I became interested in dinosaurs and earth history at a young age, at a time before much was available in the way of dinosaur models or toys (early 1960's, actually). The only way to indulge such an interest was to read. So, I read every book available in the public library about dinosaurs, and when I finished those, I read books about historical geology. I knew all the geological periods and what allegedly evolved in each one before I was 10. I wanted to be a paleontologist, but somehow I got sidetracked into medical school instead. I still love rocks and geology, though, and I have a strong amateur interest in them. Now, many years later, I am a medical pathologist with forensic experience. This means that I have been through undergraduate college (chemistry major, class of '76), gone through medical school (gaining M.D. degree 1980), and then completed a hospital-based specialty residency in pathology (1984). Since then I've worked for nearly twenty years in hospitals, except when I took three years off to do forensic work.

If you're wondering exactly what pathology is, the short answer is that it is the study of the roots and causes of disease. Pathology looks directly at human cells, tissues, organs, and ultimately the whole person. It's also concerned with the microbes and viruses which inhabit our bodies, either for good or bad. In the hospital setting, it gives tissue diagnoses for biopsies (tissues removed at surgery) and cell samples (cytologic specimens, such as pap smears). In addition, a branch of pathology known as forensics deals with application of medical science to legal procedure. Over the last generation this subspecialty has been popularized by TV shows like Quincy and CSI. Forensic pathologists use techniques of pathologic examination to establish truth in courts of law, in both criminal and civil proceedings. They make courtroom appearances and give testimony as expert witnesses.

So, what does all this have to do with creation and evolution? What qualifies a pathologist to weigh in on this subject? In a lecture several years ago I heard University of Nebraska paleontologist Michael Voorhies express public scorn for Dr. Duane Gish, a microbiologist who speaks out against Darwinism, on the grounds that Gish allegedly had little experience with fossils. If this criticism is true, is it binding? Who’s qualified to judge the scientific evidence for the idea that we all evolved from animals?

I would answer this question in two ways. The most basic answer is that ultimately everyone is responsible to closely examine this issue and judge for themselves. There is considerable danger in the attitude that only a select cadre of experts can decide the key issues of our origins and ethics, and the rest of us must submit blindly to their high-priestly prowess. Experience with human nature shows us that all experts and other human authority figures need to be held accountable. If the evolution-believing majority of experts in paleontology want us to trust them, then (in a free society) they must produce abundant evidence to prove their trustworthiness. If they want us to believe without doubt that we all came from mutated pond scum, then they must present high-quality evidence which proves their thesis AND excludes all other possibilities. If they can’t do that, then their conclusions are uncertain, and should be labeled as such. We’ll consider the evidence later, and see if it warrants the Darwinian claims made for it.

The second answer is that it's not only fossil experts who have knowledge that bears on the evolution issue. Biochemistry, genetics, mathematics, cybernetics, animal and plant husbandry, taxonomy, embryology, comparative anatomy, and a host of other disciplines can be brought to bear on this issue. Even medical pathology can give its own unique perspective on origins issues. This is partly because pathology involves cell biology at a fundamental level. Knowledge of cells and how they change is knowledge of biological evolution, such as it is. Pathology also involves distinguishing the normal from the abnormal. This may seem like a small thing, but it’s very important in judging evidence for alleged human evolution. There is great variety in the human race, and one thing that is often neglected in assessing claims of human evolution is proper definition of the wide range of "normal" in humans. It’s interesting that the great 19th century pathologist Rudolph Virchow, sometimes called the "father of modern medicine," was critical of evolutionary thought for these reasons, as we shall see in more detail later. One more point is worth making here. This is that pathology concerns things that are happening right now, under our very nose, not things alleged to have happened millions or billions of years ago in the unobserved past. As practicing physicians, pathologists are legally responsible to be honest and accurate in their scientific judgments. They can be sued for megabucks if they exaggerate their conclusions. This gives them extra incentive to not push their judgments beyond their evidence. I sometimes wonder how paleontology might be practiced if Nature and Nature’s God (to borrow the Jeffersonian phrase) was willing to immediately sue paleontologists for making false claims. They would be a good deal more cautious in what they say. Their glaringly obvious past errors might have been fewer, and perhaps the uncertainty in their current conclusions would be more clearly labeled.

Of course, if there is a God behind Nature, such a legal reckoning may still be waiting for us some day in the future, in the form of what Christians call the Last Judgment. If such an accounting for the honesty of our fact-gathering, resulting personal beliefs, and actions based on those beliefs is ahead of all of us, then it's to our advantage to be well-prepared for it. With this incentive, I encourage you to read the following articles, and I hope you find them stimulating and thought-provoking. Above all, look at the evidence for yourself, and approach the origins issue with an honest and open mind.