Is There a Doctor in the House?
| May 4, 2006 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Thanks to Uncommon Descent subscriber Mats for the heads up.
Tell all the doctors you know!
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.
Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in America and other countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution. Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and teachers have been censored and even removed from their positions for facilitating open discussion of the empirical problems of the dominant theory. In fact, one scientist who simply followed procedures in allowing a controversial article to be peer-reviewed and then published in the journal he edited, was publicly vilified and relentlessly persecuted.[1]
As academia has suppressed freedom of speech in this area, another avenue needs to be available to promote accurate knowledge and the free exchange of ideas concerning the debate over Darwinism and alternative theories on origins. To accomplish that goal, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) has been established. PSSI is a means for physicians and surgeons to be counted among those skeptical of nature-driven Darwinian macroevolution. PSSI members agree to a “Physicians and Surgeons’ Statement of Dissent†which states “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.†This statement is similar to that signed by over 500 scientists worldwide and posted by Discovery Institute at the web site www.dissentfromdarwin.org.
Allowing physicians and surgeons to speak on this subject with a united voice in significant numbers is one of the best ways to let the scientific facts be known, and to dispel falsehoods, innuendoes, fantasies, and distortions that recently have been flooding the media.
Any person with an M.D., D. O., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M. or equivalent may become a member of PSSI. There is no cost to become a member, and agnostics or members of any religious faith are welcome. Information provided to PSSI by its members beyond their name, medical specialty and city of residence will be kept strictly confidential. To join PSSI, click here and complete the simple application. You will be notified via e-mail of your inclusion on the members’ list.
Each new member will be provided, at no cost, a copy of the superb video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life [2] (UMOL). UMOL has been shown nationally in the United States by the Public Broadcasting System and is being translated into numerous languages, many of which are completed, including Bulgarian, Burmese, Cantonese, Catalan, Czech, Japanese, Khmer, Mandarin, Spanish and Russian.
PSSI will be involved in activities and events to educate the public on this critical subject. These include the distribution of the UMOL DVD to high school and college students, teachers and professors, and sponsoring educational conferences, seminars and debates in the United States and internationally.
As PSSI International, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, contributions by PSSI members to the cost of the DVD distribution or other activities and events will be tax deductible. Our goal is to hold these educational events with a minimal admission fee, or no admission fee at all, to maximize attendance.
41 Responses to Is There a Doctor in the House?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Check out Phillip Johnson’s comments on the tactics used to repress dissent against Darwinism in the academic community in this interview at the University of California TV Web site (http://www.uctv.tv/library-hum.....snumber=28):
http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/r.....iOnDarw.rm
This will not be popular statement, even among the darwinian crowd, but here it is… I am unclear as to how physicians speak with any authority on the matter of evolution. They’re specialized diagnosticians for *human* physiology. I’d give more weight to the opinions of veterinarians. Better still, animal physiologists. For someone to be able to weigh in meaningfully on evolution–and here I mean if they seek to draw authority from their occupation (i.e. not just as an informed individual)–they’d need to be involved with the biology/physiology of *many* species, not have a narrow specialization in the human body and its discontents. Sure, physicians have a tendency to be brighter than the average bear, but you’d probably find smarter folks in investment banking that have just as much relevance to evolution as medical doctors. And yes, physicians have an appreciation for the *complexity* of the human organism, for its associated mechanics, and for all the ways it can break down… But what aspect of their training or daily activities gives them authority concerning how/why such complexity arose, the *plausibility* of darwinian evolution generating that complexity, or, most importantly, the existence and validity of empirical evidence for darwinian evolution? They can speak as informed citizens on the matter. No more, no less. As for their being physicians, it would seem irrelevant to me. Perhaps a physician among you would like to explain how it is otherwise? As it stands, it strikes me as a ploy to leverage the general public’s admiration of medical doctors, and the misconception that they are scientists. While there are good physician-scientists, they’re rare. In general, there’s far more in common between a mechanic and a medical doctor than a medical doctor and a practicing scientist. That’s not to disparage mechanics. It’s just that I don’t expect a big movement to organize mechanics against darwinism. Of course, I could be wrong… Please let me know if such an organization should arise; I know some folks who’d be interested.
Many people as they grow older never stop learning and they never slow down. They just don’t do it in a classroom. You’ve been studying science for what, I bet I’m being very generous if I guessed 10 years. Imagine how much more you’ll know when you’ve been studying it for 40 years and broaden your horizons beyond what you had to learn to get a degree in your major. DNA contains a digital program code that specifies tens of thousands of component parts, controls a ribosome machine that reads the instructions and builds the parts to specification, to construct and regulate machine as complex as a human body including a human brain. To even have a good grasp of the complexity of this mechanism requires knowledge of human anatomy and physiology, cell biology, and most of all engineering, computers, and robotics. I’ve studied all these for decades. Have you? -ds
” I am unclear as to how physicians speak with any authority on the matter of evolution.”
In the Philip Johnson interview referenced by GilDodgen Johnson addresses the propriety of a lawyer dealing with Darwinism. Johnson points out that Charles Darwin’s formal training was in (ta-dum!) medicine and theology.
I had the honor to meet some of the people who got this list for doctors going. The point is not that doctors are acclaimed scientists but that the journey to being a doctor includes many tough science courses (in the area of biology and chemistry, etc) and a lot of rigorus training in the sciences as well.
For example, I have friends at the university I attend that are biology or chemistry majors for the sake of being researchers and I have friends that are biology or chemistry majors for the sake of being doctors. Both take the same classes (even at the graduate level, many take the same clases).
Doctors go through much scientific training, so their opinions such count as well.
This is old news, but the results of a poll were released about a year ago which appears to suggest that around 60% of U.S. physicians believe in some sort of intelligent involvement in the origin of humans. (Go here.)
Just as with the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, there will probably be a substantial number who will be hesitant to sign for fear that it will adversely affect their practice. My dad is an M.D. who has doubts about Darwin. When I suggested that he become a member, he expressed that very concern.
ds, I have not studied all these subjects for decades. About a decade is the most I can rightfully claim. And that only for a portion of the topics you listed. It has been a very interesting decade, though. I’ve been fortunate enough to have been in the right places at the right times, and I’ve seen and analyzed a lot of data concerning the darwinian matter. You must trust me when I say I’ve accomplished a fair amount for my tender age. (Note, for instance, my cultivation of the virtue of humility.) In the process I’ve seen enough evidence that, barring direct angelic revelation, evolution by “common descent” is no longer open for debate in my mind. Anyone making statements denying descent with modification I consider a) in dire need of additional information b)disingenous b/c of ulterior motives or c)most forgivably, locked into that position because of fundamental religious beliefs. At least in the case of these people, they are being logical given their accepted axioms.
As for the origin of ribosomes, first cells, etc; these are a different question entirely. Concerning these, as well as certain aspects of the biocomplexity issue, I remain open to alternatives. My criteria for adopting any such alternative are demanding, though.
As for our capacity to continue learning outside the classroom as we get older, I could not agree with you more. I can only hope that my enthusiasm holds, and that my interests remain as broad as yours over the years. Ideally the same would apply to all of us. I still stand firmly by my assertion that medical doctors, in virtue of their being medical doctors, have no particular authority on the matter of evolution. Certainly some will be learned scholars who, having studied additional topics, will weigh in on the matter of evolution. Their authority is derived from their additional scholarship. But, as a group, I am simply claiming they derive no authority as a consequence of their medical profession. The act of physicians organizing in this fashion, under this public statement, implies that they possess an inherent authority concerning evolution that is derived from their medical profession. I hold that to be false and, ultimately, misleading for the general public. As such, this public campaign is morally questionable in a way that “scientists who dissent from darwinism” was not.
What about to organize some sort of non-public list of scientists who, although dissentintg from darwinism, are actually reluctant (possibly just for privacy reasons) to appear worldwide (a sort of silent majority)?
“I am unclear as to how physicians speak with any authority on the matter of evolution.” – great ape
Evolution intersects with paleontology, geology, biology, mathematics, chemistry, information science, philosophy and a host of other disciplines. So it seems unfair to claim that only one class of experts has authority on the subject.
Indeed, Phillip Johnson notes in one of the video links above, that evolution is a generalist project that has always been presented as understandable to the general public by the likes of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and lots of others.
A response to Great-Ape:
Not to jump on the monkey bashing bandwagon here but I’m afraid you’re quite frightfully mistaken. I can see the logic you’ve followed to reach your conclusion however it’s quite flawed. You see you’ve fallen into the trap of over-simplification, one could quite easliy say certain ‘biologists’ are not scientists (if some of the more recent claim are anythng to go by)….Furthermore to imply that animal physiologists would be more qualified for comment(Are not Doctors just that in your books – as humans are afterall only animals, albeit one type of animal??) is completely reductionist, merely comparing typical similarites in morphology does NOT automatically qualify as good science.
Understanding, diagnosing and treating the sheer complexity of the human physiology is more than a glorified mechanic. I do not have time to go into detail here but if you’d like a personal response from an ophthalmologist, anesthetist, surgeon general and a practising medical scientist as to their objections – I can arrange.
The crux of the problem is that Biologists claim SUPREME knowledge over all other branches of science – even when those branches can say with complete certainty that the laws of their scientific expertise are being utterly violated when subjected to a theory from another class of science altogether. Physics, Chemistry, Cosmology, Geology, Mathematics, Information science, Engineering all attest to utter failure when forced to play ball with Darwinism. Darwinism is the ugly kid in the playground that the ‘teachers’ are forcing the good looking kids to play with. Darwinism is the cripple made captain of the football team by a senile coach. (NO offence to disabled people – illustraion purposes only). The REAL problem is that certain biologists are too stubborn to look at the untampered evidence. Every judgement is made with an a-priori decision. Anyone claiming Darwinism is a unifying theory (and there have been many) should hand back their degree.
Also you claimed to know some folks who’d be interested in an organization “mechanics against darwinism” if it existed; fantastic! even the laymen to science you know recognise a BAD theory when they see one. I’m sure I could rope up some farmers too!!
Isn’t it amazing how many high-ranking darwinists were enthusiatic about some clergy sticking their signature on a darwinist manifesto, yet reject the professional expertise of applied science when it insists “I do not see nature doing what you claim.” I had thought that, according to Neo-D, clergy are the most ignorant and self-deceiving of all (I would assert that even the most ‘religion-friendly’ D’s believe this – the logic of their paradigm requires it). Ah, how attractive the person you had rejected becomes when the good-looking ones have told you to get lost!
There’s a heckuva good point! -ds
Do you guys have contact information for future heads up?
Russ makes a key point in comment #5. In the interview I linked in comment #1 Phillip Johnson is asked what he brings to Darwinian theory as a professor of law. Johnson is an expert in the logic of argumentation, and as such offers scrutiny of the rhetorical, logical, and apologetic devices used by advocates of blind-watchmaker Darwinism. Johnson is, after all, an advocate by training and experience, and he knows all the tricks that are used to manipulate people and pull the wool over their eyes in making a case.
Darwinian theory makes such sweeping and grandiose claims that it should withstand scrutiny by those with specialties in all the fields with which it intersects. Its claims should be able to survive challenges from chemists, software engineers, professors of law, and yes, mechanics, who know how machines work and what it takes to fix them when they break.
DaveScot wrote:
DNA contains a digital program code that specifies tens of thousands of component parts, controls a ribosome machine that reads the instructions and builds the parts to specification..
What is most frustrating to me (actually burns me up, I guess) is that if I mention anything like this on an evolution blog, and imply design, the responses I get range from telling me I’m pathetically under-educated (at BEST) to my suggestions being “THE STUPIDEST” comments ever written on any blog in the world. Then I ask: and is this the response you’ll also give my children when they ask such questions in school? Can you imagine how intimidated a child would feel after getting this range of responses to their first question to a teacher? Can’t these folks at least give the respect to imply the questions aren’t based on utter ignorance?
It gets worse. The DNA molecule also contains the template for the ribosome. The ribosome is made up of RNA and 70 different proteins. But a ribosome is required to produce proteins. And DNA is required to specify the proteins. It’s the mother of all chicken/egg paradoxes! They don’t tell kids that in 9th grade biology. Too difficult to understand? Hardly. Impossilble to explain? You bet! -ds
Lately I have seen the evolutionists claiming that evolutionary theory is responsible for all scientific developments. They quickly point to cures for cancer. If a list of physicians disagreeing with evolution will do anything, it will dispell this propoganda.
However, more importantly, physicians have doctor’s degrees. By definition they are reasonably intelligent and well schooled. However, they are the doctorates that are the most accessible to the masses. If doctors publicly state that they don’t believe that evolution has been proved, it allows those uf us with less education to feel more comfortable with our view. (When you get to talking with educated people, they often leave you feeling like a stupid little worm. When there’s some big boys on your side of the field, the field feels a lot less intimidating.)
I’ll be signing it in 3 years. Thanks for bringing it to attention.
If I may bash the monkey once more…
Here’s an excerpt from the Clergy Letter Project, touted by Eugenie Scott & Friends over at the NCSEweb.org website:
“…We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others†is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children…”
http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc.....1_2006.asp
If the NSCE thinks these clergymen are in a position to vouche for the validity of Evolutionary Theory, maybe you’re being hasty to disqualify Doctors of Medicine.
Don’t forget that lots of the science that we med students learn during our first two years is just straight up basic science (albeit w/ a clinical emphasis). If there is any profession that can critique the evolutionists claim of lower primates’ anatomy, physiology, etc. making a transition into the humans of today it would be doctors.
We are in the business of fixing random mutationd and environmental pressure. lol
Russ: “If the NSCE thinks these clergymen are in a position to vouche for the validity of Evolutionary Theory, maybe you’re being hasty to disqualify Doctors of Medicine”
How do I get on the pay roll?? I mean what are they paying these ‘clergy’ to sign up? Did they study to get their theological degrees at the Darwinian School of Divinity?? Not too digress too far from the topic but I really think the NSCE is frantically clutching at straws trying to swell grassroots support from wherever possible. Next they’ll be getting pre-schoolers to sign petitions in support of evolution. They’re beginning to panic and with good reason. The end is nigh….
->”…We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth,one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”
Yes, you believe, and you guys finally admitted that it is a belief system not a fact. Ever heard physicists making such claims as “We believe that speed of light is 300.000km/s”?
They don’t believe that speed of light is 300.000km/s because they *KNOW* it is so. You have doubt? Go out and arrange a test and measure if for yourself. If you end it up with a different result other than 300.000km/s feel free to report us.
But you can’t do the same with darwinism. What kind of scientific experiment can be done to falsify/prove Darwinian mechanism? If Darwinism is a foundational scientific truth then we no longer should call it a theory.
->”To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others†is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance”
No! Not at all. It is simply to reject non-scientific crap.
->”and transmit such ignorance to our children…”
Let’s transmit our kids silly extrapolations such as self-organization of genetic code is a natural process similar to formation of crystals and snowflakes.
Note: Dave, do us a favour and give us a list of bbcodes we can use here. (and why don’t we have a preview button?)
I think that more lists like this should be started – one for each prossesion with a link to science, eventually it will reach a critical mass….
“No! Not at all. It is simply to reject non-scientific crap.”
LucID stands up and applaudes Farshad, Bravo!
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b082.htm
Here’s a(n) MD who gives his opinion of RM/NS.
If we are dreaming about comment options, I’d love an “edit” feature.
But that’s only because I am infinitely careless.
“The DNA molecule also contains the template for the ribosome. The ribosome is made up of RNA and 70 different proteins. But a ribosome is required to produce proteins. And DNA is required to specify the proteins. It’s the mother of all chicken/egg paradoxes! They don’t tell kids that in 9th grade biology. Too difficult to understand? Hardly. Impossible to explain? You bet! -ds”
This is what Darwinists fear, evidence and logic, so these two foundational precepts of science must be repressed at all cost when it comes to origins. Religiously committed blind-watchmaker Darwinists are in a transparent state of panic, because logic and evidence contradict their creation story, which is foundational to their nihilistic faith.
[troll]
“Religiously committed blind-watchmaker Darwinists are in a transparent state of panic, because logic and evidence contradict their creation story, which is foundational to their nihilistic faith.”
In other words, ID has nothing to do with religion.
Thank you for playing.
Of course, my comment won’t be approved, but who cares? Next court case that comes up … approved comments at UD will be entered into the record, and will support the truism that ID = Biblical Creationism.
I LOVE IT SO!
Great Ape: you said The act of physicians organizing in this fashion, under this public statement, implies that they possess an inherent authority concerning evolution that is derived from their medical profession. I hold that to be false and, ultimately, misleading for the general public. As such, this public campaign is morally questionable
I take that to mean that you believe that unless you study an issue in an approved fashion it may be immoral to comment on it. Now, these doctors are not endorsing anything, merely expressing skepticism.
It can be fairly taken that you believe that anybody expressing skepticism of what you believe is immoral. Frankly, that’s horrifying.
Further, why do you blame these doctors — who as it has been pointed have training in biology, chemistry etc. — for failing to understand this “truth” you seem to be unable to reveal to them? Wouldn’t the fault be with you and your failure to communicate?
I think that it is only matter of time until Darwinists make a “Project Steve” opposing this list. They better find a new name, like “Project John, M.D.”, or “Project Philip,D.O.”, and then tell the world what everyone already knows.
Giving that a poll once showed that 60% of Medical Doctors are skeptical of Darwinism, in this case, maybe it won’t be so easy to start a new “Project Steve”-like list.
“I take that to mean that you believe that unless you study an issue in an approved fashion it may be immoral to comment on it.” –tribune7
While it is tempting to take your statement to mean that you have not taken the time to read my position, I will attempt to clarify my statements once more. (Lest you continue in your unfortunate state of horror.) What I find to be MORALLY SUSPECT is the leveraging of an ‘illusory authority’ on the subject of evolution–VIS-A-VIS BEING PHYSICIANS–to coax the public into weighing their opinions on evolution more seriously than they would some other groups statement concerning evolution (since the general public has reverance for their doctors).
Personally, as can be intimated from my postings, I hold little reverance for MDs as scientists. I wade through a sea of them on a daily basis. While there are certainly some I hold in high esteem, *in general* their grasp of scientific method, statistics, etc, is woefully lacking–as has been evidenced to me from attending numerous seminars at multiple institutions. Biochemists, geneticists, and cellular biologists in the audience generally have to restrain themselves from being too critical. They’re MDs, after all, and practicing science is not what they’re trained for. This is why I find it particularly amusing–and also deeply troubling at the same time–that they would organize to make a statement, as a group, on the scientific validity of evolution. The operative phrases in my position are “as a group” and “as physicians”. I have no problem with them individually weighing in on the subject. And just in case it isn’t abolutely clear to all, I would by no means advocate *stopping* them from weighing in as a group on evolution; I will, however, describe this activity as I see it: a ploy preying on the public’s reverance for their doctors. You are all free to bash the monkey with impunity, but no one has persuaded me to abandon my position.
“I will, however, describe this activity as I see it: a ploy preying on the public’s reverance for their doctors.” – great_ape
A) I take it then that you would also object to the Clergy Letter for the same reason. Please answer.
B) I’m pretty sure that most people realize their podiatrist and the guy who did their last root canal are not doing, and have never done research in the area of evolution and human origins (and it’s probably safe to say that the public knows that Darwinian evolution has little practical value in their respective specialties). But there’s nothing wrong with asking the opinion of someone who’s a couple of steps closer to an issue (biology) than oneself, and there’s nothing wrong with that person volunteering an unsolicited opinion in public (i.e. the Dissent from Darwin Letter). Give the general public a little credit.
And certainly, Darwinian doctors are free to speak out in support of Darwinism. Alternatively, they could publish a letter saying that their medical training, research and experience are of NO VALUE in evaluating the plausibility of Darwinism! Why don’t you suggest that to your physician at your next visit!
Russ,
Good question. I have not read the text of the clergy letter and thus have formed no opinion on the matter. I’ll look it up shortly. At least on the surface of it, I would object on the same grounds if they, the clergy, have attempted to leverage their religious authority in an attempt to confer *scientific* validity upon evolution. (I think in this case, however, the potential confusion of the public as to how to weigh opinions of the clergy towards scientific matters is far less of a concern than it is with doctors.)
On the other hand, there has been a complex historical relationship between religion and evolutionary theory, and one might argue there was an implicit demand by the public for religious figures–such as the pope, for example–to make some statement regarding their stance toward evolution due to its possible spiritual/existential implications. If the intention of the clergy were simply to convey their acceptance, as religious persons, of evolution in order to express “we’re men of the cloth, but we’re okay with this” … Then I see no problem with their effort. Many have stood on the pulpit of both religious fundamentalism and darwininian fundamentalism to preach fire and brimstone sermons about the *absolute incompatibility* of evolution and religion. If this letter is a response to these extremist sentiments, then I see no problem with organization of clergy for this purpose.
Someone in Judge Jones district (Kitzmiller) ought to sue a school for establishment clause violation for teaching evolution. The science establishment actively seeking and obtaining the blessing of 10,000 clergy members ought to be proof enough for Jones that evolution is really about religion.
-ds
What I find to be MORALLY SUSPECT is the leveraging of an ‘illusory authority’ on the subject of evolution–VIS-A-VIS BEING PHYSICIANS–to coax the public into weighing their opinions on evolution more seriously than they would some other groups statement concerning evolution (since the general public has reverance for their doctors).
That’s what I understood you meant. The problem I have is that you are impugning the morality of your intellectual opponents for doing nothing wrong. There is no reason to think this group is lying or expressing insincere beliefs.
Illusory authority? You think these doctors think their “authority” is illusory? Probably a more accurate phrasing would be do you think these doctors think their opinons are uninformed? This doctor group isn’t claiming any authority. It’s just expressing doubt.
As far the relevance of their opinions, there are those who think the opinion of a doctor carries more weight than that of a research biologist. You of course, don’t but that doesn’t make those who do “morally suspect” if they should act as a group.
Professor Dini, for one, thinks that the opinion of a medical doctor is very important when it comes to evolution.
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm
From Dini’s Criteron:
Some physicians, apparently, believe that you can be skeptical of ToE and still practice in the field. And they think that others might be made aware of this.
The Stanford School of Medicine seems to think that the medical community has a relevant voice in the question of evolution:
Astronomers add their expertise to the debate:
As do American professors, more than a few of whom are not biologists:
Chemists are big on their support:
As are soil and crop scientists:
Hey, even Jewish women can add their opinions:
But it’s immoral for doctors skeptical of RM/NS to voice an opinion.
Sorry to repeat an off-topic comment: How would I give the blog posters a headsup on an article?
Elie Wiesel and other non-biologists and/or non-scientists have weighed in as well:
http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2.....letter.pdf
great_ape wrote: “If the intention of the clergy were simply to convey their acceptance, as religious persons, of evolution in order to express ‘we’re men of the cloth, but we’re okay with this’ … Then I see no problem with their effort. ”
Here’s the relevant excert from The Clergy Letter Project, also linked above:
“…We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others†is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children…â€Â
They are clearly using their non-scientific authority and prestige to make the claim that evolution is “truth”. (since the letter is on the NCSE website, one assumes they’re supporting macroevolution, not microevolution—unless the NCSE types are exploiting the clergy’s ignorance on the subject.)
If science ends up moving in the way I think it will over the next century, then the argument “only (evolutionary) biologists can really have an informed opinion about the validity of evolutionary theory” will be just about as valid as saying “only an alchemist can really have an informed opinion about the validity of alchemy” or “only a trained phrenologist can really have an informed opinion about the validity of phrenology” or “only a Marxist can really have an informed opinion about the validity of scientific Marxism”.
great_ape,
After Charlie’s post re: AMA OP-Ed and Doctors calling for pro-evolution views, do you now denounce all physicians comments about evolution?
NSCE’s atheist Director Eugenie Scott recruiting clergy for her purposes to counter pro-ID clergy nationwide is an excellent counter example to your opinion on moral authority.
Charlie showed the lines were long drawn before these Doctors entered into the debate. They’re merely joining in where their colleagues already stood. There is nothing wrong with this at all, unless you do not like a free and open society. Or like Stalinist Nature, prefer to shut out opponents papers while ridiculing their work.
So, you must denounce all sides it seems, or be a hypocrite. Therefore, we should shut out all comments and opinions except those from geneticist and biologist.
But then, that would eliminate Darwin would it not? It would eliminate Mendel – upon whose very foundations you stand today.
Welcome to North Korea or Saudi Arabia and the land of ego maniacs.
great_ape,
Please note the following sentence…
“So, you must denounce all sides it seems, or be a hypocrite.”
should be changed to
You must 1) denounce all sides, 2) accept all sides, or hold to a hypocritical opinion.
I do not in any way desire to attack you personally, but wanted to point out where opinions lead and where locking out dissent can lead to if one sided.
While I understand your point of view, the truth is without increasing information access, breaking down walls of the usual gatekeepers and the internet – I’d never know that AMA is attempting to influence opinion on the debate. Old Media would never have told me this information. Thanks Charlie – that was such a critical post, and it shows just how informative these blogs can be over our usual brick wall sources.
What you’re seeing g_ape is people from all walks of life, professional, scientific, medical joining together and stating we’re not alone in our skepticism. That large media outlets and traditional brick wall organizations will no longer limit or control our opinions, nor more importantly will they shape them.
What Charlie showed very importantly imo is how opinion is shaped by groups already formed, especially media and how little we once knew this is done.
You’re simply seeing a new revolution taking place as part of the Open Information Age. This works across all boundaries, not just science.
For example, I no longer depend upon the NYT’s to mold my world view, nor my locally owned paper of a conglomerate corporation. In fact, I do not plan on purchasing another NYT again. Instead, I travel around the world daily in minutes getting the latest news I desire to keep me informed from multiple sources, some I agree with, others I do not.
Need to know what’s going on in Iraq? I can ask the troops directly, or check on their blogs. Biology, Genetics? I can go direct to PUBMED or PLOS, or many others. Astronomy? Physics? Direct links, timely news, much faster than Nature, National Geographic, or NYT can bring it to me and largely unfiltered by bias especially in the General News.
So, if AMA can do it, then so to can these Doctors. I suspect they could not anounce their opinions under AMA – what do you think?
“What you’re seeing g_ape is people from all walks of life, professional, scientific, medical joining together and stating we’re not alone in our skepticism. That large media outlets and traditional brick wall organizations will no longer limit or control our opinions, nor more importantly will they shape them.” –Michaels7
Michaels7, Russ, Charlie, you have helped make it clear to me how much of my stance concerning the physicians’ statement was a visceral response decorated with rationalization as opposed to a well thought out position in light of my personal beliefs concerning democracy, dialogue, etc. This is precisely why I engage in these discussions; they help weed out my more clouded reasoning. In this regard, posting where everyone more or less agrees with you is fairly useless. In particular, I was not aware of the many organizations that have come out in support of teaching evolution in classrooms. Instead of “righteous indignation,” as I experienced upon hearing of the anti-Darwinian physicians, I instead found that Charlie’s post engendered a warm, fuzzy feeling within me–especially in regard to the support of Jewish women. So I hereby modify my position: while I maintain my initial assertion that MDs do not possess any relevant professional status such that their commentary, as a group, on evolution, is particularly meaningful, there is nothing morally reprehensible with their banding together to make statements of questionable relevance. (I’m sure they’ll all rest a little easier tonight having been granted my approval
). As has been made abundantly clear to me, the phenomenon of assemblages of people publicly asserting their collective opinions on matters unrelated to their shared expertise is quite widespread. If I were to condemn physicians, I should be equally compelled to condemn the clergy and Jewish women. I take it as a general axiom that when one’s staked out position has resulted in morally reprimanding the clergy or silencing Jews, it is time for serious reconsideration. So let everyone have their say, and I’ll leave the assignment of moral culpability to the fellow upstairs. Although I sometimes lament it after watching an episode of Cops, democracy is indeed the least bad system available to us as humans.
Michaels7
As for your statements concerning the tearing down of traditional barriers to the propagation of information, ideas, opinions, the idealist in me wishes to rejoice. The realist in me is concerned. I haven’t the time to justify myself fully, and I’m not sure I that I ultimately could, but I am sympathetic to a mild form of elitism. The traditional filters or “walls,” as you called them, in addition to being repressive agents have also served constructive purposes in human culture throughout the ages. While we are all equal under G0d and the law, that’s just about where it ends. (If you are in doubt, I highly recommend Jerry Springer and Cops as effective remedies.) Some folks’ opinions are more important than others. A great deal of uninformed garbage needs to be filtered out, lest our ostensibly educated public–the putative pillar of democracy–be drowned in a sea of noise. I am more than a little nervous about the increasing breakdown of these walls. While my pessimism concerning the capacities of the general public is deep, my optimism concerning the ultimate triumph of truth is equally so. Given enough time, truth widdles away and removes those structures that stand in its way. Only I’m not so sure that removing or otherwise circumventing those structures pre-emptively will aid our quest for knowledge. If anything, I anticipate the opposite because I believe those structures are the means by which humanity organizes and processes information.