 36 hours on and 12 off and the other half defending themselves in court ($500,000 per annum malpractice rates are not unheard of). Methinks if Dr. Egnor was the only neurosurgeon in your neck of the woods you'ld ask him to fix your cerebral aneurysm PDQ.

If a brain surgeon says he supports it, what he really means is that he drinks "conservative movement" political kool-aid. End of story.

I find the remarks about not letting Dr. Egnor doing surgery "on me" a display of the profound ignorance of the reality of neurosurgery in the United States.

I find the remarks about not letting Dr. Egnor doing surgery "on me" a display of the profound ignorance of the reality of neurosurgery in the United States. How many of you bothered to see how many Neurosurgeons practice near where you live?

Neurosurgeons spend half their lives working 36 hours on and 12 off and the other half defending themselves in court ($500,000 per annum malpractice rates are not unheard of).

After Egnor's incredible letter to the NYTimes regarding the Terri Schiavo case
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E5D9133BF932A15755C0A9639C8B63
...(try to read the last paragraph without getting nauseated), is there any surprise that Egnor ignored, distorted and misrepresented the points in Dr. Humberg's article?

And remember - this man teaches ethics to med students.

And remember - this man teaches ethics to med students.

Dizzy -

"Or he appreciates the sizable chunks of cash he probably gets for convincing people that he drinks it..."

An excellent point. I don't want to run the risk of being excessively cynical about Dr Egnor's motives. So far, I've merely opined very strongly that he is almost certainly driven by whatever emotional or cultural issues cause people to embrace "the conservative movement" in a rigid, ideological way, to the extent of being motivated to show loyalty by exploiting his (undeniably impressive) applied science credentials, in the cause of right wing pseudoscience.

The fact that he has commented on the Terry Schaivo debacle as well certainly strengthens my hypothesis.

I wonder how long it will be before links to the hard-line political right, in the form of donations, conference attendance, and/or campaigning, are revealed?

But it is true that the massively profitable "conservative affirmative action" for mediocre intellectuals must, at some level, be a temptation for many. At this point, Dr Egnor could certainly write a book entitled something like "The Brain of the Creator - A Neurosurgeon's Vision of Design" - and write it very quickly. Enforced sales to conservative groups that buy all such books in bulk (to create the appearance of massive sales and reward "conservative intellectuals"), as well as to those who buy every book that Rush Limbaugh orders them to, would guarantee a good pay-off. And then there would be the lectures. But of course, Dr Egnor may not be consciously scheming in this way.

I find the remarks about not letting Dr. Egnor doing surgery "on me" a display of the profound ignorance of the reality of neurosurgery in the United States.

As I, for one, explicitly said on this thread already, the issue is not Egnor's technical competence; it's his ethics and integrity, and his willingness to assimilate new ideas in the furtherance of his work. Egnor's arguments have not only been refuted, they have been proven factually false, due to either ignorance or dishonesty; therefore, everything he says is suspect. If he didn't have time to study evolution, then he should have admitted his ignorance, stayed out of the debate, and let those who DID study it have the final word. Us working stiffs would have understood.

Competent, even brilliant, people get fired for dishonesty in all professions.

Methinks if Dr. Egnor was the only neurosurgeon in your neck of the woods you'ld ask him to fix your cerebral aneurysm PDQ.

Youthinks correctly -- if I could not afford to shop the competition. And people who can't shop the competition -- due to isolation, poverty, and/or lack of education -- are the people on whom the Christofascists routinely prey.

Burt, could you sometime do a little lay primer on organ transplantation and any application of evolutionary connections therein, especially in the need and use of immunosuppressives?

It might be fun to resurrect all the old creationist claims against blood banking, too, and compare them to current claims about evolution's irrelevance to medicine.

I wonder how long it will be before links to the hard-line political right, in the form of donations, conference attendance, and/or campaigning, are revealed?

It still greatly puzzles me that not only has the ecology and evo bio dept at Stony Brook not had ANY comment on Egnor at all, but there is also no comment from the Dean of the college of medicine at Stony regarding his admission of teaching historical revisionism in his ethics courses. WHY THE HELL IS THE REST OF STONY BROOK STONILY SILENT!

Terri Schiavo's autopsy report claimed that she was probably blind. Supporters of the decision to starve her to death have hailed this finding as bolstering their argument that withdrawal of her feeding tube was ethical. Their reasoning is hard to follow.

— Egnor

Freshly-released autopsy results reveal that Terri Schiavo was blind ... Which makes Dr. Frist's expert "diagnosis" all the more outrageous: ... "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

If Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, blindness is a meaningless diagnosis. Only sentient people can see, and only sentient people can be blind. And if she were blind, then she was sentient, and the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was a genuinely fatal mistake.

What diagnoses can be made in regards to the brain of Mrs. Schiavo? (See attached neuropathology report)

Mrs. Schiavo's brain showed marked global anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy resulting in massive cerebral atrophy. Her brain weight was approximately half of the expected weight. Of particular importance was the hypoxic damage and neuronal loss of her occipital lobes, which indicates cortical blindness. Her remaining brain regions also show severe hypoxic injury and neuronal atrophy/loss. No areas of recent or remote trumatic injury were found.

I find the remarks about not letting Dr. Egnor doing surgery "on me" a display of the profound ignorance of the reality of neurosurgery in the United States.

"Only sentient people can see".

He's semantically twisting the meaning of the words "blindness" and "see", and this he really shouldn't be doing. A completely unconscious person with a functional visual system can show reflexes like pupillary contraction, and brain activity that corresponds correctly to external stimuli can be recorded in the visual cortex. Insects can see, whether they are sentient or not.

On the other hand, many totally sentient people happen to be blind, for one reason or another. In such cases, reflexes may or may not be present, and the visual cortex may or may not show activity that correctly corresponds to external visual stimuli (it will always show some activity), depending on the cause of blindness.

Sentience and blindness to visual light are largely unrelated to each other. When we say that someone is blind in a physical, medical sense, we aren't philosophically debating whether they are "aware" of what they see. We're talking about whether they have the physical capacity to see.

Dizzy -

I didn't mean to suggest that everyone would think ill of Egnor for being a right wing ideologue; I'm just elaborating on the point that ID is a political phenomenon. Just as all Lysenkoists were communists, all ID advocates are right wing ideologues, and many right wing ideologues feel compelled to become ID advocates.

Although I am not, of course, a right wing ideologue myself, I could be one, and still acknowledge the truth of this observation. In fact, it's generally acknowledged by "conservatives".

This is an important point, because it helps to stress the fact that ID is not a natural, rational idea that would occur to an independent thinker, nor even really a sincere religious inspiration, but rather, a strained and insincere political construction.

It was designed to "court-proof" creationism in schools, in an effort to keep antsy evangelicals loyal to a party that may not represent their own best interests in many ways.

As he does with the points his critics make to debunk his assertions, "Dr." Egnor completely ignores the enormous body of evidence and reasoning on which the final decision on Terri Schiavo was based (all fifteen years of it), and pretends that one peripheral point -- Terri's alleged "blindness" -- was the sole reason for removal of her feeding-tube.

We need to remember that whole episode, as proof of the far right's insanity and dishonesty. Thank you, Dr. Egnor, for helping us remember what your side of this debate is really like.

Just as all Lysenkoists were communists, all ID advocates are right wing ideologues, and many right wing ideologues feel compelled to become ID advocates.

Glen, harold,

Thought an article in today's WaPo might be worth a read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031501868.html

Interesting take on the multiple motivations & interests related to some of the issues here.

Thanks Dizzy, yes that's interesting.

It is, perhaps, instructive that on UD the pseudoscience of denying global warming is being linked with the pseudoscience of ID (not that I think global warming is nearly as well-evidenced as evolution, since evolution makes specific claims which are borne out by genetics and fossils, while global warming is a powerful coincidence (in the scientific sense) of hypothesized cause and observed effect. Anthropogenic warming is correlation, evolution is causation, IOW). It does appear that few other than conservatives really attack the science of global warming, while others admit that the anthropogenicity of warming is subject to some margin of error and accept the science under those terms.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Egnor has just posted yet another non-response to his critics. It's more of the same old lies and evasions, but I just thought you'd like to know...

Ironically, Gould, the scourge of this straw man, called himself a Darwinian.

— Pete Dunkelberg

There ought to be a name for the particular form of insanity that people like Egnor exhibit.

Rationality Disorder?

Egnor is obviously reading these comments, as indicated by his most recent post on the creationist page of the DI. He is sidestepping some real issues:

- comparative neurobiology, with which he should be familiar when he uses his neocortex, provides some of the best non-fossil evidence for evolution.

- it is the insight that comes from evolutionary theory, not just well-meaning evolutionary biologists who are "fine scientists," that leads to the educational value of evolution to medical practitioners in their understanding of anatomy and physiology. There is no other adequate way to understand anatomy and physiology.

- Intelligent Design creationism offers NO answers to medical patients. If my wife were to tell her patients just "sorry, your bipolar disorder was just the act of an Intelligent Designer," or "here, take this flu vaccine from 15 years ago, because nothing evolves," then I think her practice would fail. Knowing the evolution of the brain, and the evolution of disease, is the only way to deduce the most correct answers to patients' needs.

- he states "but the assertion that randomness is the raw material for all biological complexity plays no role in medical education or research." This is a common misunderstanding of evolutionary biology that is promulgated by the DI and other creationists. As I explain in "The Riddled Chain," randomness or chance plays a role, but it is PROCESS, not chance alone, that determines evolutionary trajectories. Creationists always leave out the PROCESSES ... of which natural selection is key, but not the only process. Medical research without an understanding of evolutionary processes is like geometry of circles without an understanding of pi ... you can do some of it, but not most of it.

**sigh**,
Jeff

I dunno-I find it amazing when people pass judgement on the content of areas not their own, whether it is physicians or engineers (or chemists such as Skell) talking about evolutionary biology, or judging the work of climate scientists. I am used to it happening to teachers (everyone has gone to school, so some people think they are experts at teaching and are so sure how we "ought" to be doing our jobs) I think that some of us have lost the understanding of the importance of "mileage". If you have not done the "time" (all that is involved-the work, keeping up in the literature, etc.) in the area discussed, your opinions don't carry the same weight.

Anyhoo, my two cents worth...

Either Egnor is incompetent and doesn't understand the term "cortical blindness", which refers to the function of the visual cortex, not to sentience, or he attempted to intentionally mislead people with his letter, or both.

As he does with the points his critics make to debunk his assertions, "Dr." Egnor completely ignores the enormous body of evidence and reasoning on which the final decision on Terri Schiavo was based (all fifteen years of it), and pretends that one peripheral point --- Terri's alleged "blindness" --- was the sole reason for removal of her feeding-tube.

while global warming is a powerful coincidence (in the scientific sense) of hypothesized cause and observed effect. Anthropogenic warming is correlation

while global warming is a powerful coincidence (in the scientific sense) of hypothesized cause and observed effect. Anthropogenic warming is correlation

As the IPCC stated, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability."

That the changes are in part due to human activities is no longer in doubt, only the relative magnitude of the human contribution.