Do we allow beliefs a free pass?

Daniel Hauser is a 13 year old Minnesota boy diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma. He and his parents have decided to forgo chemotherapy and radiation therapy after one round of treatment due to their religious beliefs. They follow the religion/cult of Nemenhah that proscribes the use of Native American 'alternative' remedies and supplements and wish to pursue these.


His parents' decision would be in Daniel's best interest if they did not fly in the face of all of modern medicine. Yes, there is a delicate balance between physician and guardian as advocate for the patient. However, physicians a a fiduciary duty to speak up for patients when they think that the patient's quality of life and/or health are not being represented in the best way.

It is a somewhat personal decision on the physicians part whether to seek out a judicial ruling on something like this. It is noted that according to his physicians, his Hodgkin's Lymphoma has a 90% cure rate with treatment. This is a cure, not just extending his life for a few months or a year while he experiences a poor quality of life. He quit the treatment after only one round because of the side effects. Those painful side effects are evidence that the chemo is doing what it is supposed to do.

Now, are he and his parents making an informed medical decision that is in the best interest of the child's health? No. The Nemenhah belief that 'natural' remedies and supplements can be used to treat AIDS and cancer are not scientifically founded. These have not been shown to alter, treat, or ameliorate the effects of Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

1. Children do not have the capacity to make medical decisions. If you do not like this, change the legal age of becoming an adult.

2. Parents do not have the right to make medical decisions which will likely kill their child.

Why be an Atheist...Condoms?

On occasion I am asked why I am an atheist. Typically, this question is couched in a discussion of Pascal's Wager. My usual answer involves a dearth of evidence, but I sometimes provide specific examples where a religion or belief causes harm.

Today, Pope Benedict XVI began his tour of Africa in Cameroon. As 'the' representative of Catholicism he upholds the tenets of this brand of Christianity, one of which is abstaining from condom use. This view is based on the belief that sex is meant for procreation and anything that in any way hinders procreation is 'sinful'. While this is unfortunate given the number of unwanted pregnancies, I find it morally repugnant given the HIV epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa.



The Pope reaffirmed the Catholic ban on condom use, in a continent with over 22 million AIDS sufferers. While I am unconcerned with the majority of Catholic doctrine, I do take issue with their banning one of the methods that can help prevent the spread of this disease. Is Rome any more concerned for the millions of orphaned children due to AIDS or the maintenance of rigid doctrine? I think he has shown the church's stance on this.

Now I have one more reason to be glad to be an atheist, as I can use condoms and a bit of common sense to prevent acquiring AIDS.

Arkansas Physician Injured in Bomb Blast

Dr. Trent Pierce, the chairman of the Arkansas Medical Board, has been hospitalized in Memphis this morning after an explosion ripped through the front of his car. The explosion occured about 8:00 AM today and neighbors reported hearing a large boom. The ATF is involved in the investigation and reports having found evidence of a bomb.

I'll admit that when I saw the headline this morning, I thought that another abortion clinic had been bombed or that a physician who provides them was targeted. It does not happen frequently, but when it does, it makes the front page news.













However, reading through the article I discovered that Dr. Pierce is a family practitioner, just your regular ole' family doc. For the life of me, I could not think of any service that a family practitioner provides that is contentious among radical religious, economic, or political groups. Surely, there is not a group of people out there that are so offended by circumcisions that they would blow up someone's car.













I did a bit of looking around and discovered that family practitioners can prescribe mifepristone, the infamous RU486 abortion pill, in the state of Arkansas. I can not find any information on the type of practice he has, except that he has privilages at Crittenden Regional Hospital in West Memphis, AR. All of the cases of this kind of domestic terrorism involved those who performed the abortion procedure, their staff, or the clinics where they took place. I have never seen someone targeted for offering medication that may cause a spontaneous abortion.

Another scenario is Dr. Pierce's involvement in the medical board, which is involved in physician licensing in the state. He only votes on the board's decisions in the case of a tie. Lawyer's for the board of medicine cannot recall an instance of this being needed in recent years. This seems to make the "disgruntled doctor" seeking revenge an improbable explanation.

Perhaps this was just a random act of violence.

Going to the Dentist Can Be Funny

I remember having my wisdom teeth removed many years ago and behaving somewhat similar to this kid. My brother drove me home from the dentist's office, but thankfully he did not have a video camera.

Evolution Sticker for Science Textbooks in Mississippi

House Bill 25

AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO INCLUDE CERTAIN LANGUAGE EXPLAINING THAT EVOLUTION IS A THEORY IN THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

This bill's introduction follows the tried and failed method of attempting to obfuscate the different meanings of the word ‘theory.’

“The word ‘theory’ has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan’ or a systematic statement of principles”

As expected, the authors left out the definition of ‘theory’ in science. A scientific theory is an overarching explanation of a body of scientific facts and verified hypothesis capable of being tested and falsified through the hypotheses generated from it. This definition may seem a bit cumbersome for high school and middle school students. However, it is imperative that they know that a scientific theory is an explanation of verified facts. It must be differentiated from the everyday usage of ‘theory’ as an educated guess.

“This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things.”

The Theory of Evolution is not a controversial theory among scientists, as only 0.14% of all scientists in fields relevant to Evolution, earth and life sciences, do not accept evolution. The use of the phrase ‘some scientists’ is misleading in that it suggests that there is not a preponderance of scientists that accept evolution.

“No one was present when life first appeared on earth.”

Presence at the occurrence of an event is irrelevant and another misleading ploy, implying that if something is not directly observed it is somehow unverifiable. Many aspects of science cannot be directly observed such as atoms, viruses, and the Earth’s core. Either way, the Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That would be the realm of abiogenesis.

“Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things.”

Evolution refers to the change in genetic frequency of a population of organisms over time due to mutation, reproduction, and natural selection. While a part of this may be seemingly random, such as mutation, the evolutionary process is not at all random. Its non-randomness is evidenced by natural selection. Natural selection is the mechanism whereby environmentally favorable heritable traits in an organism become more frequent in successive generations.

“There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record;”

The two bolded phrases seem to be in direct opposition. I imagine they are referring to differences in the rate of new ‘groups’ of organisms evolving over time. This is not a valid criticism of the Theory of Evolution, unless the authors are suggesting that the environment, thus natural selection, only changes at a constant rate. The evidence of ice ages and warm periods provides the evidence for invalidating this criticism.

The Cambrian Explosion was a period about 540 million years ago that lasted anywhere from 5-40 million years. A 5-40 million year period is not a short time for the evolution of organisms, as many of the more difficult complexities, such as eukaryotic cells, were overcome long before.

The statements are also misleading in that they do not give a definition for ‘major groups’ of animals. Without specifying if a ‘major group’ is a phylum, class, order, etc. the term is meaningless. All of the phyla of plants appeared after the Cambrian Explosion. The major classes of kingdom animalia, mammalia, reptilia, aves, and insecta did not evolve until after the Cambrian explosion.

“the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record;”

This is most assuredly false. There are numerous publications and online science websites that enumerate the thousands of transitional forms between organisms.

“and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.”

This “claim” does not make sense. For an organism to live, it must posses the necessary genetic code to build and support the various parts that make up that organism. Simple Mendelian genetics demonstrates how each organism receives a complete set of instructions from its parent organism.

“Study hard and keep an open mind."

Of all the scientific theories, why exactly are our legislators singling out the Theory of Evolution? Why not point out that all of science has areas that require more study? I would imagine this is due to the dangers some people perceive the Theory of Evolution poses to their religious beliefs. Every argument calling the Theory of Evolution into question in this bill can be easily found on numerous religious websites.

By pasting a sticker that only calls into question the Theory of Evolution on the inside cover of science books we are implying to our students that every other theory or piece of information in this book is correct and does not need to be questioned. Again, everything in a science book should be approached critically, including the Theory of Evolution.

To the authors of this bill, ask yourself this question, “Why am I writing legislation that singles out the Theory of Evolution for criticism amongst all of science’s theories?” and answer honestly.