It does? Perhaps you could elaborate on this?
The fossil record, as a rule, exhibits morphological stasis within species. Creatures disappear from the fossil record in the same form that they appeared. Moreover, we have examples of "living fossils," creatures that seem to have failed to have evolved over the course of thousands of years. Finally, supposed "transitional forms" like archaeopteryx exhibit morphological stasis in the fossil record. Seven fossilized archaeopteryx's have been found, all exhibiting the same morphology.
Some species may well remain constant.
OK, so where are their ancestors? Where are the fossils of the countless transitional forms that must have lead up to the temporary state of stasis?
Another interesting problem with strict, materialistic evolution is the fact that it contradicts the first principle of medicine, the restoration of health to the body. How can health, or the proper operation of the body, be defined in an evolving life form? Logically, no species is fixed, but instead is in a state of perpetual evolution.
This makes absolutely no sense and seems built not only upon a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution but also a misunderstanding of "species" and a semantic argument regarding disease.
Have human beings evolved? Yes or no. Are we evolving? Yes or no? How do you know?
When you have a cold, it's because a virus is interfering with the efficiency of your body. When you do things to facilitate recovery from a cold, you're working to aid your body in overcoming the effects of the virus.
The question is, should I aid my body in recovering from a cold? Maybe I'm being culled from the herd. Should I act to prevent my culling?
Who's to say if a disease isn't culling the herd?
A disease may well "cull the herd", creating an environment where only those able to survive the disease are able to pass their genes on to the next generation, resulting in new populations that are resistant to the disease.
Do you have an actual point here?
Do you consider medicine to be scientific? Do you consider doctors to be scientists, or practitioners of science?
If so, should doctors (scientists) work to cure disease or should they let evolution "cull the herd"? In other words, is it good or bad to allow the herd to be culled?
You say that "science does not deal in 'good or bad,'" which is why I asked you if you consider doctors to be practitioners of science. "Scientific" evolutionary theory has some very practical consequences. Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler were well aware of them.
In fact, how could "disease" be defined under an evolutionary rubric?
Multiple ways. Diseases caused by viruses or bacteria could be examined through the bacteria/viruses themselves. Disease can also be looked at as an environmental factor amongst the affected population.
Personally, I'm not very concerned about the fate of viruses and bacteria. I'm more concerned about diseases relating to human beings. My question is, how can human diseases be defined under an evolutionary rubric if death and destruction is part of the evolutionary process, or "the survival of the fittest"?
If "science does not deal in 'good or bad,'" science must remain agnostic regarding the cure of so-called "diseases," correct? Or should scientists work to combat "diseases"? Are they judging diseases to be bad?
Are mutations good or bad?
Science does not deal in "good or bad".
Someone should tell the scientists who are working on cures to genetic diseases. They're acting as if some mutations are bad.
Would it even be possible to define a good or bad mutation?
No, because science does not deal in "good or bad".
This is a fundamental contradiction, because scientists every day are working to cure diseases. Medicine is based on the judgment that there is such a thing as health (good) and illness (bad).