97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
real life
 
  1  
Fri 27 Oct, 2006 10:14 pm
Sad that a few want to make evolution the issue in this case, but the story does not fit the one-dimensional frame that has been built for it.

Baby Fae was not 'sacrified' , she was dying and a last ditch effort was made to save her.

The NY Times article states that no human heart was available. (This is in direct contradiction to Dr Stoller's unbelievable contention that a search was not made.)

Dr Stoller paints Bailey as a lone experimenter in cross species transplants. But this is far from the truth.

Dr. Christian Barnaard had performed transplants on humans using baboon hearts, as we see from the NY Times article.

Dr Bailey, very aware of the risks, put his career on the line to try to save her.

I suppose some of our evolutionary friends would have simply let her die, because, after all, she is just an animal to them.

Transplants from baboons were risky, everyone knew that . But they were not considered arrogant or a 'rejection of scientific knowledge'.

How pathetic that a few want to prop up their egos and make political hay over a poor girl's death.



from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1DD1239F93BA15753C1A962948260&sec=health&pagewanted=print

Quote:
October 28, 1984
BABOON'S HEART IMPLANTED IN INFANT ON COAST
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN <P>

In a bold surgical effort that could have a wide impact on the treatment of failing hearts, a 15-day-old girl received a baboon's heart in a five-hour operation Friday and was reported ''doing fine'' yesterday at Loma Linda University Medical Center in California.

Doctors attending the girl, who was described only as Baby Fae, said through a hospital spokesman that they were ''very pleased'' with the early postoperative results. However, they listed the baby in critical condition in the hospital's intensive care unit. That is standard for any patient who has undergone open-heart surgery.

The doctors said Baby Fae had been born with a severe birth defect, hypoplastic heart syndrome, which made the left side of her heart much smaller than the right side. Baby Fae ''almost died on her sixth day'' of life, said Joyce McClintock, a spokesman for the medical center.

Yesterday Baby Fae was ''stirring and opening her eyes'' and breathing with the help of a mechanical respirator, according to a hospital official.

The heart of a baboon somewhere between ''4 months and 1 year'' of age was used because a compatible human heart was not available, [/u]Mrs. McClintock said. She said that if the operation proved successful, Dr. Leonard L. Bailey, the 41-year-old head of the Loma Linda surgical team, expected the baboon's heart to grow at a normal rate as Baby Fae did. The prediction was based on animal experiments.

Six baboons that were housed at Loma Linda were initially selected for the compatibility tests. After extensive immunological testing, the potential donors were narrowed to two baboons and then one. ''It's really uncanny,'' one of the doctors said, ''because we never thought we could actually get the data to support selection of one primate donor over another.''[/u]

The doctors said they had detected no other birth defects or conditions in Baby Fae after thorough examinations by specialists in the nervous system, genetics, kidney disease and other fields.

The operation is the first of five using baboon hearts planned by doctors at Loma Linda University, which is near Riverside, about 60 miles from Los Angeles. The animal-to-human transplant experiments were approved by the university's ethics committee although Mrs. McClintock said she did not know when the approval was granted.

The series of experiments give a concerted new push to the medical profession's effort to use animals as a source of organs for transplantation. If the new effort with Baby Fae and other humans succeeds, doctors might overcome the shortage of donor human hearts. That shortage has appeared to be an insurmountable barrier to widespread application of heart transplant programs. Ethics of Using Animals

The success of cross-species transplants could be expected to open up new avenues of research into heart disease as well as raise some thorny ethical questions, Dr. Claude J. Lenfant, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, said in an interview.[/u]

Dr. Bailey indicated he was aware of the ethical issues.

''We're not in the business of uselessly sacrificing animals,'' he said in a news release issued yesterday. ''But we're forced here to make a choice. We can either decide to continue to let these otherwise healthy human babies die, because they are born with only half of their heart, or we can intervene and, in so doing, sacrifice some lesser form than our own human species.''

Dr. Bailey noted the similarities and differences in anatomy of simian and human hearts.

''The baboon has only two arch vessels, while the human heart usually has three,'' he said, referring to the aortic arch, ''but for all practical purposes, the internal structure of the baboon heart is virtually the same as the human heart.'' Earlier Attempts Failed

While four earlier efforts to use ape hearts dating to 1964 all failed, this new effort comes when organ transplants are meeting with much greater success than ever before. The reasons for better success include a wider body of scientific knowledge as well as the development of improved tests to detect the rejection phenomenon and drugs to fight it since the first human- to-human heart transplant was done in 1967.

Dr. Christiaan N. Barnard performed the first successful human heart transplant at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa, and doctors in many centers elsewhere quickly joined in after learning that such transplants were technically feasible.

The death rates were appalling, however, because of the inability to stop the body from rejecting the donated heart, and almost all centers abandoned the attempts. The striking exception was Dr. Norman Shumway's program at Stanford University in California.

In 1977 Dr. Barnard developed a new approach to heart transplant surgery by piggy-backing ape hearts to the failing hearts of two patients. In one operation Dr. Barnard piggy-backed a baboon's heart and the patient died hours after the operation. In the other, he used a chimpanzee's heart; the patient died three and one-half days later.[/u]

But Dr. Barnard soon gave up on that approach because of the rejection phenomenon, saying that ''we will go ahead again'' when better antirejection drugs were developed. Dr. Barnard also said in an interview in 1978 that he abandoned the technique of using ape hearts in humans ''not because I'm so convinced I'm on the wrong track, but I got emotionally involved with the chimp.''[/u]

Experts have credited the new surge of transplantation activity to the development of the drug cyclosporin-A. However, when Mrs. McClintock, the Loma Linda spokesman, was asked if the baboon transplant would have been done if cyclosporin-A was not available, she said she did not know.

Dr. Lenfant of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute said in an interview that the Federal institute had not provided financial support to the Loma Linda group for its baboon transplant experiments.

Mrs. McClintock said the Loma Linda doctors and medical center were donating their services to Baby Fae's care. But she said she did not know if any Federal, state or health insurance funds would be used.

Dr. Lenfant said officials at the institute ''would follow the experiments with interest.'' He expressed concern about the possibility of complications that might result from long-term use of cyclosporin-A. He said he presumed that because of the crossing of the species barrier, the dosage of cyclosporin- A might be higher than in transplants of human hearts.

Although the success rates of heart transplants have improved significantly at Stanford and several other centers that have begun to do them again using cyclosporin-A, the procedure is still reserved for recipients who have advanced heart disease and who otherwise would have little chance for survival. Age as Survival Factor

Doctors have found that younger patients generally have better survival rates, and doctors have usually set an arbitrary upper age limit of 50 years for potential recipients of human heart transplants.

As the success rates have improved, transplant surgeons have become bolder in giving hearts to younger people. Last August, doctors in London transplanted a heart into 9-day-old Hollie Ruffey, who suffered from the same hypoplastic heart birth defect condition that affected Baby Fae in California. Hollie Ruffey was the world's youngest heart-transplant recipient and she died less than three weeks later.[/u]

Baby Fae's heart had an inadequate left ventricle, the main pumping chamber of the organ, according to Mrs. McClintock. The birth defects also affected the two valves on the left side of Baby Fae's heart and her aorta, the main artery leading from the heart.

Since Baby Fae was admitted to Loma Linda University Medical Center on Oct. 19, doctors sustained her life by using a variety of medical measures. Her breathing was supported by a mechanical respirator, for example. In another effort to sustain circulation, the doctors prescribed a prostaglandin- type drug to treat a condition called a patent ductus.
emphases mine
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 27 Oct, 2006 10:27 pm
real life wrote:
Baby Fae was not 'sacrified' , she was dying and a last ditch effort was made to save her.

The NY Times article states that no human heart was available. (This is in direct contradiction to Dr Stoller's unbelievable contention that a search was not made.)


I was actually thinking something similar.

The way I remember it, the baboon heart was simply the only option. The Dr. is still a moron for not believing in evolution and therefor using the knowledge to guide his decisions, but I don't think that was the primary factor in the choices which were made.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Fri 27 Oct, 2006 11:28 pm
What that 1984 NYT piece announcing the event says is what the events' perpertators and enablers provided - its a frickin puff-piece press release from the "Ain't we great!" POV, written by credulous reporters for an even more credulous mass audience. What Dr. Stoller's 1994 professional journal article discloses is that investigation and review make plain that other options were available but not pursued, that proper proceedures were not followed, and that protocols and laws were violated. Of course, it is to be expected one of the persuasion ID-iots so fervently endorse would have no more regard for investigation, review, proceedure, protocol, and law than had Dr. Bailey when he sacrificed Baby Fae on the altar of his intellectually, ethically, and morally bankrupt agenda.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 27 Oct, 2006 11:33 pm
Hi timber, I thought about you often during my travels in Israel this past two weeks - an atheist amongst Jews and christians! YIKES Actually, it was a very good experience to see and learn about the history of Israel. Even drove close to Lebanon and Jordan, and stayed in the Golan Heights for two nites and one nite in Heifa. We even went to an Arab restaurant in downtown Heifa for dinner. Will be posting a short travelogue with pictures in a few days.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Fri 27 Oct, 2006 11:43 pm
Hey, there c. i. - noticed from your posts you'd been back a while - thought I'd already said howdy but a quick review of my posts reveals I musta`spaced it Embarrassed Rolling Eyes - but that's timber for ya Laughing

Glad you had a good time, I'll look for the travelogue.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 04:33 am
Real Life purposely lets the implication stand that this xenografting was not hutzpah based upon a falsifiable assumption. "It was a last chance option"


Such ;ast chance options include overspraying things like Roundup in monoculture feields and not expecting genetic resistance not to occur. The laws that underpin natural selection are all falsifiable whereas the "scientific bases" of ID and Creationist thinking are not.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 08:32 am
Hi farmerman, Didn't hear anybody use the word "chutzpah" during my two weeks in Israel, but everything you said about natural selection and "scientific basis" were entirely ignored when we visited the religious' sights. A believer has "faith" that ignores logic and science by about 100 percent. We even had a minister in our group of 14.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 09:03 am
Hey c. i. Welcome Back.
To me, from my past experience, Israel is a contradiction. I worked at the Weismann Institute in Rehovot for a half year on locating and mining deep ocean springs, We were screwing around with military UAVs to map the ocean bottoms by thermal imagery. I found that a country like Israel established on the freedom to live as a Jew, was mostly populated by agnostics(Most of the population left the Torah up to the HAssidem and the Lubovitch). Anyway, in my eyes, Judaism is more of a "common sense" philosophy than a "grab you by the brains" religion. If I hadda be something I think Id be a Jew. I always like arguing the points of morsl law. Judaism is most scientific about the "fences " of the LAw.

I guess the group you were with was there for the experience of the holy Land. When I was there we were looking for deep vents and deposits of natron that indicate old water filled cracks in the land when it wasnt so arid.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 10:17 am
What is so fascinating for me is to see are those with faith that has the ability to ignore science while they "believe" the stories of the bible. I see the same beliefs in religion in all of my siblings and their ability to ignore all the evidence that shows the contradictions of the bible vs all fields of science. Their scholarship were far suprior to mine.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 01:13 pm
There is a long history of animal/man transformations due to man's admiration for the perfection in limitation of animals.

Brave as a lion, cunning as a fox or crafty as a monkey, patient as an ox, free as an eagle, innocent as a white dove, etc. These are just a few well known examples which appear throughout history and which survive in our own time prominently.

But man never showed any desire to be any of these animals.

The spirit of scientific enquiry is traditionally symbolised by Adam with Eve in sepent guise (as wise as a serpent) and also with Faust and Mephistopheles. Man and a temptation and what use is a temptation unless it is a mighty one and resistable only by a priesthood, and then not always, only after long, arduous training.

The female, money, knowledge, narcotics, power are such mighty temptations and giving in to any one of them has an equality and may be designated libertinage. An orgy to be more precise.

The animal/man metamorphoses, in such things as Dr, Moreau's Island and Animal Farm and in cartoon images, is a product of Darwin's legacy to the imagination which is trained to regard man as an actual animal albeit a superior one in like manner as does the conceit that a tiger or a whale is superior to a housefly which is a ridiculous proposition to a scientist who wouldn't allow sentimentalities picked up from TV or books for teaching children the alphabet to overpower his observation and questioning curiosity.

To suppose that man went from a savage brute to where we are now in 20,000 years of an evolutionary development lasting hundreds of millions of years and that nothing unusual and inexplicable happened, or possibly happened, to cause it and without the slightest possibility of his even understanding the whywhatwherewhen of it or to even understand what drives him to understand things beyond his understanding is hardly a scientific approach. A scientist may well be sceptical about such things but never dogmatic.

Such a supposition seems to me to undermine the springs of scientific enquiry. It ought to lead to a scientist going horseracing and boozing rather than peering at fossil and spectometer readouts when he knows what he is going to find because whatever he does find he can provide an explanation for and flog it persuasively to those who are easily persuaded by such things for whatever reasons such as being well thought of by the heads of departments.

The atheistic materialist Darwinian has nowhere to go except in pursuit of money, position, fame & Co. which presumably, following evolutionary theory, is in the service of passing on superior genetic configurations which is, in a nutshell, tailchasing. A peacock's tail. A sexual demand.

There is nothing worth all the painstaking effort to a scientist when he knows there's nothing worth finding except those things if he is a man of independence from them and when he knows that painstaking effort is within the capacities of most people (thank goodness) and scientists don't do what most people can do. They are barmy. Everybody knows that. It's a cliche. The Mad Scientist.

Laurel and Hardy came across a scientist in the sketch where man is made monkey in a tank of water. (A swamp symbol).

The supposition, that nothing unusual happened to man, may well be a reasonable fancy for the evolutionist to play with but it remains a fancy and is still a supposition and it can be expected to be regarded as fantastical by mass society which is dyed through and through with arts, customs, language and traditions which cause it quite naturally to regard mankind, at the least, as being of divine creation and which will find it hard to swallow. Such a supposition could be regarded as an attack on those arts, customs, language and traditions as, in the case of the more obvious one, language, seems to be borne out by the reality of scientific jargon.

A society may well feel that it is better to pretend there was a divine creation rather than pretend there wasn't and if it does it is bound to lend that pretence all the arts it can muster in its aid. The mumbo-jumbo some might call it.

But a true scientist wouldn't proceed on the assumption that the supposition had intellectual integrity because he has then written his own script rather than allow nature to write it for him.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 01:27 pm
while scientists practice at the altar of ignorance, they dont refute all the validated evidence that has gone before.
We dont mix lead with butter to see if we can make gold. Thats just stupid. So, Dr Bailey is not a pioneer, he is, instead, a fool who should have known better.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 02:04 pm
See what I mean about language.

"We" eh- Now there's a claim. A label "scientist" does not necessarily designate a scientist even if it is peer reviewed by those of like mind.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 03:22 pm
Also sprach MOLOCH !!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 04:11 pm
farmerman wrote:
Real Life purposely lets the implication stand that this xenografting was not hutzpah based upon a falsifiable assumption. "It was a last chance option"


Such ;ast chance options include overspraying things like Roundup in monoculture feields and not expecting genetic resistance not to occur. The laws that underpin natural selection are all falsifiable whereas the "scientific bases" of ID and Creationist thinking are not.


Since there was no human heart available and the child was dying, what would you suggest?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 04:20 pm
"Above all else, do no harm". That summarizes the Hyppocratic oath

A physician, ignorant of transpecies transfers , cannot just "try it and see what happens" The implied consent was a promise to provide some additional life with a better quality. I dont think that promise was delivered on.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 05:02 pm
You are talking after the event fm.

Suppose it had worked.

I can't imagine the guy's motives being suspect. Not for a moment.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 09:48 pm
farmerman wrote:
"Above all else, do no harm". That summarizes the Hyppocratic oath

A physician, ignorant of transpecies transfers , cannot just "try it and see what happens" The implied consent was a promise to provide some additional life with a better quality. I dont think that promise was delivered on.


What makes you think Bailey was ignorant of transpecies transplants?

Even Stoller admits in his article that this is not the case.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sat 28 Oct, 2006 11:13 pm
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
Real Life purposely lets the implication stand that this xenografting was not hutzpah based upon a falsifiable assumption. "It was a last chance option"


Such ;ast chance options include overspraying things like Roundup in monoculture feields and not expecting genetic resistance not to occur. The laws that underpin natural selection are all falsifiable whereas the "scientific bases" of ID and Creationist thinking are not.


Since there was no human heart available and the child was dying, what would you suggest?


Quote:
Although warned by a colleague at a medical conference that his research was too incomplete to risk using human subjects, Bailey went ahead.
Baby Fae was not the first human to receive a primate xenograft. In a review of xenografts, the Council of Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association noted a rapid rejection of all baboon transplants to humans. Nevertheless, Bailey claimed that the problems of rejection could be overcome by the "immature" state of an infant's immune system. After the operation, immunologists from around the world pointed out that the part of the immune system that rejects unmatched transplants is fully mature at birth, Furthermore, there is no way to match baboon hearts to human recipients, because baboons have no antigens in common with human tissue.


In an effort to safeguard patients, institutional review boards must first give permission for any human experiment. In an unconscionable lapse of ethics, the review board of Loma Linda Medical Center failed to live up to its obligations -- they gave Bailey permission for five baboon-to-human transplant experiments, having no reports documenting that even heart allotransplantation in infancy is successful. Furthermore, highly experimental procedures on children, such as a xenograft, require special permission from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
In addition to these institutional and federal safeguards that should have protected Baby Fae, California's Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act (PHSMEA) requires that if informed consent is given in behalf of another person, the experimental procedure must meet certain criteria. California's Health and Safety Code ~24175, subsection (e) states, "Informed consent given by a person other than the human subject shall only be for medical experiments related to maintaining or improving the health of the human subject or related to obtaining information about a pathological condition of the human subject."
Because Bailey did not look for a human heart donor and did not refer Baby Fae elsewhere for attempted surgical repair, the highly experimental transplant was both unethical and unlawful. Dr. William Norwood at the Children's Hospital in Boston has been repairing left hypoplastic hearts since 1979. The survival rate of the Norwood procedure is now as high as 75 percent. Nevertheless, Baby Fae's consent form read, "Temporizing operation to extend the lives of babies like yours by a few months have generally been unsuccessful. We believe heart transplantation may offer hope of life for your baby. Laboratory research at Loma Linda University over the past seven years, including over 150 heart transplants in newborn animals, suggest that long term survival with appropriate growth and development may be possible following heart transplantation during the first week of life."

Following considerable controversy over the Baby Fae transplant, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) appointed a special committee charged with reviewing the procedures used by the university to assure that Baby Fae's relatives gave proper informed consent. The committee did not deal with the scientific basis for transplanting a baboon heart into a human. The committee found several weaknesses in the consent procedure. Specifically, the committee concluded that possibility of "long term survival" had been overstated and the protocol did not include searching for or transplanting a human heart.
Stoller's article


Quite simply, Baily did not look for a suitable human donor, he did not refer the patient to another surgeon who had a history of successfully repairing the defect frpom which Baby Fae suffered, he lied to Baby Fae's parents, he violated not only established protocol but applicable law, and as a direct result of his unethical, illegal actions, Baby Fae died. Yeah, I can see how he'd be a hero to ID-iots.

What would I suggest? That the arrogant bastard be hung in a public square - after a suitable flogging.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 29 Oct, 2006 04:37 am
timber wrote-

Quote:
What would I suggest? That the arrogant bastard be hung in a public square - after a suitable flogging.


Come on timber!

You were tar and feathering somebody the other day and burning them at a "sturdy stake".

And condemning them on a bunch of assertions and with hardly any knowledge of the circumstances.

This isn't Tehran.

People will be quite rightly very wary of the anti-ID mindset if you carry on in such a vein kidding or not. You sound like you would enjoy being the official who decided what "suitable" means.

There is an undertone of violence detectable in the anti-ID position which has surprised me all along. The combination of intolerance, assertions and resort to violence is atavistic and it contradicts the scientific secularism of atheistic humanism as I understand it from the principle media outlets which support it.

You look ridiculous accusing religion of being responsible for the violence of the past and then reaching for violence as the first solution and with only a superficial knowledge of the case.

Would you include all those who assisted in the operation or helped provide the facilities?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 29 Oct, 2006 05:35 am
rl
Quote:
What makes you think Bailey was ignorant of transpecies transplants?
. You need to watch your compass there rl, you are piloting dangerously close to
1Well he knew about interspecies transplantation

2Ignored board admonition and evolutionary mechanics

3He went ahead and the operations failed miserably

YOUVE JUST CONDUCTED A "FALSIFIABILITY" ARGUMENT, and the procedure lost.

4WHY?

You couldspiral your "what if" around in circles of ever decreasing radiii until the obvious is made apparent. Until then, I can enjoy the moment and your attempts at justifying the procedure.





spendius
Quote:
Suppose it had worked.

Suppose we could mix lead with peanut butter and make gold(something from our experience in chemistry tells us that this would be a dumb idea)

Thats the entire point of science, its predictability and the use of falsifiability of any claim. I hate to use a life threatening procedure as an obvious example of why med schools are not in the ID camp, but, my perennial question has never been successfully answered by any one in the Cretinist/ID camps-- That question is;

Name One advance in any related(bio/geo etc) science or applied science that successfully uses a Creationist or ID basis for its work? I think youll find the answer to be an immeasuarable number.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 10/04/2024 at 09:22:44