Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is There a Doctor in the House?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Thanks to Uncommon Descent subscriber Mats for the heads up.

Tell all the doctors you know!

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.

Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in America and other countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution. Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and teachers have been censored and even removed from their positions for facilitating open discussion of the empirical problems of the dominant theory. In fact, one scientist who simply followed procedures in allowing a controversial article to be peer-reviewed and then published in the journal he edited, was publicly vilified and relentlessly persecuted.[1]

As academia has suppressed freedom of speech in this area, another avenue needs to be available to promote accurate knowledge and the free exchange of ideas concerning the debate over Darwinism and alternative theories on origins. To accomplish that goal, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) has been established. PSSI is a means for physicians and surgeons to be counted among those skeptical of nature-driven Darwinian macroevolution. PSSI members agree to a “Physicians and Surgeons’ Statement of Dissent” which states “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.” This statement is similar to that signed by over 500 scientists worldwide and posted by Discovery Institute at the web site www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

Allowing physicians and surgeons to speak on this subject with a united voice in significant numbers is one of the best ways to let the scientific facts be known, and to dispel falsehoods, innuendoes, fantasies, and distortions that recently have been flooding the media.

Any person with an M.D., D. O., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M. or equivalent may become a member of PSSI. There is no cost to become a member, and agnostics or members of any religious faith are welcome. Information provided to PSSI by its members beyond their name, medical specialty and city of residence will be kept strictly confidential. To join PSSI, click here and complete the simple application. You will be notified via e-mail of your inclusion on the members’ list.

Each new member will be provided, at no cost, a copy of the superb video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life [2] (UMOL). UMOL has been shown nationally in the United States by the Public Broadcasting System and is being translated into numerous languages, many of which are completed, including Bulgarian, Burmese, Cantonese, Catalan, Czech, Japanese, Khmer, Mandarin, Spanish and Russian.

PSSI will be involved in activities and events to educate the public on this critical subject. These include the distribution of the UMOL DVD to high school and college students, teachers and professors, and sponsoring educational conferences, seminars and debates in the United States and internationally.

As PSSI International, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, contributions by PSSI members to the cost of the DVD distribution or other activities and events will be tax deductible. Our goal is to hold these educational events with a minimal admission fee, or no admission fee at all, to maximize attendance.

Comments
"What you’re seeing g_ape is people from all walks of life, professional, scientific, medical joining together and stating we’re not alone in our skepticism. That large media outlets and traditional brick wall organizations will no longer limit or control our opinions, nor more importantly will they shape them." --Michaels7 Michaels7, Russ, Charlie, you have helped make it clear to me how much of my stance concerning the physicians' statement was a visceral response decorated with rationalization as opposed to a well thought out position in light of my personal beliefs concerning democracy, dialogue, etc. This is precisely why I engage in these discussions; they help weed out my more clouded reasoning. In this regard, posting where everyone more or less agrees with you is fairly useless. In particular, I was not aware of the many organizations that have come out in support of teaching evolution in classrooms. Instead of "righteous indignation," as I experienced upon hearing of the anti-Darwinian physicians, I instead found that Charlie's post engendered a warm, fuzzy feeling within me--especially in regard to the support of Jewish women. So I hereby modify my position: while I maintain my initial assertion that MDs do not possess any relevant professional status such that their commentary, as a group, on evolution, is particularly meaningful, there is nothing morally reprehensible with their banding together to make statements of questionable relevance. (I'm sure they'll all rest a little easier tonight having been granted my approval :) ). As has been made abundantly clear to me, the phenomenon of assemblages of people publicly asserting their collective opinions on matters unrelated to their shared expertise is quite widespread. If I were to condemn physicians, I should be equally compelled to condemn the clergy and Jewish women. I take it as a general axiom that when one's staked out position has resulted in morally reprimanding the clergy or silencing Jews, it is time for serious reconsideration. So let everyone have their say, and I'll leave the assignment of moral culpability to the fellow upstairs. Although I sometimes lament it after watching an episode of Cops, democracy is indeed the least bad system available to us as humans. Michaels7 As for your statements concerning the tearing down of traditional barriers to the propagation of information, ideas, opinions, the idealist in me wishes to rejoice. The realist in me is concerned. I haven't the time to justify myself fully, and I'm not sure I that I ultimately could, but I am sympathetic to a mild form of elitism. The traditional filters or "walls," as you called them, in addition to being repressive agents have also served constructive purposes in human culture throughout the ages. While we are all equal under G0d and the law, that's just about where it ends. (If you are in doubt, I highly recommend Jerry Springer and Cops as effective remedies.) Some folks' opinions are more important than others. A great deal of uninformed garbage needs to be filtered out, lest our ostensibly educated public--the putative pillar of democracy--be drowned in a sea of noise. I am more than a little nervous about the increasing breakdown of these walls. While my pessimism concerning the capacities of the general public is deep, my optimism concerning the ultimate triumph of truth is equally so. Given enough time, truth widdles away and removes those structures that stand in its way. Only I'm not so sure that removing or otherwise circumventing those structures pre-emptively will aid our quest for knowledge. If anything, I anticipate the opposite because I believe those structures are the means by which humanity organizes and processes information.great_ape
May 7, 2006
May
05
May
7
07
2006
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
great_ape, Please note the following sentence... "So, you must denounce all sides it seems, or be a hypocrite." should be changed to You must 1) denounce all sides, 2) accept all sides, or hold to a hypocritical opinion. I do not in any way desire to attack you personally, but wanted to point out where opinions lead and where locking out dissent can lead to if one sided. While I understand your point of view, the truth is without increasing information access, breaking down walls of the usual gatekeepers and the internet - I'd never know that AMA is attempting to influence opinion on the debate. Old Media would never have told me this information. Thanks Charlie - that was such a critical post, and it shows just how informative these blogs can be over our usual brick wall sources. What you're seeing g_ape is people from all walks of life, professional, scientific, medical joining together and stating we're not alone in our skepticism. That large media outlets and traditional brick wall organizations will no longer limit or control our opinions, nor more importantly will they shape them. What Charlie showed very importantly imo is how opinion is shaped by groups already formed, especially media and how little we once knew this is done. You're simply seeing a new revolution taking place as part of the Open Information Age. This works across all boundaries, not just science. For example, I no longer depend upon the NYT's to mold my world view, nor my locally owned paper of a conglomerate corporation. In fact, I do not plan on purchasing another NYT again. Instead, I travel around the world daily in minutes getting the latest news I desire to keep me informed from multiple sources, some I agree with, others I do not. Need to know what's going on in Iraq? I can ask the troops directly, or check on their blogs. Biology, Genetics? I can go direct to PUBMED or PLOS, or many others. Astronomy? Physics? Direct links, timely news, much faster than Nature, National Geographic, or NYT can bring it to me and largely unfiltered by bias especially in the General News. So, if AMA can do it, then so to can these Doctors. I suspect they could not anounce their opinions under AMA - what do you think?Michaels7
May 7, 2006
May
05
May
7
07
2006
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
great_ape, After Charlie's post re: AMA OP-Ed and Doctors calling for pro-evolution views, do you now denounce all physicians comments about evolution? NSCE's atheist Director Eugenie Scott recruiting clergy for her purposes to counter pro-ID clergy nationwide is an excellent counter example to your opinion on moral authority. Charlie showed the lines were long drawn before these Doctors entered into the debate. They're merely joining in where their colleagues already stood. There is nothing wrong with this at all, unless you do not like a free and open society. Or like Stalinist Nature, prefer to shut out opponents papers while ridiculing their work. So, you must denounce all sides it seems, or be a hypocrite. Therefore, we should shut out all comments and opinions except those from geneticist and biologist. But then, that would eliminate Darwin would it not? It would eliminate Mendel - upon whose very foundations you stand today. Welcome to North Korea or Saudi Arabia and the land of ego maniacs.Michaels7
May 7, 2006
May
05
May
7
07
2006
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
If science ends up moving in the way I think it will over the next century, then the argument "only (evolutionary) biologists can really have an informed opinion about the validity of evolutionary theory" will be just about as valid as saying "only an alchemist can really have an informed opinion about the validity of alchemy" or "only a trained phrenologist can really have an informed opinion about the validity of phrenology" or "only a Marxist can really have an informed opinion about the validity of scientific Marxism".Matteo
May 7, 2006
May
05
May
7
07
2006
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
great_ape wrote: "If the intention of the clergy were simply to convey their acceptance, as religious persons, of evolution in order to express 'we’re men of the cloth, but we’re okay with this' … Then I see no problem with their effort. " Here's the relevant excert from The Clergy Letter Project, also linked above: “…We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children…” They are clearly using their non-scientific authority and prestige to make the claim that evolution is "truth". (since the letter is on the NCSE website, one assumes they're supporting macroevolution, not microevolution---unless the NCSE types are exploiting the clergy's ignorance on the subject.)russ
May 7, 2006
May
05
May
7
07
2006
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Elie Wiesel and other non-biologists and/or non-scientists have weighed in as well: http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdfruss
May 7, 2006
May
05
May
7
07
2006
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Sorry to repeat an off-topic comment: How would I give the blog posters a headsup on an article?geoffrobinson
May 7, 2006
May
05
May
7
07
2006
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
The Stanford School of Medicine seems to think that the medical community has a relevant voice in the question of evolution:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/855_ama_oped_urges_doctors_to_def_12_2_2005.asp AMA op-ed urges doctors to defend evolution "The medical community as a whole has been largely absent from today's public debates on science. Neither the American Medical Association nor the American Psychiatric Association has taken a formal stand on the issue of evolution versus creationism." Miller is quoted as saying that the medical community will have to take a stand: "You have to join your friends, so when someone attacks the Big Bang, when someone attacks evolution, when someone attacks stem cell research, all of us rally to the front. You can't say it's their problem because the scientific community is not so big that we can splinter 4 or more ways and ever still succeed doing anything." Individual medical students, residents, and physicians can make a difference. Offering Burt Humburg, a resident in internal medicine at Penn State's Hershey Medical Center and a dedicated defender of evolution education in Kansas, Minnesota, and now Pennsylvania, as a role model, Costello concludes, "It is time for the medical community, through the initiative of individual physicians, to address not only how one can heal thy patient, but also how one can heal thy nation." Costello is the executive director of communications and public affairs for the Stanford University School of Medicine.
Astronomers add their expertise to the debate:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/142_asa_cssa_and_sssa_statement__8_18_2005.asp http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/979_aas_denounces_intelligent_des_9_20_2005.asp AAS denounces "intelligent design" American Astronomical Society Supports the Teaching of Evolution in United States Science Classes and States that "Intelligent Design" is Non-Scientific and Should not be Taught to the Nation's Children
As do American professors, more than a few of whom are not biologists:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/140_aaup_issues_statement_on_teach_6_17_2005.asp AAUP issues statement on teaching evolution In a press release issued on June 17, 2005, the American Association of University Professors announced that at its June 11, 2005, meeting, it adopted a statement in support of teaching evolution.
Chemists are big on their support:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/950_acs_issues_statement_on_teachi_6_22_2005.asp ACS issues statement on teaching evolution The American Chemical Society (ACS) strongly supports the inclusion of evolution in K-12 science curricula, at an age-appropriate level, because evolution is central to our modern understanding of science. Evolutionary theory is not a hypothesis, but is the scientifically accepted explanation for the origin of species, and explains significant observations in chemistry, biology, geology, and other disciplines.
As are soil and crop scientists:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/142_asa_cssa_and_sssa_statement__8_18_2005.asp ASA, CSSA, and SSSA statement on teaching evolution In a press release issued on August 15, 2005, the 2005 executive committees of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), the Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), announced a shared position statement on the teaching of evolution, adopted on August 11. The intelligent design/creationist movement has adopted the lamentable strategy of asking our science teachers to "teach the controversy" in science curriculums, as if there were a significant debate among biologists about whether evolution underpins the abundant complexity of the biological world. We believe there is no such controversy.
Hey, even Jewish women can add their opinions:
NCJW adds its voice for evolution In a statement released on December 6, 2005, the National Council of Jewish Women expressed its opposition to "the current campaign to add intelligent design to public school curricula and classrooms and to denigrate the teaching of evolution." http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/294_ncjw_adds_its_voice_for_evolut_12_16_2005.asp
But it’s immoral for doctors skeptical of RM/NS to voice an opinion.Charlie
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
From Dini's Criteron:
Criterion 3 If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences. Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below. Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution--the very pinnacle of modern biological science--ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?
Some physicians, apparently, believe that you can be skeptical of ToE and still practice in the field. And they think that others might be made aware of this.Charlie
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
Professor Dini, for one, thinks that the opinion of a medical doctor is very important when it comes to evolution. http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htmCharlie
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
What I find to be MORALLY SUSPECT is the leveraging of an ‘illusory authority’ on the subject of evolution–VIS-A-VIS BEING PHYSICIANS–to coax the public into weighing their opinions on evolution more seriously than they would some other groups statement concerning evolution (since the general public has reverance for their doctors). That's what I understood you meant. The problem I have is that you are impugning the morality of your intellectual opponents for doing nothing wrong. There is no reason to think this group is lying or expressing insincere beliefs. Illusory authority? You think these doctors think their "authority" is illusory? Probably a more accurate phrasing would be do you think these doctors think their opinons are uninformed? This doctor group isn't claiming any authority. It's just expressing doubt. As far the relevance of their opinions, there are those who think the opinion of a doctor carries more weight than that of a research biologist. You of course, don't but that doesn't make those who do "morally suspect" if they should act as a group.tribune7
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT

Russ,

Good question. I have not read the text of the clergy letter and thus have formed no opinion on the matter. I'll look it up shortly. At least on the surface of it, I would object on the same grounds if they, the clergy, have attempted to leverage their religious authority in an attempt to confer *scientific* validity upon evolution. (I think in this case, however, the potential confusion of the public as to how to weigh opinions of the clergy towards scientific matters is far less of a concern than it is with doctors.)

On the other hand, there has been a complex historical relationship between religion and evolutionary theory, and one might argue there was an implicit demand by the public for religious figures--such as the pope, for example--to make some statement regarding their stance toward evolution due to its possible spiritual/existential implications. If the intention of the clergy were simply to convey their acceptance, as religious persons, of evolution in order to express "we're men of the cloth, but we're okay with this" ... Then I see no problem with their effort. Many have stood on the pulpit of both religious fundamentalism and darwininian fundamentalism to preach fire and brimstone sermons about the *absolute incompatibility* of evolution and religion. If this letter is a response to these extremist sentiments, then I see no problem with organization of clergy for this purpose.

Someone in Judge Jones district (Kitzmiller) ought to sue a school for establishment clause violation for teaching evolution. The science establishment actively seeking and obtaining the blessing of 10,000 clergy members ought to be proof enough for Jones that evolution is really about religion. :roll: -ds great_ape
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
"I will, however, describe this activity as I see it: a ploy preying on the public’s reverance for their doctors." - great_ape A) I take it then that you would also object to the Clergy Letter for the same reason. Please answer. B) I'm pretty sure that most people realize their podiatrist and the guy who did their last root canal are not doing, and have never done research in the area of evolution and human origins (and it's probably safe to say that the public knows that Darwinian evolution has little practical value in their respective specialties). But there's nothing wrong with asking the opinion of someone who's a couple of steps closer to an issue (biology) than oneself, and there's nothing wrong with that person volunteering an unsolicited opinion in public (i.e. the Dissent from Darwin Letter). Give the general public a little credit. And certainly, Darwinian doctors are free to speak out in support of Darwinism. Alternatively, they could publish a letter saying that their medical training, research and experience are of NO VALUE in evaluating the plausibility of Darwinism! Why don't you suggest that to your physician at your next visit! :)russ
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT

"I take that to mean that you believe that unless you study an issue in an approved fashion it may be immoral to comment on it." --tribune7

While it is tempting to take your statement to mean that you have not taken the time to read my position, I will attempt to clarify my statements once more. (Lest you continue in your unfortunate state of horror.) What I find to be MORALLY SUSPECT is the leveraging of an 'illusory authority' on the subject of evolution--VIS-A-VIS BEING PHYSICIANS--to coax the public into weighing their opinions on evolution more seriously than they would some other groups statement concerning evolution (since the general public has reverance for their doctors).

Personally, as can be intimated from my postings, I hold little reverance for MDs as scientists. I wade through a sea of them on a daily basis. While there are certainly some I hold in high esteem, *in general* their grasp of scientific method, statistics, etc, is woefully lacking--as has been evidenced to me from attending numerous seminars at multiple institutions. Biochemists, geneticists, and cellular biologists in the audience generally have to restrain themselves from being too critical. They're MDs, after all, and practicing science is not what they're trained for. This is why I find it particularly amusing--and also deeply troubling at the same time--that they would organize to make a statement, as a group, on the scientific validity of evolution. The operative phrases in my position are "as a group" and "as physicians". I have no problem with them individually weighing in on the subject. And just in case it isn't abolutely clear to all, I would by no means advocate *stopping* them from weighing in as a group on evolution; I will, however, describe this activity as I see it: a ploy preying on the public's reverance for their doctors. You are all free to bash the monkey with impunity, but no one has persuaded me to abandon my position.

great_ape
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
I think that it is only matter of time until Darwinists make a "Project Steve" opposing this list. They better find a new name, like "Project John, M.D.", or "Project Philip,D.O.", and then tell the world what everyone already knows. Giving that a poll once showed that 60% of Medical Doctors are skeptical of Darwinism, in this case, maybe it won't be so easy to start a new "Project Steve"-like list.Mats
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Great Ape: you said The act of physicians organizing in this fashion, under this public statement, implies that they possess an inherent authority concerning evolution that is derived from their medical profession. I hold that to be false and, ultimately, misleading for the general public. As such, this public campaign is morally questionable I take that to mean that you believe that unless you study an issue in an approved fashion it may be immoral to comment on it. Now, these doctors are not endorsing anything, merely expressing skepticism. It can be fairly taken that you believe that anybody expressing skepticism of what you believe is immoral. Frankly, that's horrifying. Further, why do you blame these doctors -- who as it has been pointed have training in biology, chemistry etc. -- for failing to understand this "truth" you seem to be unable to reveal to them? Wouldn't the fault be with you and your failure to communicate?tribune7
May 6, 2006
May
05
May
6
06
2006
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
[troll]

"Religiously committed blind-watchmaker Darwinists are in a transparent state of panic, because logic and evidence contradict their creation story, which is foundational to their nihilistic faith."

In other words, ID has nothing to do with religion.

Thank you for playing.

Of course, my comment won't be approved, but who cares? Next court case that comes up ... approved comments at UD will be entered into the record, and will support the truism that ID = Biblical Creationism.

I LOVE IT SO!

dhogaza
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
"The DNA molecule also contains the template for the ribosome. The ribosome is made up of RNA and 70 different proteins. But a ribosome is required to produce proteins. And DNA is required to specify the proteins. It’s the mother of all chicken/egg paradoxes! They don’t tell kids that in 9th grade biology. Too difficult to understand? Hardly. Impossible to explain? You bet! -ds" This is what Darwinists fear, evidence and logic, so these two foundational precepts of science must be repressed at all cost when it comes to origins. Religiously committed blind-watchmaker Darwinists are in a transparent state of panic, because logic and evidence contradict their creation story, which is foundational to their nihilistic faith.GilDodgen
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Dr. Geoffrey Simmons has studied the human body and evolutionary theory for more than 40 years. He received his M.D. in 1969 and now practices medicine in Oregon. Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. holds two degrees (BS in Zoology and MD) from the University of Illinois.
If we are dreaming about comment options, I'd love an "edit" feature. But that's only because I am infinitely careless.Charlie
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b082.htm Here's a(n) MD who gives his opinion of RM/NS.Charlie
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
"No! Not at all. It is simply to reject non-scientific crap." LucID stands up and applaudes Farshad, Bravo!lucID
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
I think that more lists like this should be started - one for each prossesion with a link to science, eventually it will reach a critical mass....lucID
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
->"…We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth,one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." Yes, you believe, and you guys finally admitted that it is a belief system not a fact. Ever heard physicists making such claims as "We believe that speed of light is 300.000km/s"? They don't believe that speed of light is 300.000km/s because they *KNOW* it is so. You have doubt? Go out and arrange a test and measure if for yourself. If you end it up with a different result other than 300.000km/s feel free to report us. But you can't do the same with darwinism. What kind of scientific experiment can be done to falsify/prove Darwinian mechanism? If Darwinism is a foundational scientific truth then we no longer should call it a theory. ->"To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance" No! Not at all. It is simply to reject non-scientific crap. ->"and transmit such ignorance to our children…" Let's transmit our kids silly extrapolations such as self-organization of genetic code is a natural process similar to formation of crystals and snowflakes. Note: Dave, do us a favour and give us a list of bbcodes we can use here. (and why don't we have a preview button?) :)Farshad
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Russ: "If the NSCE thinks these clergymen are in a position to vouche for the validity of Evolutionary Theory, maybe you’re being hasty to disqualify Doctors of Medicine" How do I get on the pay roll?? I mean what are they paying these 'clergy' to sign up? Did they study to get their theological degrees at the Darwinian School of Divinity?? Not too digress too far from the topic but I really think the NSCE is frantically clutching at straws trying to swell grassroots support from wherever possible. Next they'll be getting pre-schoolers to sign petitions in support of evolution. They're beginning to panic and with good reason. The end is nigh....lucID
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Don't forget that lots of the science that we med students learn during our first two years is just straight up basic science (albeit w/ a clinical emphasis). If there is any profession that can critique the evolutionists claim of lower primates' anatomy, physiology, etc. making a transition into the humans of today it would be doctors. We are in the business of fixing random mutationd and environmental pressure. loljpark320
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
If I may bash the monkey once more... :) Here's an excerpt from the Clergy Letter Project, touted by Eugenie Scott & Friends over at the NCSEweb.org website: "...We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children..." http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/US/562_evolution_sunday_1_31_2006.asp If the NSCE thinks these clergymen are in a position to vouche for the validity of Evolutionary Theory, maybe you're being hasty to disqualify Doctors of Medicine.russ
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
I'll be signing it in 3 years. Thanks for bringing it to attention.iDoc21
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Lately I have seen the evolutionists claiming that evolutionary theory is responsible for all scientific developments. They quickly point to cures for cancer. If a list of physicians disagreeing with evolution will do anything, it will dispell this propoganda. However, more importantly, physicians have doctor's degrees. By definition they are reasonably intelligent and well schooled. However, they are the doctorates that are the most accessible to the masses. If doctors publicly state that they don't believe that evolution has been proved, it allows those uf us with less education to feel more comfortable with our view. (When you get to talking with educated people, they often leave you feeling like a stupid little worm. When there's some big boys on your side of the field, the field feels a lot less intimidating.)bFast
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT

DaveScot wrote:

DNA contains a digital program code that specifies tens of thousands of component parts, controls a ribosome machine that reads the instructions and builds the parts to specification..

What is most frustrating to me (actually burns me up, I guess) is that if I mention anything like this on an evolution blog, and imply design, the responses I get range from telling me I'm pathetically under-educated (at BEST) to my suggestions being "THE STUPIDEST" comments ever written on any blog in the world. Then I ask: and is this the response you'll also give my children when they ask such questions in school? Can you imagine how intimidated a child would feel after getting this range of responses to their first question to a teacher? Can't these folks at least give the respect to imply the questions aren't based on utter ignorance?

It gets worse. The DNA molecule also contains the template for the ribosome. The ribosome is made up of RNA and 70 different proteins. But a ribosome is required to produce proteins. And DNA is required to specify the proteins. It's the mother of all chicken/egg paradoxes! They don't tell kids that in 9th grade biology. Too difficult to understand? Hardly. Impossilble to explain? You bet! -ds es58
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Russ makes a key point in comment #5. In the interview I linked in comment #1 Phillip Johnson is asked what he brings to Darwinian theory as a professor of law. Johnson is an expert in the logic of argumentation, and as such offers scrutiny of the rhetorical, logical, and apologetic devices used by advocates of blind-watchmaker Darwinism. Johnson is, after all, an advocate by training and experience, and he knows all the tricks that are used to manipulate people and pull the wool over their eyes in making a case. Darwinian theory makes such sweeping and grandiose claims that it should withstand scrutiny by those with specialties in all the fields with which it intersects. Its claims should be able to survive challenges from chemists, software engineers, professors of law, and yes, mechanics, who know how machines work and what it takes to fix them when they break.GilDodgen
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply