Thetheologianscafe: “Evolution Is Pseudo-Science”.

Dan, or thetheologianscafe, made a post here calling evolution pseudo-science because evolution research supposedly doesn’t save lives, and said that he had cancer and his doctor was a “real” scientist because she was doing something important.  My response:

Nearly half of known forms of cancer evolve proteins which make them resistant to cancer treatments.  If your oncologist didn’t know about evolution you would likely be dead you ignorant shithead.”

Evolution science, in addition to answering many of the biggest mysteries of our existence, is used to do everything from treat cancer to predicting the mutations of super-viruses to finding countless areas for research for gene therapies to treat disease, not to even mention using evolutionary algorithms to make adaptive computer programs which can design stronger bridges and safer airplanes, and countless other applications.

But even if it didn’t do all of that (and more), pure science is only something to scoff at if one resents truth and discovery.  In which case please do darwin proud and get a vasectomy.  The gene pool has enough dead weight as it is.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Thetheologianscafe: “Evolution Is Pseudo-Science”.

  1. I didn’t have cancer.  I had a tumor and I went to a doctor who treats cancer because that is who you go to in order to get a tumor removed.I doubt evolution added to her understanding of my treatment one bit.

  2. agnophilo says:

    @TheTheologiansCafe – The point stands regardless.

  3. @TheTheologiansCafe – Might I suggest the book “The Emperor of All Malodies” by Siddhartha Mukherjee, an oncologist at Columbia University. Exerpt:”cancer is not simply a clonal disease; it is a clonally evolving disease. If growth occurred without evolution, cancer cells would not be imbued with the potent capacity to invade, survive and metastasize […] When a chemotherapeutic drug or the immune system attacks cancer, mutant clones that can resist the attack grow out. The fittest cancer cell survives. This mirthless, relentless cycle of mutation, selection and overgrowth generates cells that are more and more adapted to survival and growth […] If we, as a species, are the ultimate product of Darwinian selection, then so, too, is this incredible disease that lurks inside us.”

  4. rugbugg says:

    I don’t think most of us intend to deny that cells and viruses evolve (ie.mutate to become stronger).  However, that, and the proven facts related to it, are not sufficient evidence for most of us to accept the entire evolutionary theory as the initialization of the universe.Our scientific knowledge has come a very long way, but I believe we have a great deal farther to go before we can be secure in our theories.That’s why I feel that Darwinism, creationism, etc. should be taught on equal footing and not as central to our picture of ourselves as human beings.  But then, perhaps that’s only logical to me as a religiously agnostic individual.Now I’m going to go talk to someone who doesn’t feel it necessary to ridicule and demean others simply because they disagree.

  5. agnophilo says:

    @GodlessLiberal – Sounds interesting.  Probably all forms of cancer evolve, but I was referring to a specific protein which acts as a bilge pump, bailing chemo therapy toxins out of the cancer cells.  That specific adaptation occurs in about half of known forms of cancer.  Though those are probably the ones most commonly treated with chemo. Still, thanks : )

  6. @agnophilo – The book has a large section on how cancer research is dependent on evolution research, which is what I was pointing out.

  7. agnophilo says:

    @rugbugg – Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the “initialization of the universe”, that is just creationists distorting it into something other than what it is in order to reject it.  And if you want to teach creationism I think that’s fine.  I’ll go one step further and say it ought to be mandatory in public schools.  But not in a science course, because it isn’t science.  In a comparative religions course or a bible as literature course though, I’m fine with it.  But lets not lie to the kiddies and pretend this shit comes from the science lab when it comes from the evangelical right.As far as insulting him, I was rude – and maybe I took out my annoyance at the zillion blogs I’ve seen misrepresenting science (as you did just now) in order to attack it on him.But he is probably the most visible blogger on this website, and if he uses that to bash science out of ignorance, he deserves what criticism he gets.So with the exception of the word “shithead”, I stand by my response.

  8. agnophilo says:

    @GodlessLiberal – I appreciate it.  Might look it up sometime.

  9. rugbugg says:

    See, that’s what I thought.  Because of our early teachings, we’re defining the same words different ways.That’s what I meant — creationism and evolution as the beginning with the monkeys into humans and what-have-you, plus whatever the Buddists and other major religions believe, should be in social studies class.When I went to school, Evolution theory and Darwinism were synonymous.  I’m not bull-headedly misrepresenting anything.  I was simply taught something different than you were.

  10. agnophilo says:

    @rugbugg – Evolution does not say humans evolved from monkeys.  I think you were taught a lot of things that had not much to do with science.@darkoozeripple – Is this an alt account?

  11. @agnophilo – Alt to what? I’m not alt to anything.

  12. Like wasting time on fruit fly research, right?

  13. Roninsabum says:

    @TheTheologiansCafe – The real question here is then not “whether biological evolution is pseudo-science” but rather what the place of all science in human culture is.  Non-scientists, in my experience (I’m a particle physicist), persistently like to think that science is supposed to be about them–what grab bag of tricks and toys can it produce for them, whether it be cancer cures, iPods, shiny new cars, etc.  This is not the point of science, why science exists, or why scientists pursue their careers.  Quite simply, It’s not about you; science is about the pursuit of truth in the universe for it’s own sake.  To the extent that it is–or even should be, in my opinion–egocentric or ethnocentric, science is about the progress of human culture and our small place in the universe.  Through rigorous discipline and objective analysis, we cast aside the ignorant superstitions and childish fantasies of our previous generations, exalting understanding itself.That said, the utilitarian position of science that results from this approach is more than clear.  From the benefit that biological evolution has on fields spanning farming to disease control, to the effect particle physics has from quantum mechanics to the invention of the internet itself, science pursued in this manner precisely does produce for improving the quality of human life.  We cannot understand how an idea can be useful before we understand the idea itself; we are left with learning for the sake of learning.

  14. @just_the_average_jane –  heck yes. You probably just pretend to do research so you can make bets every time a bunch of male drosphila start to lek over a vinegary sponge :3

  15. Kimmybeth says:

    I thought you liberal atheists pride yourselves on your open mindedness & your tolerance.  Calling someone who isn’t buying ALL the evolution THEORIES an “ignorant shithead” is not only immature, crude, uncalled for, unaccepting, judgemental & narrow minded but it goes against the publicly proclaimed liberal mindset.  Shame, shame.  I think that makes you (and most liberals) two faced liars.  

  16. @TheTheologiansCafe – >Implying that if your oncologist has only removed one of your benign tumors, they have never treated cancerous tumors before. Ever.

  17. agnophilo says:

    @darkoozeripple – You were responding to a comment to dan, I was asking if you were him.@just_the_average_jane – I have no idea if you are kidding, my readership is such a mixed bag, lol.@Kimmybeth – I called an individual an ignorant shithead because of something he specifically did.  You turned that into a negative generalization against millions of people.  You had me at “that was wrong” and lost me at “but this is worse”.And you don’t know what the word theory means in science, but whatever, you don’t care I’m betting.

  18. kenedwards5 says:

    @Kimmybeth – I’ve tried telling him that but he hasn’t evolved into a higher lifeform yet!

  19. mcbery says:

    I don’t like being called ignorant. Oh well, one question that I ask about evolution.If things are evolving why is it so important to preserve the wildlife? Maybe it’s evolving into stupid people? Sorry! Just being contrary, I guess. Hope you don’t mind.

  20. @agnophilo – Haha, don’t worry, I’m being sarcastic. I quite like @Roninsabum‘s comment. 

  21. you’re pretty sharp (in a good way) with your words.im impressed. just wanted to express that.

  22. agnophilo says:

    @mcbery – Nah, it’s fine.  And it’s not so much preserving wildlife as it is limiting our harm to them.  Species go extinct, that’s part of nature – but I don’t want there to be no tigers in 50 years because we drove them into extinction.  We ought to preserve a bit of the world for posterity I think.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s