Richard Dawkins calls Ben Carson a disgrace

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 1, 2015

Atheism, Darwinism, News, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

How many lives did Dawkins save, you say? Carson doesn’t believe in Dawkins’ religion, Darwinian evolution. All doctors should be as ignorant as Carson.

As so often, we close our religion coverage for the week with a new atheist: Richard Dawkins on US prez contender Ben Carson:

On Dr. Ben Carson specifically Richard Dawkins said, “You just told me all the Republican candidates except one doesn’t believe in evolution, I mean that’s a disgrace. For a senor a very eminent, distinguished doctor, as he is, to say that is even worse. Because of course evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine. For a distinguished doctor to not understand, I have to use the word understand, he clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theory of his own subject, that’s a terrible indictment.”

It’s a much more terrible indictment of legacy media that they are still airing Dawkins as if anyone cares.

No wonder they keep losing audience and money.

See also: Dawkins’ American twin Larry Krauss weighs in, along with some US charity for jobless MSM, Media Matters.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' Why don’t they invite some of these folks, if they want to talk about evolution?

Well, then they’d have to think, and perhaps they don’t get paid for that. Neither, one fears, do most of their remaining viewers.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Anyone remember this from 2006?

Comments

Dawkins would never let a creationist operate on his brain.Mung_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

As a physician I would like to second Ho-De-Ho's remark. If evolution were so important to medicine, then Ben Carson could not have become the pre-eminent pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, let alone the world. However, Ben Carson has done that. Therefore evolution cannot be that important to medicine. It is straightforward logic: P -> ~Q Q Therefore ~P With all due respect to Dr. Dawkins and his medical expertise ;) , I submit as a practicing physician that he is wrong. That’s a terrible indictment. ;)Paul Giem_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Soon as I saw the name Dawkins I knew 5 mins of comedy would follow :) Seriously, the man is a relic from a time when we had an even poorer grasp of important scientific concepts than we do today. He hasn't practised actual science in what, 20 years, longer? Even then his books, wow... The man is woefully ignorant of the very science he bashes others for not understanding. It is clear his popularity and book sales has nothing to do with his understanding of science etc but rather it is his attacks and anti-religious philosophy that interests his readers.humbled_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Mung hath said:
Evolution isn’t the bedrock of anything. Evolution is the opposite of bedrock.
Evolution is the foundation of the stable, supporting you-know-what.EvilSnack_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Thank you bfast, kind of you to say so.Ho-De-Ho_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Ho-De-Ho (11) That was a VERY well reasoned point. Kudos.bFast_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Pip pip Cantor old bean. Please don't misunderstand me. I am also of the opinion that Dr Carson is more than qualified and intelligent enough to understand whether evolution is true or false. My point in the particular sentence that you highlighted is that if Dr Dawkins wishes to stand by his remark that Dr Carson does not understand evolution, then he must also accept that he has demonstrated beautifully that evolution is not the bedrock of biology and medicine. Sorry if my meaning was not clear in the original post. I can see now, that it was a bit foggy. Whoops.Ho-De-Ho_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

11 Ho-De-Ho November 2, 2015 at 5:03 am Dr Dawkins claims that Dr Carson doesn’t understand evolution. Fair enough.
No, not "fair enough". Carson understands the claims of Darwinism perfectly well. And he's smart enough to figure out that it's not science. .cantor_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Whatho everyone. Dr Dawkins comments are very valuable in my opinion. Perhaps not in the way he supposes though. He provides an excellent way to demonstrate the validity of the claim that evolution is the bedrock of biology and hence medicine. Understanding evolution - sound understanding of biology - practice of medicine Just apply that line of progression elsewhere to see its truth. Basic numeracy - sound grasp of mathematics -application in finance If a person could be found that could not do basic addition and subtraction but had successfully developed an equation for building a successful life insurance policy, then it could be said that basic numeracy is not the ultimate bedrock of finance. Likewise, if a person can be found that doesn't understand evolution but practices applied medicine or surgery at the highest level, then it can be straightforwardly said that evolution is to the ultimate bedrock to medicine or biology. Dr Dawkins claims that Dr Carson doesn't understand evolution. Fair enough. Dr Carson does practice the highest level of medicine. Therefore evolution is not the bedrock of biology and medicine. I am not qualified to remark on the merits and demerits of evolution as a science. But I get common sense. And Dr Dawkins comments shed a lot of light on one of the grand claims of science for me. Just an observation.Ho-De-Ho_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

REC:
Disregard of science breeds pseudoscience…..
So evolutionism arose due to the disregard of science- good to know.Virgil Cain_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

News, Umpqua is a red flag warning. This sort of slanderous stirring of hostility and manifestation of ill-mannered contempt was never acceptable. But now, with madmen distilling shoot Christians on sight etc out of the tainted atmosphere, it is high time for decent people to wake up to what is being enabled. Or have we forgotten the consequences of Nero's slanderous accusation against Christians of treasonous arson for the fire in Rome July 18, 64 AD? KFkairosfocus_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

REC, "Disregard of science breeds ... " Hm, seems that every time a new theory comes about the scientific community rejects it. Disregard for science is the core to scientific progress. Oh, there's more to Mannateck then meets the eye, or the wikipedia article. Search for "pathological science" in http://tinyurl.com/8lkm6eq don't forget your findings.bFast_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

These are bad years for American leadership, certainly Canadian, but I wish Carson would become Prez. Its very inaccurate for what Dawkins, a foreigner vy the way, said about this. Creationism is not a disgace to any thinking human being. thats saying Christian doctyrines are a disgrace. We have a social contract for centuries now NOT to insult/dismiss others faiths. Reject and argue against but not be dismissive. Biology is based on investigating biology as is. The origin of the AS IS BIOLOGY is not biology. its history. Medicine has no relationship to history but only biology AS IS. Zillions of medical rese4archers are creationists. The to winner of prizes in the university of Toronto for teaching medicine is a adam/eve believer. He told me so. What is great is once again origin conclusions are raised as important and modern creationism as a modern threat and revolution. Once again the bad guys in the story demand intellectual compliance with their convictions. Its a early Christmas gift eh. Poor old Dawk. America is not Britain or, I think hes from africa, AFRICA. Your not helping.Robert Byers_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

Or you know, the 10 year $$$ relationship (at the expense of cancer victims) with a snake-oil scam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannatech Disregard of science breeds pseudoscience.....REC_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

OT: Wintery Knight has an overview of Behe's "First Rule" paper
Peer-reviewed paper: Michael Behe’s “First Rule of Adaptive Evolution” - Oct. 30, 2015 Excerpt: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: “Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.” In essence, what Behe means is that mutations that cause loss-of-FCT are going to be far more likely and thus far more common than those which gain a functional coding element. http://winteryknight.com/2015/10/30/peer-reviewed-paper-michael-behes-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
bornagain_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

For a distinguished doctor to not understand, I have to use the word understand, he clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theory of his own subject, that’s a terrible indictment.” says Dawkins. What it really shows is that belief in evolution is irrelevant when it comes to practicing medicine. This design paradigm works just fine! Otherwise, how could he become such a tenon and "distinguished" doctor? Seems like the evidence does not support his claim/opinion.tjguy_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Richard Dawkins, meet Dr Philip Skell: Why Do We Invoke Darwin?:
Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one." I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
Bedrock is the home of the Flintstones, Dickie.Virgil Cain_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Evolution isn't the bedrock of anything. Evolution is the opposite of bedrock.Mung_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

as to: "For a senor a very eminent, distinguished doctor, as he is, to say that is even worse. Because of course evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine." Actually,
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9znyGQo2QE "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood." Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit (1988) “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).) "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Limited role of Darwinism in medicine - May 2, 2014 Excerpt: In eight well-written and thoroughly researched chapters, Ferngren takes the reader from ancient times to the Greco-Roman period, early Christianity, into the Middle Ages and the Islamic world, to the early modern period, and on into the 19th and 20th centuries. The roots of Western medicine, we learn, can be found in the transformative effects of Judeo-Christian traditions. But the story told here is also about the eclipse of those traditions. While it is not a book on or about Darwinism, Ferngren states accurately that “Darwin’s theory did not make a significant contribution to clinical medicine.” https://uncommondescent.com/evolutionary-psychology/limited-role-of-darwinism-in-medicine/ Doctors and Evolution - May 19, 2015 Excerpt: [W]hen Pacific Standard talked to doctors, many didn't find their colleagues' rejection of evolution unusual. "Nope, it's not uncommon at all," says David Gorski, a surgeon and researcher at Wayne State University. Even in the national spotlight, (Ben) Carson isn't the only high-profile politician-physician to doubt the well-established biology concept. All of the physicians Pacific Standard talked with, both on and off the record, had the same answer to "How is it possible?": Although doctors use many insights from biology, many don't actually need to understand or believe in evolution correctly to do their jobs. "Most physicians are not scientists. This is not a knock, but they're more akin to engineers," Gorski says. "They take science that's already known and they apply it to a problem, the problem being making patients better.",,, Coincidentally, a correspondent today sends across my desk this from biologist Jerry Coyne, of Why Evolution Is True fame. Writing in Nature ("Selling Darwin"), Coyne has conceded: "[T]ruth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/how_is_it_possi096181.html Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011 Excerpt: 4) Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html
In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past:
Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/
bornagain_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply