Psience - Religion

Non-fossil Evidence Supporting Evolution

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:52:00 -0500

The claim is often made by creationists that the lack of "transitional forms" in the fossil record proves that evolution is false. There are obvious problems with this claim. First of all, even if you accept this premise, the lack of proof for evolution is not the same as proof for creationism. Disproving one theory is not sufficient to prove an alternate theory--the alternate theory needs to be proved on its own merits and evidence. It must make predictions (like the theory of evolution does), and then confirm those predictions by finding or demonstrating further evidence (like the theory of evolution does).

Second of all, the statement is based on a poor understanding of evolution and the fossilization process in general. The conditions under which fossils are formed are very rare, and the likelihood that any given organism will become a fossil is vastly low. The "transitional" species (for example, fish evolving the ability to walk on land, dinosaurs evolving some bird-like traits but still retaining dinosaur traits, etc.) would be confined to a small geographic location, and (relatively speaking) short time period, so the likelihood of the right conditions for fossilization coming together for of a member of one of those "transitional" species would be particularly low. There are undoubtedly countless species that have lived and evolved that we will never know about, just due to the fact that fossilization is so rare. If we never found any "transitional" fossils, the rarity of fossils in general could easily explain it.

Thirdly, the statement is false anyway--there are "transitional" species in the fossil record. Technically, since evolution is an ongoing process, all species are transitional, but we even have examples when using the definition set up by creationists. Archaeopteryx, many species in the evolutionary lineage that lead up to modern day horses, Ambulocetus (the "walking whale"), Tikaalik, various proto-humans in our own evolutionary lineage, and many, many more. Did I mention there are many more?

Not convinced? Have excuses for why each of these fossils does not actually, as common sense and science would have us believe, represent a transitional species? That's OK, because fortunately there is plenty of independent evidence that also supports evolution.

Molecular Evidence

Around this time last year, Dr. Zachary Moore started a series of episodes in his fantastic Evolution 101 blog and podcast that explained the molecular evidence for evolution in detail. His source was primarily Dr. Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, which he "dumbed-down" into less technical terms. I won't bother reproducing Dr. Zach's detailed descriptions, instead I'll use what information I gleaned from both sources to further "dumb" them down into shorter and more concise summaries.

1. Protein Functional Redundancy (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)

The idea here is that there are certain proteins that are encoded in DNA that all living things have, because they are necessary for life. Humans have them, horses have them, flies have them, fungi have them, bugs have them, bacteria have them--every living thing has them. They are called ubiquitous proteins. There are, for all intents and purposes, an infinite number of possible ways these proteins could be constructed to carry out their function. Let's consider the two possible scenarios that I'm addressing here, and what they would predict about these proteins.

Evolution says that all living things evolved from a common ancestor. It would predict that these ubiquitous proteins are more similar in closely related species (for example between humans and chimps) than in less related species (for example between humans and yeast).

Creationism might predict either a) that these proteins would be identical in all living things (God's blueprint), or b) that these proteins would be different in each species (perhaps specifically tailored for maximum efficiency in each one).

When we look at the data, it overwhelmingly supports evolution. As evolution predicted, the similarity of these proteins very closely correlates with how related the species are (identical or very similar in closely related species, and more and more different as you go to species that are less and less related).

But wait a second, how do we know that this isn't just a result of prediction b) that creationism may make above (ie., that God has not simply tweaked his protein design to better accommodate each species' specific requirements)? Well, scientists have tried swapping these proteins between very distantly related species (for example, humans and yeast). The results show that the proteins function equally well, regardless of how they are constructed. This means that there is no reasonable explanation why God would have made them differently in the two different species (and, furthermore, to make them different in a way that would exactly correlate with how natural evolution would predict them to be).

2. DNA Coding Redundancy (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)

This is related to point 1. above. Basically, the patterns for constructing the ubiquitous proteins are stored in an organism's DNA. I mentioned before that there are essentially an infinite number of ways you could construct the proteins to achieve their function. There is also an essentially infinite number of different DNA sequences that could code any given protein. When we look at the proteins in humans and chimps, we see that they are very similar or identical, in contrast with less similarity between less related species (despite there being no functional reason for the differences). Since this is also true for the DNA sequences that code the proteins (again, with no functional reason for them to be similar or different between any species), it reinforces and supports the protein evidence for evolution for the same reasons mentioned above.

The only way that creationists can explain this evidence is to say that God designed the proteins and their DNA coding sequences this way for reasons that we can't possibly understand. I would posit that there really is only one reason that God could possibly have to design things this way, assuming that he did. That would be to ensure that anybody with the capability to investigate this evidence would unquestionably arrive at the conclusion that evolution and common ancestry is true, thus damning himself to Hell for all eternity. Boy, if God did create us, he sure is a dick!

3. Transposons (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)
4. Redundant Pseudogenes (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)
5. Endogenous Retroviruses (Dr. Theobald / Dr. Zach)

I'm grouping these final three points together, because they are basically describing three different things that support evolution in the same way. The previous two points described how similarities and differences between the coding parts of DNA strongly support evolutionary theory. These last three points describe how certain aspects of the non-coding part of DNA (or "Junk DNA") also provides strong evidence in support of evolution.

Transposons are "mobile" chunks of DNA code that can move around within the genome, pseudogenes are vestigial genes that no longer have any function in the DNA, and endogenous retroviruses are pretty much what they sound like--viruses that infect DNA and get passed on to the organism's offspring in the genome (and eventually, over multiple generations, mutate into inactive "fingerprints" in the DNA of a species). The insertion or creation of each of these things into an organism's genome is controlled by completely random circumstances, and each one is passed on genetically to offspring. What this means is, if two separate organisms have identical or very similar copies of these "fingerprints" in their genome, it means that they are almost certainly genetically related (since the chance that the same random fingerprint would arise in both independently is astronomically low). It is the same concept that is used in paternity tests (looking at similarities in DNA that can only be explained by genetic relationships). So, essentially, using the same concepts that allow us to look at the DNA of two brothers and determine that they had the same parents, we should be able to look at the DNA of members from two different species to determine if they had a common ancestor.

Again, the evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution and common ancestry--related species have many of these DNA "fingerprints" in common with each other. For example, chimpanzees and humans have several in common, indicating that we have a common ancestor. Evolutionary theory would also predict that less related species would have less of these fingerprints in common, and this is also the case. For example, DNA fingerprints that are shared between hippos and whales (which evolution predicts are closely related) are not shared with other, less related mammals (such as pigs and camels). Again, this data can only be explained by accepting that these species evolved from common ancestors.

Since we can actually watch these processes take place in a science lab (see these "fingerprints" created in the genome, and get passed along to offspring), it means that creationists must accept that God also created this process--again apparently with no good reason other than to "trick" scientists by making it look like evolution and common ancestry is true.

Biological/Anatomical Evidence - Vestigial Structures

Penguins have hollow bones and wings like other birds do, but can't fly. Blind mole rats have eyes like other animals do, but can't see with them. Whales have leg bones, but no legs. Dandelions produce petals and pollen, but don't use them for reproduction like other flowers. Humans get goosebumps like other fur-covered mammals, yet don't have any fur to raise. Pythons have pelvis bones, but no legs. There are countless other examples of structures in organisms (even at the molecular level) that either perform no function, or completely different and lesser functions than similar structures in other closely related organisms. These are structures that are clearly meant for a particular function (as can be observed by their working counterparts in other species), but do not.

This evidence can be perfectly explained by evolution and common ancestry. And, again, evolution can make predictions about vestigial structures, which are supported by the evidence. Using phylogenies constructed using independent evolutionary evidence, any vestigial structures in a species should have working counterparts in other closely related species, and must necessarily derive from a working structure in a previous ancestor. As it turns out, this is absolutely the case.

Any competing theory (for example, creationism) should also be able to explain the existence of vestigial structures--not only occurring in individual species, but in entire groups of species (which evolution says evolved from a common ancestor), and should also address their structural similarity to working structures in other species. For example, vestigial veriform appendixes in both humans and chimpanzees, which are non-functioning versions of cecums in other herbivorous species. One could argue that these vestigial structures do perform some minor secondary function, and thus are not vestigial (even though complete non-functioning is not a requirement for a structure to be considered vestigial), but it still does not address the issue that they closely resemble and are obviously derived from working counterparts in related organisms or ancestors. Additionally, evolution can account for the alternative functioning of these vestigial structures (ie., they evolved to perform the new function after their primary function was no longer necessary for the organism's survival).

So What Does It All Mean?

I've only covered a few of the many kinds of non-fossil evidence that support evolution--there is a lot more that is covered in great detail elsewhere on the web and in books (I recommend Dr. Theobald's essay on TalkOrigins.org). It really is not possible to deny the fact that evolution occurs, and that all species share common ancestors with other species, without completely ignoring the incredibly overwhelming evidence.

Sure, creationists also have "explanations" for all of the evidence presented here and elsewhere (generally, "God did it that way--I don't know why, but He did.") As I said before, if you believe that, then you are basically saying that God is a jerk who wants evolution to seem absolutely true. If you believe God created everything, then you believe that he did so in a way so as to perfectly remove any trace of his existence from the equation--as though he wants us to come to the inescapable conclusion that he didn't have anything to do with it, thus ultimately damning anyone who is actually curious enough to check the evidence out for themselves to eternal damnation.

What a prick!

Other References:
http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/20evolution01.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structure
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp

An Examination of Archaeology Pertaining to the Bible

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:41:00 -0500

The claim is often made that the Bible has been independently confirmed to be a historically accurate reference text. I've always been curious to what extent this is actually true. How much has actually been verified? How was it verified? Which parts have been verified?

In general, people who make the claim do so in extremely vague terms--usually referring to unspecified archaeological findings ("archaeology proved that this was right!"), unnamed archaeologists, or saying things like "no archaeological evidence that contradicts the bible has ever been found."

If you actually dig a little deeper than the surface, however, it becomes quite apparent just how empty these particular claims are. Instead of going over all of the examples of archaeology "proving" the Bible in detail, I will simply provide brief summaries of some of the specific claims in the form of simple conversations in order to provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. (Well, okay, just the weaknesses... but only because there are no strengths.)

The Hittites

Archaeologist: Wow! I found a whole new civilization! Let's call them the Hittites.
Christians: Wow! There really were Hittites? Just like in the Bible?
Other Archaeologists: Well, actually we can't say for sure that these people are the same people mentioned in the Bible. In fact there is essentially no evidence at all to suggest...
Christians: Dude! You guys just proved the Bible!!

Bricks Without Straw

Archaeologists: Oh, look. Some bricks without straw in them.
Christians: Wow! They used those in the Bible! That must be the Tower of Babel!!
Archaeologists: ...
Christians: Dude! You guys just proved the Bible!!

The Walls of Jericho

Archaeologists: We found the city of Jericho. It's really old so most of it has crumbled and collapsed.
Christians: Wow! God made its walls fall down in the Bible!
Archaeologists: Well, we have no way to tell when it happened. And based on the evidence, most likely it was caused by an earthquake, or...
Christians: Dude! You just proved that Jesus died for my sins!!

The City of Ur

Archaeologists: We found the city of Ur.
Christians: Super! That city was totally in the Bible! You just proved that Heaven exists and I'm going there when I die!!

Cities of Ancient Israel

Archaeologists: We found a bunch of ancient cities.
Christians: OMG! The Bible said there were cities around there!
Archaeologists: (Sigh.)
Christians: I'm so incredibly excited, I just lost all control of my bowels and went poo in my pants!!

Noah's Ark

Christians: Look! There's a big kinda-boat-shaped lump on the side of that mountain!
Archaeologists: Um...?
Christians: It must be Noah's Ark! Archaeology rules!!
Archaeologists: Er...?

The Great Flood

Archaeologists: The Pyramids and Sphinx in Egypt were built before the Biblical flood was supposed to have occurred--the fact that they are still here today proves that the flood couldn't have happened as described in the Bible. We have also found other evidence all around the world that shows millions of people were alive all over the Earth just shortly after the flood should have occurred. This can't really be accounted for by the Bible.
Christians: You guys are just stupid and don't know what you're doing. You do everything incorrectly, and everything you say about anything is completely wrong!
Archaeologists: ...
Christians: SCREW YOU THE BIBLE SAYS IT HAPPENED SO IT DID OKAY?!!

You get the idea. Not only is the archaeological evidence for the accuracy of the Bible extremely weak (it can only prove that places, people, or events in the bible may have actually existed--it cannot say anything one way or the other about the nature of the actual narratives being told), but Christians must also pick and choose only specific archaeological findings that support the Bible, and ignore ones that contradict them.

The bottom line is, archaeology does not prove anything of religious consequence in the Bible. Any sources that claim otherwise, or that claim that the archaeological findings that support information in the Bible in some way gives credibility to everything else in the Bible, are simply being intellectually dishonest.

Again, I will close on a quote by someone who's definitely much more qualified to comment on the subject than me. Christopher O'Brien, archaeologist and professor of anthropology at California State University, wrote in his blog:

...archaeological data are cherry-picked, archaeological concepts and methods misconstrued, and archaeologists' statements taken out of context by creationists to provide "confirmation" of the particular version of biblical history that best serves them.

References
http://www.beyondthisplanet.org/bible/No_mistakes/accurate_history1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Biblical_Hittites
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000926.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/archeology.htm
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/bible-archaeology.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may04.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11747932/

Prayer: Provable?

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:07:00 -0500

The observation is often made that God seems to only grant prayers for things that had a chance to happen on their own anyway. He'll cure a temporary disease, put the odd cancer into remission, let someone win a sports match, etc. He never does anything truly miraculous that would defy our current knowledge of biology and physics--like regenerate a lost limb, regrow an eye, bring someone back from the dead, or really anything that would prove beyond a doubt that supernatural intervention has taken place. Everything He allegedly does could have happened by chance, anyway. People have argued against this, saying that such events have taken place, as recorded in the bible... but treating the bible as an accurate historical record is another issue altogether (perhaps for another post).

The question now is, does prayer give people a statistically better chance of having these kinds of things happen for them? For example, of all the small percentage of people who have cancer that goes into remission, did most of them pray to God? Of all the cancer patients who died from the disease, did most of them not pray? Presumably, this should be something that science can test. And it has.

When looking around for the results of "prayer experiments," you will tend to run in to conflicting information. The Wikipedia has a section on experimental evaluation of prayer here that references a number of different studies with varying results.

I did a quick search on PubMed for "intercessory prayer," and found 66 articles. There were a few that detailed studies that claim to produce positive results:

Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population.
Byrd RC, 1988

The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU.

A closer analysis of this study can be found here. Many problems with this study can be pointed out. The main problem is that the very thing they purported to test--prayer--was not controlled for. Byrd himself admitted that there was nothing stopping the friends and family members of people in the control group from praying for them. Essentially there was no way to know for sure that the prayer group was actually receiving more prayers than the control group.

The big problem, however, is that out of the 29 variables measured, only six seemed to be significantly different between the two groups. Byrd himself admitted that, due to the number of variables being considered, these differences on their own could not be considered to be statistically significant--it is only after applying severity scores and multivariate statistics that the differences become significant. The problem with that is the six variables were related to one another, meaning the methods used to obtain significance may be misleading. To quote the critique linked above:

One must note the interrelationships among these six categories: for instance, the development of congestive heart failure automatically leads to the need for diuretics; the development of pneumonia automatically requires the use of antibiotics; and the development of either would likely increase the risk of developing the other, of requiring intubation or ventilation, and of suffering cardiopulmonary arrest. Thus, the development of any single complication may automatically lead to a cascade of other complications and therapeutic interventions that cannot be considered independent events, rendering the significance of Byrd's data highly doubtful.

These problems with the methods used means that this study should be viewed skeptically, until its results have been independently replicated in similar experiments.

Other references regarding the Byrd study:
Science of Prayer Reality Check
Intercessory Prayer - Does it Work?

A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit.
Harris WS, Gowda M, Kolb JW, Strychacz CP, Vacek JL, Jones PG, Forker A, O'Keefe JH, McCallister BD, 1999

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether remote, intercessory prayer for hospitalized, cardiac patients will reduce overall adverse events and length of stay.
...
CONCLUSIONS: Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores. This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.

An analysis of this study and its similarities and differences to the Byrd study that was published in the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine can be found here. Essentially, this study strived to replicate the findings of the Byrd study, but failed to do so--using Byrd's analysis methods failed to find any significant difference between the IP and control groups. They did create their own scoring system, however, which gave the IP group an 11% higher score (with a 1/25 possibility of being attributable to random chance). As with the Byrd study, this one fails to offer any compelling evidence to support the conclusions. Further testing and replication should be required.

Other references regarding the MAHI study:
Intercessory Prayer and Patient Outcomes in Coronary Care Units
Efficacy of Prayer

Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Report of a masked, randomized trial.
Cha KY, Wirth DP, 2001

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effect of intercessory prayer (IP) on pregnancy rates in women being treated with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET).
...
CONCLUSION: A statistically significant difference was observed for the effect of IP on the outcome of IVF-ET, though the data should be interpreted as preliminary.

This was a highly controversial study that has become very suspect under subsequent scrutiny. this article on the-scientist.com details some of the controversy. Ultimately, the credibilities of the study and the people involved in it are poor, and its results would need to be reproduced before they should be taken seriously.

Other references about the IVF-ET study:
The Columbia University 'Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud
Follow-up to the above: The Bizarre Columbia University 'Miracle' Saga Continues
Faith Healing by Prayer: Review of a Questionable Study

Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomized controlled trial.
Leibovici L, 2001

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether remote, retroactive intercessory prayer, said for a group of patients with a bloodstream infection, has an effect on outcomes.
...
CONCLUSION: Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice.

The very idea of this study is quite controversial--that prayer can have a retroactive effect on an event that occurred up to 10 years in the past. Many responses were sent in to the publication regarding this paper, which can be read here. A few poignant observations made by readers:

There was no significant difference between the two groups with regards to the most clinically important outcome (mortality), and the median values varied little between prayer and non-prayer on both length of stay (7 and 8 days) and fever duration (2 days each).

The data on the the most significant finding,length of stay, appears to be skewed by a few abnormally high results in the control group.This is demonstrated by the fact that the median length of stay is the same in both groups but the maximum length of stay in the control group is twice that in the intervention group. This may represent a type I statistical error,despite the large sample size. From a cynical stand point, it is a shame that God cannot save your life but might get you out of hospital a few days earlier.

It is pretty much given that a study with findings such as this would cause an uproar in the scientific community, but regardless, they do seem to make the salient point that the apparent positive results of the study seem to be more due to a statistical anomaly, as opposed to divine intervention.

Intercessory prayer in psychological well-being: using a multiple-baseline, across-subjects design.
Tloczynski J, Fritzsch S, 2002

This study involved a group of students taking regular anxiety evaluation tests in order to measure the effect that prayer had on their anxiety. The results do seem to indicate that there is some psychological benefit to knowing that you are being prayed for, but does not indicate any kind of supernatural power in prayer.

The bulk of the studies generally seem to point to the same conclusions. Namely, the only benefits that prayer can have are psychological and emotional ones (generally only if the subject believes in prayer, and believes that he or she is being prayed for). These results also appear true for belief in other forms of alternative medicine as well, such as therapeutic touch or meditation. The evidence, however, supporting the divine intervention of God in situations where prayer is being used, is underwhelming to the point of non-existence.

Following are some of the many other studies that involve testing the efficacy of prayer:

Complementary healing therapies.
Wirth DP, Barrett MJ, 1994

The effect of non-contact therapeutic touch (NCTT) in isolation and in combination with Reiki, LeShan, and Intercessory Prayer on the healing rate of full thickness human dermal wounds was examined utilizing a randomized, double-blind, within subject, crossover design.
...
Results showed significance for the treated versus the control group but in the opposite direction from that expected. Several factors could have contributed to the nonsignificance obtained including: (a) the natural healing ability of the two mimic practitioners; (b) the subjects' increased proficiency with the self-regulatory techniques; and (c) a carryover effect from the two NCTT healers and/or the Reiki, LeShan, or Intercessory Prayer healers.

Interestingly, this study showed the alternative methods of healing (such as prayer) actually produced negative effects on healing.

An experimental study of the effects of distant, intercessory prayer on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression.
O'Laoire S, 1997

Improvement on all II measures was significantly related to subjects' conviction concerning whether they had been assigned to a control or an experimental group. Possible explanations include the placebo/faith effect, the time displaced effect, and extraneous prayer.

This one seems to have found that one only needs to believe that they are being prayed for in order to improve in the areas being measured, and that the actual prayers made no difference.

Intercessory prayer in the treatment of alcohol abuse and dependence: a pilot investigation.
Walker SR, Tonigan JS, Miller WR, Corner S, Kahlich L, 1997

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot study of the effect of intercessory prayer on patients entering treatment for alcohol abuse or dependence.
...
CONCLUSION: Intercessory prayer did not demonstrate clinical benefit in the treatment of alcohol abuse and dependence under these study conditions. Prayer may be a complex phenomenon with many interacting variables.

Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health.
Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S, 2000

OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of prayer as an additional intervention for those with health problems already receiving standard medical care.
...
MAIN RESULTS: There was no evidence that prayer affected the numbers of people dying from leukaemia or heart disease...

Effects of intercessory prayer on patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Matthews DA, Marlowe SM, MacNutt FS, 2000

RESULTS: Patients receiving in-person intercessory prayer showed significant overall improvement during 1-year follow-up. No additional effects from supplemental, distant intercessory prayer were found. CONCLUSIONS: In-person intercessory prayer may be a useful adjunct to standard medical care for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Supplemental, distant intercessory prayer offers no additional benefits.

So, again, people who knew they were being prayed for showed improvement, but the remote prayers made no difference. Proof of God's intervention? Or something more mundane like the placebo effect?

The effects of intercessory prayer, positive visualization, and expectancy on the well-being of kidney dialysis patients.
Matthews WJ, Conti JM, Sireci SG, 2001

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of intercessory prayer, positive visualization, and outcome expectancy on a wide range of medical and psychological measures in critically ill patients.
...
CONCLUSIONS: The effects of intercessory prayer and transpersonal positive visualization cannot be distinguished from the effect of expectancy. Therefore, those 2 interventions do not appear to be effective treatments.

Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial.
Aviles JM, Whelan SE, Hernke DA, Williams BA, Kenny KE, O'Fallon WM, Kopecky SL, 2001

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of intercessory prayer, a widely practiced complementary therapy, on cardiovascular disease progression after hospital discharge.
...
CONCLUSIONS: As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.

Pilot study investigating the effect of intercessory prayer in the treatment of child psychiatric disorders.
Mathai J, Bourne A, 2004

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether intercessory prayer had an effect on the outcomes of a group of children with psychiatric conditions, using a triple blind randomized study design. CONCLUSION: This study was unable to show any additional benefits for patients who received intercessory prayer compared to those who received treatment as usual.

Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study.
Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Gallup D, Blankenship JC, Cuffe M, Guarneri M, Krieger RA, Kshettry VR, Morris K, Oz M, Pichard A, Sketch MH Jr, Koenig HG, Mark D, Lee KL, 2005

INTERPRETATION: Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterisation or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer.
Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF,
Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL, 2006

BACKGROUND: Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome.
...
CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Again, a study that oddly associates receiving prayers with negative effects.

The efficacy of distant healing for human immunodeficiency virus--results of a randomized trial.
Astin JA, Stone J, Abrams DI, Moore DH, Couey P, Buscemi R, Targ E, 2006

The purpose of this study was to examine the potential efficacy of distant healing in a population of patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/aquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
...
CONCLUSIONS: Distant healing or prayer from a distance does not appear to improve selected clinical outcomes in HIV patients who are on a combination antiretroviral therapy.

Drawing the Line on Religious Freedom

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:53:00 -0500

Freedom of religion. A basic human right, right?

Recently, a 26 year old Jehovah's Witness died while being treated for an intestinal tumor because he refused blood transfusions during the operation. A quote from this article:

Lavoie’s brother, who is a former Jehovah’s Witness, has since launched an Internet petition calling on the federal government to make it illegal for a person to refuse treatment on religious grounds.

Basically, the guy's brother didn't like the fact that Lavoie was allowed to endanger his own life on religious grounds, and wishes to legislate away a person's right to do that. I think this is a terrible idea. Thoughts of such a law dredge up images of utilitarian futures where it's illegal to stop taking your "happy" pills to get a clear head; where forced lobotomizing operations are used to quell disquieting elements of society. Maybe this is a bit extreme, but you get the idea. I absolutely want to be allowed to refuse medical operations for any reason. If there was ever a law that said religion could not be one of those reasons, who knows what reasons could go next?

Consider female circumcision (or circumcision in general, for that matter--but that's a topic for a future post). This horrible, mutilating procedure is performed on women in many African countries purely for cultural and religious reasons. Lavoie's brother's proposed law would be equivalent to passing a law in these countries that a woman can not refuse female circumcision due to disagreements with the religious reasons for performing it. It would be (and is) a terrible violation of basic human rights.

Now, take this case of a Canadian Jehovah's Witness couple who just gave birth to sextuplets. From the article:

Neonatologists say blood transfusions are routine for infants of 25-week gestational age. Transfusions are used to treat anemia and jaundice and may also be needed because premature babies have very low blood volume and hospital staff need to draw blood regularly to monitor the infants' health.

The fact that these poor babies could have their lives placed in jeopardy because of their parents' delusions is totally unacceptable. The infants are not Jehovah's Witnesses--only the parents are. Can you imagine if the children had been left at the hospital anonymously, or found abandoned somewhere? The doctors would not hesitate to do everything medically possible to ensure their health.

Doctor 1: We need blood for these babies, stat!
Doctor 2: Hold it right there, doctor! What if these babies are Jehovah's Witnesses?
Doctor 1: Good call, doctor! We'd better proceed without the transfusions, just in case!

See? It's ridiculous. Unless the patient is old enough to understand the reasons for, and the possible results of such a decision, they should be given the benefit of the doubt and the full benefits that medical science can provide them with their best interests in mind. Parents who neglect their kids are considered to be criminals, and parents who deny their children possibly life-saving medical procedures should be viewed the same.

Another recent example is that of Misty Horner. Some quotes from the article:

Misty Horner died on Jan. 9, apparently of septic shock. The month before, she had delivered a stillborn child in her Lee’s Summit home.

As part of the faith, Horner and his family don’t believe in medical intervention. So when it was time for his wife to give birth to her first child, it was done at home without a doctor, a nurse or a midwife.

“(Caleb) didn’t know what the heck he’s doing — he has no medical training, he’s not a doctor, he doesn’t know what he’s doing. He takes the scissors and cuts her and performs an episiotomy. The baby finally comes out, and the baby’s dead,” Moore said.

After that, she said her friend became ill suffering from septic shock.

“The medical examiner told Caleb, ‘Caleb I understand your beliefs. All it will take is an antibiotic and Misty will be OK,’ and Caleb said no,” Moore said.

A month later, Misty Horner died.

In this case, my problem again is the fact that a kid was involved. If its death was due to negligence on the part of the father, as opposed to being stillborn for other reasons beyond his control, then I absolutely think he should be held accountable. The wife's death, on the other hand, was her own choice. The only way the husband should be held accountable for that is if he forced her against her will to avoid medical intervention.

Some people might be inclined to ask, what about the parents' rights? Wouldn't giving those sextuplets blood transfusions be violating the rights of their parents? The parents would think their kids are going to Hell, or whatever, so we shouldn't force that upon them. Right?

Wrong. If we allow parents to refuse their children blood transfusions based on their own religious beliefs, why stop them from doing anything to their kids based on religious beliefs? For example, the couple who kidnapped their malnourished child from a hospital back in 1998, and fed him nothing but lettuce and watermelon for weeks, because they believed he was a religious prophet who would be contaminated by any other kind of food. They did it based on their religious beliefs. They should be allowed to do whatever they want to their kid if their religion says it's okay, right? We might hurt their feelings if we don't let them follow their religion...

I don't think so. So why do we consider those parents to be criminally negligent, but we need to pussy-foot around Jehovah's Witnesses who don't want their kids to have blood transfusions? It may be slightly less extreme, but it's basically the same thing--putting your kids at unnecessary risk for unfounded and silly reasons.

I absolutely think that the line needs to be drawn at making medical decisions for only yourself. There needs to be an age limit under which the health of a kid should be top priority, ignoring any religious or other unfounded reasons to withhold medical intervention. If that kid later grows up and accepts a faith that doesn't permit medical intervention, then that's fine. Let's just make sure he actually gets to grow up and make that decision for himself.