If Diet and Drug Science Is Uncertain, How About Evolution?

Darwinists Proclaim Molecules-to-Man Evolution is a Proven Fact—

But scientists are not sure about the best diet and the efficacy of new drugs!

by Dr Jerry Bergman

Evolutionists are so confident that molecules-to-man evolution is true that court decisions have contentedly ruled that, because this view is consensus science and unequivocally true, it must be taught as fact. As a result, academic institutions think that both teachers and professors can be justly terminated if they do not teach it as fact.

Civil rights attorney G. Merle Bergman (no relation) wrote about one case like that: in fact, my case. I was a professor who lost my position at Bowling Green State University (BGSU), not because I was teaching creation, but because I had written a monograph for the honor society in education, Phi Delta Kappa! It was a Fastback piece titled, ‘Teaching About the Creation/Evolution Controversy.’^[1] For suggesting that Darwinism not be taught dogmatically, I was subjected to endless ridicule and questions about my sanity. Attorney G. Merle Bergman wrote,

I am aghast at the suggestion that his … [termination] was because of his religious views, as expressed in his writings on the subject. Obviously nothing could be further from American tradition and constitutional principles than that a man be denied opportunity on the basis of his religious thought. On the other hand, I have to ask myself how practical it is for a creationist to impress scientifically minded men and women with his objectivity—which is certainly a prime virtue for any teacher. I could not myself consider that a teacher had much of a grasp on reality if he or she believed that the creationist view of the universe was a realistic one.

G. Merle Bergman continued his insinuation that I must be insane to doubt Darwin because, to him, evolution is so obviously true:

from the point of view of science, evolution is proven many times over, whereas creationism is viewed as a leftover from very primitive folklore.  Taking that to be the view of men and women of science, can we really say that it is because of Jerry Bergman’s religion that they would be adverse to giving him a vote of confidence as a teacher?  I think their negative vote was a reflection of their view that he was too far removed from reality to be able to direct young people along objective paths. …They are not judging the man’s right to hold and to express religious views different from their own, but his ability to define reality.^[2]

Such is the certainty of Darwinians that unguided natural processes created everything, that they claim it is their critics who are out of touch with reality!

Academic Freedom Denied

Some spoke in my defense. Author and attorney Michael Tyner, in discussing the reasons for my termination, wrote that the “most often mentioned [reason] is a Fastback written for the Phi Delta Kappa educational organization titled ‘Teaching About the Creation/Evolution Controversy.’” ^[3] As is clear from court documents, my peers openly terminated me on the basis of this and similar publications. BGSU Professor Gerald Rigby wrote that he was very concerned about this case because it suggests the

relevancy of a religious-orthodoxy test for tenure at this University.  Insofar as Dr. Bergman’s views on religious matters, be they correct or incorrect, conventional or non-conventional, ….  were taken account of by those casting tenure votes.  …  the record speaks quite clearly to this point—such views were considered in the decision process. …  [T]he Fastback, “Teaching About the Creation/Evolution Controversy,” which Dr. Bergman authored for Phi Delta Kappa, entered into the decision ….  I have read this presentation … [and] find myself supporting the “conventional wisdom” about evolution, [but] this little booklet is a superbly done consideration of the issues involved. I can find no fault with Dr. Bergman’s analysis and presentation; it is excellently written (as are all his publications I have been privileged to read), soundly reasoned, and eminently fair in its approach. No one could legitimately cite this as support for… adverse judgment on Dr. Bergman’s scholarship … the University is a forum for exploration and exchange of ideas. Even the most unacceptable ought to have a fair hearing in a University, and the advocates of all views ought to …. receive the opportunity to explore, expound, and advocate their ideas.^[4]

Dr. Wallace DePue, then a Full Professor at BGSU, wrote that he was

shocked to learn that Dr. Jerry Bergman had been dismissed ….  because of his religious beliefs, namely his espousal of creationism. It is clear to me from reviewing information and talking to individuals about the case that Dr. Bergman, in violation of the University Charter, articles 1, and .4C, was dismissed solely because of his religious beliefs …. The University Charter clearly guarantees academic freedom, so termination on the grounds of espousing creationism in one’s publications is surely a violation of this article.^[5]

And yet the ridicule persisted. Another example is Professor Martin Bridgestock who wrote “Creationists are not like other people”[6] and Gary Finniss added such people should “crawl back into their caves and leave the explanation of life to true scientists.”[7] Such is the almost universal opprobrium by the media and academics against those who believe the theories of secular scientists may be wrong. Evolutionists are so certain of their view, they lump Darwin doubters in with Flat-Earthers and other uninformed ignoramuses.[8]

How Certain Is Modern Medicine?

To contrast the bluffing certitude of scientists about evolution, let’s compare it with other, more tangible, observable fields in science.

Most everyone will agree that recent medical drug advancements, especially in the last 50 years, have greatly improved our lives and our lifespan length. All new drugs undergo extensive peer-reviewed testing and require approval by the Food and Drug Administration, to go through a rigorous process of clinical trials to determine whether they are significantly more effective than existing treatments. Furthermore, the efficacy of new drugs is proclaimed by clinical experience and by many millions of dollars used to advertise the benefits of new drugs. This is empirical science that no one can rationally deny. Or can they?

A new study published in the world’s premier medical journal, The British Medical Journal, did just that. Although the study was done in Germany, it covers drugs commonly available in most developed nations. The study, directed by Professor Beate Wieseler, head of the department of drug assessment, concluded that “More than half of new drugs entering the German healthcare system have not been shown to add benefit.”[9] They add that

research covering drug approvals since the 1970s suggests only a limited number of new drugs provide real advances over existing drugs. Most studies put the proportion of true innovation at under 15%, with no clear improvement over time.[10]

The shocking conclusion was not a minor study based on a small number of tests. The researchers

assessed 216 drugs entering the German market following regulatory approval—152 new molecular entities and 64 drugs granted a new indication. Almost all of these drugs were approved by the European Medicines Agency for use throughout Europe. Thus our results also reflect the outcome of European drug development processes and policies.[11]

The Wieseler, et al., study of 216 drugs concluded the percent that added no benefit, or had only very minor benefits, to existing treatment was 74 percent; those that added considerable benefits was 25 percent. Only a single new drug out of the 216 was judged as producing a major added benefit! Benefit refers to an improvement over standard care in areas including mortality, morbidity, or health-related quality of life in the approved patient population compared to existing treatment. The problem was particularly egregious for some medical conditions. For example, in psychiatry and neurology, the added benefit was in just 1 out of the 18 drugs researched and in diabetes, only 4 of the 24 drugs examined. In cancer, less than 20 percent showed evidence of major added benefits, and then only in some rare cancers, after over a half century of research! The researchers added that for 125 drugs they lacked data to make any judgments:

For 64 of these drugs, no studies were available comparing the new drug with standard care. For another 42 drugs, although studies have compared the drug to an active comparator, the comparator was inappropriate—for example, because of off-label drug use or inappropriate dosing regimens. The remaining 19 drugs were tested against an appropriate comparison (standard care) but did not show an advantage (or clear disadvantage) of the new drug.[12]

The assessment was not a very encouraging report for our billion-dollar drug industry. And yet this was for testable, observational science in the here and now, not stories about what happened millions of years ago.

How Certain Is Dietary Science?

Surely, dietary science is more certain. What food proportions we should consume is based on evidence from the close to one million peer-reviewed papers published in the nutrition science field. Actually, according to the cover story in New Scientist (which I received the same day I learned about the study in the British Medical Journal ) was “Why Everything You Know About Nutrition is Wrong.” Clare Wilson shocked readers with the blunt statement, “almost all nutritional science is fatally flawed.”[13]

Having taught nutrition for years, I am very aware of the medical establishment’s guidelines. One example I drummed into students was 55 percent of calories should come from carbohydrates and no more than 20 percent from fat.

The result of this nutritional mantra was, as a nation, Americans and the rest of the Western world went on a low-fat diet, and hundreds of low-fat foods soon flooded the market. The fat was often replaced by sugar, such as the case of popular low-fat Snackwell’s Devil’s Food Cookies. The result was not a healthier nation but an epidemic of obesity, diabetics, and heart disease, plus cancer which we now realize was largely due to diet, thanks to the very wrong advice of the experts. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics of overweight adults over age 20, including obesity, was 71.6 percent which affected about 93.3 million American adults in 2015-2016. The morbid obesity prevalence was a whopping 39.8 percent of the adult population.

Overweight-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type-2 diabetes, and some types of cancer. All of these diseases are leading causes of preventable, premature death in America. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity alone in the United States was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars, and the medical cost of obesity was 1,429 dollars higher than the costs of those of normal weight.[14]

New research is recommending closer to below 20 percent of our calories should come from carbohydrates and 55 percent from other sources, including fat. Sugar is now looked on by many as a poison which is processed in the liver as are most other poisons. Unfortunately for consumers, sugar is contained in so many foods—including ketchup, most canned goods, and even canned soups and vegetables—that it is difficult to avoid. Many soda-pop varieties contain salt to encourage you to drink more pop, to which sugar is added to take away the strong unpleasant salty taste. Especially problematic is the worst offender, the ubiquitous high-fructose corn syrup found in many, if not most, foods today.

Saturated fat is poison, too; right? We’ve all been told that for a long time. But even the advice that saturated fat is harmful is problematic, a guideline that has been well-established for half a century and religiously followed by most Americans. Wilson says that advice is fatally flawed, too.[15]

Yet Scientists “Know” that All Life Evolved from Simple Molecules

Although almost a million peer-reviewed studies have not been able to determine the best diet during the last half-century, Darwinian scientists confidently claim that all life on earth descended from some hypothetical cell that somehow spontaneously arose 3.5 billion years ago in some ancient sea. Since Pasteur, though, clear empirical evidence has documented the only source of life is life. Furthermore, the orthodox source of new genetic variety, mutations (damage to the genome) fails as a source of new variation. The fact is, from empirical laboratory research (which is what I did when doing cancer research because cancer is a cell disease caused by mutations) we know that mutations cause disease, not upward evolutionary improvement.[16]

The vast majority (99.9 percent) of all mutations are detrimental or near neutral, meaning they cause minor genetic damage which eventually adds up. Mutations add up to genetic catastrophe, i. e., disease or death, not progress.[17]  We know that the near-neutral mutational load is increasing in each generation. It’s a one-way slope downwards, leading to genetic catastrophe for a species, i. e., extinction. Despite the improvement of health-care technology, such as MRI and ultrasound, many studies document that chronic disease is increasing worldwide, especially mutation-associated disease.[18]

One positive effect of mutations was found in a study that analyzed the DNA from 215,000 healthy people to probe genetic changes over one or two generations.[19] The study found damaging mutations tend to be weeded out because the mutation causes the carrier to be born stillborn, die young or before he or she can reproduce. The result is that specific mutations are eliminated from the population. Some mutations are not passed on for this reason, but new ones still occur. Some diseases, such as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, still occurs in the male population. This is partly because the gene affected, the DMD gene, which encodes the muscle protein dystrophin, is one of the largest genes in the human body. The larger a gene, the more likely it will be hit with a mutation; concurrently, small genes are much less likely to be hit.

These are the observable facts about mutations. And yet Darwinians are so confident in their belief that mutations took bacteria all the way to man, they consider anyone who doubts it out of touch with reality!

Conclusions

It is disingenuous to pretend that science is able to determine if, when, and how all life on earth evolved from some primordial goo when scientists cannot even figure out what we should eat or take for medicine. It is unconscionable to act so certain that this happened, that it could justify firing those who disagree. And yet this has happened many times; I am not the only person in scientific academia who learned that denying the consensus on evolution can be a career-ending move. Dare to share some of the lethal problems of the Darwinian worldview, and you, too, could be described as “too far removed from reality to be able to direct young people along objective paths,” and thus face termination.[20]

References

[1]  M. A. Tyner. 1985. The Professor Who Lost His Job.  Liberty, 80 (1): 5.

^[2] Bergman, G. Merle. 1985. Letters. “The Professor Who Lost His Job.”  Liberty, 80(3):28, May-June.

^[3]  M. A. Tyner, 1985, p. 5.

^[4]  Affidavit of Dr. Gerald Rigby dated October 24, 1983.

^[5]  Affidavit of Dr. Wallace DePue dated September 16, 1983.

[6] Bridgestock, Martin. 1985. “Creation Science:  You’ve Got to Believe It to See It!” Ideas in Education, July, p. 17.

[7] Finniss, Gary M. 1985.  “We’re All Related to Apes.” USA Today, Aug. 17, p. 7.

[8] Robert J. Schadewald. 1981. Equal Time for Flat-Earth Science. Creation/Evolution Journal. Issue 3, Winter 1981. https://ncse.com/cej/2/1/equal-time-flat-earth-science

[9] Wieseler, et al. 2019. New drugs: Where did we go wrong? BMJ 2019; 366 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4340 (Published 10 July 2019).

[10] Wieseler, et al. 2019.

[11] Wieseler, et al. 2019.

[12] Wieseler, et al. 2019.

[13] Wilson, Clare. 2019. The Only Food Advice You Need. July 13-19, New Scientist, p. 32.

[14]  https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.

[15]  Wilson, 2019, pp. 34-35.

[16] Mostafavi, H., et al. 2017. Identifying genetic variants that affect viability in large cohorts. PLOS Biology. 15 (9): e2002458.

[17] Sanford, John. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, 3rd ed. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.

[18] Chronic Disease Overview. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. cdc.gov, accessed July 16, 2019.

[19] Martin, B. 2017. Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving. Nature; Mostafavi, H., et al., 2017. PLoS Biol. 15, e2002458.

[20]  Bergman, 1985, p. 28.

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at several colleges and universities including for over 40 years at Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored, are in over 1,500 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 40 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.