The Intelligent Self Interest of Evolution

Both of my readers have no doubt figured out that I strongly believe in evolution and have serious issues with creationists.

After the Dover decision one would think this would be a done deal, right? Not so. After all, defeat is not an option when you're working for a higher power. Florida is the current battleground, though Texas may not be far behind.

In reading the science blogs and articles this week, it came to me suddenly in a blinding flash of light, like unto riding towards Damascus, that the creationists did have one leg to stand on. Sure biologists can get an interesting take on the intelligence of whales by studying how all the evolutionary pieces fit together, but, really, of what earthly use is the knowlege of evolution? After all, at the end of the day the Creationist can bask in the Cosmic Background Radiation of God's creation but the evolutionary biologist has to trudge over to the next lizard/beetle/fern and reclassify it. Where's the emotional satisfaction? What can we use evolution for?

Well, one way is the prediction of disease propagation and the evolution of antibiotic resistance. But that's kid stuff. The creationists dismiss that as "microevolution". Macroevolution, the creation of new traits in higher orders of creatures, can only be the province of God.

Back in the 90's, it turns out, a term was coined by Nesse and Williams came up with the term Darwinian Medicine. This term is still in use but the term Evolutionary Medicine appears to have replaced it. This approach essentially takes the view that medical conditions have both a circumstance that is observed clinically and an evolutionary heritage that defines how it arose and how it behaves. In other words, we can't truly understand a condition without understanding how it arose.

A couple of diseases are already well known in the respect: sickle cell anemia where the red blood cells can't maintain their lovely circular shape and collapse into crescents that resemble sickles. SCA arises when an individual gets two copies (one from both parents) of a particular gene. However, when the individual gets one copy, resistance to malaria results. Therefore, there is a selective advantage to carry one of the genes but not both. Similarly, if you have both genes for phenylketonuria (PKU), you can suffer from mental retardation. Yet, if a baby has only one of the genes, it's less likely to be miscarried. (See here.)

Here are a collection of Darwinian (or Evolutionary) Medicine articles:
Evolutionary Explanations in Medical Courses
How is Darwinian Medicine Useful?
A New Germ Theory
Dr. Darwin
Evolutionary Medicine for Veterinarians
Evolutionary Medicine and Cancer

But (*sigh*), my whole argument is somewhat specious. The reason people don't like to believe in evolution has nothing to do with its use. Creationists are not stupid even though they are not using their intelligence. Not even Ben Stein is immune. As Larry Niven said in Protector: Intelligence is a tool that is not always used intelligently.

Which, given the evolutionary Rube Goldbergian genius that is humanity, should not be surprising.