Creationists in Med School?

[Skol_Vikings]

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.

Thanks for correcting some of my mistakes. I have gotten a little dusty in some of the terms such as fact, theories, and hypotheses I haven't used since last May. Also, I did slip up in my depiction of the dino bird relationship and you are correct that the belief is archaeopteryx was considered as more of a transitional form than a common ancestor. I do agree with common ancestry on a small scale (dogs for example) but not on a large scale. I should clarify what I mean by where I disagree with macro evolution: large scale changes from one type of organism to another such as apes to humans. I agree that speciation, which is the technical definition of macro evolution as evidenced in your link, is a thing. I just disagree about the past origins, which can never be fully proven. DNA does not necessarily prove common ancestry though it does lend good evidence to it. A christian would say God made all organisms and they share basic similar functions so of course they all have DNA. Form fits the function. My point is not to prove creation, but just to show that it is possible to have sound scientific reasoning and still hold different beliefs about our past since we were not there to record it as it happened.

To answer ZPakEffect, I agree with science that has been observed. So the speciation as seen in Drosophila and dogs that we have observed with one species giving rise to another type of species is legitimate. To say that I disagree about what happened in the past is not scientific ignorance. If you take two fossils and examine the structure and even DNA sequences of them and determine they are different species, you have done just that. Determined they are different species. You are certainly free to make an inference that one species gave rise to the other, but because we did not directly observe that transition, we cannot say for sure that is what happened. My reasons for why I believe creation is central to the Christian faith is off topic for this discussion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr.Smexy]

There are two types of religious people: the crazy ones who think everyone else is evil for not believing in a book thousands of year old filled with insane stories from people who were probably high when they wrote it.
The other type is genuinely nice people who just believes in God and truly followed God's teaching in treating and respecting others.
The second type is an endangered species in America...

 

[NorthOfBroad]

To answer ZPakEffect, I agree with science that has been observed. So the speciation as seen in Drosophila and dogs that we have observed with one species giving rise to another type of species is legitimate. To say that I disagree about what happened in the past is not scientific ignorance. If you take two fossils and examine the structure and even DNA sequences of them and determine they are different species, you have done just that. Determined they are different species. You are certainly free to make an inference that one species gave rise to the other, but because we did not directly observe that transition, we cannot say for sure that is what happened. My reasons for why I believe creation is central to the Christian faith is off topic for this discussion.

I'm okay with people believing in creation as long as they are not militant about (like TFA teachers getting death threats for teaching a biology class), but saying you have to observe something to make it true is preposterous. No one has "observed" or "seen" that hand washing kills germs or hormonal pathways in action, they have only cultured bacteira before and after or designed experiments to block parts of the chain. It's okay to say "It's just what I believe," we all have our beliefs that don't line up with everything else we believe in.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

I'm ok with people believing whatever they want to believe. I don't understand why it matters so much to other people. I don't believe in creation, but that doesn't make me a better or worse Doctor than someone who does. And I don't understand why people should be offended because of someone else's beliefs. It doesn't affect me in any way. I don't like militant creationists either, but I also don't like militant atheists. People live and die for what they believe in. If a Christian family asks me to say a prayer with them, I will do it. If I have an atheist family with a dying kid, I am not going to say "pray about it." So if some of my colleagues believe in creation, I will refer patients to them if they are the best at what they do, because it doesn't define their work in any way.

(Obviously I am not talking about when religions start to physically hurt other people.)

 

[VagabondKing]

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've met a few as well but no one that's been straight up bible thumping. At this point I know well enough to leave sensitive topics ie politics and religion off the table and usually just smile/nod if someone brings anything up about it. Truth be told though I don't know the answer, blissful ignorance perhaps? A lot of people just accept certain things and deny others that works with their world view - instead of straight up denying it they'll take aspects of biology that they like, do some mish mash in their heads and claim that it's all so complex and amazing that it HAD to be created by someone... faulty logic in my opinion but hey I can see how someone growing up in a highly religious family in a conservative state their whole lives would come to believe such things. In the end to each their own, so long as they're not using those beliefs to harm/practice poor medicine I could care less what they do or don't believe in.

 

[Skol_Vikings]

I'm okay with people believing in creation as long as they are not militant about (like TFA teachers getting death threats for teaching a biology class), but saying you have to observe something to make it true is preposterous. No one has "observed" or "seen" that hand washing kills germs or hormonal pathways in action, they have only cultured bacteira before and after or designed experiments to block parts of the chain. It's okay to say "It's just what I believe," we all have our beliefs that don't line up with everything else we believe in.

I agree with you about being militant about it and I certainly respect those who disagree with me. As ZPakEffect said evolutionary theory is a good scientific model. I had no problem learning it in school and even did very well in the "Evolution" specific course in my undergrad. Also, I agree about your point about observation as it relates to germs, hormones, wind, etc. I should have clarified what I meant by observation, which is more along the lines of your description of an experiment. We have done the drosophila experiment, bacteria cultures, artificial selection for agriculture etc. that has given us pretty good evidence of what occurred. While we weren't able to observe the processes of mitosis, meiosis, fertilization, etc. we observed pretty well through other means that the future generations can become significantly different to the point of being a new species. We have a lot of data from those experiments to support that. That is what I mean by "observe," to experiment and manipulate variables in those experiments. To put it another way, think of a crime scene. The best way to know that someone committed a crime is to physically observe the crime being committed. It's still possible that you hallucinated or confabulated the memory, but it's pretty certain that what you saw is what happened. You have a lot of data to support that claim. On the other hand, you may get there just after the crime happened and you may see a dead body, a bullet wound, and a gun laying nearby with someone running away. You can make a pretty good inference that the person running away shot the dead person, but you are not as sure as if you watched them pull the trigger. That is what I mean about the past vs. the present. With fossils and DNA we have good evidence to make our scientific guesses about what happened, but they are not as good as if we conducted an experiment with controls and developed a lot of data to give good evidence that our hypotheses are correct. I am not saying that the theory of evolution is a bad theory. I think a lot of it is scientifically brilliant and scientifically sound (particularly the RNA world hypothesis, very fascinating and genius). I just know that if I can find that reasonable doubt in the theory, then I can preserve my beliefs. I also agree that it is important at some point to say "It's just what I believe" because I can't know everything correctly and if I'm wrong about it, then I'm wrong about it. Again, I say all this to make the point that it is not totally bad science for someone to believe in creation because we can understand the important concepts of evolutionary theory as they relate to clinical medicine. Also, I agree with the posters who say it's important to not allow our religion to affect the way we approach or treat patients. Not only is that bad medicine, but I believe it's bad Christianity.

 

[deleted407021]

I'm not so apathetic. I'd be in the FFRF camp on issues such as Creationism in school.

I've known good Creationist docs. It doesn't really have much effect on the practice of Medicine, it seems.

 

[WernickeDO]

Ahhhh...this thread brings back many a memory from medical school, many a debate had, many a feeling hurt.

I once felt the same as OP, that creationism = dumb. I don't anymore. People approach different concepts in different manners. Something like disease process requires analytical thought that is consistent with EBM and standard of care. There is no room for faith or having a "belief" in the efficacy of a certain medicine. How people approach their personal faith is a different manner, because it is just that; FAITH. I've noticed many of the earlier postings say the same thing; that people don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that is testable and the evidence grows for literally on a daily basis, faith has nothing to do with it. To paraphrase NDT: It's true whether you believe it or not. I would also be remiss to not mention that at one point, scientists postulated spontaneous biogenesis, blood-letting (still good for polycythemia!!), and eugenics. Science and logic needs to constantly re-test itself too.

The point is, sometimes people would rather keep aspects of their faith intact by ignoring or discarding certain facts, or by writing a narrative that accommodates the two (e.g.- God created mutations and evolution because it's part of Her divine plan). It is a choice of faith, and since this is a free society, that's okay. If Creationist docs were praying rather than prescribing and faith-healing rather than operating, this would be a problem, but that is clearly not the issue.

 

[chipwhitley]

I'm ok with people believing whatever they want to believe. I don't understand why it matters so much to other people. I don't believe in creation, but that doesn't make me a better or worse Doctor than someone who does. And I don't understand why people should be offended because of someone else's beliefs. It doesn't affect me in any way. I don't like militant creationists either, but I also don't like militant atheists. People live and die for what they believe in. If a Christian family asks me to say a prayer with them, I will do it. If I have an atheist family with a dying kid, I am not going to say "pray about it." So if some of my colleagues believe in creation, I will refer patients to them if they are the best at what they do, because it doesn't define their work in any way.

(Obviously I am not talking about when religions start to physically hurt other people.)

The problem is that people actually are offended by others' beliefs, and that has real impact on your daily life. If you come out as an atheist in a town where everyone is a conservative, bible thumping christian, your life is not going to be so great. The reverse is true as well. It doesn't matter to me at all. The problem is, it does matter to people around me.

 

[FBurnaby]

The main worry with creationists in medicine is their ability to evaluate evidence. For something as basic and well established as evolution, either they didn't fully understand the evidence, or they chose to override the facts in favor of something that sat better with them. Either way I wouldn't put my life in their hands.

 

[chipwhitley]

The main worry with creationists in medicine is their ability to evaluate evidence. For something as basic and well established as evolution, either they didn't fully understand the evidence, or they chose to override the facts in favor of something that sat better with them. Either way I wouldn't put my life in their hands.

Well with everything there are a number of explanations, including religion, science, witchcraft, aliens, whatever. Just because they took the religious explanation over the scientific explanation for one thing doesn't mean they will neccessarily take it for another thing. The scientific explanation is probably a lot more logical to people when it comes to medicine since they haven't been conditioned to believe the religious explanation, the way they have for the creation story if they grew up in a religious family. It's really hard to overcome religious indocrination you get as a child.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

it just blows my mind when someone doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. Compared to things like the theory of gravity, evolution is much more scientifically supported!

 

[jqueb29]

I believe in a Creator who devised evolution as a tool to not have to reCreate all his Creatures every 2 weeks. Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. Yes, an all-powerful Creator that we have no proof of seems crazy, but, to me, so does believing in no higher power. The Big Bang obviously has a lot of supporting data, but the thing I never see addressed is this: if our universe is an ever-growing entity rapidly expanding from one single point of origin (the point of origin being where the "bang" occurred"), where did the matter and energy that comprised the universe prior to the Big Bang originate from? It seems just as unfathomable to think that there has always been some sort of matter whose origin literally cannot be accounted for (because, if you account for it by saying "well Y came from X", that shifts the question to: then where did X come from?) as it is to think that the universe is all the work of a Creator.

 

[Cinclus]

I believe in a Creator who devised evolution as a tool to not have to reCreate all his Creatures every 2 weeks. Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. Yes, an all-powerful Creator that we have no proof of seems crazy, but, to me, so does believing in no higher power. The Big Bang obviously has a lot of supporting data, but the thing I never see addressed is this: if our universe is an ever-growing entity rapidly expanding from one single point of origin (the point of origin being where the "bang" occurred"), where did the matter and energy that comprised the universe prior to the Big Bang originate from? It seems just as unfathomable to think that there has always been some sort of matter whose origin literally cannot be accounted for (because, if you account for it by saying "well Y came from X", that shifts the question to: then where did X come from?) as it is to think that the universe is all the work of a Creator.

Which of course, invites the question: Where did a Creator of significant-enough complexity to create an entire universe come from? The Creator does not answer this question.

 

[jqueb29]

Which of course, invites the question: Where did a Creator of significant-enough complexity to create an entire universe come from? The Creator does not answer this question.

I fully agree. Either way, we are simply not capable of knowing for certain, so I find it massively preferable to believe in an incomprehensible creator and an afterlife as opposed to an incomprehensible chunk of matter and nothingness after death.

 

[W19]

We have LUCOM....

 

[deleted407021]

I believe in a Creator who devised evolution as a tool to not have to reCreate all his Creatures every 2 weeks. Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. Yes, an all-powerful Creator that we have no proof of seems crazy, but, to me, so does believing in no higher power. The Big Bang obviously has a lot of supporting data, but the thing I never see addressed is this: if our universe is an ever-growing entity rapidly expanding from one single point of origin (the point of origin being where the "bang" occurred"), where did the matter and energy that comprised the universe prior to the Big Bang originate from? It seems just as unfathomable to think that there has always been some sort of matter whose origin literally cannot be accounted for (because, if you account for it by saying "well Y came from X", that shifts the question to: then where did X come from?) as it is to think that the universe is all the work of a Creator.

If you add up all gravitational energy in the Universe (space time is a flat plane expanding infinitely, as you said) you reach the value of 0. Meaning, the sum total of all energy in the Universe is nothing. This means that the Universe came therefore from a value of 0. The Universe came from nothing and nothing had to happen to make the Universe. No god. Nothing.

Like I said -- the Universe doesn't care whether or not we think it makes sense.

 

[WingedOx]

The main worry with creationists in medicine is their ability to evaluate evidence. For something as basic and well established as evolution, either they didn't fully understand the evidence, or they chose to override the facts in favor of something that sat better with them. Either way I wouldn't put my life in their hands.

Honestly I've worked hand in hand with a couple creationists over the years, and their clinical care is more than fine. Their uncanny ability to push through cognitive dissonance in the face of evidence contrary to their beliefs makes them scary as administrators though...

 

[zero0]

If you add up all gravitational energy in the Universe (space time is a flat plane expanding infinitely, as you said) you reach the value of 0. Meaning, the sum total of all energy in the Universe is nothing. This means that the Universe came therefore from a value of 0. The Universe came from nothing and nothing had to happen to make the Universe. No god. Nothing.

Like I said -- the Universe doesn't care whether or not we think it makes sense.

Ugh pseudo-intellectuals

 

[deleted407021]

Ugh pseudo-intellectuals

What's up?

 

[Pacna]

I fully agree. Either way, we are simply not capable of knowing for certain, so I find it massively preferable to believe in an incomprehensible creator and an afterlife as opposed to an incomprehensible chunk of matter and nothingness after death.

Are you certain that we're not capable of knowing for certain?

 

[zero0]

What's up?

nm u?

Are you certain that we're not capable of knowing for certain?

All the answers are out there. What's more is they're presented in a manner that a 10-year-old could understand. Saying things like "we'll never know" is just an excuse not to try.

 

[Pacna]

All the answers are out there. What's more is they're presented in a manner that a 10-year-old could understand. Saying things like "we'll never know" is just an excuse not to try.

Berenstain Bears?

 

[deleted407021]

nm u?

Aight.

 

[ZedsDed]

I fully agree. Either way, we are simply not capable of knowing for certain, so I find it massively preferable to believe in an incomprehensible creator and an afterlife as opposed to an incomprehensible chunk of matter and nothingness after death.

When you reach this point you are no longer in the realm of scientific inquiry. What you "feel" is preferable is irrelevant.

Also, you cannot 100% disprove anything. That is no justification for believing in nonsense (denial of evolution much more so than believing in God.) For example, I have an invisible leprechaun tap-dancing on my head. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[deleted407021]

When you reach this point you are no longer in the realm of scientific inquiry. What you "feel" is preferable is irrelevant.

Also, you cannot 100% disprove anything. That is no justification for believing in nonsense. For example, I have an invisible leprechaun tap-dancing on my head. Can you prove that this is false?

And if enough people sincerely believed in head-dancing leprechauns, we'd have people lobbying to have Head-Dancing Leprechaunism taught in Texas public schools.

 

[ZedsDed]

And if enough people sincerely believed in head-dancing leprechauns, we'd have people lobbying to have Head-Dancing Leprechaunism taught in Texas public schools.

Well it is important to be open minded. We wouldn't want to challenge anyone now would we?

 

[deleted407021]

Well it is important to be open minded. We wouldn't want to challenge anyone now would we?

Teach the controversy, man!

 

[FBurnaby]

It's really hard to overcome religious indocrination you get as a child.

Yes it is. Which is why I'd be worried about their critical thinking. Denying evolution may have no visible impact in clinically handling infectious diseases, genetics, etc., but if say there is a new treatment that more directly interferes with their religious bias, I wouldn't want to be under their care.

 

[FBurnaby]

I'm shocked at some of the responses here. Creationism is a great example of how humans can squeeze such eloquent thought and argument out of something so silly.

 

[Pacna]

I'm shocked at some of the responses here. Creationism is a great example of how humans can squeeze such eloquent thought and argument out of something so silly.

It's hardly silly. Personally, creationism strikes me as unlikely, but it's a possible explanation for the existence of our universe. Maybe we'll make a persistent universe some day with a computer. Then, some bits in that computer might exclaim how silly creationism is, too.

 

[psychMDhopefully]

It's really hard to overcome religious indocrination you get as a child.

People really don't understand how much your childhood and how you were raised affect who you are, what you think, and believe. It has a much bigger impact than people think. I met a guy in my class who said he was voting for Trump. TRUMP! I honestly want him kicked out. Holding that belief he can't have the baseline level of intelligence and reasoning ability required to be a physician.

 

[jqueb29]

Are you certain that we're not capable of knowing for certain?

Yes, the one thing I am 100% sure of is that we're not capable of knowing for certain (barring a Creator suddenly making itself known). The 2 options as I see them are:

1. Believing in a Creator. This leaves countless questions. Where did this Creator come from? Does he/she/it have a beginning, or have they always existed? Are they just 1 in a species of Creators, each overseeing their own completely separate universe?

2. Believing the universe just happened. While I believe in a Creator, the data certainly fits in line with the Big Bang and all that stuff. But like I said, this still doesn't explain the origin of the universe; if the Big Bang occurred, where did the matter involved in it originate from? Everything must have some beginning.

"Matter may not be created or destroyed" may hold true now, but it certainly was created at some point. I find it incomprehensible to think the carbon in my body simply just always existed, but I find it equally incomprehensible to think it all came from a Creator who just always existed as well. We humans are incredibly intelligent, and we can certainly think our theory of the universe is correct, but to say we can know for certain is foolish arrogance. I think there is a Creator who created a universe that operates within an incredibly complex, beautiful set of rules; rules so elegant that they even seem to argue against his existence. I admit it seems unlikely, but the universe simply coming to be on its own seems every bit as unlikely. This is what I believe, but I don't remotely profess to know this for certain.

People really don't understand how much your childhood and how you were raised affect who you are, what you think, and believe. It has a much bigger impact than people think. I met a guy in my class who said he was voting for Trump. TRUMP! I honestly want him kicked out. Holding that belief he can't have the baseline level of intelligence and reasoning ability required to be a physician.

Depends on the context he was saying he plans to vote for Trump. If he's talking about in the primaries, then yes, that's pretty bad. But in a general election? Hey, I'd rather have my leg chopped off as opposed to being dead.

 

[DrFizition]

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"-Theodosius Dobzhansky

 

[Kaz]

OP: You don't have to be a genius to be a doctor. You just have to be smart enough and have the other traits that the admissions committees look for.
Like, you know... A demonstrated desire to help others, etc. etc.
Personally, I wouldn't hold any other expectations.

 

[deleted407021]

if the Big Bang occurred, where did the matter involved in it originate from? Everything must have some beginning.

"Matter may not be created or destroyed" may hold true now, but it certainly was created at some point. I find it incomprehensible to think the carbon in my body simply just always existed,

The Universe didn't necessarily come from something. Watch The Great Courses on astrophysics with Niel deGrasse Tyson and look for lectures by Lawrence Krauss on "A Universe From Nothing". The conservation of matter and energy is not violated.

The carbon in your body didn't always exist. It was formed in the core of a star, through fusion.

I'll say it for a third time ITT. The Universe doesn't care whether or not we think it makes sense. We evolved to deal with simple things -- objects moving up and down and around, objects casting shadows and food and water making us go. We did not evolve to understand quantum mechanics and the nature of the two energy dimensions superior to the one we occupy, because none of that is readily observable to us, nor was it useful information in our daily lives.

It's quantum physics and the very fundamental nature of our Universe. Of course it's incomprehensible! However, to postulate your personal religious beliefs where understanding or knowledge fails is not honest.

 

[psychMDhopefully]

Yes, the one thing I am 100% sure of is that we're not capable of knowing for certain (barring a Creator suddenly making itself known). The 2 options as I see them are:

1. Believing in a Creator. This leaves countless questions. Where did this Creator come from? Does he/she/it have a beginning, or have they always existed? Are they just 1 in a species of Creators, each overseeing their own completely separate universe?

2. Believing the universe just happened. While I believe in a Creator, the data certainly fits in line with the Big Bang and all that stuff. But like I said, this still doesn't explain the origin of the universe; if the Big Bang occurred, where did the matter involved in it originate from? Everything must have some beginning.

"Matter may not be created or destroyed" may hold true now, but it certainly was created at some point. I find it incomprehensible to think the carbon in my body simply just always existed, but I find it equally incomprehensible to think it all came from a Creator who just always existed as well. We humans are incredibly intelligent, and we can certainly think our theory of the universe is correct, but to say we can know for certain is foolish arrogance. I think there is a Creator who created a universe that operates within an incredibly complex, beautiful set of rules; rules so elegant that they even seem to argue against his existence. I admit it seems unlikely, but the universe simply coming to be on its own seems every bit as unlikely. This is what I believe, but I don't remotely profess to know this for certain.



Depends on the context he was saying he plans to vote for Trump. If he's talking about in the primaries, then yes, that's pretty bad. But in a general election? Hey, I'd rather have my leg chopped off as opposed to being dead.

Woooosh

 

[Seth Joo]

There are two types of religious people: the crazy ones who think everyone else is evil for not believing in a book thousands of year old filled with insane stories from people who were probably high when they wrote it.
The other type is genuinely nice people who just believes in God and truly followed God's teaching in treating and respecting others.
The second type is an endangered species in America...

I have a lot of religious students at my school, mostly Mormons, thankfully the administration at my school is secular and the vast majority of students are secular. I would never go to a school that was affiliated with any kind of religion because it would foster and support students with such attitudes.

I have nothing against people wanting to follow whatever religious belief they choose, it only becomes an issue once they start pushing it on other students or on the public.

 

[Okazaki Frag Grenade]

I grew up in a very religiously conservative family / environment, and totally used to be one of those "the earth is 6000 years old, God created everything" kind of people. I was always a shy and reserved kid though, so I never really pushed these thoughts onto anyone else. Thankfully I have since seen the proverbial light and recognize how ludicrous the beliefs are surrounding creationism. I'm now a member of the church of Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption (praise be ...)

All that to say, it's crazy to look back and see how much the teachings about creationism were directly tied to teachings about being a good, moral Christian. If you thought evolution was correct or the best scientific theory for how we got here, this was like some kind of heinous sin. I think that's why many religious people (not all, of course) hold on to these creationist beliefs, even when the scientific evidence would point in the opposite direction. Saying that evolution is correct is like turning your back on your whole belief system about God/the Bible. If evolution is correct, then this discredits the entire creation story given in Genesis. If you throw out Genesis, then what else about the Bible falls to pieces? Evolution = Satan, Creationism = God/Jesus.

Side note = These are the beliefs I'm talking about...

 

[Seth Joo]

The one upside of Bernie Sanders being President, him essentially shutting down private colleges and universities, and all medical schools becoming public and government controlled, which would keep religion out of education. He would not actively shut down private schools, no one would go to them if he provided free public university education as he plans to do as President.

 

[chipwhitley]

Yes it is. Which is why I'd be worried about their critical thinking. Denying evolution may have no visible impact in clinically handling infectious diseases, genetics, etc., but if say there is a new treatment that more directly interferes with their religious bias, I wouldn't want to be under their care.

Should we be screening medical school candidates by their religious beliefs then?

 

[chipwhitley]

The one upside of Bernie Sanders being President, him essentially shutting down private colleges and universities, and all medical schools becoming public and government controlled, which would keep religion out of education. He would not actively shut down private schools, no one would go to them if he provided free public university education as he plans to do as President.

There are already public universities in every state that offer free (or close to free) education to qualified candidates, but they very often choose to attend and pay for private universities instead.

 

[chipwhitley]

People really don't understand how much your childhood and how you were raised affect who you are, what you think, and believe. It has a much bigger impact than people think. I met a guy in my class who said he was voting for Trump. TRUMP! I honestly want him kicked out. Holding that belief he can't have the baseline level of intelligence and reasoning ability required to be a physician.

Why not? There are plenty of good reasons to. For one, many doctors fall into high tax brackets and aren't exactly happy about the 'tax the rich' mentality that the democrats have, particularly Sanders. Of the republican candidates, Trump is the most moderate when it comes to issues like abortion, social security, and gay rights.

 

[ncide]

Why not? There are plenty of good reasons to. For one, many doctors fall into high tax brackets and aren't exactly happy about the 'tax the rich' mentality that the democrats have, particularly Sanders. Of the republican candidates, Trump is the most moderate when it comes to issues like abortion, social security, and gay rights.

To be fair, for years Trump donated to the democratic party (Clinton foundation, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) so I am not surprised that he is the most moderate on some issues within the republican candidacy.

 

[FBurnaby]

It's hardly silly. Personally, creationism strikes me as unlikely, but it's a possible explanation for the existence of our universe. Maybe we'll make a persistent universe some day with a computer. Then, some bits in that computer might exclaim how silly creationism is, too.

When I say creationism, I don't mean any philosophy of deism in our origin, I mean 5,000 year earth, K Ham dinosaurs and noah's ark creation, which deserves as much intellectual attention as the archeological search for Poseidon's trident.

 

[FBurnaby]

Should we be screening medical school candidates by their religious beliefs then?

Try to screen candidates for critical thinking yes, which indirectly screens for atheists and agnostics and against religious fundamentalists.

 

[Shams al Deen]

God and evolution don't necessarily contradict. Now if you're like the guy that debated Bill Nye and believe the earth is a few thousand years old--then yeah of course it contradicts. But most religious people don't believe that.

I don't see why mutation and natural selection MUST to be random and completely unguided. What proof is there for that.

 

[ncide]

God and evolution don't necessarily contradict. Now if you're like the guy that debated Bill Nye and believe the earth is a few thousand years old--then yeah of course it contradicts. But most religious people don't believe that.

I don't see why mutation and natural selection MUST to be random and completely unguided. What proof is there for that.

In the realm of science, understanding is substantiated by empirical evidence. If there was evidence that mutation and natural selection were guided, then it would be incorporated into scientific understanding. Spiritualistic claims are not substantiated by objective, predictable and testable observations.

This is the dichotomy.

Bertrand Russell's Teapot analogy succinctly illustrates why we should not invest belief in supernaturally-guided evolution without evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[chipwhitley]

To be fair, for years Trump donated to the democratic party (Clinton foundation, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) so I am not surprised that he is the most moderate on some issues within the republican candidacy.

Yes, and that's more reason to believe that his fiery rhetoric and extreme views on certain subjects like immigration are meant to gain popularity among segments of the population that are angry, but will likely not play out in his presidency, if he were to win. His opponents in the Republican party have been arguing just that for months now.

 

[Fission Chips]

I don't see why mutation and natural selection MUST to be random and completely unguided. What proof is there for that.

I don't really understand what you mean, could you elaborate? Neither MUST be anything, they are what they are. I don't think there is any proof that things MUST be the way they are for anything in the world (though I could be wrong). Also, there is recent (and controversial, maybe not the best science) evidence for non-random mutation in bacteria, but why does that mean that it MUST be directed by something supernatural?
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/abs/nature10995.html)

Mutations are random because of how we define the word random...

The mutations that yield the hereditary variations available to natural selection arise at random. Mutations are random or chance events because (i) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication and because (ii) there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual. However, the meaning of "random" that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is (iii) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms. Some are beneficial, most are not, and only the beneficial ones become incorporated in the organisms through natural selection.
(Francisco J. Ayala, "Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104 (May 15, 2007): 8567-8573.)

Have you asked the PI of an oncology lab on campus what proof for random mutations exist? I would start there, you two could have some great discussions.

Do you mean unguided in the sense that there is no purpose to evolution other than to continue? Meaning humanity is a byproduct, and not placed here by a big dude? Or do you mean unguided in the sense that random phenotypes get passed on at all, because that is "guided" by selective pressures.

Again, my apologies for not comprehending your direction there. FWIW, I agree that God and Evolution can co-exist, but this requires a somewhat unorthodox approach (Non-literal interpretation of the Bible/Quran/Insert old book here)