Is evolution theory important in medical research, or not?
Now a Darwinist is trying to excuse the paucity of Nobel medicine/physiology prizes awarded for work in evolution by pointing out that there is no Nobel prize category expressly for the field of "biology." A book review that Norman Levitt wrote about Steve Fuller's book Science v. Religion: Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution says,
Fuller complacently views the ascendancy of evolutionary thought as a “rhetorical” rather than a “scientific” development. His principal evidence? The paucity of Nobel Prizes awarded for work on evolution! Of course, he never pauses to consider that under the idiosyncratic organization of the Nobel awards, there is no prize for biology as such. Biologists are smuggled in under the “Medicine and Physiology” category, which is just expansive enough to accommodate ethologists like Lorenz or Tinbergen, but not hard-core evolutionary theorists.
I don't want excuses. Is evolution theory important in medical research, or not? It looks like the answer is no.
The above quote from the book review is also in an article in Panda's Thumb.
Labels: Evolution controversy (2 of 4)