Would you go to a doctor who doesn't believe in evolution?

[Sealeaf]

But if a doctor says "I don't believe in evolution", isn't he a little confused about the difference between science and religion? I mean if the doctor is so confused about the difference between science an rhetoric that he thinks that Creationism is a valid scientific theory, I think that might be a little scary. I mean I believe in the powers of prayer and all, but that is not what I would be paying a doctor for. Aren't you afraid that such a doctor might think that "Its God's will" is a sufficient and meaningful explanation of your symptoms, no matter how useless such an explanation might be? After all this is precisely why the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and ID is not, because "Goddidit" is just plain useless. I mean I would say quite sincerely, "thank you God and may your will be done", but I don't need the help of any doctor to do that.

That is very to the point. I work with MD's all the time and I respect them, but many are arrogant "a" holes and most have very little knowledge outside their own fields. They have not had well rounded educations. They have studied science to the exclusion of almostr everything else. One thing they should know is the nature of science.

 

[zoo22]

There are undeniably a vast amount of extremely skilled doctors who do not believe in evolution (well, particularly life-genesis evolution... I doubt there are *too* many now who don't believe in evolution at least to some extent).

I wouldn't stop going to a Dr. (that I liked and was skilled) if I found out they did not believe in evolution (life-genesis). I might stop if they didn't believe in evolution at all. (I'd definitely stop with my current GP, cause I don't particularly like him all much anyway).

But were I given a choice of two Dr.'s, both with equal skills, one believing in evolution, the other a serious creationist, and had to choose based only on that, I would choose the Dr. who believed in evolution. If it were between a Dr. who believed in evolution and one who *questioned* evolution, I'm actually not quite sure... It might simply depend on my state of mind that day.

I say not sure for a particular reason:

There are many people, yep scientists and Dr.'s included, who are limited because they are closed-minded and can't think "outside the box," a type of thinking that to me, (at it's best) incorporates *always* taking into account that we do not know everything... There are always things we do not understand, things we cannot even comprehend. The most skilled in any field does not know everything. And the base fact of the matter is, we do not understand life (tho some seem to believe they do). So to put my life in the hands of another, I would hope that they would do all they could medically and scientifically, but also could believe that it's possible for things to extend into the incomprehensible. Never to RELY on that, but never to discount it completely. To have an open mind.

I don't ever want my doctor looking at something going on and saying "but that's impossible."

This translates to so many things: to God, or to the incredible strengths of the mind and/or body, or to spirit, or simply to something that is "off-track" scientifically/medically. I don't know. But we all know that seemingly "impossible" things do sometimes happen.

So if two doctors were equally skilled, and one was *open* to different ways of thinking, case-in-point here questioning something that still has a lot of things unanswered, I might go with that one.

Now of course, I don't want any Dr. who put a patient's health in "God's hands" over science/medicine. I don't want anyone praying over me in lieu of any medical attention I need. Thanks but please pass the medicine.

But ultimately, I would prefer a Dr. who was not only hands-down skilled in medicine/science but also had a spirituality/openness enough to be comfortable knowing there are things larger than our knowledge, larger than us, things that we can not comprehend. I wouldn't care if that Dr. was Christian or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever. I want a Dr. with an open mind (oh yeah, and clean hands).

So, hmmm ... Any creationists here that would stop going to their doctor if they found out they were an atheist?


(Edit: spelling)

 

[icilian fenner]

We've been doing vaccines for quite some time now. Wouldn't we know by now?

I never claimed to have any knowledge of the area. I just conceded that while I can imagine it could be important to some things, I don't think it could possibly effect general practice...

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

A medical doctor is not supposed to be an expert in evolutionary theroy. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of doctors have spent little time studying ToE. So no, it wouldn't really bother me if my doctor was opposed to ToE.

For the most part, I could really care less what my doctor's religious or political views are, so long as he is a good doctor.

 

[Johnny]

Is it diagnostic that a person is an idiot for not believing in common descent of all life from a hypothetical primitive protocell, even if that same person has excelled at the highest levels in all academic courses and intellectual careers they ever were active in?

No, of course not. Notice what I said, "But obviously it's my opinion that if you're not an evolutionist and you've seriously studied the topic in a scientific capacity, you have deficits you need to overcome." I should add one more caveat, and that caveat is that you believe evolution is not supported by science. So if you've studied evolution at a college level or above and if you reject evolution on scientific grounds, then yes, I believe you have some reasoning deficit.

However, it is entirely possible to be extremely intelligent and not have studied the issue, or to be extremely intelligent but to reject evolution on faith, so long as you're not running around claiming evolution is unscientific. However, I do not know too many people willing to put their faith up against science in such a way. This is why everyone tends to cluster into either compatibilist camps or into "accept science, evolution isn't science" camps (it just goes to show that most people value science at least as much as their faith).

 

[Real Sorceror]

The Crevo debate is not something I want to talk about with my doctor. I just want his medical expertise. So no, it wouldn't really matter to me.

 

[noguru]

Since many here are of the opinion that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution must be an idiot, it would be interesting if people here would tell us whether they would stop going to a doctor if it was revealed that they didn't believe in evolution or that they were skeptical that it was true.

In others words, how strongly do people hold to the idea that the theory of evolution is important in the study and practice of medicine?

Would you go to a doctor that believes in evolution? I mean after all you think that such people have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda. Do you trust medical professionals who have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Would you go to a doctor that believes in evolution? I mean after all you think that such people have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda. Do you trust medical professionals who have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda?

My doctor believed in Al Gore's presentation on global warming. :doh:

I think even the attitude on here shows how hostile the social environment is right now to accept evolution despite the evidence against it. I suggest many scientists and doctors have succumbed to just that. I remember when you couldn't hardly find a scientist that thought DDT shouldn't be banned, and those that did speak up where mocked and said that their reason should be questioned.

 

[noguru]

My doctor believed in Al Gore's presentation on global warming. :doh:

I think even the attitude on here shows how hostile the social environment is right now to accept evolution despite the evidence against it. I suggest many scientists and doctors have succumbed to just that. I remember when you couldn't hardly find a scientist that thought DDT shouldn't be banned, and those that did speak up where mocked and said that their reason should be questioned.

Did you trust that Doctor who believed in Al Gore's presentation on global warming?

Did you take a poll regarding banning DDT of all doctors you knew? Did you ask the ones that did not think it should be banned what kind of reception their views recieved from other doctors?

In regard to accepting evolution, I think for the most part you are mistaking valid criticism for hostility.

 

[Real Sorceror]

As a mathematician, my objection has always been the fact is the earth is not old enough for evolution to have occurred.

Evolution can occur regardless of how old the Earth is. It simply wouldn't be able to occur on the scale that most old-Earthers propose. The mechanics of evolution function even if the Earth is only 6,000 years of age.

 

[SUTG]

You seem to have bob b figured out already

He is like a broken record. Top phrases are "Cell Trends Too", "single hypothetical primitive protocell", "starlight travel problem" and "molecules to man".

If you do a Google search on "single hypothetical primitive ptotocell", bob b is the first hit.

 

[bob b]

He is like a broken record. Top phrases are "Cell Trends Too", "single hypothetical primitive protocell", "starlight travel problem" and "molecules to man".

If you do a Google search on "single hypothetical primitive ptotocell", bob b is the first hit.

Please stop stroking my ego, it's too big as it is.

 

[zoo22]

He is like a broken record. Top phrases are "Cell Trends Too", "single hypothetical primitive protocell", "starlight travel problem" and "molecules to man".

If you do a Google search on "single hypothetical primitive ptotocell", bob b is the first hit.

:chuckle:

 

[noguru]

Please stop stroking my ego, it's too big as it is.

No doubt.

I'd go as far as to say it is overinflated.

 

[Woodbine]

But if a doctor says "I don't believe in evolution", isn't he a little confused about the difference between science and religion? I mean if the doctor is so confused about the difference between science an rhetoric that he thinks that Creationism is a valid scientific theory, I think that might be a little scary. I mean I believe in the powers of prayer and all, but that is not what I would be paying a doctor for. Aren't you afraid that such a doctor might think that "Its God's will" is a sufficient and meaningful explanation of your symptoms, no matter how useless such an explanation might be? After all this is precisely why the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and ID is not, because "Goddidit" is just plain useless. I mean I would say quite sincerely, "thank you God and may your will be done", but I don't need the help of any doctor to do that.

Not believing in evolutionary theory doesn't mean you have to be a creationist. Creationism falls apart quite happily of its own accord. Even if evolution turns out to be wrong it doesn't help fill the holes in creationism. As for my doctor, I don't really care what his beliefs are....I just want to get myself fixed. If my doctor is qualified to do the job and carries it out following strict medical guidelines then I don't much care if he believes he's Venusian marooned on Earth.

 

[bob b]

Evolution can occur regardless of how old the Earth is. It simply wouldn't be able to occur on the scale that most old-Earthers propose. The mechanics of evolution function even if the Earth is only 6,000 years of age.

Again the confusion surrounding the word "evolution" arises. Are we talking here about small changes or "common descent"?

Changes in lifeforms can occur rapidly due to the "mixing" action of the sexual reproduction mechanism, or in asexual creatures due to direct transfer of genetic material.

Such changes can cause rapid diversity that is not necessarily "bad", in fact it allows adaptation because any population ends up not being completely homogeneous.

But changes can also occur due to copying errors, radiation of germ cells, etc. Such changes are highly biased toward being "bad", i.e. genetic disease, and if bad enough may eventually be eliminated by so-called natural selection.

Which raises an interesting point. What really is "natural selection"? Is it actually a discernable mechanism or is it really just a "catch phrase" for a result (i.e. something in the environment, external or internal, has in some unknown and perhaps unknowable way led to a change in the distribution of varieties in a population).

With an enormous amount of work we may be able to measure the change that occurred in the population, but the exact reason for the change continues to be frustratingly elusive.

So people speculate, and since the exact reason(s) are so elusive, there is no scientific way to determine if the speculations are correct, or even if by some minor miracle it could be determined in a given particular case, this would not constitude a general principle that would allow us to predict scientifically what would happen in any other case or even what might happen to that same particular population in the future.

Scientific theories are normally tested by seeing if their predictions actually come true in either the lab or in the natural world.

Evolution can not make predictions like this. Evolutionists must wait to see what happened and then speculate about why it might have happened. What good is this to anybody?

 

[Real Sorceror]

Again the confusion surrounding the word "evolution" arises. Are we talking here about small changes or "common descent"?

Short answer: Yes.
Except when talking to creationists, I never make any distinction between "macro and micro" evolution. As I said, evolution can occur regardless of how old the Earth is, although, if we are talking about all current life descending from a single common ancester, then a larger time span would be needed. If we are talking about all current life descending from multiple developed common ancesters (such as in the Genesis model) than that would require significantly less time, although I do not believe 6,000 years is enough.

Which raises an interesting point. What really is "natural selection"? Is it actually a discernable mechanism or is it really just a "catch phrase" for a result (i.e. something in the environment, external or internal, has in some unknown and perhaps unknowable way led to a change in the distribution of varieties in a population).

Yes.

With an enormous amount of work we may be able to measure the change that occurred in the population, but the exact reason for the change continues to be frustratingly elusive.

So people speculate, and since the exact reason(s) are so elusive, there is no scientific way to determine if the speculations are correct, or even if by some minor miracle it could be determined in a given particular case, this would not constitude a general principle that would allow us to predict scientifically what would happen in any other case or even what might happen to that same particular population in the future.

Scientific theories are normally tested by seeing if their predictions actual come true in either the lab or in the natural world.

Evolution can not make predictions like this. Evolutionists must wait to see what happened and then speculate about why it might have happened. What good is this to anybody?

Thats quite an assertion. I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to predict that an organism will evolve in reaction to a stimulus. Exactly how the organism reacts to the stimulus may not be initially apparent, however.

 

[Evoken]

If you do a Google search on "single hypothetical primitive ptotocell", bob b is the first hit.

LOL

 

[Evoken]

After all this is precisely why the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and ID is not, because "Goddidit" is just plain useless. I mean I would say quite sincerely, "thank you God and may your will be done", but I don't need the help of any doctor to do that.

If you already admit that god is plain useless as an explanaiton in science, why do you think god is useful as an explanation somewhere else? By what criteria do you determine when, how and why god is an useful explanation for something?

From where I stand, your decision to use god as an explanation for some things and not for others seems quite arbitrary.


Evo

 

[Woodbine]

I wonder what prompted Bob's recent references to doctors and evolution? It must be a pure coincidence that a brain surgeon named Michael Egnor has been recruited by the Discovery Institute to issue statement after statement to the effect that evolutionary theory is "worthless". Despite the fact that he has been bombarded with proof (not evidence but proof) that evolutionary principles are being used very successfully in scientific research he has nevertheless continued this ridiculous tirade. Here's just one of many responses from people who actually use evolutionary principles in their field.....

Usless theories and all that jazz....

The agenda driven vacuity of the Discovery Institute is hardly a new development but with their new "spokesman" posting one pile of deliberately uninformed garbage after another it's obvious they have no idea the damage they are doing to themselves. On the bright side, everyone loves watching a good car crash....