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.
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.