Using Evolutionary Pseudoscience in Cancer Research

Despite the protestations of its proponents, evolution is not essential for the progress of observable, practical science. In fact, evolution hinders scientific progress (for example, "junk" DNA); evolutionary thinking is downright useless. Far be it for evolutionary scientists to get real jobs and use their training for something useful.

Cancer is a scary subject. I think we've all lost friends and kinfolk to it (I know I have), so we want significant research being done. Fortunately, there is. However, putting the pseudosciences of evolution and astrobiology together, and we have a waste of time, money and hope. Some people are advocating taking an evolutionary approach to cancer research. The "science" here uses data mining, circular reasoning, assumptions, presuppositions and more. Even the most ardent evolutionist should be skeptical about all of the assumptions (beyond the usual "evolution is true" mantra).

Physicist Paul Davies and astrobiologist Charles Lineweaver believe that cancer cells are simply cells that have reverted to their evolutionary ancestral state to cope with the challenges they face. This is called an “atavistic” model. (Atavism means reversion to an ancient, primitive, or ancestral state.)

Scientific American explains that because cancer occurs in so many different kinds of living things—people, animals, and plants—we know it evolved way back when everything alive shared a common ancestor. And what was that ancestor? Why a single-celled organism, of course! And what do single-celled organisms do better than anything else? They proliferate. They multiply. They are practically immortal, dividing and dividing and dividing. Just like cancer cells. Ergo, cancer has a very ancient evolutionary history. Or so their story goes anyway.

To read the rest, click on "Can Evolutionary Clues Cure Cancer?"