liberty medical school <facepalm>

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Fail.

You're confusing conservative with Republic.

Because conservative is only a reference to contrast in this nation. Democrats are more conservative than any other liberal organization in the world.
But sure, we can include libertarian looney in this soup too...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wjs010]

Because conservative is only a reference to contrast in this nation. Democrats are more conservative than any other liberal organization in the world.
But sure, we can include libertarian looney in this soup too...

Why is libertarian looney, or am I missing a reference from within this thread lol

 

[Mad Jack]

That is not your decision, the AOA just wants to keep opening schools. DO schools have become an alternative route to those who did not get into MD programs and those who do not wish to go overseas for medical education.

As someone who chose to apply DO over MD and had the stats to do either, I must disagree with you. I have spent a good amount of time around both osteopathic and allopathic physicians and just preferred the approach the osteopathic physicians had to medicine. There are things that I don't like about the AOA, but if you enter a field you enjoy and you come across something you don't like, you fight to change it. We need to band together to fight AOA policy that we disagree with, not complain about it on forums. The majority of new students share the view that the AOA is an organization in need of serious change, so let's work together and make it happen!

Opening new locations faster than Starbucks and not having an increase in residency positions while simultaneously claiming that DOs don't need the AMA and should be attending AOA residencies is absurd. What will happen when there are less residencies than there are graduating US MD+DO students and the 98% placement rule is in effect? Will there be mass DO school closures? Every time I read an AOA press release, I have to apply a heavy dose of palm to my face until my headache subsides. The osteopathic profession could be so much more than it is today, but we've got a bunch of old school DOs that want to practice like it's the late 19th century running the show.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

As someone who chose to apply DO over MD and had the stats to do either, I must disagree with you. I have spent a good amount of time around both osteopathic and allopathic physicians and just preferred the approach the osteopathic physicians had to medicine. There are things that I don't like about the AOA, but if you enter a field you enjoy and you come across something you don't like, you fight to change it. We need to band together to fight AOA policy that we disagree with, not complain about it on forums. The majority of new students share the view that the AOA is an organization in need of serious change, so let's work together and make it happen!

Opening new locations faster than Starbucks and not having an increase in residency positions while simultaneously claiming that DOs don't need the AMA and should be attending AOA residencies is absurd. What will happen when there are less residencies than there are graduating US MD+DO students and the 98% placement rule is in effect? Will there be mass DO school closures? Every time I read an AOA press release, I have to apply a heavy dose of palm to my face until my headache subsides. The osteopathic profession could be so much more than it is today, but we've got a bunch of old school DOs that want to practice like it's the late 19th century running the show.

As much as we all hate it, the AOA is not going to change anytime soon. The AOA is not a democratic organization, nor does it stand primarily as an organization with the primary goal of increasing the autonomy, practice capabilities, or reception of osteopathic medicine. The AOA's main goal is to get as many DOs to attend AOA residencies, become AOA certified, have to pay AOA dues, and through such make sure they remain submissive to the AOA or risk losing their license.
The AOA simply has its group with out dissent and they're quite happy to be able to safely spout whatever nonsense they wish and get an entire clapping audience ( ex. the whole DOs don't use OMM because they're not comfortable with it and as such they should spend more time on it, or the whole osteopathic distinctiveness being the main reason for not merging residencies).

But for our sakes, I'll repeat again. The only way we will change anything is through a class action lawsuit or by outright lobbying the AOA.

 

[JGimpel]

I heard that the AMA wanted to sanction the widespread use of Mercury again and the AOA wanted first right of refusal for OMM on all Pneumonia cases and that's where things went South.

At least Liberty had the guts to put in it's own phlebotomy lab to train those wanting an alternative therapy to standard medical treatment for many ailments. I heard their blood drives are off the chain!

 

[ChrisGriffen]

... what exactly do you think you could file against the AOA in a lawsuit? You chose to be a part of the AOA when you decided to pursue the degree that they accredit

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

... what exactly do you think you could file against the AOA in a lawsuit? You chose to be a part of the AOA when you decided to pursue the degree that they accredit

By that logic workers have no right to sue their employers. Please look up what a class-action lawsuit is and you'll see it is essentially a legal action in which members of an organization sue because they feel they are not being represented.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

Don't forget VCOM is opening another branch campus in Auburn, Alabama opening 2015.

So basically this year there were 3 new schools in Indiana, North Carolina and Alabama and then Liberty in Virginia next year and then VCOM Auburn in 2015....AND most of the DO schools expanded their class sizes last year and this year....

Unless these schools start programs where students sign up and commit to primary care, I don't think opening new schools will solve the primary care problem.

http://iz3.me/InformzDataService/OnlineVersion/Public?mailingInstanceId=2573087&brandid=3535

http://www.auburnvillager.com/news/article_eefa4acc-f9f8-11e2-8098-0019bb30f31a.html

Oh boy! I did not know about that VCOM Auburn branch...

2017 on will be interesting. I predict lots of people not matching.

People who are gunning for competitive specialties will have to do well on the boards... Residency in primary care will still be relatively easy to get IMO since most AMG don't want to be PCP.

 

[ChrisGriffen]

By that logic workers have no right to sue their employers. Please look up what a class-action lawsuit is and you'll see it is essentially a legal action in which members of an organization sue because they feel they are not being represented.

Its essentially not that in the slightest bit. You would have to suffer an injustice by them. By your logic, about 49% of the country could file class actions suits against politicians they didn't vote for .
...and workers don't have the right to sue their employers for not merging with a competing company, so you're dumb..

 

[osckey]

My father is a Christian MD. His faith helps him cope with end of life scenarios and give spiritual hope to patients who would like it. It is not a crux to be Christian, or for that matter, spiritual or harbor beliefs about the metaphysical.

There are many people from many different walks of life. Part of being a physician is encountering these people on a daily basis and striking up a healthy doctor-patient relationship. However, given some of the things said in this thread, I can't imagine some of you being able to be respectful towards your patient if at every chance you denounce him/her to be a quack. It seems that some of you here harbor a hostile attitude towards different ways of life rather than an attitude of respectful difference.

As a Christian myself, I can understand the things said against Liberty as an institution. My brother currently goes there and when he was accepted, my family was less than pleased that he attended. When I went to visit him I heard some theological beliefs floating around that even made me cringe. Let it be known that Liberty is not representative of the Christian faith as a whole and remember that Liberty belongs strictly to one denomination of Christianity. There are many Christians today, including myself, that believe that Jerry Falwell and his family have done some very crazy and disagreeable things.

Be careful, when continuing this conversation, to not mistake of applying generalities and broad statements to all peoples of faith or to all who are atheist.

Attempting to discredit someone based solely on their beliefs (whether theist or atheist) rather than their ability to learn and practice medicine sounds like discrimination at best. There are plenty of Christians (and other religions) that are in all sorts of medical schools whether allopathic or osteopathic. In addition, there are plenty of practicing physicians who actively practice their faith yet are still competent and seek to advance the cause of medicine.

Some Christians believe in evolution, some don't. Some Muslims believe in evolution, some don't. Some Mormons believe in evolution, some don't. Some agnostics believe in evolution, some don't. Some atheists believe in evolution, some don't. Be wary of blanket statements.

If you want to scrutinize the quality of physicians the institution is producing; fine. However, scrutinizing physicians based on their faith is different.

 

[NurWollen]

My father is a Christian MD. His faith helps him cope with end of life scenarios and give spiritual hope to patients who would like it. It is not a crux to be Christian, or for that matter, spiritual or harbor beliefs about the metaphysical.

There are many people from many different walks of life. Part of being a physician is encountering these people on a daily basis and striking up a healthy doctor-patient relationship. However, given some of the things said in this thread, I can't imagine some of you being able to be respectful towards your patient if at every chance you denounce him/her to be a quack. It seems that some of you here harbor a hostile attitude towards different ways of life rather than an attitude of respectful difference.

As a Christian myself, I can understand the things said against Liberty as an institution. My brother currently goes there and when he was accepted, my family was less than pleased that he attended. When I went to visit him I heard some theological beliefs floating around that even made me cringe. Let it be known that Liberty is not representative of the Christian faith as a whole and remember that Liberty belongs strictly to one denomination of Christianity. There are many Christians today, including myself, that believe that Jerry Falwell and his family have done some very crazy and disagreeable things.

Be careful, when continuing this conversation, to not mistake of applying generalities and broad statements to all peoples of faith or to all who are atheist.

Attempting to discredit someone based solely on their beliefs (whether theist or atheist) rather than their ability to learn and practice medicine sounds like discrimination at best. There are plenty of Christians (and other religions) that are in all sorts of medical schools whether allopathic or osteopathic. In addition, there are plenty of practicing physicians who actively practice their faith yet are still competent and seek to advance the cause of medicine.

Some Christians believe in evolution, some don't. Some Muslims believe in evolution, some don't. Some Mormons believe in evolution, some don't. Some agnostics believe in evolution, some don't. Some atheists believe in evolution, some don't. Be wary of blanket statements.

If you want to scrutinize the quality of physicians the institution is producing; fine. However, scrutinizing physicians based on their faith is different.

It took several months, but finally something sensible has been said on this thread.

 

[Mad Jack]

My father is a Christian MD. His faith helps him cope with end of life scenarios and give spiritual hope to patients who would like it. It is not a crux to be Christian, or for that matter, spiritual or harbor beliefs about the metaphysical.

There are many people from many different walks of life. Part of being a physician is encountering these people on a daily basis and striking up a healthy doctor-patient relationship. However, given some of the things said in this thread, I can't imagine some of you being able to be respectful towards your patient if at every chance you denounce him/her to be a quack. It seems that some of you here harbor a hostile attitude towards different ways of life rather than an attitude of respectful difference.

As a Christian myself, I can understand the things said against Liberty as an institution. My brother currently goes there and when he was accepted, my family was less than pleased that he attended. When I went to visit him I heard some theological beliefs floating around that even made me cringe. Let it be known that Liberty is not representative of the Christian faith as a whole and remember that Liberty belongs strictly to one denomination of Christianity. There are many Christians today, including myself, that believe that Jerry Falwell and his family have done some very crazy and disagreeable things.

Be careful, when continuing this conversation, to not mistake of applying generalities and broad statements to all peoples of faith or to all who are atheist.

Attempting to discredit someone based solely on their beliefs (whether theist or atheist) rather than their ability to learn and practice medicine sounds like discrimination at best. There are plenty of Christians (and other religions) that are in all sorts of medical schools whether allopathic or osteopathic. In addition, there are plenty of practicing physicians who actively practice their faith yet are still competent and seek to advance the cause of medicine.

Some Christians believe in evolution, some don't. Some Muslims believe in evolution, some don't. Some Mormons believe in evolution, some don't. Some agnostics believe in evolution, some don't. Some atheists believe in evolution, some don't. Be wary of blanket statements.

If you want to scrutinize the quality of physicians the institution is producing; fine. However, scrutinizing physicians based on their faith is different.

Stop making sense on the internet!

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

My father is a Christian MD. His faith helps him cope with end of life scenarios and give spiritual hope to patients who would like it. It is not a crux to be Christian, or for that matter, spiritual or harbor beliefs about the metaphysical.

There are many people from many different walks of life. Part of being a physician is encountering these people on a daily basis and striking up a healthy doctor-patient relationship. However, given some of the things said in this thread, I can't imagine some of you being able to be respectful towards your patient if at every chance you denounce him/her to be a quack. It seems that some of you here harbor a hostile attitude towards different ways of life rather than an attitude of respectful difference.

As a Christian myself, I can understand the things said against Liberty as an institution. My brother currently goes there and when he was accepted, my family was less than pleased that he attended. When I went to visit him I heard some theological beliefs floating around that even made me cringe. Let it be known that Liberty is not representative of the Christian faith as a whole and remember that Liberty belongs strictly to one denomination of Christianity. There are many Christians today, including myself, that believe that Jerry Falwell and his family have done some very crazy and disagreeable things.

Be careful, when continuing this conversation, to not mistake of applying generalities and broad statements to all peoples of faith or to all who are atheist.

Attempting to discredit someone based solely on their beliefs (whether theist or atheist) rather than their ability to learn and practice medicine sounds like discrimination at best. There are plenty of Christians (and other religions) that are in all sorts of medical schools whether allopathic or osteopathic. In addition, there are plenty of practicing physicians who actively practice their faith yet are still competent and seek to advance the cause of medicine.

Some Christians believe in evolution, some don't. Some Muslims believe in evolution, some don't. Some Mormons believe in evolution, some don't. Some agnostics believe in evolution, some don't. Some atheists believe in evolution, some don't. Be wary of blanket statements.

If you want to scrutinize the quality of physicians the institution is producing; fine. However, scrutinizing physicians based on their faith is different.

Again, no one is claiming that your personal belief in god and jesus is bad. I personally do not agree, but I'll defend your right to practice.

However where I draw the line is when neoconservativism highjacks faith. When it takes faith and makes it a political entity and makes claims ranging from aids is god's punishment and etc.

Now, that being said, even if they wiped away the mud of their founder. The school still possess many issues, most namely that the school is predominately an online institute. It is not prestigious and in Virginia it possesses an average gpa lower than the average at some community colleges. It produces no research, nor does it have the support and connections that other osteopathic schools which opened up recently have, ex. CUSOM or MUCOM. And fundamentally the school is about making profit and neoconservatism ( Ex. An applicant was told to not apply if he wishes to live with his girlfriend who he is not married to or etc).

In the end, I'll say that personally, I'd rather go to SGU over LUCOM.

 

[osckey]

Again, no one is claiming that your personal belief in god and jesus is bad. I personally do not agree, but I'll defend your right to practice.

However where I draw the line is when neoconservativism highjacks faith. When it takes faith and makes it a political entity and makes claims ranging from aids is god's punishment and etc.

Now, that being said, even if they wiped away the mud of their founder. The school still possess many issues, most namely that the school is predominately an online institute. It is not prestigious and in Virginia it possesses an average gpa lower than the average at some community colleges. It produces no research, nor does it have the support and connections that other osteopathic schools which opened up recently have, ex. CUSOM or MUCOM. And fundamentally the school is about making profit and neoconservatism ( Ex. An applicant was told to not apply if he wishes to live with his girlfriend who he is not married to or etc).

In the end, I'll say that personally, I'd rather go to SGU over LUCOM.

Syndicate, I sought to strike down some of the less amicable notions and assumptions that were floating around in this thread. And I agree with several of the points you've made. Well said.

Also, thanks NurWollen and Mad Jack.

 

[ChrisGriffen]

medicine is the wrong field for people who can ignore the mountain of data on evolution

 

[NurWollen]

.

 

[ChrisGriffen]

I tried to delete all that before it got quoted cuz I totally realize how offensive that post reads...

I hope everyone sees that I don't mean to be a penis.
That being said medicine is 99% data driven. If you cant do data, you shouldn't be a doctor.

 

[Xenoblade]

As someone who chose to apply DO over MD and had the stats to do either, I must disagree with you. I have spent a good amount of time around both osteopathic and allopathic physicians and just preferred the approach the osteopathic physicians had to medicine. There are things that I don't like about the AOA, but if you enter a field you enjoy and you come across something you don't like, you fight to change it. We need to band together to fight AOA policy that we disagree with, not complain about it on forums. The majority of new students share the view that the AOA is an organization in need of serious change, so let's work together and make it happen!

Opening new locations faster than Starbucks and not having an increase in residency positions while simultaneously claiming that DOs don't need the AMA and should be attending AOA residencies is absurd. What will happen when there are less residencies than there are graduating US MD+DO students and the 98% placement rule is in effect? Will there be mass DO school closures? Every time I read an AOA press release, I have to apply a heavy dose of palm to my face until my headache subsides. The osteopathic profession could be so much more than it is today, but we've got a bunch of old school DOs that want to practice like it's the late 19th century running the show.

With all due respect, these things are not mutually exclusive. Just because it was your first choice, doesn't mean that do's aren't people's fall back.

 

[Mad Jack]

With all due respect, these things are not mutually exclusive. Just because it was your first choice, doesn't mean that do's aren't people's fall back.

Looking back on the comment you I had responded to, I concede that you are correct. It just felt implied at a glance.

 

[Xenoblade]

I tried to delete all that before it got quoted cuz I totally realize how offensive that post reads...

I hope everyone sees that I don't mean to be a penis.
That being said medicine is 99% data driven. If you cant do data, you shouldn't be a doctor.

I disagree that evolution is a necessary tenet for medical students. I have seen, work, and am personal friends with tons of people who believe in creationism. They are amazing doctors who embrace most of science - just not ideals that cannot be proven or have few tangible supporting evidence for.

 

[guylewis]

I disagree that evolution is a necessary tenet for medical students. I have seen, work, and am personal friends with tons of people who believe in creationism. They are amazing doctors who embrace most of science - just not ideals that cannot be proven or have few tangible supporting evidence for.

So these brilliant doctors of yours believe in a six thousand year old earth which is completely in contradiction with the discoveries in the science of biology, zoology, botany, dendrology, chemistry, physics, geology, and genetics and yet you still consider them as people who embrace most of science? Wooooooooww

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I totally understand what you're saying. Biology doesn't make sense to me without evolution. At the same time, I can't deny that Ben Carson, for example, was a talented neurosurgeon. I don't get how he reconciles his knowledge of medicine with his apparent disbelief in evolution, but that's not my job. I don't have to know how he does it. I just have to reconcile my beliefs with my understanding of science. I don't care how someone else does it, as long as they can do their job.

I've always found it curious how some people are able to compartmentalize and are able to function as competent physicians while holding those views, but I do think those people are dangerous because you never know what else they'll find objectionable and lead to patient harm. Anyone know of any scientific literature on things like this?

 

[Xenoblade]

So these brilliant doctors of yours believe in a six thousand year old earth which is completely in contradiction with the discoveries in the science of biology, zoology, botany, dendrology, chemistry, physics, geology, and genetics and yet you still consider them as people who embrace most of science? Wooooooooww

From one ignorant pre med to another, you don't need to know about geology, botany, or zoology to become a good physician.

The belief of evolution is not necessary to being a good competent physician.

How are most of these topics going to help someone be a good orthopod? or psychiatrist? or family medicine doc?

You are over stating the importance of evo if you truly believe that, and this is coming from a dude with a publication in eco/evo.

 

[Xenoblade]

I've always found it curious how some people are able to compartmentalize and are able to function as competent physicians while holding those views, but I do think those people are dangerous because you never know what else they'll find objectionable and lead to patient harm. Anyone know of any scientific literature on things like this?

science is not immutable. We cannot even get our theories a 100% straight. phylum problematica is a great example.

People are right to question evolution. To some, religion and creationism are constants and are immutable. Remember, there are things that medicine/science cannot explain.

 

[guylewis]

science is not immutable. We cannot even get our theories a 100% straight. phylum problematica is a great example.

People are right to question evolution. To some, religion and creationism are constants and are immutable. Remember, there are things that medicine/science cannot explain.

So we fill what we dont understand yet with a deity explanation? God of the gaps, a terrible way to be scientific and the worst way to advance our understanding of the natural phenomenon of the universe. We couldn't explain how people got sick hundreds of years ago so we said it was evil spirits but fortunately we had scientists and doctors who didn't just accept the god of the gaps and instead searched for a real answer through science and as a result we now understand germ theory, bacteria, and viruses.

Religion said people who were acting crazy were possessed by demons that needed to be exercised by a priest. With science we understand neurological disorders like schizophrenia and we provide those people medical treatment instead of just sending over a priest to beat the demon out of them.

evolutionary biology is incredibly well proven and that is an agreed upon fact by the overwhelming scientific consensus. But it doesn't matter whether people believe in it or not, because it's fact. A fact doesn't rely on people's beliefs. Whether or not I believe in gravitational theory, if I jump off of a building I will not fly

 

[Xenoblade]

So we fill what we dont understand yet with a deity explanation? God of the gaps, a terrible way to be scientific and the worst way to advance our understanding of the natural phenomenon of the universe. We couldn't explain how people got sick hundreds of years ago so we said it was evil spirits but fortunately we had scientists and doctors who didn't just accept the god of the gaps and instead searched for a real answer through science and as a result we now understand germ theory, bacteria, and viruses.

Religion said people who were acting crazy were possessed by demons that needed to be exercised by a priest. With science we understand neurological disorders like schizophrenia and we provide those people medical treatment instead of just sending over a priest to beat the demon out of them.

evolutionary biology is incredibly well proven and that is an agreed upon fact by the overwhelming scientific consensus. But it doesn't matter whether people believe in it or not, because it's fact. A fact doesn't rely on people's beliefs. Whether or not I believe in gravitational theory, if I jump off of a building I will not fly

I am not going to get into an evo argument with you. This will be my last post, as nothing will get accomplished.

Fact: there are gaps in the theory of evolution.

The other side of your argument: God is not a god of gaps, but rather wholly complete. The denial evolution is not the rebuttal of the entire field of science. Someone can not believe in evolution, but can understand and prescribe antibiotics, antivirals, steroids, and etc.

I know a pastor who was a physicist. The way that he describes it is that our point of reference influences how we perceive the world. Evolutionists focus on such small number of subset of points. After all this is only so much info that we can have. When we make assumptions based on such a small subset of points (that change quite often), they can have huge impacts on the answer that we get when we extrapolate. It is like a see-saw in that minor adjustments in what is proximal to us and what we know can have huge swings in what we assume to know that is distal to us (i.e. big bang theory, primordial soup theory, evolution, and etc.).

Again, the disbelief of evolution does not equate to an inability to treat a patient's ailment or to heal.

This is all I am going to say. I can sit here and poke holes in your argument and theory of evolution, but I chose not to because A) you seem (and I cannot know this for sure because you are just a stranger online) you are at the point where anything I say will be ignored because you so firmly grasp onto your unproven ideas and B) it isn't my job to teach you.

Good luck doing well in medical school and landing the specialty of your choice.

 

[guylewis]

I am not going to get into an evo argument with you. This will be my last post, as nothing will get accomplished.

Fact: there are gaps in the theory of evolution.

The other side of your argument: God is not a god of gaps, but rather wholly complete. The denial evolution is not the rebuttal of the entire field of science. Someone can not believe in evolution, but can understand and prescribe antibiotics, antivirals, steroids, and etc.

I know a pastor who was a physicist. The way that he describes it is that our point of reference influences how we perceive the world. Evolutionists focus on such small number of subset of points. After all this is only so much info that we can have. When we make assumptions based on such a small subset of points (that change quite often), they can have huge impacts on the answer that we get when we extrapolate. It is like a see-saw in that minor adjustments in what is proximal to us and what we know can have huge swings in what we assume to know that is distal to us (i.e. big bang theory, primordial soup theory, evolution, and etc.).

Again, the disbelief of evolution does not equate to an inability to treat a patient's ailment or to heal.

This is all I am going to say. I can sit here and poke holes in your argument and theory of evolution, but I chose not to because A) you seem (and I cannot know this for sure because you are just a stranger online) you are at the point where anything I say will be ignored because you so firmly grasp onto your unproven ideas and B) it isn't my job to teach you.

Good luck doing well in medical school and landing the specialty of your choice.

no need to teach me, i did research, have been published, taught, and earned my masters degree in evolutionary biology. i've devoted years of my life to it. denying evolution isn't a denial of an entire field of science...it's a denial of ALL science. that's the consequences of wanting to believe you live in a world that is 6,000 years old...we have trees and civilizations older than the creationists purported universe

 

[hallowmann]

The best scientists, the ones who make some of the most amazing breakthroughs are those that keep open minds with regards to most things. Many of the people that founded our profession believed in a deity. That didn't stop them from pursuing a greater understanding of this world, health and the causes of disease (in fact in many cases it motivated them to do so).

There are many dogmatics on both sides of the aisle. Those that are certain that the world is how they have learned it, tend not to look for alternative plausible explanations. I'm not going to argue about evolution, because quite frankly I believe in it. There are just handfuls of leaps that even evolutionists argue/disagree about and their staunch support of one side versus another with equally insufficient proof, reminds me of dogmatic members of a religion that bicker between each other refusing to accept an alternate viewpoint or interpretation of their holy texts when there certainly is room for it.

Human beings are far too notorious for being certain of things, right before we discover irrefutable truth to the contrary. As far as I'm concerned we have enough of that in medicine as it is.

 

[deleted480308]

medicine is the wrong field for people who can ignore the mountain of data on evolution

agreed, my doctor was trying to read my strep throat test the other day and his belief in religion made it impossible for him (sarc)

 

[MRSAful Fate]

agreed, my doctor was trying to read my strep throat test the other day and his belief in religion made it impossible for him (sarc)

I don't think most medicine requires a belief in evolution, except maybe ID. But for me the concern is how deep your anti-science world view goes beyond that. If you can look at all the science on evolution and still deny it in favor of an extreme view, how are you going to interpret medical science? I worry that these docs are going to be the ones referring patients to Stanislaw Burzynski for chemo, chelating toxins and sending their gay patients to inpatient religious facilities to pray their disease away. If you can ignore the scientific consensus on evolution why not on those matters too?

 

[deleted480308]

I don't think most medicine requires a belief in evolution, except maybe ID. But for me the concern is how deep your anti-science world view goes beyond that. If you can look at all the science on evolution and still deny it in favor of an extreme view, how are you going to interpret medical science? I worry that these docs are going to be the ones referring patients to Stanislaw Burzynski for chemo, chelating toxins and sending their gay patients to inpatient religious facilities to pray their disease away. If you can ignore the scientific consensus on evolution why not on those matters too?

Do I pass comlex and my boards? Do I complete residency? If yes, then leave my religion out of it...I'm a doctor

 

[Xenoblade]

Do I pass comlex and my boards? Do I complete residency? If yes, then leave my religion out of it...I'm a doctor

I didn't want to reply, but this is so true!

The best scientists, the ones who make some of the most amazing breakthroughs are those that keep open minds with regards to most things. Many of the people that founded our profession believed in a deity. That didn't stop them from pursuing a greater understanding of this world, health and the causes of disease (in fact in many cases it motivated them to do so).

There are many dogmatics on both sides of the aisle. Those that are certain that the world is how they have learned it, tend not to look for alternative plausible explanations. I'm not going to argue about evolution, because quite frankly I believe in it. There are just handfuls of leaps that even evolutionists argue/disagree about and their staunch support of one side versus another with equally insufficient proof, reminds me of dogmatic members of a religion that bicker between each other refusing to accept an alternate viewpoint or interpretation of their holy texts when there certainly is room for it.

Human beings are far too notorious for being certain of things, right before we discover irrefutable truth to the contrary. As far as I'm concerned we have enough of that in medicine as it is.

I appreciate this perspective and frame of mind.

I'll close with this. We are now just finding out that radioactive decays are not constant. Cutting edge research suggest this, and there is a correlation, not causation, between the rate of decay and the position of the sun. Obviously, there is some underlying factor that causes these fluctuations other than the sun's relative position to us. So, since we have solid tangible evidence that the rate can fluctuate, then how can you sit there and tell me that that rate has been constant for thousands or billions of years when we have no idea what the conditions where that could have affected and skewed our assumptions and therefore results. If we cannot get something as basic as radioactive decay down, then how can we extrapolate billions of years of data? See how minor changes in the proximal data can affect our understanding of theories of the distal? If you cannot at least acknowledge this possibility, then I would venture to postulate that @lewisguy will blindly hold onto beliefs no matter what (which sounds like you are exercising faith if you really think about it).
You can spend your entire career doing research and building complex theories, but to me it would be kinda pointless until we answer conclusively more basic questions that solidify our understanding. What happens when we build theories on a shaky foundation?
There are people of faith who can critically analyze scientific information too. You may or may not be talking to one now.

 

[Xenoblade]

agreed, my doctor was trying to read my strep throat test the other day and his belief in religion made it impossible for him (sarc)

Last post for sure.

One's lack of belief in evo will not prevent a doctor from performing CPR. It will not stop a psychiatrist for treating schizophrenia. It Will not stop a surgeon from performing a heart transplant

So, the rejection of evo is not necessarily the rejection of medical sciences

Proof: the doors at loma linda are still open.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

science is not immutable. We cannot even get our theories a 100% straight. phylum problematica is a great example.

People are right to question evolution. To some, religion and creationism are constants and are immutable. Remember, there are things that medicine/science cannot explain.

Yes, these brilliant minds that think the world is 6,000 years old are reasonable ones "questioning" evolution because science is immutable.

 

[IH8ColdWeath3r]

So I went on the website and it appears the school has been built and the first class starts August 4th. Kinda scary having the word osteopathic stamped on this school.

 

[Mad Jack]

The best scientists, the ones who make some of the most amazing breakthroughs are those that keep open minds with regards to most things. Many of the people that founded our profession believed in a deity. That didn't stop them from pursuing a greater understanding of this world, health and the causes of disease (in fact in many cases it motivated them to do so).

There are many dogmatics on both sides of the aisle. Those that are certain that the world is how they have learned it, tend not to look for alternative plausible explanations. I'm not going to argue about evolution, because quite frankly I believe in it. There are just handfuls of leaps that even evolutionists argue/disagree about and their staunch support of one side versus another with equally insufficient proof, reminds me of dogmatic members of a religion that bicker between each other refusing to accept an alternate viewpoint or interpretation of their holy texts when there certainly is room for it.

Human beings are far too notorious for being certain of things, right before we discover irrefutable truth to the contrary. As far as I'm concerned we have enough of that in medicine as it is.

I'm fine with the intelligent design crowd. It's young earth creationists that think man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time and the earth is only 10k years old that concern me. You have to ignore not just a little science to do that, but like all the science. I fear people that are so quick to dismiss science in one area might just as easily do it another, resulting in physicians that are far more prone to quackery than the general physician cohort.

 

[costales]

We are now just finding out that radioactive decays are not constant. Cutting edge research suggest this, and there is a correlation, not causation, between the rate of decay and the position of the sun. Obviously, there is some underlying factor that causes these fluctuations other than the sun's relative position to us. So, since we have solid tangible evidence that the rate can fluctuate, then how can you sit there and tell me that that rate has been constant for thousands or billions of years when we have no idea what the conditions where that could have affected and skewed our assumptions and therefore results. If we cannot get something as basic as radioactive decay down, then how can we extrapolate billions of years of data?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. People working on neutrinos were very skeptical then, and they are even more skeptical now.
e.g. Search for correlations between solar flares and decay rate of radioactive nuclei
The deacay rate of three different radioactive sources ⁴⁰K, ¹³⁷Cs and ^natTh has been measured with NaI and Ge detectors. Data have been analyzed to search for possible variations in coincidence with the two strongest solar flares of the years 2011 and 2012. No significant deviations from standard expectation have been observed, with a few 10^-4 sensitivity. As a consequence, we could not find any effect like that recently reported by Jenkins and Fischbach: a few per mil decrease in the decay rate of ⁵⁴Mn during solar flares in December 2006.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0970

 

[MRSAful Fate]

Do I pass comlex and my boards? Do I complete residency? If yes, then leave my religion out of it...I'm a doctor

I would leave your religion out of it if you were going to a secular medical school. But you are going to a private religious institution which promotes extreme anti-science views based on your religion. Becoming a doctor =/= not being a crank.

 

[deleted480308]

I would leave your religion out of it if you were going to a secular medical school. But you are going to a private religious institution which promotes extreme anti-science views based on your religion. Becoming a doctor =/= not being a crank.

don't be so mean to Loma Linda, they are good people and produce good doctors

 

[MRSAful Fate]

Loma Linda doesn't teach young earth creationism in their biology and earth science courses.

 

[deleted480308]

Loma Linda doesn't teach young earth creationism in their biology and earth science courses.

but they do have an entire institute that has a goal of promoting research on creationism and refuting the concept of evolution as the origin of man...my point is that you apparently (despite colloquial SDN wisdom) can be very religious and still produce great doctors

 

[NurWollen]

.

 

[NurWollen]

Loma Linda doesn't teach young earth creationism in their biology and earth science courses.

but they do have an entire institute that has a goal of promoting research on creationism and refuting the concept of evolution as the origin of man...my point is that you apparently (despite colloquial SDN wisdom) can be very religious and still produce great doctors

Loma Linda and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in general do a lot of amazing things for the world healthcare wise.

Take a look at these blogs:

http://bereadventisthospital.blogspot.com/?m=1

http://missionarydoctors.blogspot.com/?m=1

These people could be making huge doctors salaries in the US. Instead they choose to use their skills to help provide healthcare to people in Chad, all the while subjecting themselves to malaria and leishmaniasis and who knows what else. I'm not Adventist but I have to say these people are better Christians than I'll ever be. I don't really care if they believe in evolution or not.

 

[guylewis]

Loma Linda and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in general do a lot of amazing things for the world healthcare wise.

Take a look at these blogs:

http://bereadventisthospital.blogspot.com/?m=1

http://missionarydoctors.blogspot.com/?m=1

These people could be making huge doctors salaries in the US. Instead they choose to use their skills to help provide healthcare to people in Chad, all the while subjecting themselves to malaria and leishmaniasis and who knows what else. I'm not Adventist but I have to say these people are better Christians than I'll ever be. I don't really care if they believe in evolution or not.

BUT HOW COULD YOU GO TO CHURCH ON SATURDAY!?!?!?

in all seriousness this is a good lesson in the difference between people who claim themselves christians and people who behave christ-like. I prefer a world full of christ-like people over a world full of christians

 

[ChrisGriffen]

If you cant connect the scientific dots that evolution exists, aside from tying your shoes in the morning, i have no idea how you can function in a scientific manner

 

[ChrisGriffen]

I disagree that evolution is a necessary tenet for medical students. I have seen, work, and am personal friends with tons of people who believe in creationism. They are amazing doctors who embrace most of science - just not ideals that cannot be proven or have few tangible supporting evidence for.

Its definitely not a necessary tenet directly...its just that not accepting the very basic fact of evolution is indicative of low/non-existent scientific competency.

 

[verynice]

There are creationists who know science on a deeper level than you will ever be able to comprehend. They have made scientific discoveries and inventions that mean more to the scientific community than you will ever be able to contribute.
Here's just one example: Dr. Raymond Damadian
This man is certainly not of "low / non-existent scientific competency" and for you to make such a broad and inaccurate statement, is not only disrespectful and rude, but is a testament to your ignorance and lack of perspective on applied science.

Its definitely not a necessary tenet directly...its just that not accepting the very basic fact of evolution is indicative of low/non-existent scientific competency.

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

Yea you don't need to believe in evolution to be a good scientist... That is just ridiculous. At my work there is a hardcore (we are talking preach to people in our lab) Christian who has 130+ pubs. He is an amazing biochemist.

Just the same, you don't have to be an atheist or a "soft Christian" to be a good physician.

Sent from my RM-917_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk

 

[osckey]

For all those saying that evolution and Christian belief are mutually exclusive, look into Ken Miller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

There is no reason to say that the validity in evolution would in any way impede on the integrity of God.

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

For all those saying that evolution and Christian belief are mutually exclusive, look into Ken Miller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

There is no reason to say that the validity in evolution would in any way impede on the integrity of God.

Exactly... just the same, you truly can separate your religion with your work... and this goes for scientists and physicians. Just because you take one piece of information on blind faith does not mean you take ALL pieces, thats ridiculous.

A doc could say "hey I dont trust/believe in the scientific theories of evolution, and I sure dont know about the afterlife - so I will just put both of those on faith. I would rather have faith in these things and find out later that you were wrong, rather than be wrong and (based on religion) lose everything after you die." Then you could ask that same doc about some mechanism of disease or drug reaction or whatever (something actually related to their job) and they could tell you spot on how it works and how a certain disease forms or whatever and then provide awesome care to their patients...

It is just ridiculous to say that a strong belief in religion and science cannot exist together in a person. Most people have holes in their belief both in certain facets of science and religion.