liberty medical school <facepalm>

[Starlightembers]

Never meant to imply that graduates from there are going off to major wall street firms. They aren't. The mother institution is categorized in the bottom rank of the US N&R school "Types". I forget the exact name of the group, but its basically "community colleges without the cheap community college price tag"

but the debate team, both undergrad and law level, is considered a reflection of the capability of the law graduates, regardless of the fact that the school has no name brand value. Its like George Mason repeatedly defeating highly ranked teams in the NCAA tournaments. While that alone will not impact george mason's ranking, only its performance in the actual season (and against whom its allowed to be compared/play against) will impact that.... it does reflect that potential that is brewing there when they keep schooling (pun intended) the name brand schools at a completely pointless professionally, but legit practical measure of skills.

I'm not trying to defend them, as much as play devil's advocate and extend the debate a bit.

But it doesn't reflect the hiring opportunities.

I mentioned Big Law (=firms with 1,000+ lawyers. These are the ones that actually pay six figures) as it is something many law students aspire me; however, my comment was much broader than that. Even Public Interest law cares about the school you went to. The school could be producing geniuses and it wouldn't really matter. Getting a job from that school -- any job that is not "start your own practice" -- is going to be very difficult. Those USNews rankings mean A LOT in the law world. Once you get past 20, you're in shaky territory. Not ranked at all? You're just wasting your money. As I said, their students may be geniuses. They may have an awesome debate team. It doesn't matter. Aside from starting their own practice or, maybe, a couple local jobs, they are going to get slaughtered in the law market.

I know you're playing Devil's advocate; but I am saying, in law world, they don't even have that. Their reputation is REALLY bad. Plain and simple.

(I used to be a pre-law, by the way, which is where this is coming from.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sugarrush]

This is no better, in my opinion; accepting part of what is commonly considered scientific fact is not better than accepting none of it. If I went around saying that, despite the evidence to the contrary, I believe that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun; but, that's OK, because I believe the other planets do, I would be laughed at.



This. They, in essence, deny any science that is in conflict with their belief system. The implications of that on the curriculum could be significant.



False. Though I have no idea about their law school debate team (nor is that of relevance to their reputation in the legal community), they rank so low on the USNews & World Report that it is not even published. For those not familiar with the law school world, USNews rankings is almost everything; it certainly means more than your class rank (the top student at Liberty will have significantly less -- as in, not even comparable -- opportunities than the student at the bottom of his/her class at a top 20). A Law student at liberty will never be able to get a Big Law job (most every Big Law firm does not look past the 20), will likely not get it a Summer internship and will likely be one of the many unemployed law school grads who start applying for paralegal positions. Bottom line: the school does not have a good reputation in any profession.




^ This, basically.

My concern with Liberty is that they place their beliefs above scientific evidence. As medicine is evidence based, my fear would be that they choose to omit any fact that is in conflict with their faith. As an example, how would they teach about birth control, contraceptive and abortion? Would they just refuse to teach it or, worse, would they spread false information (ex, birth control is actually ineffective, abortion causes breast cancer, etc)? What about Homosexuality? Will they teach that it is a disease and something that can be treated/made to go away? And so on and so forth. Though being a creationist may not impair your ability to be a physician, per se, not being able to accept science when it conflicts with your faith could potentially do so.

In no particular order,

The idea of MicroEvolution is nothing new. It's what I was taught, I've met plenty of PhD's and Physicians who believe it, and I've had biology professors who were perfectly willing to discuss it. One who believed it. It's not as limited a belief as you seem to be led to believe.

A belief in Creationism in NO WAY limits a physician from being a good physician. I mean, are you really postulating that a physician like Ben Carson is terrible, because he doesn't believe monkeys evolved into humans? Somehow, he is unable to hold the scalpel properly, or dose out the right medications, because he believes in God?
That doesn't match up for me. And the large large number of Right Wing Christian Physicians would probably agree with me.

They aren't a Catholic school, so I don't see them randomly developing an aversion to birth control. They might not support abortion, but then again, on my last rotation neither did any of the OB/Gyn's in either group at the hospital.

I have met many people who went to Liberty. I dated a girl who went there, one of my best friends is currently attending. The majority of them are not crazy socially-inept homeschooling Bible-thumpers. Usually, they are nice well-adjusted polite people, who want to go to school with people who think like they do. I don't really see that as a problem.

Someone already established that the money is not coming directly from a Tobacco company, they are a not for profit.

I'm not really seeing a problem here. A medical school, as a branch of a University based on the teachings of someone known as "the Great Physician". And this is bad...?


I forgot to add, they have a great reputation in training for one profession, the have a solid Seminary program. (What a surprise)

 

[bonsaipalmtree]

I don't think I have a problem with the religious affiliation of the school or whether an individual doctor believes in Creationism (I mean, look at Loma Linda, it's a great school and lots of them are likely Creationists). Rather, it's the hatred and vitriol that comes out of that institution on a pretty regular basis. Pretty much burned into my brain is when, after the World Trade Center attack, Jerry Falwell said "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

How could someone really support helping a fellow human in need- regardless of gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc- when that person is someone who signed up to belong to an institution like that, and have that kind of bigotry and hate represent them?

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

I will complete that sentence: I will not attend an Osteopathic program. I will seriously take SGU over a D.O. program if that happens. Liberty University is a mockery of education. They say we live in a young earth where people were with dinosaurs. I can't in good conscience have a degree that's associated with this.

Triage, don't rule out all schools because of that. Look at places like KCUMB, AT Still, MWU, etc, they are very good schools, and going Carib would be bad by comparison...

 

[PCPsRFutr]

I have heard many false and misinformed arguments as I've been reading through these posts. If anyone did their research on what the Tobacco Commission was, they would see that the goal is to provide opportunities to those who live in areas that are heavily involved in the tobacco industry. They fund organizations and business ventures, such as Liberty's DO school, in order to provide opportunities for people who are growing up in those environments. That is why, as part of the deal with Liberty, the Tobacco Commission is requiring a tuition discount to anyone who comes from designated geographical areas; so they will get a solid post-graduate education and, in theory, go back and bring health care to those formers underserved areas.

I have also heard a lot of talk about macroevolution and how it has to go hand in hand with medicine and how can a Christian school that doesn't teach macroevolution have a medical school. It does take faith to believe that what we see here on earth, creation that is, was created by God. However, I would definitely defend that macroevolution takes even more faith to believe in. Macroevolution is not scientific...it is somebody's best guess at what they think maybe could have happened. If someone is using arguments of faith to discredit God creating man and the universe in its entirety, I would say their argument is nullified by the amount of faith it takes for their belief in macroevolution. When I see an immaculate painting...I know it was created by an artist. Follow the logic and Design SHOUTS Designer! Students of medicine should be leading the way in the defense that the body with all of its intricate enzymatic processes, with structure following function because it was created with a purpose, with inhibitory and potentiating feedback loops, (I could go on with examples, but I need to get back to studying!)....it all points to a Creator!

 

[scotchtapetest]

I have also heard a lot of talk about macroevolution and how it has to go hand in hand with medicine and how can a Christian school that doesn't teach macroevolution have a medical school. It does take faith to believe that what we see here on earth, creation that is, was created by God. However, I would definitely defend that macroevolution takes even more faith to believe in. Macroevolution is not scientific...it is somebody's best guess at what they think maybe could have happened. If someone is using arguments of faith to discredit God creating man and the universe in its entirety, I would say their argument is nullified by the amount of faith it takes for their belief in macroevolution. When I see an immaculate painting...I know it was created by an artist. Follow the logic and Design SHOUTS Designer! Students of medicine should be leading the way in the defense that the body with all of its intricate enzymatic processes, with structure following function because it was created with a purpose, with inhibitory and potentiating feedback loops, (I could go on with examples, but I need to get back to studying!)....it all points to a Creator!

Two words that should never be used in the same post: logic and faith... Creationism is BS... end of the story. Period.

 

[deleted346323]

Two words that should never be used in the same post: logic and faith... Creationism is BS... end of the story. Period.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

I have heard many false and misinformed arguments as I've been reading through these posts. If anyone did their research on what the Tobacco Commission was, they would see that the goal is to provide opportunities to those who live in areas that are heavily involved in the tobacco industry. They fund organizations and business ventures, such as Liberty's DO school, in order to provide opportunities for people who are growing up in those environments. That is why, as part of the deal with Liberty, the Tobacco Commission is requiring a tuition discount to anyone who comes from designated geographical areas; so they will get a solid post-graduate education and, in theory, go back and bring health care to those formers underserved areas.

I have also heard a lot of talk about macroevolution and how it has to go hand in hand with medicine and how can a Christian school that doesn't teach macroevolution have a medical school. It does take faith to believe that what we see here on earth, creation that is, was created by God. However, I would definitely defend that macroevolution takes even more faith to believe in. Macroevolution is not scientific...it is somebody's best guess at what they think maybe could have happened. If someone is using arguments of faith to discredit God creating man and the universe in its entirety, I would say their argument is nullified by the amount of faith it takes for their belief in macroevolution. When I see an immaculate painting...I know it was created by an artist. Follow the logic and Design SHOUTS Designer! Students of medicine should be leading the way in the defense that the body with all of its intricate enzymatic processes, with structure following function because it was created with a purpose, with inhibitory and potentiating feedback loops, (I could go on with examples, but I need to get back to studying!)....it all points to a Creator!

please don't go on because it is evident that all of your arguments are directly from a creationism pamphlet with the "artist" crap coming straight from Kirk Cameron's mouth. It doesn't take faith to believe in evolution because science doesn't allow for faith. It is an observation based on evidence. you say it is someone's best guess? If I see a direct path of destruction through a neighborhood, I didn't need to see the tornado to know there was a tornado. The body with stab wounds is enough to know the murder took place. I don't need it directly recreated.

And yes paintings need a creator, and if two paintings could reproduce progeny that started off as a drawing and ended as a masterpiece, I would agree that your argument is valid. But they can't. Paintings aren't made of cells that can reproduce in any way.

People can believe whatever they want. My kids attend parochial schools, so the religion isn't my issue, it is the creationism. Creationism is BS as bala said and the people that support it are knowingly rejecting science.

but creationists won't change their views because they will continue to reject it. Logic doesn't apply. but these are all topics that are stupid. but the funding of tobacco in any way shape or form is no different than what we have in washington now.

 

[bonsaipalmtree]

Instead of letting this thread degenerate into a Creationism debate (there will always be creationists, and evolutionists- there are creationists who attend medical schools that aren't Liberty!).... doesn't anyone care about the school itself, and the kinds of social philosophies- philosophies that actually affect the way medicine is practiced on a daily basis, that this school and its founder espouses?

The anti-gay, anti-"anything that isn't Focus on the Family", etc. rhetoric affects clinical medicine on a daily basis. If a gay patient looking for non-judgmental care, a female patient in search of birth control, a female in search of unbiased information on her reproductive options, comes into a doctor's office... what happens when the doctor came out of Liberty?

 

[SpecterGT260]

please don't go on because it is evident that all of your arguments are directly from a creationism pamphlet with the "artist" crap coming straight from Kirk Cameron's mouth. It doesn't take faith to believe in evolution because science doesn't allow for faith. It is an observation based on evidence. you say it is someone's best guess? If I see a direct path of destruction through a neighborhood, I didn't need to see the tornado to know there was a tornado. The body with stab wounds is enough to know the murder took place. I don't need it directly recreated.

And yes paintings need a creator, and if two paintings could reproduce progeny that started off as a drawing and ended as a masterpiece, I would agree that your argument is valid. But they can't. Paintings aren't made of cells that can reproduce in any way.

People can believe whatever they want. My kids attend parochial schools, so the religion isn't my issue, it is the creationism. Creationism is BS as bala said and the people that support it are knowingly rejecting science.

but creationists won't change their views because they will continue to reject it. Logic doesn't apply. but these are all topics that are stupid. but the funding of tobacco in any way shape or form is no different than what we have in washington now.

that isnt really true. fundamentally there is no conflict between science and religion and one does not exclude the other. LITERALIST interpretations of ancient books (like what we have in that embryology qu'ran thread) leads to mutually exclusive belief systems, but those are not the only interpretations or understandings. the common belief that the two ideals are mutually exclusive was started in a metaphorical fist fight the church had with scientific progress in the dark ages because they didn't understand science and they feared it.

however insisting or even suggesting that creationism (especially literal creationism) be taught in the science classroom is just as absurd as insisting on discussing calculus in art history class, or a lecture on contemporary music influences in Physics 101. Simply inappropriate

 

[scarshapedstar]

I would rather be a garbage man than a Jerry Falwell Medical School graduate.

 

[scarshapedstar]

2) Seems a bit harsh to call Liberty a radical, right-wing school

I'm guessing you're unaware they banned the College Democrats from their campus a few years ago.

 

[eccentric jet]

The right wing religious part doesn't bother me, so long as medicine is taught appropriately. I dare say you don't need to know anything about evolution to learn how to become a physician.

While technically an understanding of evolution is not directly related to patient care, I really don't think you can rightfully call yourself a doctor of (osteopathic) medicine without subscribing to the underlying tenets of all that is biology. Basically, evolution is biology, and it is inseparable from medical education, even if you can learn how to clinically take care of people while being ignorant to where they came from. I mean, you can't expect to really understand embryology and human anatomical development without buying into evolution. And what about microbiology, cellular biology, GENETICS? Nothing makes sense when removed from the basic framework of life science.

Frankly, I don't care about people's religion, as long as they keep it to themselves. But I would hesitate to be treated by a physician who didn't "believe" in the concept of evolution (sort of like saying you don't believe in mathematics), regardless of his faith. It would call into question his dedication to the scientific method. If I wanted a spiritual healer, I'd go see a witch doctor (WD?).

I see such a relationship between an institution bent on teaching creationism while rejecting science and founding a school of medicine as incompatible. I went to a private college that, like many schools, was founded years ago as a Christian school. Our biology club designed T-shirts that had the Darwin fish (somewhat controversial take on the Jesus fish) on them, and one bible-thumping professor shot it down despite support from most of the biology department faculty. We never ended up ordering those shirts. And apparently I'm still bitter about it.

 

[eccentric jet]

When I see an immaculate painting...I know it was created by an artist. Follow the logic and Design SHOUTS Designer!

Perhaps the weakest argument for creationism I've ever heard. That is certainly not logic. And since when was anything about life immaculate? The human body itself is riddled with "design" flaws. Why does ingested food have to pass OVER our trachea to get to our esophagus? Yeah, that makes sense. Let's have our airway and food tube connected for a stretch and see how that works out. How many people have died from choking and aspiration PNA? Why is the weakest part of our abdominal wall inferior such that over time our guts tend to squeeze out from where our nuts dropped? When's the last time you saw a four-legged animal with an inguinal hernia? And what the F is my appendix doing dangling from my caecum like a useless bacteria sack, anyway? Basically nothing about the human body, biochemistry, biology, or life makes any sense when viewed outside of the lens of evolution.

(I could go on with examples, but I need to get back to studying!)....it all points to a Creator!

Please, go on. You're clearly not studying the right books, anyway.

 

[eccentric jet]

I promise this will be my last rant on evolution.

I mean, are you really postulating that a physician like Ben Carson is terrible, because he doesn't believe monkeys evolved into humans? Somehow, he is unable to hold the scalpel properly, or dose out the right medications, because he believes in God?

First, no one intelligent thinks monkeys evolved into humans. Contemporary monkeys and humans diverged along time ago from a common ancestor that was neither monkey, nor homo sapien. You seem to have a poor grasp on the basic concept of evolution.

Second, the point isn't that being religious makes someone a bad doctor, and more than likely it would make most people more adept at caring for others. But being religious and believing in creationism are two very different things. One is a matter of faith, the other is an example of pure ignorance. Rejecting evolution is rejecting biology and life on this planet as viewed from a scientific standpoint. I can't see how that is compatible with being a truly competent physician.

 

[eccentric jet]

I will complete that sentence: I will not attend an Osteopathic program. I will seriously take SGU over a D.O. program if that happens. Liberty University is a mockery of education. They say we live in a young earth where people were with dinosaurs. I can't in good conscience have a degree that's associated with this.

While I agree with your sentiment on the mockery that is Liberty University, don't let a few bad eggs spoil your omelet (especially since it's not cooked yet)! At least for me, going to an osteopathic school allowed me to get a medical degree on U.S. soil, in the city I was currently living in no less, and obtain a residency position in a relatively competitive specialty at a well-respected allopathic program at my institution of choice, in my geographical region of choice (i.e. it got me where I wanted to go). However, if you get into a powerhouse MD school or a cheaper state MD school I would advocate for those options...

 

[deleted346323]

I promise this will be my last rant on evolution.



First, no one intelligent thinks monkeys evolved into humans. Contemporary monkeys and humans diverged along time ago from a common ancestor that was neither monkey, nor homo sapien. You seem to have a poor grasp on the basic concept of evolution.

Second, the point isn't that being religious makes someone a bad doctor, and more than likely it would make most people more adept at caring for others. But being religious and believing in creationism are two very different things. One is a matter of faith, the other is an example of pure ignorance. Rejecting evolution is rejecting biology and life on this planet as viewed from a scientific standpoint. I can't see how that is compatible with being a truly competent physician.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

All religions have a 'creation story' because 2000+ years ago, the earth was flat, the sun was a god that revolved around our planet, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc were all a god's revenge on mortals, and they didn't have a clue where we came from. Not to mention that angels, unicorns, pegasuses (pegasi?), dragons, and all sorts of other mythical creatures were based on dinosaur and other fossilized bones... While I stick to my previous comments that I think there is some sort of energy that binds us all, I do not, and will not believe anything that comes out of the bible, especially the old testament. For the record, what makes the bible right versus the native american philosophy??? HMM??? Oh right, because someone else told you to believe the bible over the people whose story is 10,000 years old... uuhhhhuhhh..... I guess part of me says if you're that gullible, I don't want you as my doctor because you'd believe anything anyone told you...

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ya that isnt a wild over generalization

 

[FrkyBgStok]

however insisting or even suggesting that creationism (especially literal creationism) be taught in the science classroom is just as absurd as insisting on discussing calculus in art history class, or a lecture on contemporary music influences in Physics 101. Simply inappropriate

and this is exactly why I am OK with catholic schools. Not including the better education, the genesis story is taught in religion class while evolution is taught in science class, and there is no cross over at all.

i am all for people practicing whatever religion they want. if you want to be a fundamentalist/literalist christian, muslim, hindu, whatever, I don't care. Good for you. And you have the right to practice that religion. But as soon as you try to bring any of it into science in any way, I draw the line and will fight back (and I am obviously not speaking to you specifically, just making a broad statement).

 

[SpecterGT260]

All religions have a 'creation story' because 2000+ years ago, the earth was flat, the sun was a god that revolved around our planet, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc were all a god's revenge on mortals, and they didn't have a clue where we came from. Not to mention that angels, unicorns, pegasuses (pegasi?), dragons, and all sorts of other mythical creatures were based on dinosaur and other fossilized bones... While I stick to my previous comments that I think there is some sort of energy that binds us all, I do not, and will not believe anything that comes out of the bible, especially the old testament. For the record, what makes the bible right versus the native american philosophy??? HMM??? Oh right, because someone else told you to believe the bible over the people whose story is 10,000 years old... uuhhhhuhhh..... I guess part of me says if you're that gullible, I don't want you as my doctor because you'd believe anything anyone told you...

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

Take it for what it's worth (top of a google search and I don't want to take the time to put it through all the validity rigors...)

But basically if your statement was sincere then you may have trouble finding healthcare without quite a bit of searching. Although I really doubt you would walk out of a doctors office the moment you saw a cross necklace

 

[CopToEM]

Tl;dr but know all about this school. In regards to the Tobacco Commission, they give millions to this area and they very well should. It's like reparations for killing our people slowly.

No harm in them funding the school. They fund a LOT in Virginia.

[Edit]: Sorry, I just saw that someone had to point out the distinction between tobacco companies and tobacco commission. The tobacco commission was formed as a result of an enormous settlement as stated. They also provide a lot of scholarship money for the dependents (even down to great grandchildren) of tobacco farmers. The commission IS NOT influenced by tobacco companies... it's just money that was set aside into trust to fund betterment of the Appalachian region.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Tl;dr but know all about this school. In regards to the Tobacco Commission, they give millions to this area and they very well should. It's like reparations for killing our people slowly.

No harm in them funding the school. They fund a LOT in Virginia.

[Edit]: Sorry, I just saw that someone had to point out the distinction between tobacco companies and tobacco commission. The tobacco commission was formed as a result of an enormous settlement as stated. They also provide a lot of scholarship money for the dependents (even down to great grandchildren) of tobacco farmers. The commission IS NOT influenced by tobacco companies... it's just money that was set aside into trust to fund betterment of the Appalachian region.

http://www.tic.virginia.gov/

This? Maybe I misunderstood your use of "killing" but this looks like it is paid out to the farmers to offset loss of revenue and livelihood in the new anti tobacco climate. Not about tobacco deaths


Edit: saw your edit lol

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Any school willing to dismiss any established scientific facts because it fits an agenda is not only to be ignored, but is also ripe for ridicule.

In an era of evidence-based medicine when physicians should be trained in objective and scientific analysis of available data, having an institution that rejects the idea of speciation is as embarassing for the entirety of the profession as would be a med school that teaches that the reason drugs diffuse from areas of high concentration to low concentration is because tiny ghosts push them individually.

 

[deleted398564]

.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Hey everyone,

I'm actually a current senior at Liberty. I'm not a biology major, but I took all of the necessary prerequisites for med school so I can shed some light onto how the science classes are taught if anyone has any questions. After skimming through this thread I've seen some people post some false information about the university, and some people seem to be letting emotions and personal beliefs get in the way of making a sound judgment about the proposed medical program. Personally, I am still a little unsure what to think about the medical school as well.

How is biology taught? Do you feel that your education was provided by experts that you could trust, comparable to most schools?

On a personal note, the only personal belief I think I'm letting get in here is that we have to expect science of our medical schools. If they reject the fruits of the scientific method in some egregious way, they need to not exist, even if it doesn't have immediately apparent bearing on clinical practice.

I'd feel the same way about a school that rejected germ theory but still trained people to recognize diseases and to correctly administer the right antibiotics in proper doses.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

Ya that isnt a wild over generalization

It was meant to be...

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

Take it for what it's worth (top of a google search and I don't want to take the time to put it through all the validity rigors...)

But basically if your statement was sincere then you may have trouble finding healthcare without quite a bit of searching. Although I really doubt you would walk out of a doctors office the moment you saw a cross necklace

It isn't that I wouldn't see a physician who believes in "God" or is religious, it is that if my physician does not believe that we evolved, or that we were "created by an 'intelligent' creator" etc, I would not continue to see them. My friend/mentor (D.O.) is VERY Catholic, has been his whole life (I've known him since I was 7), he does not, however, believe that we were 'created' and knows full well that the idea is ridiculous other than in a 'spiritual' sense (as in our 'souls' were created, not our physical forms). Would I see him as my doctor, for certain, because he believes the science behind what he does, not the bible. If you believe in creation just because someone who wrote a book said you should, well... I take issue with that... there is no proof, where evolution has at least evidence to support it (like chimps and humans having 99.6% DNA homology, cells evolve in a flask etc), creation has no shred of evidence that supports it other than a story in a book written by people who could have been on drugs for all we know...


*I am using 'blah blah' to respect that fact that some people do not believe any of it, and that some people do, personally I think we know so little about the rest of the universe to say one way or the other*

 

[SpecterGT260]

i suppose that is reasonable. your initial post looked like anyone who is religious was too gullible to be a doctor, or that religious is fine but anyone who is christian is too gullible to be a doctor.

myself, as a christian, I absolutely believe in evolution. I also don't think it is at odds with the creationist story. Some old dude in a big funky hat decided that years ago - also decided he had the power to kick people out of his "jesus fan club" so I don't really think much of what he has to say carries much water (maybe holy water is easier to carry?)

I just suggest we all be a little careful before we label all religious peoples as unintelligent. a good many of them are (westboro baptists for instance.... the people damn near treat ignorance like a magic power), but if you think the only argument a theist will use is "but the BIIIIIIBLE saaayyyysssss" you're liable to get your ass handed to you by those religious people who have a healthy understanding of both the science AND of their religion (because lets face it.... a good number of christians out there propagate information through blind zeal and hearsay.... half of what you hear isnt really representative of the religion)

 

[scotchtapetest]

I absolutely believe in evolution. I also don't think it is at odds with the creationist story.

Could you expand on that?

I'm not trying to argue with you (again)... I'm really interested in hearing your rationale...

 

[SpecterGT260]

I've mentioned earlier and in other threads that I really don't think religion and science are at odds.
so... the whole rationale behind my belief and interpretation is context. we need to keep in mind who the people were that wrote the books (all of them... not just the ones that believe in santa er.... jesus....)

Have you ever tried to explain a complicated medical (or insert major here) concept to a younger brother/niece/cousin/random child? Intellectually speaking, the most intelligent people of that day had an education level of a 1st grader (shot from the hip estimate..... so dont quote me on that), and since the average person never traveled further than 20 miles from home in their entire lifetime... without the benefit of TV their grasp on the world (let alone the cosmos) is simply limited.

I mean... even us, arguably the top tier in modern education, probably don't really have a good grasp mentally on how the world is really put together.

check this and i'd like to see a show of hands of people who are mind blown
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

all of that is build up - so lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that there really is some all powerful creator out there who set up a massive Rube Goldberg contraption (remember... you're god, so u knew this guy was coming... so it's ok to still call them that), hit the cosmic lever, and everything collapsed through a series of events into what we see today. This is basically what I believe happened. I think, given the vast complexity and subsequent fragility of life - yet the surprising durability - that a "how many monkeys with typewriters" situation seems like a bit of a stretch.

Now, if you were (s)he, and you got a wild hair up your ass to flex some knowledge on your minions, how would you go about doing this? We've already established (for the sake of argument) that the processes were only (albeit omnisciently) set in motion, and now you've got this dude in a loin cloth and a big stick and he wants to know where he came from.

you explain it like you would to a child.

"Ok Abraham... so, basically I just took all of the matter in the univer... uh... what's matter? just hold on... so in the universe and... whats the universe? me dammit.... Ok your great grand dad was made out of dust... ok? can we move on? alright, so over the last 4 billion years or so... how big is a billion you say? um... crap... Well I'm certainly not going to dignify your current "harvest season" time scale and we've already introduced "dust" so why the heck not? so over 7 days....."

(several hours later)

"so how did all of these animals get to be this way? hmm.... well the concepts of eons and cell structure are out of the question here... I made them. simple as that.... I made them...."

so on and so forth....


that was (possibly) overly satirical... but the point is my belief is that advances in science have yet to really challenge the idea of a creator - only illuminate processes by which the current state of things were brought about. the fact that we see these things happen in nature doesn't really offset this. The major conflict comes from people who feel threatened in one direction or the other with the idea that the two views conflict. I cant tell you the number of times ive seen a new genetic research paper posted with some idiot exclaiming "that THAT creationists". equally as bad are the creationists who come up with these cockamamie (really surprised that was in the chrome dictionary....) ideas to rationalize away science. dino bones set here to test us... crap about how we cant trust dirt layers - stated as if simply saying so makes it true... sans evidence. ect....

people who say "its just a story to show us to live better"... I think that goes a little far. if that is the case what is the point? but to go the other way and say the world was literally made in 7 days is just stupid

 

[TriagePreMed]

While I agree with your sentiment on the mockery that is Liberty University, don't let a few bad eggs spoil your omelet (especially since it's not cooked yet)! At least for me, going to an osteopathic school allowed me to get a medical degree on U.S. soil, in the city I was currently living in no less, and obtain a residency position in a relatively competitive specialty at a well-respected allopathic program at my institution of choice, in my geographical region of choice (i.e. it got me where I wanted to go). However, if you get into a powerhouse MD school or a cheaper state MD school I would advocate for those options...

While I do agree with what you say and am a big supporter of Osteopathic education in this country, I think a line has to be drawn. It's simply unacceptable to be associated in any way with Liberty University. They are the anti-thesis of knowledge.

I hope for your sake you aren't serious

Absolutely serious.

 

[SpecterGT260]

While I do agree with what you say and am a big supporter of Osteopathic education in this country, I think a line has to be drawn. It's simply unacceptable to be associated in any way with Liberty University. They are the anti-thesis of knowledge.


Absolutely serious.

antithesis is 1 word

 

[scotchtapetest]

I've mentioned earlier and in other threads that I really don't think religion and science are at odds.
so... the whole rationale behind my belief and interpretation is context. we need to keep in mind who the people were that wrote the books (all of them... not just the ones that believe in santa er.... jesus....)

Have you ever tried to explain a complicated medical (or insert major here) concept to a younger brother/niece/cousin/random child? Intellectually speaking, the most intelligent people of that day had an education level of a 1st grader (shot from the hip estimate..... so dont quote me on that), and since the average person never traveled further than 20 miles from home in their entire lifetime... without the benefit of TV their grasp on the world (let alone the cosmos) is simply limited.

I mean... even us, arguably the top tier in modern education, probably don't really have a good grasp mentally on how the world is really put together.

check this and i'd like to see a show of hands of people who are mind blown
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

all of that is build up - so lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that there really is some all powerful creator out there who set up a massive Rube Goldberg contraption (remember... you're god, so u knew this guy was coming... so it's ok to still call them that), hit the cosmic lever, and everything collapsed through a series of events into what we see today. This is basically what I believe happened. I think, given the vast complexity and subsequent fragility of life - yet the surprising durability - that a "how many monkeys with typewriters" situation seems like a bit of a stretch.

Now, if you were (s)he, and you got a wild hair up your ass to flex some knowledge on your minions, how would you go about doing this? We've already established (for the sake of argument) that the processes were only (albeit omnisciently) set in motion, and now you've got this dude in a loin cloth and a big stick and he wants to know where he came from.

you explain it like you would to a child.

"Ok Abraham... so, basically I just took all of the matter in the univer... uh... what's matter? just hold on... so in the universe and... whats the universe? me dammit.... Ok your great grand dad was made out of dust... ok? can we move on? alright, so over the last 4 billion years or so... how big is a billion you say? um... crap... Well I'm certainly not going to dignify your current "harvest season" time scale and we've already introduced "dust" so why the heck not? so over 7 days....."

(several hours later)

"so how did all of these animals get to be this way? hmm.... well the concepts of eons and cell structure are out of the question here... I made them. simple as that.... I made them...."

so on and so forth....


that was (possibly) overly satirical... but the point is my belief is that advances in science have yet to really challenge the idea of a creator - only illuminate processes by which the current state of things were brought about. the fact that we see these things happen in nature doesn't really offset this. The major conflict comes from people who feel threatened in one direction or the other with the idea that the two views conflict. I cant tell you the number of times ive seen a new genetic research paper posted with some idiot exclaiming "that THAT creationists". equally as bad are the creationists who come up with these cockamamie (really surprised that was in the chrome dictionary....) ideas to rationalize away science. dino bones set here to test us... crap about how we cant trust dirt layers - stated as if simply saying so makes it true... sans evidence. ect....

people who say "its just a story to show us to live better"... I think that goes a little far. if that is the case what is the point? but to go the other way and say the world was literally made in 7 days is just stupid

So if I understood your post correctly, you believe in a creator and not necessarily the "creationist story" as in my mind that's a very specific story...

Very interesting post (esp. the link), even though I disagree with your premise that there had to be a creator and it is not very clear from your post how you concluded that there was a creator except the assumption based on your faith, but as always you are entitled to your opinions.

PS. You see how even we can have a civilized discussion and still disagree with each other, without insulting each other's intelligence or life choices?

 

[SpecterGT260]

oh settle down. i typically respond strongly to condescension and that aside fits the bill pretty well.

BUT...
the conclusion was based on not accepting that random chance would produce the systems we see. it basically comes down to "did we have enough monkeys with typewriters to make shakespeare?". I don't think so. I think the monkeys had help. but to be fair - it is a judgement call in the end. its the reason why this is such a hotly debated topic. Let me ask this - how many atheists (you can refer to the link i posted earlier) do you think rejected religion based on the assumption that science and religion are mutually exclusive? based on the logic of others here.... they would have simply accepted that premise because they were told to - or because it is the commonly held belief. if the common belief did not force someone to choose one or the other, do you think atheism would be as high among the educated?

 

[scotchtapetest]

oh settle down. i typically respond strongly to condescension and that aside fits the bill pretty well.

BUT...
the conclusion was based on not accepting that random chance would produce the systems we see. it basically comes down to "did we have enough monkeys with typewriters to make shakespeare?". I don't think so. I think the monkeys had help. but to be fair - it is a judgement call in the end. its the reason why this is such a hotly debated topic. Let me ask this - how many atheists (you can refer to the link i posted earlier) do you think rejected religion based on the assumption that science and religion are mutually exclusive? based on the logic of others here.... they would have simply accepted that premise because they were told to - or because it is the commonly held belief. if the common belief did not force someone to choose one or the other, do you think atheism would be as high among the educated?

The two are mutually exclusive because you can never disprove religion which is the basis of scientific method. So let me ask you this... Is there anyway that I can prove to you that you are wrong about existence of God(s)? Or even better, do you have any solid explanation why there had to be creator(s)? Except that "well I don't have any better explanation about how the universe came into existence"?

The difference between science and religion is that science has no problem with admitting that there are things that we know nothing about (e.g. start of the universe) as opposed to religion which has to have an answer for everything regardless of how absurd that answer may be...

Although I believe evolution is the prevailing scientific theory and works fairly well given our current scientific understanding, I am open to the idea that tomorrow some other a**hole might come along with a better SCIENTIFIC theory and totally prove evolution wrong... That's how science works...

Now are there very religious physician who are great physicians? Yes; Do all physicians have to be atheists to be good physicians? No; Should creationism be taught in medical school? Absolutely not (unless it is in a class that is in addition to the standard curriculum of the medical school); Should a medical school be allowed to ban teaching of evolution or whatever else that is the prevailing theory in the scientific community? absolutely not.

 

[SpecterGT260]

possibly. a coherent beginning to end set of laws and principles that can be proven to have occurred completely simultaneously (p<.05 ) would be awful hard to argue with. but we are quite a ways from that - especially as we go further and further back. when you cut out all the bullsh*t, basically you have faith that the gaps in our understanding will be filled with explanations supporting spontaneity and I have faith that such assumptions will fall short of an explanation.

I disagree that you cannot disprove religion. you most certainly can. but science, thus far, has been disproving straw men.... mostly because the religious dont even really know what they are talking about either.

 

[scarshapedstar]

possibly. a coherent beginning to end set of laws and principles that can be proven to have occurred completely simultaneously (p<.05 ) would be awful hard to argue with. but we are quite a ways from that - especially as we go further and further back. when you cut out all the bullsh*t, basically you have faith that the gaps in our understanding will be filled with explanations supporting spontaneity and I have faith that such assumptions will fall short of an explanation.

I disagree that you cannot disprove religion. you most certainly can. but science, thus far, has been disproving straw men.... mostly because the religious dont even really know what they are talking about either.

You have to admit, though, that religion constantly shifts the goalposts. That's all apologists ever do. When science proves evolution, they say that the Bible says - whoops, I, mean, they say that learned Biblical scholars with lots of letters after their names say - that what God really meant to say in Genesis was that He created evolution, and that only naive Christians have ever argued otherwise. All you're really saying is that you believe in the God of the Gaps and that you think there will always be a gap wide enough to wedge him in. That's just belief for the sake of belief.

I do, however, think you're right that someone will always be able to make up gaps for him; in fact, I've heard creationists respond to "missing link" fossils by triumphantly declaring that now there are two gaps for science to explain instead of just one so God wins no matter what!

I'm interested to hear exactly who you count among the erudite theologians who can hand any skeptics their asses, btw.

 

[SpecterGT260]

lol I readily admit that the predominant spokespeople for most religions do this on a regular basis. These are people who fear science or any notion that undermines their beliefs. embarrassed backtracking is pretty transparent. on the other hand, you are wrong be critical of someone you see as close-minded for doing something that is technically broadening their view. if your opinion is "damned if you do, damned if you dont" then you are just as guilty as you claimed them to be. any "my way or the highway" attitude is nothing but arrogant when there are still questions to be answered.

and I would say that anyone who is both a scientist and religious can pretty readily hand the average atheist their asses in this debate. the token atheist argument is to attack using science, and USUALLY there is a very ready supply of hillbillies waiting to take the bait. if the two beliefs are reconciled then it basically becomes a pillow fight.

you're welcome to use perceived biblical contradictions and whatever science you deem necessary to test this

 

[FrkyBgStok]

lol I readily admit that the predominant spokespeople for most religions do this on a regular basis. These are people who fear science or any notion that undermines their beliefs. embarrassed backtracking is pretty transparent. on the other hand, you are wrong be critical of someone you see as close-minded for doing something that is technically broadening their view. if your opinion is "damned if you do, damned if you dont" then you are just as guilty as you claimed them to be. any "my way or the highway" attitude is nothing but arrogant when there are still questions to be answered.

and I would say that anyone who is both a scientist and religious can pretty readily hand the average atheist their asses in this debate. the token atheist argument is to attack using science, and USUALLY there is a very ready supply of hillbillies waiting to take the bait. if the two beliefs are reconciled then it basically becomes a pillow fight.

you're welcome to use perceived biblical contradictions and whatever science you deem necessary to test this

the problem is that you are arguing science and religion with a bunch of scientists. i have studied the science, I have studied the religion. I know all the arguments against religion and why it makes no sense for me to believe what I do. I admit that. So when people ask why i can own it.

but the majority aren't scientists. the majority haven't the slightest idea. my family is very religious, but the stupid kind of religious. My sister calls me a satanist for believing in evolution. When i explain what it is and how the literal interpretation of many parts of the bible is wrong, she responds with, and I quote, "I am glad I don't have to question what the preacher tells me. I can just accept it and move on." This is the majority we deal with.

expanding from the family, I can't count the number of people I encounter that are appalled that I believe in evolution. they tell me they will pray for my soul. I know black people that bitch about racism or discrimination and then update their facebook status with "We should separate gays because they are filthy."

if we were talking about people owning their religion, it wouldn't be a problem. I want to believe their is more out there. I want to believe i will see my grandfather again. I want to believe all of my questions will one day get answered. whatever someones reason is, they need to be able to own it.

what my concern is that we have the powerful spokepeople backtracking as you mentioned, but then we have the sheep, going forward, unwavering. They believe anything they are told. the believe that doubting using logic or reason is blasphemous so instead they argue. most of the backtracking isn't "expanding their view." It is "if we don't change, people are going to realize that this makes us looks like fools."

these people are the reason i fight for freedom from religion, because they are the ones behind the actions in moving their political agenda forward so hard. they are the reason we have supreme court cases outlawing the change of science text books or prohibiting kansas schools from forcing creation into science. it's the sheep i am worried about.

 

[SpecterGT260]

the problem is that you are arguing science and religion with a bunch of scientists. i have studied the science, I have studied the religion. I know all the arguments against religion and why it makes no sense for me to believe what I do. I admit that. So when people ask why i can own it.

but the majority aren't scientists. the majority haven't the slightest idea. my family is very religious, but the stupid kind of religious. My sister calls me a satanist for believing in evolution. When i explain what it is and how the literal interpretation of many parts of the bible is wrong, she responds with, and I quote, "I am glad I don't have to question what the preacher tells me. I can just accept it and move on." This is the majority we deal with.

expanding from the family, I can't count the number of people I encounter that are appalled that I believe in evolution. they tell me they will pray for my soul. I know black people that bitch about racism or discrimination and then update their facebook status with "We should separate gays because they are filthy."

if we were talking about people owning their religion, it wouldn't be a problem. I want to believe their is more out there. I want to believe i will see my grandfather again. I want to believe all of my questions will one day get answered. whatever someones reason is, they need to be able to own it.

what my concern is that we have the powerful spokepeople backtracking as you mentioned, but then we have the sheep, going forward, unwavering. They believe anything they are told. the believe that doubting using logic or reason is blasphemous so instead they argue. most of the backtracking isn't "expanding their view." It is "if we don't change, people are going to realize that this makes us looks like fools."

these people are the reason i fight for freedom from religion, because they are the ones behind the actions in moving their political agenda forward so hard. they are the reason we have supreme court cases outlawing the change of science text books or prohibiting kansas schools from forcing creation into science. it's the sheep i am worried about.

yes, i am aware of all of this lol.
I don't think arguing with a bunch of scientists is a problem. I am a scientist myself. The only notion I am trying to take off of the table is that religion is a symptom of ignorance. There is a HIGH correlation.... but it isnt causative, and some of the comments that were happening in here to that effect were every bit as ignorant and foolhardy as the ones spewed by the ultra religious right. I have a very sensitive hypocro-meter....

 

[deleted398564]

.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Yes, I do. We don't have Kent Hovind or Pat Robertson teaching our science classes. The professors I've had are very competent and hold degrees from reputable schools. (Liberty's biology faculty page list their degrees and which institutions they received them from) Are these people the best in their field or doing cutting edge, world renowned research? No, but you would see the same thing if you looked at most 40 year old liberal arts university.

I really think people are holding poor misconceptions about what is being taught at Liberty, and what the practical implications of denying evolution are. We learn the same things a science student would at any other university. Obviously, being at a different university there will always be slight differences between schools, but we use similar textbooks, go over the same content, etc. Otherwise, we would not be accredited. Also, in your average science class the specific topic of evolution comes up very little. (You do not need to believe in evolution to understand the Kreb's cycle or electromagnetism...) Processes are processes, anatomy is anatomy, chemistry is chemistry, and each field of science is subject to certain rules and principles that can be understood and applied regardless of your individual beliefs or presuppositions.

Some people on this thread creationism as the bastardizing of the scientific method, and conclude that an education at Liberty is worthless. I disagree. It seems weird when you think about it, but the scientific method itself is not purely objective or scientific. You can hypothesize and experiment all you want, but at the end of the process someone is interpreting what they see. The individual's biases and presuppositions typically are not an issue when it comes to most fields of science, but I think the topic of evolution itself by its very nature involves inferences and individuals' assumptions. (germ theory, which you brought up, is a theory that is observable now in its entirety so the room for subjectivity to seep in is very little) I will not get into evolution itself, because I hate those kinds of fruitless debates on SDN. However, at the end of the day Liberty has intelligent students, with competent professors, learning the same material you are, who make excellent professionals in the workplace, and who I think would make great doctors. Ultimately, the only objections towards an LU medical school that I would entertain would be based on principle, but have no validity when it comes to actual practice. (which is what ultimately matters)

There is much more I could say to explain why I believe what I believe, but I don't want to make this any longer than it is and it would be a little off topic to this thread. I just wish people looked at Liberty more objectively and were not acting so petty and in many ways ignorant. We are not redneck, creationist loons simply covering our ears yelling, "Evolution is false, Jesus says to believe in Genesis."

The moment your professors believe in young earth creationism, I don't care if they went to Harvard. Your university is a mockery, and if you haven't understood that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution, it shows clearly how poor the education is. A well trained parrot can tell me glycolysis, but it takes much more than that to understand it. You can't claim that evolution is of little importance to topics because you haven't received a proper education. For goodness' sake, your school has Creation Studies classes and a Center for Creation studies, so when you say you aren't redneck, creationist loons, I approach that with great skepticism .

 

[CopToEM]

so when you say you aren't redneck, creationist loons, I approach that with great skepticism.

I'm sorry to say that you have a lot of growing up to do before anyone is going to take your side of things seriously. If you're to succeed in the medical field you have to understand you are going to cross the path of many people with different beliefs. The most sacred of those, for most, is their religious beliefs.

If someone at Liberty believes in young earth creationism then that is their own decision to make. Who are you to belittle their religion by calling them a loon? Further, to blanket an entire campus with a statement like that is ridiculous.

I don't believe in young earth creationism. However, I have enough respect for individuals who do to realize that's their own personal choice and I have no grounds upon which to call them out on it.

Sorry for calling you out. However, it needed to be said.

 

[scotchtapetest]

I'm sorry to say that you have a lot of growing up to do before anyone is going to take your side of things seriously. If you're to succeed in the medical field you have to understand you are going to cross the path of many people with different beliefs. The most sacred of those, for most, is their religious beliefs.

If someone at Liberty believes in young earth creationism then that is their own decision to make. Who are you to belittle their religion by calling them a loon? Further, to blanket an entire campus with a statement like that is ridiculous.

I don't believe in young earth creationism. However, I have enough respect for individuals who do to realize that's their own personal choice and I have no grounds upon which to call them out on it.

Sorry for calling you out. However, it needed to be said.

This thread is not about personal beliefs; People at Liberty can believe in whatever they want (none of us care)... However, when they talk about starting a medical school then they can't just use the religion card to avoid teaching real science to medical students regardless of what their beliefs are (IMHO)

 

[deleted398564]

.

 

[deleted398564]

.

 

[eccentric jet]

However, it is understood that the institution and professors do not endorse the theory of evolution.

So it is taught with the understanding that the person "teaching" it does not actually believe what he/she is saying? I guess I am having trouble following this.

You stated in your earlier post that evolution does not come up that often in your average science class. I am inclined to think that it doesn't come up that often in your average science class taught by someone who doesn't "endorse" the theory. I was a biology/vertebrate zoology major who took most of the offered biology courses at my undergraduate institution, in addition to the other pre-med requirements. Not only is a very large portion of all biological science courses dedicated specifically to evolution, but absolutely none of the subdisciplines (anatomy, biochemistry, genetics) make any sense when taught/learned out of context.

While I am hesitant to side with Triage given his rather abrasive and inflammatory tone, your description of the biological education at this school did nothing to to ease my skepticism.

 

[normtheniner]

How is biology taught? Do you feel that your education was provided by experts that you could trust, comparable to most schools?

On a personal note, the only personal belief I think I'm letting get in here is that we have to expect science of our medical schools. If they reject the fruits of the scientific method in some egregious way, they need to not exist, even if it doesn't have immediately apparent bearing on clinical practice.

I'd feel the same way about a school that rejected germ theory but still trained people to recognize diseases and to correctly administer the right antibiotics in proper doses.

I know someone who went there and did a biochem tract taught out of their bio department. They learned essentially the same thing I learned at my public university in my biology classes. Its sort of frustrating to see people with the idea that they basically hand science degrees out while not teaching mainstream science... I think they still have to teach what every other school teaches in a biology/chemistry/biochem course... otherwise their students wouldn't be qualified or prepared for whatever science based field they choose to go into.

Also... some of the disgust for creationism people are showing is a little scary. Not because they reject it, but because they can't accept that some people hold this view. You're going to have patients who hold this opinion, and it may affect the decisions they make about their healthcare...

 

[scarshapedstar]

You're going to have patients who hold this opinion, and it may affect the decisions they make about their healthcare...

'I'm putting you on this antibiotic because those bacteria have evolved a resistance to penicillin...'

'LIAR! I'm going to Dr. Falwell for a second opinion!'

 

[eccentric jet]

Also... some of the disgust for creationism people are showing is a little scary.

It's not disgust for creationism per se. As people keep reiterating, this is not about beliefs, and it seems to me that most posters feel that everyone is entitled to subscribe to the faith (or lack thereof) of their choosing.

The point is that creationism should never be mentioned in the same sentence with words like science or biology. Things only get scary when fairy tales get proposed as viable alternatives to evidenced based theories. This is not a religious forum, and the proposed institution is not going to be handing out degrees in religious philosophy. Medicine is a biological science, and creationism is not a biological concept.