Creationists in Med School?

[deleted407021]

Natural selection is not random. Mutations are, however the entire point of natural selection is that it is nonrandom because it's "guided" by the environment, as the above poster pointed out quite well.

This is freshman level biology.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kera]

Science says evolution happened. Just like I would trust the opinion of lawyers on a topic of law, and oncologists on a topic of oncology, I don't have the training or the audacity to contradict evolutionary biologists on the topic of evolutionary biology. I'm always amazed at people who have an undergrad Bio degree who think they know more than the collective wisdom of hundreds of PhDs out there.

If your religion tells you something different, that's fine. It doesn't affect your clinical ability. Just don't twist the science to fit the religion. Don't try to take on the PhDs with your undergrad Bio degree and think you understand a scientific aspect of evolution that none of them do. Recognize and accept that your religion contradicts the science. Own it.

Also recognize that religion and science don't have to be incompatible. As mentioned in this thread, God could have created evolution.

 

[dafuturesurgeon]

Just to be clear, I am a Creationist. I believe that God created the world and mankind. I know why I believe this, yet I do have one question for those that dont. If we've evolved over these millions of years, why in the past 2-3 thousand years of recorded history have we not evolved in some fashion?

Take for example pollution. If I am correct, whenever there was a challenge for us humans, we evolved and grew legs or perfected our cognitive thinking etc. Why dont we then grow some kind of natural filters in our respiratory system to block pollution so that millions of people (especially in China's capital) dont have to wear masks.

Same question goes to general human obstacles.

Even so, I don't believe that our views should hinder us from becoming/being good physicians and doing what we all love: Helping those in need.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[deleted407021]

Just to be clear, I am a Creationist. I believe that God created the world and mankind. I know why I believe this, yet I do have one question for those that dont. If we've evolved over these millions of years, why in the past 2-3 thousand years of recorded history have we not evolved in some fashion?

Take for example pollution. If I am correct, whenever there was a challenge for us humans, we evolved and grew legs or perfected our cognitive thinking etc. Why dont we then grow some kind of natural filters in our respiratory system to block pollution so that millions of people (especially in China's capital) dont have to wear masks.

We have evolved more recently. We're always evolving. I'm sorry to say so, but that's an exceedingly ignorant question. I linked Talk Oringins earlier. Here it is, again. There's a section for responses to Creationist ideas.

You cite 2,000 to 3,000 thousand years yet mention pollution, a problem of much more recent impact post-Industrial Revolution.



It's only correlative, but am I the only one who's noticed that the Creationsits ITT keep demonstrating that they don't really know much detail about the theories with which they disagree?

 

[Kera]

It's only correlative, but am I the only one who's noticed that the Creationsits ITT keep demonstrating that they don't really know much detail about the theories with which they disagree?

No, no you're not. It's kind of astounding.

Take for example pollution. If I am correct, whenever there was a challenge for us humans, we evolved and grew legs or perfected our cognitive thinking etc. Why dont we then grow some kind of natural filters in our respiratory system to block pollution so that millions of people (especially in China's capital) dont have to wear masks.

And this is a clear example of that. I don't mean to be accusatory or negative, but if you're asking this question, you really have absolutely zero idea of how evolution actually works. Like none at all. I could answer this question, and will if you want me to, but I'm just not sure there's a point. It's kind of like someone telling a chemist "Well, atoms CAN'T be mostly empty space, because if they were, we would be mostly empty space! And we're not!" Like, that is literally the level your question is on.

Which is fine, because it won't affect your clinical performance as a doctor. But again, I suggest that you just accept that your views are in conflict with science.

 

[deleted407021]

Also recognize that religion and science don't have to be incompatible. As mentioned in this thread, God could have created evolution

Science and religion are incompatible. That said, there are no non-overlapping magesteria. Both science and religion make claims about about the nature of reality, but only one of them is any good at addressing these claims and making predictions.

Furthermore, suggesting that a god "created evolution" negates the entire theory of evolution itself, because the point is that it is unguided. If what you suggest were true, then what you'd have would not be evolution. It would be something else.

You cannot just insinuate your personal deity as the answer to questions that science is attempting to address because you negate the scientific method itself. This has been understood for a long time -- see separation of church and state.

 

[Kera]

What I meant by that was what the Dalai Lama said one time when asked about science and religion. He said that religion is our best guess at understanding what we don't currently understand through science. And that when science teaches us something new, we have to shift our religion to accommodate that; otherwise religion becomes meaningless as it reflects something we know to be false.

So in that sense, religion and science are compatible. There is room for religion outside of our limits of scientific understanding. It doesn't abrogate our responsibility to continue to use science to search for the truth. I have no problem with people in the 14th century believing the Earth to be flat...as long as in the 15th century (or whenever it was) when the Earth was shown to be spherical, they said "Hey, our hunch didn't match reality. So we need to change our hunch now." You only negate the scientific method if you allow that hunch to inhibit your scientific curiosity. It certainly can be used that way, but it doesn't have to be.

(I also don't see how separation of church and state is relevant here as that's a governance issue, not a scientific one, but we'll leave that for next time!)

 

[ncide]

Discussing biology with creationists just feels... unproductive.

They've arrived to their conclusions outside the bounds of science and empiricism, is it appropriate to provide evidence to show them that evolutionary biology is observable?

 

[nRomaleos]

Science and religion are incompatible. That said, there are no non-overlapping magesteria. Both science and religion make claims about about the nature of reality, but only one of them is any good at addressing these claims and making predictions.

Furthermore, suggesting that a god "created evolution" negates the entire theory of evolution itself, because the point is that it is unguided. If what you suggest were true, then what you'd have would not be evolution. It would be something else.

You cannot just insinuate your personal deity as the answer to questions that science is attempting to address because you negate the scientific method itself. This has been understood for a long time -- see separation of church and state.

The concept of god/gods "creating evolution" comes from dualism. The idea that our universe (or essentially everything) is like a watch. A god crafts the watch and lets it run freely.

I can get behind that. I just can't get behind the whole snakes, apples, and naked people thing. Or the goats, frogs, and massive wooden ships.

 

[dafuturesurgeon]

But again, I suggest that you just accept that your views are in conflict with science.

Ok so maybe my question is dumb.I see your point. But can you explain then how something came from nothing and randomly assorted itself into a living molecule and from there us.

It takes just as much belief and faith to believe in both and there is much evidence backing both.




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[gerges]

Oh boy it's this thread!

I was formerly a creationist that attended a Christian school from elementary school until I graduated high school. You are taught evolution, but cannot believe its actually a thing when it is taught in a creationist framework because its made to look like the most random unlikely thing ever. If you attended a secular institution for college and took any course that touched on evolutionary biology, I'm not quite sure how you managed to come out of it thinking evolution was bologna. At the very least. even as a creationist you learn that natural selection and 'micro-evolution' are a thing because... lol... antibiotic resistance and whatnot. But the goal of Creationism is to make it look like there is some gigantic leap of faith that must be taken to get from point A.. 'micro-evolution' to point B... 'macro-evolution' (and somewhere in there that mutations that result in benefits to an organism don't exist even though.. anti-biotic resistance)

Pick a gene and look at how its homology across anywhere between a few dozen to a few thousand species of your choosing follows the trend of evolution as presented in a phylogenetic tree. The apparent 'leap of faith' required to believe that 'macro-evolution' is actually a thing suddenly disappears. Its when you realize macro-evolution is just the result of a lot of micro-evolution.

At this point your only plausible defense to maintain Creationism (at least of the young earth, non-Deism type) becomes either that God is testing your faith or the devil is leading you astray.

Ok so maybe my question is dumb.I see your point. But can you explain then how something came from nothing and randomly assorted itself into a living molecule and from there us.

It takes just as much belief and faith to believe in both and there is much evidence backing both.




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Are we going that route? Conflating evolutionary theory with the concept of abiogenesis or the origins of the universe? Evolution and its validity are entirely independent of either of these things.

 

[ncide]

Ok so maybe my question is dumb.I see your point. But can you explain then how something came from nothing and randomly assorted itself into a living molecule and from there us.

It takes just as much belief and faith to believe in both and there is much evidence backing both.

On a quantum level, virtual particles are constantly coming in and out of existence, in the emptiness of space.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

I am not a physicist, but if you are wondering how something can come from nothing, then the rabbit hole can get very deep and it is a fascinating and active field of study.

Evolution doesn't cover how things can come from nothing. It simply explains the shared heritage of life and the complexities that grew within the lineage.

 

[deleted407021]

Ok so maybe my question is dumb.I see your point. But can you explain then how something came from nothing and randomly assorted itself into a living molecule and from there us.

It takes just as much belief and faith to believe in both and there is much evidence backing both.

This is still a dumb question.

Something may have come from nothing because all the energy in our Universe is 0. Listen to lectures by Lawrence Krauss on "A Universe From Nothing". Molecules assort themselves based on thermodynamics. Think of micelle formation. Have you taken biochemistry? An exact mechanism for abiogenesis has yet to be demonstrated, however, there are many separate hypotheses being worked on, now. After life as we understand it (carbon-based life with DNA appears to be the kind of life that won out) began, the mechanisms defined through the Theory of Evolution then took hold and -- over the course of perhaps 3 billion years -- life adopted increasingly complex and efficient means for transmitting and reproducing DNA.

I find it funny how many religious people will say it requires "just as much faith" to believe in "evolution" as it does to be a Christian, or whatever. It's almost like saying, "You're just as bad as we are!" It's a meaningless yet none-the-less incorrect statement. Scientific understanding is based on a preponderance of evidence, whereas religious belief is largely a priori acceptance of a dogma set forth by doctrine in a specific belief system based on faith, not evidence.

If you have legitimate evidence for a deity or the veracity of religiosity as an epistemological tool, by all means provide it.

 

[Captain DO]

MRSA, VRE..... did not exist years ago. They...(gasp)...evolved...And the reason we notice their evolution (half a century is FAST evolving) is because they are made up of fewer cells than us.
Fewer cells = more of an impact when change occurs.

But I guess if you believe everything was created as is and doesn't evolve, just throw some nafcillin on the next MRSA pt.

Actually, don't throw any meds at it. Just pray. If its God's will for them to live, they will.

And don't refer that cleft lip baby for corrective surgery, she was designed that way. Who are we to alter the almighty's creation?

 

[ncide]

MRSA, VRE..... did not exist years ago. They...(gasp)...evolved...And the reason we notice their evolution (half a century is FAST evolving) is because they are made up of fewer cells than us.
Fewer cells = more of an impact when change occurs.

But I guess if you believe everything was created as is and doesn't evolve, just throw some nafcillin on the next MRSA pt.

Actually, don't throw any meds at it. Just pray. If its God's will for them to live, they will.

And don't refer that cleft lip baby for corrective surgery, she was designed that way. Who are we to alter the almighty's creation?

Actually, the reason why their evolutionary change is more easily observed is due to their generation-time. Mutations occur in individuals, and as these mutations radiate through generations, a more pronounced effect is observed.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

 

[Captain DO]

Actually, the reason why their evolutionary change is more easily observed is due their generation-time. Mutations occur in individuals, and as these mutations radiate through generations, a more pronounced effect is observed.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

Nah...plenty of higher organisms have high cell turnover. That causes the mutations responsible for evolution. But with a bajillion cells a few mutations go unnoticed. In an organism with a few cells, a few mutations changes a lot, and is more observable in a short time like 100 years.

 

[medic86]

Nah...plenty of higher organisms have high cell turnover. That causes the mutations responsible for evolution. But with a bajillion cells a few mutations go unnoticed. In an organism with a few cells, a few mutations changes a lot, and is more observable in a short time like 100 years.

Nah... what?

It is absolutely generation time. What the **** is going on in this thread?

 

[dafuturesurgeon]

This is still a dumb question.

Something may have come from nothing because all the energy in our Universe is 0. Listen to lectures by Lawrence Krauss on "A Universe From Nothing". Molecules assort themselves based on thermodynamics. Think of micelle formation. Have you taken biochemistry? An exact mechanism for abiogenesis has yet to be demonstrated, however, there are many separate hypotheses being worked on, now. After life as we understand it (carbon-based life with DNA appears to be the kind of life that won out) began, the mechanisms defined through the Theory of Evolution then took hold and -- over the course of perhaps 3 billion years -- life adopted increasingly complex and efficient means for transmitting and reproducing DNA.

I find it funny how many religious people will say it requires "just as much faith" to believe in "evolution" as it does to be a Christian, or whatever. It's almost like saying, "You're just as bad as we are!" It's a meaningless yet none-the-less incorrect statement. Scientific understanding is based on a preponderance of evidence, whereas religious belief is largely a priori acceptance of a dogma set forth by doctrine in a specific belief system based on faith, not evidence.

If you have legitimate evidence for a deity or the veracity of religiosity as an epistemological tool, by all means provide it.

MRSA, VRE..... did not exist years ago. They...(gasp)...evolved...And the reason we notice their evolution (half a century is FAST evolving) is because they are made up of fewer cells than us.
Fewer cells = more of an impact when change occurs.

But I guess if you believe everything was created as is and doesn't evolve, just throw some nafcillin on the next MRSA pt.

Actually, don't throw any meds at it. Just pray. If its God's will for them to live, they will.

And don't refer that cleft lip baby for corrective surgery, she was designed that way. Who are we to alter the almighty's creation?

I will definitely read more and do research on this topic. I never thought it would be so important but its quite interesting.

Captain DO- I am the type open to ideas and thing when they are explained clearly. Definitely something I will be looking into because it pokes at my "Further Intellectual Expansion" section of my brain. Maybe it'll evolve and I'll become smarter and realize evolution is real and alive!!

For everyone here, thank you. You have inspired me to look deeper into my beliefs and bring compelling evidence to future debates.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[FBurnaby]

@dafuturesurgeon no offense but your questions are pretty typical of someone ignorant of evolution/biology, a great deal of reading up to do.

 

[dafuturesurgeon]

I dont like when people say my questions are dumb when i do honestly wonder about those things. Even if they are typical, I still want to know.

Im guilty of the same thing in other situations but is there really such thing as a dumb question that someone really truly wonders about?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[FBurnaby]

@dafuturesurgeon Those aren't dumb questions, they're dumb arguments. Very important questions to start learning biology, but your lack of knowledge isn't an argument against evolution. It's like saying "if monkeys and humans are related, why are there still monkeys?" this is a question with a good explanation, but it's not an argument because the statement itself is misinformed.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

 

[dafuturesurgeon]

@dafuturesurgeon Those aren't dumb questions, they're dumb arguments. Very important questions to start learning biology, but your lack of knowledge isn't an argument against evolution. It's like saying "if monkeys and humans are related, why are there still monkeys?" this is a question with a good explanation, but it's not an argument because the statement itself is misinformed.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

Cool. Like i said before, I'll do a lot of reading and such and be able to defend my beliefs in later debates if i come across them.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[FBurnaby]

Cool. Like i said before, I'll do a lot of reading and such and be able to defend my beliefs in later debates if i come across them.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

The fact that you are preparing to fight the overwhelming evidence before even seeing/understanding it proves the point very well...

 

[ncide]

Cool. Like i said before, I'll do a lot of reading and such and be able to defend my beliefs in later debates if i come across them.

You should not engage in learning with prejudice. Follow the evidence where it leads you with an open mind, and be receptive to criticism and beliefs that challenge your own. Be curious and avidly hungry to learn.

The processes of life are beautiful and the interconnectedness of it all truly is poetic.

 

[Shams al Deen]

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)

To me, the claim that the process of evolution is unguided is against religious belief. Unguided referring to the idea that no God was there directing or shaping the process of evolution to yield the diversity of species we've had over the last 4 billion years. But the theory of evolution does't say that the process was guided nor does it say it was unguided. I think the best science can do is to say that it is not impossible for the diversity of life to have arisen via unguided evolution (i.e. without a design). But just because something isn't impossible doesn't make it so.

And yeah mutations are random in the sense that there is no physical mechanism inside an organism that is sensing which mutations would be beneficial and then causing those mutations to occur.

 

[ncide]

I think the best science can do is to say that it is not impossible for the diversity of life to have arisen via unguided evolution (i.e. without a design).

What?

 

[ConsultSW]

I just avoid discussion with people I'm not friend's with

 

[JDunc]

Note: I am a graduate student pursuing a M.S. in Biology with a concentration in Microbial and Cell Biology. Following it with a PhD in Cell Biology.

I am a "creationists" as you call it but I like to say I am a Christian. I have classmates who are Buddhists, Muslim, and everything in between. We get a long GREAT! The reason being, we go to class to learn. Not to have a contest on who is right or wrong when it comes to religion.

I can be a Christian, be in science, and not believe in certain aspects of evolution. This does not mean I completely disregard evolution or Darwinism. I learn the topics and remember the topics because that is what I am supposed to do....learn.

If you cannot get along with people based on their religious belief then you need social counseling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ProspectiveKidd]

The burden of proof is not for creationists or believers to explain why their reasoning is correct either because science cannot explain the creation of the universe. I believe in evolution, but even if you believe we started as a single cell and not a living organism, is it not conceivable to think that something may have created it at some point?

-Someone having that idea, and that leading to belief in some god doesn't necessarily mean that they are disagreeing with biology or that everyone who believes in these things is naive and lacks critical skills of any kind. =)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

 

[sloop]

I was surprised about the creationists in medical school as well.

I will say, however, that in many ways emotion is more powerful than intellect. A lot of religious people use a religious framework to get through tough times and to come to accept things as profound as dead friends, relatives and patients. Things that threaten religious belief can threaten people's psychic stability. People will usually follow the path of ignorant but non-distressed any day of the week. To some extent, this is probably a normal, healthy variant of suppression.

There is a problem, however, when physicians become so entrenched in the mythology that they don't even recognize facts and conscious suppression becomes repression. I know people minimize the importance of this, but it really is significant if a physician denies what we know about evolution or believes that God created all things as they are today. That is a terrible framework for knowledge incorporation and clinical decision making. If someone truly believes in creationism, why wouldn't they just let a homeless HIV patient with no resources, no follow up and past compliance issues start HAART? After all, he did a resistance screen so those susceptibilities must just be how God created the virus and it's not like the virus will change in response to changing the environment in which it exists, right?

Additionally, constructing all disease as a product of God's design creates all sorts of philosophical problems (a la the problem of evil) which a person must resolve through complicated theodicies in order to do things as simple as acting in the interest of the patient.

Ultimately, creationism is a severe foundational problem for people working in any sort of applied science.

 

[FBurnaby]

The burden of proof is not for creationists or believers to explain why their reasoning is correct either because science cannot explain the creation of the universe. I believe in evolution, but even if you believe we started as a single cell and not a living organism, is it not conceivable to think that something may have created it at some point?

-Someone having that idea, and that leading to belief in some god doesn't necessarily mean that they are disagreeing with biology or that everyone who believes in these things is naive and lacks critical skills of any kind. =)

Some here may be erroneously equating creationists with Christians or deists, when someone says creationist the majority of the time they mean young earth creationist, which doesn't speculate about the unknown but actively ignores/contradicts basic and well established facts about nature.

It is conceivable to think something may have been created, but trying to assert that it is by the abrahamic deity is the same likelihood as it being Zeus, Thor, Ra, etc.

 

[organesha]

There are some great contributions in this thread!

@dafuturesurgeon or anyone else interested in learning more about evolution, I would highly recommend "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner. The Grants' studies of finches in the Galapagos have probably offered some of the most compelling, groundbreaking, and absolutely monumental evidence in support of evolution.

Biology and life in general are just so much more rich when viewed through a lens of evolution.

 

[sloop]

The burden of proof is not for creationists or believers to explain why their reasoning is correct either because science cannot explain the creation of the universe. I believe in evolution, but even if you believe we started as a single cell and not a living organism, is it not conceivable to think that something may have created it at some point?

-Someone having that idea, and that leading to belief in some god doesn't necessarily mean that they are disagreeing with biology or that everyone who believes in these things is naive and lacks critical skills of any kind. =)

Even if I accepted the premise that all things must have a definite cause (which I do not), how does the idea of a God provide any insight?

In such a situation either God himself must have a cause, in which case his existence does not actually solve the problem, or God is the exceptional case of a "thing without a cause," in which case we are left in the same situation as those who posit that the universe acausally came into being with the sole exception of the unparsimonious addition of a nebulous curator.

 

[sloop]

One of the better criticisms of modern evolutionary theory (i.e., neo-Darwinism or the modern evolutionary synthesis) is written by an evolutionist. The book is called Evolution: A View from the 21st Century by Prof. James Shapiro. Shapiro sets forth his own evolutionary theory called natural genetic engineering, but you don't have to buy his theory in order to accept his criticisms of mainstream evolutionary theory.

Can you summarize his thesis?

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make with the phrase "new-Darwinism or the modern evolutionary synthesis." To be frank, I don't think a good fundamental criticism of evolution exists to be made. The evidence for evolution is simply insurmountable. We have directly observed things like bacterial and viral resistance where selective pressure induces population level genetic change as well as examples of speciation (for example Ensatina salamanders in California).

Additionally, the theory of evolution is logically indisputable if you agree that genetics influence phenotype, that genes are passed through generations, and that some phenotypes are more advantageous for survival and reproduction than others. These are all indisputable. If you believe these premises, evolution simply must be occurring.

 

[bashwell]

Can you summarize his thesis?

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make with the phrase "new-Darwinism or the modern evolutionary synthesis." To be frank, I don't think a good fundamental criticism of evolution exists to be made. The evidence for evolution is simply insurmountable. We have directly observed things like bacterial and viral resistance where selective pressure induces population level genetic change as well as examples of speciation (for example Ensatina salamanders in California).

Additionally, the theory of evolution is logically indisputable if you agree that genetics influence phenotype, that genes are passed through generations, and that some phenotypes are more advantageous for survival and reproduction than others. These are all indisputable. If you believe these premises, evolution simply must be occurring.

1) I don't doubt on any of what you've said. In fact I agree with all your examples.

2) It's not "new" but "neo" Darwinism AKA the modern evolutionary synthesis. The reason I use these terms is because they're the standard terms that evolutionary scientists use. These terms are what's in the scientific literature. The terms refer to Charles Darwin's original ideas + Mendelian genetics + population genetics. For example, see here.

3) Sorry it's very difficult to summarize the book! There's just way too much to summarize. You'll have to read the book. Don't worry though Shapiro is an evolutionist.

 

[Mad Jack]

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.

Your blind faith in EBM as the be-all end-all is rather lacking in many contexts, unfortunately. Some types of patient are just too complicated or have conditions too rare for there to be a standard of care, and some methods of treatment have been declared standard of care without their benefit/risk ratio being certain (think the knew guidelines for statins, or the new BP guidelines, for instance- there were no RCTs done in either case, we just used correlation and extrapolated it to lower=better). And then there is the entire field of psychiatry, where "better" is a very subjective thing and we have few physiologically definable factors that we can measure with machines or lab tests.

EBM is good when it's good, but when it isn't, it is very, very bad.

 

[WernickeDO]

Your blind faith in EBM as the be-all end-all is rather lacking in many contexts, unfortunately. Some types of patient are just too complicated or have conditions too rare for there to be a standard of care, and some methods of treatment have been declared standard of care without their benefit/risk ratio being certain (think the knew guidelines for statins, or the new BP guidelines, for instance- there were no RCTs done in either case, we just used correlation and extrapolated it to lower=better). And then there is the entire field of psychiatry, where "better" is a very subjective thing and we have few physiologically definable factors that we can measure with machines or lab tests.

EBM is good when it's good, but when it isn't, it is very, very bad.

If you go ahead and read the last two sentences of the second paragraph of my post, you will see I don't have blind faith in EBM. I agree that we have very weak data for a lot of the standard of care practices we currently espouse. Everything needs to be approached and re-approached critically, especially science and medicine. Faith is a different matter, and I argue that this juxtaposition allows for someone to have faith and still be a good scientist/doctor/cobbler/pool cleaner.

 

[NontradCA]

I mean, it's not all that bad. I go to a DO school and we believe in voodoo. To each their own

 

[Pacna]

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.

Testing (some religions') deities could be done through death. Perhaps there is a unanimity in science of those who died. And as you say, an intelligent designer could make itself known. Maybe we figure out consciousness and build a technology which allows us to project our consciousness into an/the afterlife.

Replies:
1. There is not sufficient evidence to prove causality as a universal rule. Of anything. Yes, I'm saying it's possible that an event at t = 0 could be caused by an event at t > 0. As we do not know any of the conditions which led up to the big bang, it is possible that causality was not previously limited to 299,792,458 m/s. Perhaps that is only the rule post-BB.

2. I think it was stated before in this thread, but a theory exists that the universe's sum mass/energy = 0. Perhaps there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter, and universes spontaneously emerge (diverge) where nothing exists. I don't know the theory well enough to go farther than that, but I think it makes more sense than sky dads.

I agree that anyone who says they know for certain how the BB happened is arrogant AF. To reiterate, I'm not a creationist. I don't know how **** happened. Some things sound more likely to me than others, but this is like guessing on one of those A-M Qbank questions. If any of us have it right, it's a tiny minority, and they lucked into it.

 

[Mti43]

I think we as humans tend to give ourselves way more credit than we should. We tend to always think we have everything figured out when in reality we know very little about the world around us. We know things evolve we can see that happening in simple things like bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics but does that really prove the Big Bang and that we evolve from monkeys not really. No one can say for absolute fact that, that is what happened.

Interestingly humans have yet to been able to figure out the math and physics of what happen right at the Big Bang or anything before it (which is why we assume it's when everything started) only immediately afterwards. There are physicists working on other models because it bugs them that the math doesn't work. Like this model that would show the universe has been around forever [/URL]http://m.phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html As a science biology is good at telling us what happens but doesn't tell us why or how.

Some say that creationists are bad scientists or dumb, as OP suggested, because of their beliefs, I would say anyone who believes that the big bang and that we evolved from monkeys is the end all be all of where we came from is just as bad.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[terra330]

There isn't a single scientist that believes "we evolved from monkeys"

 

[lampshade4u]

The "big bang" was orchestrated by God. He organized matter into the universe. God has created/organized/big-bang'd universes/solarsystems/worlds without number. In our universe, the Earth followed its course just how science says it did until present day and here we are. I am a christian and to me science and religion go perfectly hand in hand. I'm not sure if this falls under creationist or not.

 

[pulmoblast]

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Hymn of Creation

Rigveda


As quoted by Carl Sagan in Dragons of Eden

 

[armorshell]

Hey, armor "My vanity license plates say 'MYH16'" shell here. As a surgeon who has (by the best available evidence) a single 2.4M year old gene mutation to thank for funding my specialty (an putatively, all specialties due to that cascade of effects from that gene on primate brain size), I'd love to weigh in on this topic.

Though I have no data on the topic, in my experience the power of cognitive dissonance* lets creationists (even YEC) function perfectly well in clinical medicine. The theoretical bases for evolutionary biology are so far removed and esoteric from the "science" of medicine that they can easily be rationalized separately. I for example, don't have a particular opinion on which of the various theories is the correct reasoning of particle physics i.e.string theory, however that doesn't effect whether or not I'm willing to order an MRI or radiation for a patient. Though less further removed, that might serve as an example of why a YEC might for example, have no problem rationalizing giving a patient a flu vaccine despite not believing the fundamental mechanics of the theory that provides the prognostic data on drift/shift that drives vaccine creation.

*Not to imply that cognitive dissonance is a concept that solely belongs to creationists. We all have various areas in which we display dissonance. How many physicians smoke, do drugs and drink to excess while recommending abstinence from these things to their patients? I myself live on the 'overweight' side of the BMI scale, yet I constantly chastise patients for their weight (Which is weird because that's not really an important part of my specialty).

 

[armorshell]

Your blind faith in EBM as the be-all end-all is rather lacking in many contexts, unfortunately. Some types of patient are just too complicated or have conditions too rare for there to be a standard of care, and some methods of treatment have been declared standard of care without their benefit/risk ratio being certain (think the knew guidelines for statins, or the new BP guidelines, for instance- there were no RCTs done in either case, we just used correlation and extrapolated it to lower=better). And then there is the entire field of psychiatry, where "better" is a very subjective thing and we have few physiologically definable factors that we can measure with machines or lab tests.

EBM is good when it's good, but when it isn't, it is very, very bad.

Does EBM have anything to say about conditions or comorbidities affecting treatment for which there is low- or no-quality evidence other than translating the knowledge of that uncertainty to the patient in an effort to make the process more transparent?

That uncertainty exists is not a failure of evidence based medicine. The system has outlets for clinician choice and reasoning built in.

 

[mavric1298]

I think it's also important to keep the ideas of "faith" and "religion" separate. The idea that humans have come up with thousands of gods over our recorded history, but somehow yours must be the right one and everyone else's are false just makes me laugh. Not to mention all the cherry picking people do to make their religion fit within the context of how they want to live their lives. You can't just pick and chose what you are going to believe. And you don't have to be religious to believe in a higher being. Personally I'm an atheist, but as a scientist I'm only as sure of that as long as the evidence points to that. Could there be a god who created everything? Sure - if there's one thing I've learned to believe in science, it's that nothing is absolute.

Who created the creator? How is that any different that Big Bang if no one created him?

Not to mention just because our eyes can't see colors beyond our visible spectrum doesn't mean it's not there. I think our brains are only capable of a limited spectrum of understanding - and there may be limits to what we could possibly comprehend. I think we created religion as a tool to feel better about our measly 90 years in this universe that is so big it defies actual comprehension, and is so old that we are practically nothing. If we go to heaven does our dog? How about the earthworm? Bacteria? Everything that has ever existed?

Is it really such a leap to think this world view would affect their clinical care? If you can ignore scientific consensus on one of the most fundemental areas of your life - what's to say your not going to have "faith" in something more trivial while taking care of someone.

Can you be a creationist and still agree with the current scientific models? Sure. Again back to faith versus religion. Can you be one of the common denominations of religion and make it work? If yes, explain how you decide which passages of the bible are the real ones and which ones you don't have to follow.

 

[armorshell]

I think we as humans tend to give ourselves way more credit than we should. We tend to always think we have everything figured out when in reality we know very little about the world around us. We know things evolve we can see that happening in simple things like bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics but does that really prove the Big Bang and that we evolve from monkeys not really. No one can say for absolute fact that, that is what happened.

Note that evolution theory has literally nothing to do with the theory of the origins of the universe. That's cosmology, which is a completely different realm of science. That bacteria evolve resistance, doesn't prove anything about the big bang, but then again, no one is suggesting that it does. Also, no one is suggesting that humans evolved from monkeys. If you're talking to the right biologist they might tell you humans ARE monkeys.

Interestingly humans have yet to been able to figure out the math and physics of what happen right at the Big Bang or anything before it (which is why we assume it's when everything started) only immediately afterwards. There are physicists working on other models because it bugs them that the math doesn't work. Like this model that would show the universe has been around forever [/URL]http://m.phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html As a science biology is good at telling us what happens but doesn't tell us why or how.

Science can (and does!) definitely tell us "how." You're on the right track with "why"questions though, which generally are necessarily outside the realm of science, being unfalsifiable. Note that just because there are inconsistencies with the physics shortly after the big bang doesn't invalidate the theory. By definition, a theory is a model which best encompasses the majority of data available surrounding a topic. If a better theory comes along which encompasses more of the data then the previous theory, then it supersedes the one which came before. This is the normal way that theories process, and it's completely normal for them to change. By necessity, unless there is some massive upheaval which hasn't before been seen, any new theory necessarily must explain all the legitimate data discovered before the theory was in place. General relativity didn't prove Newton wrong, it just incorporates additional data. Does modern thermodynamics invalidate the findings of Black, Lavoisier and Laplace because they believed heat was a fluid? Even if anew theory supplanted evolution tomorrow, it by necessity would need to incorporate all previously discovered data on the variation of species within it.

 

[sparroow]

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.

This is very bad inference....
If I had ten balls each with a +/- integer inscribed on it and the sum of all my ball equates to 0. I do not then infer that I have no balls.
NP: I do not have a dog in this fight, just wanted to nitpick on this. Your arguments have been solid though

 

[deleted407021]

This is very bad inference....
If I had ten balls each with a +/- integer inscribed on it and the sum of all my ball equates to 0. I do not then infer that I have no balls.
NP: I do not have a dog in this fight, just wanted to nitpick on this. Your arguments have been solid though

Balls don't arise from quantum singularities. Like I suggested -- read some of the work by Lawrence Krauss.

 

[Mad Jack]

Does EBM have anything to say about conditions or comorbidities affecting treatment for which there is low- or no-quality evidence other than translating the knowledge of that uncertainty to the patient in an effort to make the process more transparent?

That uncertainty exists is not a failure of evidence based medicine. The system has outlets for clinician choice and reasoning built in.

Tell that to the hospital formulary every time we've had to order anything weird because there isn't enough evidence out there to justify stocking it lol. And no, many pieces of EBM do not finely dude their patient populations- ARDSNet is ARDSNet whether you've got ARDS from flail chest or pneumonia, despite the fact that there's some patient populations that straight up don't do well on it (neuro injuries, for instance, in which their central respiratory drive is FUBAR).