Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

rl

Quote:

A final question for those evolutionists who still think evolutionary imcompatibility is THE issue in the Baby Fae case:

Do you also reject the use of pig heart valves and bovine insulin in humans for similar reasons?

. Of course its the issue, along with serology (which, in Baby Faes case was shown to be incompatible). The chimp transplants were pre-the days of anti rejection . Also the use of pig TISSUE is similar to animal skin grafts and stainless steel hip joints. We Can MAKE things compatible now. WE STILL cant jigger in cross species organs and expect a great prognosis.

THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOW A RECOGNIZED FALSIFIABILITY EXERCISE against a Creationist mindset seems to be escaping you.

You refused to even consider my suggestions for a background for a portrait you were doing as an alternative to the incongruous one you were thinking of and which any serious art critic would have laughed at. You hadn't even the manners to acknowledge my taking a little time to offer advice. You didn't want to know. You preferred to listen to those who complimented you by agreeing with you. A mutual stroking society sort of thing.

Did I blow you off in an art thread? can you point to it?

Artists, no matter how trying, have always exercised a fascination to ladies.

How can I point to it. It's three months back. It's history. All I remember is that you weren't amenable to anything which didn't confirm your already established and rigidly fixed viewpoints. I presumed that you wished to portray your Irish relatives in a manner that pleased them and I have no objection to that. It just isn't art. It's just titty bottle bawling.

Americans, Europeans, and Japanese For Medical Advancement promotes human wellness by exposing the lost opportunities for cures and the life-threatening results of animal-modeled biomedical research. We educate the public, showing how government and charities misspend medical research dollars and place us at grave risk.

Animal-modeled biomedical research yields results that cannot be safely applied to humans. It diverts research dollars that should be going to proven methods of curing human disease.

We disclose how industry introduces and keeps unhealthy and often deadly products in the marketplace through animal experiments.

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.

Do you find it strange that Dr Barnard seems to find no problem with the use of baboon hearts? Is he indifferent to evolution, or is he just more concerned with medicine?

Here's a link to my travelogue on Israel. Don't have PM privileges. http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=85196&start=10
_________________

However, I think that timberlandko is making a slightly different point here. The point is that the way that a person thinks can be trained, and while evolution itself may not be important, a person who is raised to believe in something else has been training their brain to think illogically, and therefore they will not be capable of making logical decisions that can be trusted because the whole network of their brain is not functioning on the same level as someone who has learned to think rationally and critically.

You got it, stuh.

On the other hand, what better teaches critical thinking than listening to their teacher spewing nonsense? What better way is there to teach skepticism than to confront young minds a kook up-close, in the person of their own teacher? You don't teach critical though by telling children the truth. You teach it by bullshîtting them and hoping they don't buy it. For that, giving ID equal time is just the ticket.

This would be okay at the university level, Thomas. Would you expect students at the elementary and secondary levels to question what their teachers tell them? I believe younger students would either be too trusting or too intimidated to question anything.