“Survival of the fittest evolving method...” Interesting...I have always wondered whether the atheist and Darwinist underpinnings of modern science have any impact —negative or otherwise— on our progress in terms of finding cures for diseases. How would a Creation-based biological reality shape our laboratory approach to tackling diseases even in the physical realm?
Keeping in mind that when God heals, He heals —and He will use anything including chemo. Or in spite of it.
Western medical science is based upon artifice, not nature: cut, burn, drug. They are invasive, coercive, traumatic.
These approaches are first and foremost, profitable. Chemotherapy is the cash cow at many hospitals, without which they would operate in the red. Chemo is simply a gamble that it will kill the cancer before it kills the host. It is supremely toxic.
Otto Warburg proved that cancer is anaerobic. An acidifying diet and lifestyle therefore promotes the growth of cancer. High pH = high oxygen; low pH = low oxygen. He received the Nobel prize. (Chemotherapy is emphatically not systemically alkalinizing.)
Johanna Budwig obtained great success in mitigating degenerative diseases, including cancers, by using diet, specifically, the Oil-Protein Diet (Fresh Flax Oil and Cottage Cheese). This diet is oxygenating to the tissues. She was nominated for the Nobel Prize seven times.
The scientific method is based upon isolating a single variable, not upon viewing the organism as a whole. That favors focused, aggressive techniques like chemotherapy. Also, the science is highly compromised by that profit motive. Follow the money - always!
Germ Theory (Pasteur), which allowed for patented and profitable vaccines, was chosen over Terrain Theory (Beauchamp), which did not provide a profit motive. The concomitant development of modern sewage systems and physician hand washing before surgery, both of which played major roles in reducing communicable diseases, has been deliberately ignored by vaccine proponents.
The adherence to Darwin and Natural Selection certainly has its effect: We are just another animal, and we evolve; man-made substances and devices can thus be a factor in that evolution just as much as anything else. Many conventional conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, hold ideas like that: We are a part of nature, so, no matter what we do, it is natural (no matter how unnatural it actually is).
I was a biology major, a pre-med, but I left for several reasons, chiefly: I was sick of the Evolution propaganda (and it is that), and medical science was failing me with my own growing physical problems.
I nearly died at 32, stopped going to medical doctors, and began my earnest study of natural healing the way the Creator provided.
I make use of natural hygiene, food combining, and selective use of herbs and spices, and emphasis on functional foods. [Genesis 1:29]
This is a great nation for dealing with trauma; it is not nearly so great at prevention. Artificial drugs are virtually all toxic, with multiple side effects.
I have not been to a doctor since 1995. I have been on zero medications since then. People think I am 15-20 years younger than my age. I have a 29” waist despite having a permanent leg injury that limits my exercise.
I must be doing something right.
P.S.
I had multiple awards in the hard sciences. I once had the only high A in upper division Genetics, despite working full time (swing shift), and nearing a physical collapse. I could do the science; I proved that.
Why would it have any effect at all?? Science deals with the realty of nature. Evolution at the micro level is just one of those facts.
It is incontestable that environmental pressures tend to select and de-select certain genetic traits. We see it dramatically in species which have a fast life-cycle.
Bacteria reproduce exponentially, meaning one bacterium becomes two, two become four, four become eight, and so on. Because of this, bacteria populations can double in four to twenty minutes. Under optimal conditions, this gives bacteria the ability to form millions of cells in as little as a few hours. You can see for yourself that conditions select for certain traits to be optimized, others suppressed.
Same goes for cancer cells. High rate of growth, high rate of selection.
This does not mean that one species can turn into another. I think Darwin has been proved wrong about his central thesis in "The Origin of Species." Wrong about species.
But on the unicellular level? Darwin knew next to nothing about cells. But cells, yeah--- hit them with a major "near-extinction" challenge, and the survivors may produce a super-line of descendants.
God made this, and God alone fathoms it.
Tagline