A physician should not make these mistakes
This is another of the growing list of Intelligent Design (ID)books. Collins believes that ID can be detected in the cosmological world but, ironically, not the biological world. I agreed with much written in The Language of God except for the Intelligent Design in biology chapter. Much more evidence exists for design in nature in the biological world than the cosmological world. This irresponsible chapter would not be expected because the author is a medical doctor. Of the many examples I could cite, I will discuss only four. The first is the claim that the eye is poorly designed because the rods and cones face away from the light, a design called inverted. Over a dozen excellent reasons exist for the inverted eye design. One major one is because this design allows both the rods and cones to closely associate with retinal pigment epithelial cells, (RPE) a structure that provides the retina with its nutrients, its blood supply, and recycles photopigments. This design is superior to other designs because it allows intimate association between the rods and cones with the pigmented epithelium that is required in order to maintain the photoreceptors. Rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy and nutrients to maintain their very high metabolic rate necessary for them to function, and for maintenance and repair. The RPE also forms an opaque layer to absorb excess light. In addition, due to phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must be completely replaced approximately every seven days. Although this design forces photons to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce light signals into neural impulses, most all of these structures are highly transparent. This is shown by the fact that the sensitivity of the existing human inverted design is so great that only a single photon has been shown able to elicit an electrical response. The second claim of Collins, that back problems in humans occur because our back is poorly designed for the reason that we evolved from animals that walk on all fours is also erroneous. I know from my own personnel experience that this once common belief has caused much unnecessary suffering in back pain patients. This belief was behind the once common treatment of most common back problems with strong pain medicine, bed rest, or even surgery. The common solution now is to realize that the back is designed properly, and for this reason must be used properly to avoid problems. The problem is not that we evolved from some primate ancestor that walked on all fours, but because the back was not designed for modern sedentary eight or more hours of sitting life. The common solution is to use the back accordingly to what it was designed for, namely walking, exercise, and physical activity and avoid sitting with poor posture for hours at a time as is common in the West. As they say, use it or lose it. The fact that some animals that walk on all fours, as some dogs, also often have back problems (common examples are dachshunds and German Shepards) further underscores this point. The third claim, that the appendix is useless, is also irresponsible. For my work I reviewed two dozen anatomy books and not one single text that I consulted claimed this. Every text correctly noted the appendix's important immunological and other functions. The last example is the wisdom teeth. Studies of other cultures have found that diet is critical to cause proper jaw development. The Western soft diet does not encourage jaw development, and, as a result, we often have problems with wisdom teeth. In societies with a less refined diet problems with wisdom teeth are rare. If we abuse our body, what can we expect? We must use it according to how it was designed. If Dr Collins was a practicing physician I would report him to the medical licensing board for these appa
1 out of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback.
Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.