Posting at the DI Michael Egnor, their new pet surgeon, ravages the "Darwinists" (who are these "Darwinists" anyway) for their apparent uselessness in understanding the evolution of microbial resistance to antibiotics.

Darwinists claim that Darwin's theory, which is the theory that all biological complexity arose by random variation and natural selection, is essential to our understanding of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. What exactly does Darwinism teach us about antibiotic resistance?

Microbiology tells us that bacterial populations are heterogeneous. Individual bacteria differ from one another. Molecular biology tells us that some bacteria have molecular mechanisms by which they can survive antibiotics. Molecular genetics tells us how these resistance mechanisms are passed to other bacteria and through generations of bacteria. Pharmacology helps us design new antibiotics that circumvent the bacterial defenses.

What does Darwinism add to the sciences of microbiology, molecular biology, molecular genetics, and pharmacology? Darwinism tells us that antibiotic-resistant bacteria survive exposure to antibiotics because of natural selection. That is, bacteria survive antibiotics that they're not sensitive to, so non-killed bacteria will eventually outnumber killed bacteria. That's it.

Microbiology, molecular biology, molecular genetics and pharmacology are indispensable to modern medicine. We've learned much about intricate bacterial defenses against antibiotics, and we've developed hundreds of antibiotics that have saved millions of lives. What has Darwinism added to these miracles? Just this: non-killed bacterial eventually outnumber killed bacteria.

It's funny how they insist on calling biologists Darwinians, it's like calling a physicist a Newtonian, or a Copernican.

Anyway, let's determine the Denialism Score for this particular anti-evolution argument.

1. Conspiracy: None alleged here, other than the subtext of the materialist "darwinist" view being out to subvert religion in all ways.

2. Selectivity: I think ignoring the facts that microbial resistance has taken decades to evolve would be a pretty simple example of the selectivity of this argument. If these bacterial resistance genes have always been present in bacterial populations, why has it only been in the last 20 years that bacterial resistance has become a major problem? Why didn't the beta-lactamase resistance genes appear immediately upon use of penicillin and make the drug rapidly worthless? To believe this requires one to ignore the available evidence and dismiss the natural history of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

3. False Experts: Well he is one, so that's covered.

4. Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts: Perhaps the expectation in the article that "Darwinism" should fly in the window and cure patients if it is to be useful could count as an expectation that's impossible.

5. Logical Fallacies: Well, these are abundant. I'd say he's got red herrings, and straw-men galore.

So I give Egnor about a 4/5 on the Denialism scorecard for this.

Labels: Evolution denialism, Michael Egnor