One winter evening, during my first year at the University of Toronto, I numbly sat in a dark auditorium where powerpoint slides depicting phylogenetic trees of the flu virus flashed before my eyes; all the while I sadly thought about my upcoming essay on Creationism vs Evolution. I remarked then to myself, how interesting it was that all of us, creationists and scientists alike, subjected ourselves to the flu shot.
And I wondered if my fellow believers knew they were carrying the anti-christ in their veins…
Nowadays synonymous with 3-plus days of serious discomfort and pain, the influenza was once responsible for the deaths of over 40 million people worldwide between 1918 and 1919 – and that’s just the one strain of the influenza (type A, also responsible for the “spanish flu”). This disease had, however, already been responsible for the loss of many lives before this 20th century deadly outbreak; it had even been described by Hippocrates around 2,400 years ago.
But today this has all changed as we now have a vaccine that protects our poor little souls from this dire fate. Phew, thank God! Right?
Wrong. Thank Darwin.
The most common human flu vaccine is the “trivalent influenza vaccine”, which contains purified and inactivated material from three viral strains (two influenza A virus subtypes and one influenza B virus strain). The decision of which subtypes and strains of the virus to include in the cocktail is relegated to scientists of fields such as molecular virology, pathogenesis and molecular evolution. This last field of study is responsible for making prediction about which strains will be the most infectious on any given year, through the study of the virus’ taxonomic and phylogenetic relationships (or the evolution of the influenza virus).
Understanding how the flu virus works and how to prevent its spread requires basic research on how viruses enter cells, replicate, mutate, evolve into new strains and induce an immune response. The tecnique used by Bush et al (1999), for instance, seems to have successfully predicted – through the analysis of the molecular evolution of flu strains through recent years – the flu strains for the 8 years prior to 1999.
The bird flu, which has been all the rage these days, is caused itself by a viral subtype (H5N1) of the spanish influenza virus, influenza A. A vaccine against H5N1 has been approved by the US in April 2007. Two people have officially died of this flu strain this year.
The beauty in this, is that Evolution can single-handedly predict harmful outbreaks of this disease and provide protection against them, without the need for ‘magic cloaks’. But while I will gladly take the flu jab on any given year, I would strongly suggest Creationists not to go near that Evolutionary needle; as far as Creationism goes, the flu shot is the anti-christ in liquid form.
… And I bet they never would have thought it possible to find Salvation in Evolution. How about that, eh?
God’s gift to Creationists.
i like your laughter, in my sphere it’s loud – brava primitiva
While I find your thinking quite entertaining, I also unerstand that you know very little about the true words of the bible. For example, Antichrist means anyone who doesn’t believe that Jesus is/was God in the flesh. Since Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead, he was preventing a weak person from dying. In evolution, the weak die leaving the strong to breed and have offspring. The actions of Jesus support creation. Therefore, anyone who believes evolution is true believes the actions of Jesus to be against the truth of all that is natural. This leads me to believe that anyone who believes evolution to be true must believe that Jesus was only a man. Therefore, all evolutionist are antichrist.
Also, the disciple Luke was a doctor. There is nothing wrong with helping the sick to heal or attempting to prevent disease. You should read the laws of Moses concerning such methods of preventing disease. Evolution is not science, but it is a religion of faith. The rules of evolution have been continually changing while the word of God remains the same. It seems that the only thing evolving is faith in evolution. Evolution can’t be observed, but the Bible is a book of observations made over thousands of years. So, the bible is more scientific than evolution in principle.
I once believed evolution to be true, but when I began to attempt to disprove the bible and did extensive research into evolution, I realized how much that I had been fooled. Nevertheless, only you can find the truth for yourself. We all have to make our on discoveries.
Thanks for the literary breakdown of the bible.
My argument, however, was very simple:
If you don’t believe in evolution, don’t get the flu shot. It’s hypocritical.
Pingback: Quote-fest 0509 « BIOpinionated
Hi
Looks like I’m a bit late on the read but you’re missing something. You need to understand your use of evolve. The virus doesn’t evolve in the sense that it has become more complex, it has just changed. Viruses change their surface proteins to disguise themselves but viruses don’t become more than viruses (evolve).
More on this here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0222virus.asp
I’ve found that that this is a common misconception among Evolutionists. It should be understood that Creationists know that genetic change does occur and that they do not think that gene codes are immutable.
More here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
Semantics semantics…
@Garrett,
So because you haven’t seen a virus evolve into something else, you don’t believe it can… so you are saying you need scientific ‘proof’ for in order to believe in things…. interesting. VERY interesting…
1) your should look up faith in the dictionary
2) finding (erroneous) loopholes in evolutionary theory does not by default automatically validate creationism
3) try getting your information from more than one book, it’s so in these days.
“Antichrist means anyone who doesn’t believe that Jesus is/was God in the flesh.”
I AM THE ANTICHRIST. WOO!
@Garrett
“It should be understood that Creationists know that genetic change does occur and that they do not think that gene codes are immutable.”
So, you accept that genetic codes can change. You accept that genetic codes are the blueprint of all life.
So when our ancestral apes had their genetic codes change so much that the great apes and man arose out of that change, you accept that too.
Wonderful – creationism proves evolution. Argument over folks, we can all get on with better things.
Oh, and to chipammo:
“while the word of God remains the same”
So when Jesus undid all the Old Covenant, the Word of God didn’t change at all? So why aren’t all Christians required to be circumcised? The Word of God demanded it, and now no longer demands it. Seems God does change his mind.
I take it you still ritually cleanse yourself when you encounter menstruating women, do not eat shellfish, and shun pork too? Yeah? And you worship God on the Sabbath, ie Saturday. Because, you know, the Word of God is immutable, and keeping the Sabbath holy was so important that it appears before the command not to kill in the Ten Commandments.
I trust you don’t suffer witches to live either, while still obeying thou shalt not kill….
This is why I thank God I’m a Quaker – we at least realise that the Bible is only words about the word….
Evolutionary biologists are fully aware that most creationists admit genetic change occurs. Evolutionary biologists are also aware that creationists provide no strong reason or evidence that genetic changes are constrained as to how much they can change.
This leaves creationists in the awkward position of admitting that 1+1=2, and that 2+1=3, but arguing that you’ll never get to a million that way.
@annabones
I just wanted to point that the crux of your argument is that Christians are hypocritical in taking vaccines because they don’t believe/think that viruses can change genetically. This is false.
As for faith, whenever I sit on a new chair— I exercise faith. I’ve sat on chairs before and I BELIEVE that they will continue to carry my weight when I sit down. It’s an induction based on previous experiences (premises). I think you could say I have a strong argument for my faith in chairs. All I’m saying is that you believe your inductions, we believe ours. Science is not a cornerstone of deduction. And yes, I would need more evidence to infer that viruses evolve toward a greater complexity.
“finding (erroneous) loopholes in evolutionary theory does not by default automatically validate creationism” — I know this
“try getting your information from more than one book, it’s so in these days” —Haven’t I? I read my genetics textbook cover to cover…among others
@Paul
“So when our ancestral apes had their genetic codes change so much that the great apes and man arose out of that change, you accept that too.” —No actually, that’s where we disagree…which is why I posted this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/discontinuity
@Zen Faulkes
Hey
I agree that some biologists are aware that creationists understand (admit?) genetic change occurs. But I’ve also met some that don’t understand this. I think you’ll agree that this article is in the latter category. Which is why I pointed it out.
Creationists think that there isn’t enough evidence to claim that one type of animal can transform into another. It comes down to a problem of genetic information (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-mutations-the-engine). Mutations are rare. Beneficial mutations are more rare. Beneficial mutations that increase/create information (borrowing a little from information theory) are argued to exist. But they would have to exist in large, large numbers for evolution to occur.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that animals descended from common ancestors that were designed? I find that this fits the evidence better. Of course, you’d have to allow for a designer.
I appreciate you taking the time and energy to comment on my blog posting. However, your understanding of evolution, genetics and science is so poor that it doesn’t allow for us to carry on a proper dialogue. And the fact that you find the idea of design better fitting of the evidence, proves this.
My stance on the debate has made me unsuitable to debate. Unfortunately, I’ve seen and heard this before. I won’t comment on this post further.
I’m years late on this discussion, but I needed to have it in print on the blog:
Evolution just means “change”
Seriously.
It doesn’t mean “become more complex” or “change into something better than before.” Just “change.” You can even expand that into “change in response to environment/stimuli” and still be ok, though there is evolution due to genetic mutations which won’t be covered.
So, if I am the Red Queen, and I want my white roses red, I can essentially cause evolution – change – by having my gardeners (the ones I don’t behead) gradually breed “redness” into my roses by selecting’ the roses which have some pinkish hue.
Evolution exists. Can’t be disproven. You EAT evolution everytime you eat a big fat grape. You fight evolution everytime you try to hold up ONLY your 4th finger.
You acknowlege evolution every time you say that your kid looks just like you.
Give it up, already.