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
Do you guys have contact information for future heads up?geoffrobinson
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT

Isn't it amazing how many high-ranking darwinists were enthusiatic about some clergy sticking their signature on a darwinist manifesto, yet reject the professional expertise of applied science when it insists "I do not see nature doing what you claim." I had thought that, according to Neo-D, clergy are the most ignorant and self-deceiving of all (I would assert that even the most 'religion-friendly' D's believe this - the logic of their paradigm requires it). Ah, how attractive the person you had rejected becomes when the good-looking ones have told you to get lost!

There's a heckuva good point! -ds kvwells
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
A response to Great-Ape: Not to jump on the monkey bashing bandwagon here but I'm afraid you're quite frightfully mistaken. I can see the logic you've followed to reach your conclusion however it's quite flawed. You see you've fallen into the trap of over-simplification, one could quite easliy say certain 'biologists' are not scientists (if some of the more recent claim are anythng to go by)....Furthermore to imply that animal physiologists would be more qualified for comment(Are not Doctors just that in your books - as humans are afterall only animals, albeit one type of animal??) is completely reductionist, merely comparing typical similarites in morphology does NOT automatically qualify as good science. Understanding, diagnosing and treating the sheer complexity of the human physiology is more than a glorified mechanic. I do not have time to go into detail here but if you'd like a personal response from an ophthalmologist, anesthetist, surgeon general and a practising medical scientist as to their objections - I can arrange. The crux of the problem is that Biologists claim SUPREME knowledge over all other branches of science - even when those branches can say with complete certainty that the laws of their scientific expertise are being utterly violated when subjected to a theory from another class of science altogether. Physics, Chemistry, Cosmology, Geology, Mathematics, Information science, Engineering all attest to utter failure when forced to play ball with Darwinism. Darwinism is the ugly kid in the playground that the 'teachers' are forcing the good looking kids to play with. Darwinism is the cripple made captain of the football team by a senile coach. (NO offence to disabled people - illustraion purposes only). The REAL problem is that certain biologists are too stubborn to look at the untampered evidence. Every judgement is made with an a-priori decision. Anyone claiming Darwinism is a unifying theory (and there have been many) should hand back their degree. Also you claimed to know some folks who'd be interested in an organization "mechanics against darwinism" if it existed; fantastic! even the laymen to science you know recognise a BAD theory when they see one. I'm sure I could rope up some farmers too!!lucID
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
"I am unclear as to how physicians speak with any authority on the matter of evolution." - great ape Evolution intersects with paleontology, geology, biology, mathematics, chemistry, information science, philosophy and a host of other disciplines. So it seems unfair to claim that only one class of experts has authority on the subject. Indeed, Phillip Johnson notes in one of the video links above, that evolution is a generalist project that has always been presented as understandable to the general public by the likes of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and lots of others.russ
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
What about to organize some sort of non-public list of scientists who, although dissentintg from darwinism, are actually reluctant (possibly just for privacy reasons) to appear worldwide (a sort of silent majority)?kairos
May 5, 2006
May
05
May
5
05
2006
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
ds, I have not studied all these subjects for decades. About a decade is the most I can rightfully claim. And that only for a portion of the topics you listed. It has been a very interesting decade, though. I've been fortunate enough to have been in the right places at the right times, and I've seen and analyzed a lot of data concerning the darwinian matter. You must trust me when I say I've accomplished a fair amount for my tender age. (Note, for instance, my cultivation of the virtue of humility.) In the process I've seen enough evidence that, barring direct angelic revelation, evolution by "common descent" is no longer open for debate in my mind. Anyone making statements denying descent with modification I consider a) in dire need of additional information b)disingenous b/c of ulterior motives or c)most forgivably, locked into that position because of fundamental religious beliefs. At least in the case of these people, they are being logical given their accepted axioms. As for the origin of ribosomes, first cells, etc; these are a different question entirely. Concerning these, as well as certain aspects of the biocomplexity issue, I remain open to alternatives. My criteria for adopting any such alternative are demanding, though. As for our capacity to continue learning outside the classroom as we get older, I could not agree with you more. I can only hope that my enthusiasm holds, and that my interests remain as broad as yours over the years. Ideally the same would apply to all of us. I still stand firmly by my assertion that medical doctors, in virtue of their being medical doctors, have no particular authority on the matter of evolution. Certainly some will be learned scholars who, having studied additional topics, will weigh in on the matter of evolution. Their authority is derived from their additional scholarship. But, as a group, I am simply claiming they derive no authority as a consequence of their medical profession. 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 in a way that "scientists who dissent from darwinism" was not.great_ape
May 4, 2006
May
05
May
4
04
2006
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
This is old news, but the results of a poll were released about a year ago which appears to suggest that around 60% of U.S. physicians believe in some sort of intelligent involvement in the origin of humans. (Go here.) Just as with the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", there will probably be a substantial number who will be hesitant to sign for fear that it will adversely affect their practice. My dad is an M.D. who has doubts about Darwin. When I suggested that he become a member, he expressed that very concern.crandaddy
May 4, 2006
May
05
May
4
04
2006
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
I had the honor to meet some of the people who got this list for doctors going. The point is not that doctors are acclaimed scientists but that the journey to being a doctor includes many tough science courses (in the area of biology and chemistry, etc) and a lot of rigorus training in the sciences as well. For example, I have friends at the university I attend that are biology or chemistry majors for the sake of being researchers and I have friends that are biology or chemistry majors for the sake of being doctors. Both take the same classes (even at the graduate level, many take the same clases). Doctors go through much scientific training, so their opinions such count as well.SChen24
May 4, 2006
May
05
May
4
04
2006
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
" I am unclear as to how physicians speak with any authority on the matter of evolution." In the Philip Johnson interview referenced by GilDodgen Johnson addresses the propriety of a lawyer dealing with Darwinism. Johnson points out that Charles Darwin's formal training was in (ta-dum!) medicine and theology.Jaz
May 4, 2006
May
05
May
4
04
2006
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT

This will not be popular statement, even among the darwinian crowd, but here it is... I am unclear as to how physicians speak with any authority on the matter of evolution. They're specialized diagnosticians for *human* physiology. I'd give more weight to the opinions of veterinarians. Better still, animal physiologists. For someone to be able to weigh in meaningfully on evolution--and here I mean if they seek to draw authority from their occupation (i.e. not just as an informed individual)--they'd need to be involved with the biology/physiology of *many* species, not have a narrow specialization in the human body and its discontents. Sure, physicians have a tendency to be brighter than the average bear, but you'd probably find smarter folks in investment banking that have just as much relevance to evolution as medical doctors. And yes, physicians have an appreciation for the *complexity* of the human organism, for its associated mechanics, and for all the ways it can break down... But what aspect of their training or daily activities gives them authority concerning how/why such complexity arose, the *plausibility* of darwinian evolution generating that complexity, or, most importantly, the existence and validity of empirical evidence for darwinian evolution? They can speak as informed citizens on the matter. No more, no less. As for their being physicians, it would seem irrelevant to me. Perhaps a physician among you would like to explain how it is otherwise? As it stands, it strikes me as a ploy to leverage the general public's admiration of medical doctors, and the misconception that they are scientists. While there are good physician-scientists, they're rare. In general, there's far more in common between a mechanic and a medical doctor than a medical doctor and a practicing scientist. That's not to disparage mechanics. It's just that I don't expect a big movement to organize mechanics against darwinism. Of course, I could be wrong... Please let me know if such an organization should arise; I know some folks who'd be interested.

Many people as they grow older never stop learning and they never slow down. They just don't do it in a classroom. You've been studying science for what, I bet I'm being very generous if I guessed 10 years. Imagine how much more you'll know when you've been studying it for 40 years and broaden your horizons beyond what you had to learn to get a degree in your major. 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, to construct and regulate machine as complex as a human body including a human brain. To even have a good grasp of the complexity of this mechanism requires knowledge of human anatomy and physiology, cell biology, and most of all engineering, computers, and robotics. I've studied all these for decades. Have you? -ds great_ape
May 4, 2006
May
05
May
4
04
2006
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Check out Phillip Johnson's comments on the tactics used to repress dissent against Darwinism in the academic community in this interview at the University of California TV Web site (http://www.uctv.tv/library-human.asp?seriesnumber=28): http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/6289FocOriOnDarw.rmGilDodgen
May 4, 2006
May
05
May
4
04
2006
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply