File this under: things that make you go “hmmm”.
The review is of an article on the Pacific Standard titled “Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution?” The article begins,
Earlier this month, Dr. Ben Carson announced that he’s running for president. Carson was previously the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. He also rejects the theory of evolution. Here at Pacific Standard, his stance made us wonder: How can doctors deny evolution?
The review begins,
In an almost charmingly naïve article, Francie Diep at Pacific Standardwonders, “Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution?” Her news peg is Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who has expressed reservations about Darwinian accounts of evolution — though I don’t know that anyone has questioned him sharply and in an informed way about his ideas on the subject.
The review seems to put its finger on the reason for such a question:
Luxuriously insulated from reality, biologists theorizing about the history of life, how it arose and developed, face no such pressure to fill in what Ann Gauger calls the “white spaces” in evolutionary thinking.
What I find most telling about the review is a quote from staunch evolution advocate and biologist Jerry Coyne,
Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties.
Both are interesting reads and need to be checked out.
Something else to consider on this issue.