Spinal treatments based on evolutionary theory fail

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Related claims 7 See Also 8 Acknowledgments

Claim

A treatment for certain back conditions, Williams flexion exercises, recommended decreasing lordosis as much as possible. It was based on evolutionary theory, specifically that humans evolved from quadrupeds and that back problems are a result of our new upright posture. This treatment protocol often impeded healing and caused great pain. Robin McKenzie's exercises, which recommended restoring normal lordosis (anterior convexity of the spine), are much more effective.

Source

• Bergman, Jerry, 2001. Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers. TJ 15(3): 79-84. [1]

Responses

1. That humans are not best off adopting a quadruped position is no more proof that they didn't evolve from quadrupeds than the fact that a baby will drown is evidence it didn't spend 9 months in a sack full of fluid.
2. "Chiropractic medicine" (or "physical therapy" if you prefer) is not scientific, let alone medicine.
   • Williams Flexion Exercises are still in use because they actually have no significant impact on the spine at all, and are merely effective at stretching buttocks, abdominal, lower back, and hamstring muscles.
   • McKenzie Extension Exercises are still in use because they, also, have no significant impact on the spine at all, but some people ask for an alternative to the WFEs.
   • Neither form of exercise does what it initially claimed to do: consistently relieve back pain.
   • There is no magic formula for relieving back pain, or any other type of orthopedic pain.
   • Paul Williams is quoted (by AiG, actually) as saying "Man, in forcing his body to stand erect, severely deforms his spine." This is medically absurd.
   • Robin McKenzie has no education in medicine at all, and makes his money today selling the modern equivalent of snake oil -- self-help books.
3. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• add fallacies

External Links

• Viv, 2003-7-17. Re:"Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers" Message-ID <6mqehv0k68te6rmbpjoobbandfabh1i5hq@4ax.com>, [2]

Related claims

• Complex organs couldn't have evolved
• Sex can't have evolved
• Vestigial organs may have functions
• Vestigial organs are just evidence of decay, not evolution

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments