Creationists in Med School?

[Poit]

I didn't think the dumb would penetrate this far into the realms of medicine, but here I am, deep into second semester, realizing that a handful of my classmates are Ken Ham-caliber creationists, and reject the fundamental theory of biology. I can't even with these people anymore.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

You're being a bit harsh. Have you actually talked to any creationists? The fact that they don't believe in a theory of evolution doesn't make them dumb (Ben Carson is a creationist and although many disagree with him politically you can't deny that he is an incredible physician and a skilled surgeon). And why do you say that Darwinism (I assume that's the theory you agree with) is the fundamental theory of biology? Medicine in particular relies on knowledge of how the body works correctly and how it's affected by various diseases, not on evolutionary theory (at least not directly).

 

[idontwatchgreysanatomy]

And why do you say that Darwinism (I assume that's the theory you agree with) is the fundamental theory of biology?

Because it is.

 

[deleted480308]

I didn't think the dumb would penetrate this far into the realms of medicine, but here I am, deep into second semester, realizing that a handful of my classmates are Ken Ham-caliber creationists, and reject the fundamental theory of biology. I can't even with these people anymore.

have they denied evolution of species or evolution as the source of man? Because there is a large difference in the theories and evidence for both

 

[Dr. Retractor]

Because it is.

I'm actually wondering why you or OP think that is the case. Just saying that it is doesn't answer anything.

 

[Warderino92]

I go to a school in the south where among my classmates very few are not actually religious. It's not my place nor theirs to convince each other of which side is right, as patients would feel most comfortable relating to physicians whom share similar views as themselves here. We get along just fine despite any differences in views.

 

[Cello]

And why do you say that Darwinism (I assume that's the theory you agree with) is the fundamental theory of biology? Medicine in particular relies on knowledge of how the body works correctly and how it's affected by various diseases, not on evolutionary theory (at least not directly).

Vaccines, cancer, genetics, etc.

 

[ZPakEffect]

I go to a school in the south where among my classmates very few are not actually religious. It's not my place nor theirs to convince each other of which side is right, as patients would feel most comfortable relating to physicians whom share similar views as themselves here. We get along just fine despite any differences in views.

Being religious is fine. Being willfully ignorant is something else entirely.

 

[kbeitz]

There is a science professor (MD) at my school that doesn't believe in evolution. It doesn't prevent him from performing his job.

Needless to say, all of the micro, cell, and genetics professors didn't share this view and spoke openly about evolution as a fact.

 

[ajh1983]

So... just stop complaining about nothing and go away. Thx.

 

[ZPakEffect]

There is a science professor (MD) at my school that doesn't believe in evolution. It doesn't prevent him from performing his job.

Needless to say, all of the micro, cell, and genetics professors didn't share this view and spoke openly about evolution as a fact.

Evolution is fact; just look into a petri dish sometime. The church used to regard heliocentricity as a heresy too and look where that debate is now.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Being religious is fine. Being willfully ignorant is something else entirely.

I know of PhD graduate student in Neuroscience who did not pass prelims due to strong religious/creationist views. Not due to the views, but the sheer ignorance of the biology and genetics required to pass the prelims. She must have had a really bad advisor somewhere along the way, and wasted 1.5 years in a graduate program she had no business being in. They don't interview for most graduate school programs, so there doesn't seem to be any reality test for students with respectable stats to enroll in a totally inappropriate field.

 

[kbeitz]

Evolution is fact; just look into a petri dish sometime. The church used to regard heliocentricity as a heresy too and look where that debate is now.

Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that it doesn't prevent someone from being in academia or becoming a clinician.

Also, dealing with willful ignorance is part of the job.

 

[deleted407021]

It's likely ignorance that makes some people think they get to have opinions about facts. You can have an opinion about whether or not cantaloupe is good, but you're either right or wrong about the origin of species.

At my UG, when my social psych professor did a survey of the class, about half did not believe in the theory of evolution.

As to the OP, I'm sure I'll meet a few in med school as well.

 

[MicrogliaMan]

To be fair, many Darwinian evolutionists believe in absolute truth, which is not consistent with their worldview either. If all that exists is material, how can something be right or wrong? Sure you might say that we can feel that something is right or wrong based on a part of our brain that evolved, but this says nothing of the value or truth behind your feelings. Neurons firing can't lead to philosophical truth.

Few atheists are consistent in their philosophical beliefs, and I have to put up with that glaring circular logic every day, but I still get along with many of my friends who are in denial about that. In fact, many of my great friends are atheists. If it bothers you that much when people think differently than you, good luck practicing medicine with diverse populations. Or will you just shrug their beliefs off saying that your intellectual prowess allows you to know much more than your ignorant patients?




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[ZPakEffect]

To be fair, many Darwinian evolutionists believe in absolute truth, which is not consistent with their worldview either. If all that exists is material, how can something be right or wrong? Sure you might say that we can feel that something is right or wrong based on a part of our brain that evolved, but this says nothing of the value or truth behind your feelings. Neurons firing can't lead to philosophical truth.

Few atheists are consistent in their philosophical beliefs, and I have to put up with that glaring circular logic every day, but I still get along with many of my friends who are in denial about that. In fact, many of my great friends are atheists. If it bothers you that much when people think differently than you, good luck practicing medicine with diverse populations. Or will you just shrug their beliefs off saying that your intellectual prowess allows you to know much more than your ignorant patients?

There is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin.

 

[MicrogliaMan]

There is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin.

There is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin.

Like what? I'm not saying atheists can't make statements about right or wrong, and I'm certainly not saying atheists don't believe in right and wrong. I'm saying that a consistent materialistic worldview--when consistently applied--implicates that there is no such thing as right or wrong, only material. At what point in evolution did right or wrong come into existence? Not feelings of right or wrong--because if all we have are "feelings" and there is no truth behind our claims, there is no reason to respond to these feelings.

Consistent atheist philosophy professors would say the exact same thing I just said, mine do say as much.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[MicrogliaMan]

I am interested to hear what you take issue with. Not in a rude way but out of genuine curiosity. To me it's fairly straightforward. Especially when my very very atheist philosophy professors say if you believe in evolution, you can not believe in an absolute right vs wrong (and be philosophically consistent). No one is saying it's impossible to believe in right vs wrong and be an atheist. Just that it's not in accordance with a materialistic worldview


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[deleted407021]

Concepts of right and wrong are evolved cognitive features that probably began with the concept of equity. Give one chimp a banana and another cucumber, the latter is going to get upset, because (s)he feels cheated.

Obviously, these kinds of cognitions and behaviors are adaptive in that they improve cooperation in a group, inspire empathy and allow for equitable allocation of resources. Morality helped us and other animals survive.

Over time, these ideas became culturally defined and people began to wonder why they thought these things and where they came from, just as they might ask about the source of lighting and rain. Knowing no better, they attributed them to supernatural causation.

It's a bias that we think of anything in a transcendent sense at all. I wager there's nothing transcendent about the Universe and that all these notions we have about supernatural sources of this or that are simply biases we have due to our state of being animals. What does this mean for us? I think we ought to persist as we have -- surviving, cooperating and exploring. Because it works and -- if there is any purpose to our existence (that we don't invent ourselves) -- it's to survive and thrive.

It's not so dramatic and otherworldly as people imagine. It's just life, like everything else.

 

[chipwhitley]

The great thing about science is, whether or not you believe in it, it's still true.

 

[deleted407021]

The great thing about science is, whether or not you believe in it, it's still true.

Nor does the Universe care whether or not we think it makes sense.

 

[ForHumors]

I know of PhD graduate student in Neuroscience who did not pass prelims do to strong religious/creationist views. Not due to the views, but the sheer ignorance of the biology and genetics required to pass the prelims. She must have had a really bad advisor somewhere along the way, and wasted 1.5 years in a graduate program she had no business being in. They don't interview for most graduate school programs, so there doesn't seem to be any reality test for students with respectable stats to enroll in a totally inappropriate field.

Pretty sure most graduate programs do interview their candidates... at the very least, at the respectable ones where you have a shot of actually working in the field after you're done. After all, you're really applying for one mentor you're going to be working with for years.

 

[ForHumors]

.

 

[deleted407021]

.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Pretty sure most graduate programs do interview their candidates... at the very least, at the respectable ones where you have a shot of actually working in the field after you're done. After all, you're really applying for one mentor you're going to be working with for years.

Doesn't work that way at U of M. Grad students do 1.5 years of book work and rotating through labs. Take prelim, pick a lab, do research, defend thesis.

 

[ForHumors]

Never took evolutionary psychology?

Sorry- I actually did take social psych! I read your comment out of context and thought you were conflating right vs wrong in the scientific validity sense with right vs wrong in the moral sense. Read more of your comments and I agree with you entirely. Turns out I jumped the gun, my bad.

 

[deleted407021]

Sorry- I actually did take social psych! I read your comment out of context and thought you were conflating right vs wrong in the scientific validity sense with right vs wrong in the moral sense. Read more of your comments and I agree with you entirely. Turns out I jumped the gun, my bad.

Loved social psych! One of my favorites.

 

[ForHumors]

Doesn't work that way at U of M. Grad students do 1.5 years of book work and rotating through labs. Take prelim, pick a lab, do research, defend thesis.

Strange. All of my friends from undergrad who are doing grad school had to interview. I know my med school (WashU) has interviews for grad school spots.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

SDN- where people posting in hopes of having a discussion are practically ignored and inane answers that contribute nothing get the most likes.

 

[Dave89]

I didn't think the dumb would penetrate this far into the realms of medicine, but here I am, deep into second semester, realizing that a handful of my classmates are Ken Ham-caliber creationists, and reject the fundamental theory of biology. I can't even with these people anymore.

I have more patience for creationists than I do for people who say "I can't even."

 

[ForHumors]

SDN- where people posting in hopes of having a discussion are practically ignored and inane answers that contribute nothing get the most likes.

LOL must be frustrating. Here's the link to pre-allo: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/categories/pre-medical-forums.5/ Maybe you'll have better luck there, "accepted medical student"

 

[Drekeapothic]

SDN- where people posting in hopes of having a discussion are practically ignored and inane answers that contribute nothing get the most likes.

I assume you are upset no one responded to your request for clarification on the centrality of evolutionary theory to the science of medicine. If one thinks deeply about evolutionary theory it becomes apparent that it is the necessary out growth of a deep understanding of natural processes. It is the stochastic nature of the processes occurring in our universe that mandate this. That is, the randomness of processes at the individual level with a discernible pattern if one zooms out. It would be tedious to examine how this affects scientific thought in it's entirety, but losing the belief in "survival of the fittest" is akin to disregarding the effects of gravity. For instance how would one explain the function of multiple antibiotics in inhibiting drug resistance without this thought.

To be fair, the most sensible of creationist do not deny this process. Those who borrow from Thomas Aquinas and argue first cause can say that this process was created by a higher power in the same way Gravity was. Most of these individuals don't argue with evolutionary processes though. They simply say it was an "intelligent design." The "Ken Hamm level creationists" referred to by the OP, however, often deny the basic science which undermines our current understanding without providing a likely alternative outside of "God is in control." The moral argument made earlier is a red herring. That has nothing to do with the presence or absence of evolutionary processes. it is, however, a common tactic of anyone uncertain of their argument to attempt to make the debate about something other than what is actually being discussed.

 

[HybridEarth]

Yikes, I hope my school isn't saturated with people like OP. Absolutely tasteless to be insulting a whole cohort of medical-affiliates based on beliefs different than yours. Chill out man. If it's affecting your functional abilities (e.g., you "can't even") on a daily basis you (respectfully) need social counseling. Yikeeees.

 

[Drekeapothic]

To the OP,

Regarding your understandable frustration, try, try, and try again to remain patient and be the voice of reason. Whatever you do don't disregard them, explain to them how a scientist thinks. Engage with them. There is hope they will see reason. I was raised in the Deep South and effectively trained throughout my youth to argue against evolutionary theory. There is a lot of indoctrination behind their beliefs. My mind changed largely because very smart people expressed rational beliefs and taught me how to examine my own. Fundamentalist Creationism falls apart fairly quickly when you shine a light on it, but it is a painful process for someone to realize they were lied to their entire life. many of the lies were earnest lies, meaning the people who said them believed them, but it is a difficult process. View it as an opportunity to practice empathy and you just might see someone learn something new. Also, don't forget that science is never absolute. We deal in probabilities and stick to the evidence.

 

[andrek82]

Vaccines, cancer, genetics, etc.

I didn't think the dumb would penetrate this far into the realms of medicine, but here I am, deep into second semester, realizing that a handful of my classmates are Ken Ham-caliber creationists, and reject the fundamental theory of biology. I can't even with these people anymore.

The utility of evolutionary theory to a physician is pretty minimal. Since every creationist bio/chem/life scientist I've met for years now has believed at least in the genetic mutations that are the basis of our understanding of cancers and antiinfectives, for example, creationism as a world view has little impact. Someone brought up vaccines above. The majority of evangelicals vaccinate, and those Americans who refuse vaccines encompass all belief systems, though particularly on the fringes of the left and the right. I guess my point is that you should have a bit more of an open mind. You don't need a more open mind, but it will certainly color your approach to your patients if you don't offer all treatment modalities in whatever specialty simply because you believe their belief system is too close-minded.

 

[Goro]

You're at LUCOM????????


I have a feeling the thread will explode soon, and poor WedgeDawg will be getting yet another ulcer, but take a look at:

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"-Theodosius Dobzhansky,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

and also the Bible:
Speak to the Earth and it will teach thee: Job 12:8



QUOTE="Poit, post: 17516582, member: 569104"]I didn't think the dumb would penetrate this far into the realms of medicine, but here I am, deep into second semester, realizing that a handful of my classmates are Ken Ham-caliber creationists, and reject the fundamental theory of biology. I can't even with these people anymore.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pacna]

I get along with many religious people much better than I do with "militant" atheists. I find Catholics are particularly drawn to logic for whatever reason (guess: the history of theology + contributions to philosophy). There are logical reasons to be a creationist. As previously mentioned, creationists don't necessarily reject the theory of evolution. Maybe they think all the deity did was instigate the big bang. If they DO reject the theory of evolution, find out why. Often it's due to an incomplete understanding. Recently, the "change in kind" objection has been on the rise. Just have a dialogue with them.

As an aside, I'll add that I find most "atheists" to have simply replaced their previous religion with fervent Statism. (#feelthedysuria)

 

[WedgeDawg]

You're at LUCOM????????
and poor WedgeDawg will be getting yet another ulcer

Not that I have any interest at all in involving myself in this conversation but I don't moderate this forum so go nuts

(kidding - please don't go nuts otherwise @Ismet might kill me for making her life more difficult)

As long as things stay professional and respectful, it'll be smooth sailing

 

[Pacna]

As long as things stay professional and respectful, it'll be smooth sailing

As long as things stay professional and respectful, it'll be smooth sailing

As long as things stay professional and respectful, it'll be smooth sailing

 

[Cello]

The utility of evolutionary theory to a physician is pretty minimal. Since every creationist bio/chem/life scientist I've met for years now has believed at least in the genetic mutations that are the basis of our understanding of cancers and antiinfectives, for example, creationism as a world view has little impact. Someone brought up vaccines above. The majority of evangelicals vaccinate, and those Americans who refuse vaccines encompass all belief systems, though particularly on the fringes of the left and the right. I guess my point is that you should have a bit more of an open mind. You don't need a more open mind, but it will certainly color your approach to your patients if you don't offer all treatment modalities in whatever specialty simply because you believe their belief system is too close-minded.

We aren't talking about patients though, we are talking about physicians. Not believing in evolution as an MD is akin to a computer programmer who doesn't believe in binary or assembly languages simply because they don't interact with them directly.

 

[bc65]

Not believing in evolution is akin to a computer programmer who doesn't believe in binary or assembly languages because they don't interact with them directly.

That's an excellent analogy. But a programmer who doesn't interact with assembly languages doesn't need to believe in them to do his/her job.


OP: Religion isn't the only area of life in which people live with contradictions. All people have an amazing ability to live with cognitive dissonance.

Clearly, different people deal with this particular conflict in different ways, and come up with a variety of rationales. eg:
God started it all, but lets nature take its course these days.
God is in charge of biological processes, and guides or interferes with them when he is so inclined.
Evolution didn't create man, but it applies to creatures as they now exist.

If you want to look for contradictions, you don't have to go to creationism. You can just look at contradictions among the gospels, or inconsistencies between which biblical instructions people choose to follow and which they don't. If people demanded consistency in religious doctrines there would be a lot fewer religions.

 

[chipwhitley]

That's an excellent analogy. But a programmer who doesn't interact with assembly languages doesn't need to believe in them to do his/her job.

To be fair though, I don't think a doctor needs to believe in evolution to do his/her job either. They can still make the correct diagnosis and offer the appropriate treatment while believing that god created man.

 

[chipwhitley]

I have more patience for creationists than I do for people who say "I can't even."

I have more patience for people who say "I can't even" than I do for racists...uh I mean "ethnic nationalists".

 

[Skol_Vikings]

I'm a Christian in medical school who doesn't believe in parts of evolutionary theory. There are four major components of evolutionary theory of which I'm sure most of you are aware. Natural selection, micro evolution, macro evolution, and common ancestory. The first two of these are observable, proven, scientific theories (I am always cautious to use the term scientific fact on anything). I believe that given enough time the last two are also certainly possible in the future, but I don't believe they are the definition of our past. That is because of my Christian faith and how I regard the concept of creation as central to my faith, much like many of you regard evolution as central to biology. Does it make me stupid for not believing that we are the result of macro evolution and share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? No it doesn't. The hypotheses of macro evolution and common ancestory (on a large scale such as birds share a common ancestor with dinosaurs) are clever ideas, but they have not been tested or proven. I agree that it is important to understand natural selection and micro evolution to be a good physician. Otherwise you don't understand antibiotic resistance or vaccines/immunity very well. But understanding the other two elements are a matter of your personal belief, which you are free to choose, and will not impact your ability to diagnose and treat patients.

 

[chipwhitley]

The hypotheses of macro evolution and common ancestory (on a large scale such as birds share a common ancestor with dinosaurs) are clever ideas, but they have not been tested or proven.

They certainly have been tested far more than the creation story of any religion, which is completely untestable.

 

[deleted407021]

Natural selection, micro evolution, macro evolution, and common ancestory. The first two of these are observable, proven, scientific theories (I am always cautious to use the term scientific fact on anything). I believe that given enough time the last two are also certainly possible in the future, but I don't believe they are the definition of our past. That is because of my Christian faith and how I regard the concept of creation as central to my faith, much like many of you regard evolution as central to biology. Does it make me stupid for not believing that we are the result of macro evolution and share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? No it doesn't. The hypotheses of macro evolution and common ancestory (on a large scale such as birds share a common ancestor with dinosaurs) are clever ideas, but they have not been tested or proven.

Theories aren't "proven". That's really the vernacular your ought to be avoiding. They're demonstrated and supported with evidence. Never conclusively proven.

Speciation (macroevolution) is absolutely observable. Common ancestry is the entire point of the theory and is demonstrated through the fossil record and through genomics, i.e. all organisms on Earth share DNA as our genetic material. Find all the info you want on the site linked above.

The fact that you selectively incorporate scientific fact into your belief structure because of seeming contradictions with your religious beliefs is anti-scientific. I won't judge whether or not that's stupid.

Birds and "dinosaurs" don't share a common ancestor in the sense you're using the term because they are dinosaurs. They are the only extant group of saurischian theropods. Google and read about archaeopteryx.

 

[Skol_Vikings]

They certainly have been tested far more than the creation story of any religion, which is completely untestable.

I agree that creation is untestable and I understand that some scientists have a problem with that. Macro evolution itself has not been tested (depending on your definition of what distinguishes macro from micro). We use micro evolution as a model of macro evolution but we have not take the time (1,000s if not 1,000,000s of years) to observe one species break off into something new entirely (again dinos to birds). We just have the fossil record to give us clues and help us make guesses about what happened, but we have not actually tested it. Again my point is that just because Christians hold a different belief about the past does not impact our clinical reasoning or performance in school, which I think we both agree on.

 

[ZPakEffect]

I'm a Christian in medical school who doesn't believe in parts of evolutionary theory. There are four major components of evolutionary theory of which I'm sure most of you are aware. Natural selection, micro evolution, macro evolution, and common ancestory. The first two of these are observable, proven, scientific theories (I am always cautious to use the term scientific fact on anything). I believe that given enough time the last two are also certainly possible in the future, but I don't believe they are the definition of our past. That is because of my Christian faith and how I regard the concept of creation as central to my faith, much like many of you regard evolution as central to biology. Does it make me stupid for not believing that we are the result of macro evolution and share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? No it doesn't. The hypotheses of macro evolution and common ancestory (on a large scale such as birds share a common ancestor with dinosaurs) are clever ideas, but they have not been tested or proven. I agree that it is important to understand natural selection and micro evolution to be a good physician. Otherwise you don't understand antibiotic resistance or vaccines/immunity very well. But understanding the other two elements are a matter of your personal belief, which you are free to choose, and will not impact your ability to diagnose and treat patients.

Please do not conflate Christian faith with scientific ignorance. One can be a good Christian and accept that the current model of evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for speciation. In fact, I would argue that a truly good Christian would not ignore the evidence that God has placed in front of our eyes.

 

[deleted407021]

Please do not conflate Christian faith with scientific ignorance. One can be a good Christian and accept that the current model of evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for speciation. In fact, I would argue that a truly good Christian would not ignore the evidence that God has placed in front of our eyes.

Your magisteria are overlapping

 

[Goro]

Whenever I see a chicken I am reminded of your comment and then think "How the mighty have fallen"!

Birds and "dinosaurs" don't share a common ancestor in the sense you're using the term because they are dinosaurs. They are the only extant group of saurischian theropods. Google and read about archaeopteryx.