liberty medical school <facepalm>

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

This just got closed in the allo forum because it got out of control and completely lost track of the topic. I believe in the DO forum to properly be annoyed at this, but keep the conversation somewhat civil because I really think this needs more discussion.

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/sep/1...ra-ar-1315603/
http://www.roanoke.com/business/wb/298456

Says Liberty is opening itself up an osteopathic school. The problem here, to me, is that COCA denies having any application by them and yet they want to open it up in the next 2 years. Also the fun of the funding coming from the tobacco commission. What do you guys think? Should a radical right wing religious school that denies macroevolution be a candidate for a medical school? Should the tobacco commission be allowed to fund a medical school, seeing as it is in the center of the tobacco district of america? Should COCA really get involved with another controversial medical school, especially given the prevalence of medicals schools (including a DO one) in the area?

First time poster, but I've been looking for a while (hence the username, lol)... play nicely with me!

I'm torn about all of the expansion in general. On one hand, I understand the shortage of physicians, due to aging population, retiring doctors, etc. I think AOA is actually thinking ahead and trying to implement a solution for this problem, and that is commendable. But as many folks have questioned time and time again, where are the added residencies for the new med school graduates? As far as I've seen (which, granted, is limited sight), there aren't any.

But this school, specifically, is a whole different can of worms. $25M from the Tobacco Commission - that's dirty money, IMHO. I'm also questioning what kind of standards this new school will have in place, especially if they're ready to hire a dean for a school that COCA hasn't even heard about. I'm all right with the right-wing Christian school aspect - I went to a small, Catholic college for undergrad and the science department wasn't at all against evolution (neither were they afraid to voice their opinions about it). I can only hope that the faculty/admin of this (future?) medical school would take a similar stance.

Originally Posted by DocEspana

This just got closed in the allo forum because it got out of control and completely lost track of the topic. I believe in the DO forum to properly be annoyed at this, but keep the conversation somewhat civil because I really think this needs more discussion.

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/sep/1...ra-ar-1315603/
http://www.roanoke.com/business/wb/298456

Says Liberty is opening itself up an osteopathic school. The problem here, to me, is that COCA denies having any application by them and yet they want to open it up in the next 2 years. Also the fun of the funding coming from the tobacco commission. What do you guys think? Should a radical right wing religious school that denies macroevolution be a candidate for a medical school? Should the tobacco commission be allowed to fund a medical school, seeing as it is in the center of the tobacco district of america? Should COCA really get involved with another controversial medical school, especially given the prevalence of medicals schools (including a DO one) in the area?

After skimming one of the articles, am I correct in understanding that this would be a for-profit school? Either way I feel like this school has wrong written all over it, I don't feel like they are opening this school for any right reasons (the articles cited money quite a bit), and the fact that it is funded by the tobacco industry definitely feels like dirty money.

Originally Posted by looks

First time poster, but I've been looking for a while (hence the username, lol)... play nicely with me!

I'm torn about all of the expansion in general. On one hand, I understand the shortage of physicians, due to aging population, retiring doctors, etc. I think AOA is actually thinking ahead and trying to implement a solution for this problem, and that is commendable. But as many folks have questioned time and time again, where are the added residencies for the new med school graduates? As far as I've seen (which, granted, is limited sight), there aren't any.

But this school, specifically, is a whole different can of worms. $25M from the Tobacco Commission - that's dirty money, IMHO. I'm also questioning what kind of standards this new school will have in place, especially if they're ready to hire a dean for a school that COCA hasn't even heard about. I'm all right with the right-wing Christian school aspect - I went to a small, Catholic college for undergrad and the science department wasn't at all against evolution (neither were they afraid to voice their opinions about it). I can only hope that the faculty/admin of this (future?) medical school would take a similar stance.

The school doesnt allow evolution to be taught at their undergrad. They do have a law school, but law doesnt really interact with theology the same way that science/medicine might. (then again, how much of it would actually change? Prob not that much either. medicine is more about microevolution, not macroevolution

Fun fact: the school also has the famed museum on campus where you can see humans riding a dinosaur and "<6,000 year old dinosaur fossils."

Originally Posted by dntke1518

After skimming one of the articles, am I correct in understanding that this would be a for-profit school? Either way I feel like this school has wrong written all over it, I don't feel like they are opening this school for any right reasons (the articles cited money quite a bit), and the fact that it is funded by the tobacco industry definitely feels like dirty money.

didnt think its model was for-profit... but that worries me even more if it is. I'll have to re-skim myself.

Originally Posted by DocEspana

Fun fact: the school also has the famed museum on campus where you can see humans riding a dinosaur and "<6,000 year old dinosaur fossils."

I might consider transferring just so I could get a good chuckle whenever one was needed...

After doing some research (on Wikipedia, so not REAL research), it also appears that Liberty University disbanded the "College Democrats" club... because apparently, you cannot be a good Christian and a democrat at the same time...

What are the chances of this school actually getting partial/full accreditation? If they want students on their campus in 2013, they need to open applications this year, right? It just seems that there are more than a couple of potential issues, but maybe I'm missing some super-awesome benefit besides more future docs...

Originally Posted by looks

I might consider transferring just so I could get a good chuckle whenever one was needed...

After doing some research (on Wikipedia, so not REAL research), it also appears that Liberty University disbanded the "College Democrats" club... because apparently, you cannot be a good Christian and a democrat at the same time...

What are the chances of this school actually getting partial/full accreditation? If they want students on their campus in 2013, they need to open applications this year, right? It just seems that there are more than a couple of potential issues, but maybe I'm missing some super-awesome benefit besides more future applicants to residencies...

fixed

This can't be allowed to happen. If D.O.s expect to be treated as equals to M.D.s we can't allow a school supported by the tobacco commission to open. On top of that to be affiliated with a university that is famous for its stance against evolution is a double embarrassment. It makes a mockery of our profession and makes all D.O.s and D.O. students look bad. Who ever is in charge of deciding what schools are allowed to open must squash this idea ASAP!

I'd rather this school not open. To me the biggest issue is the lack of quality AOA residencies. I feel that there is no more need for new schools to open up for at least 10 years. What will be the quality of rotations that this school will be able to offer if they open? Probably not very good.

Wow, this would be a huge slap in the face...I really, really hope this doesn't happen

Originally Posted by DocEspana

What do you guys think? Should a radical right wing religious school that denies macroevolution be a candidate for a medical school? Should the tobacco commission be allowed to fund a medical school, seeing as it is in the center of the tobacco district of america? Should COCA really get involved with another controversial medical school, especially given the prevalence of medicals schools (including a DO one) in the area?

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.

Tobacco industry funding 12 million? That is pretty sketchy. I think that's indefensible.

If you want to look on the bright side, the more D.O. schools that open up, the more the general public will learn about our degree and the less explaining we all have to do....maybe lol

If COCA gives Liberty a medical school....

Originally Posted by serenade

If COCA gives Liberty a medical school....

In all honesty, im rather more concerned by the fact that COCA doesn't list this anywhere on any documents, yet liberty seems to be convinced that everything is set and ready to go. It appears that they have just decided that they are going to make an osteo school and didnt do any paperwork or tell any officials.

Originally Posted by Postal

If you want to look on the bright side, the more D.O. schools that open up, the more the general public will learn about our degree and the less explaining we all have to do....maybe lol

I'd rather the profession maintain some sort of integrity than have to explain my degree...

Is William Carey University as extreme as Liberty?

So are these people going to present their brand new med school to COCA as a fait accompli for approval? The presumption is rather arrogant.

Why does it matter what the parent institution believes? Why does it matter if the money comes from tobacco? There are plenty of examples of parent institutions believing in crazy stuff running great schools that are unbiased or minimally biased.There are plenty of examples of controversial free market enterprises, including tobacco, funding great things for society.

We have regulatory committees for a reason and as long as the school passes regs and gets accredited, why worry?

I'm concerned about potential new schools and a draw on post grad training a billion more times than I am worried about some crazy political group administering a school or some controversial private enterprise giving millions for what seems like a pretty uncontroversially good cause.

That said, if the school and curriculum itself taught all the crazy, I'd be against it. I just think you can't equate a crazy parent institution with a crazy school. Nor would I turn down $25 mln for what is almost universally considered a good cause because the $25 mln came from a company whose product I believe should be outlawed.

Maybe that's just me.

Originally Posted by Kevin Baker

Why does it matter what the parent institution believes? Why does it matter if the money comes from tobacco? There are plenty of examples of parent institutions believing in crazy stuff running great schools that are unbiased or minimally biased.There are plenty of examples of controversial free market enterprises, including tobacco, funding great things for society.

We have regulatory committees for a reason and as long as the school passes regs and gets accredited, why worry?

I'm concerned about potential new schools and a draw on post grad training a billion more times than I am worried about some crazy political group administering a school or some controversial private enterprise giving millions for what seems like a pretty uncontroversially good cause.

That said, if the school and curriculum itself taught all the crazy, I'd be against it. I just think you can't equate a crazy parent institution with a crazy school. Nor would I turn down $25 mln for what is almost universally considered a good cause because the $25 mln came from a company whose product I believe should be outlawed.

Maybe that's just me.

. You lost me in the second sentence.A medical school...funded by big tobacco...

This school makes RVU look like a saint

"And in Bristol, Tenn., King College is in the process of establishing a medical school. Last year, the proposed King School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center earned a $25 million grant from the Tobacco Commission, the largest sum ever awarded by the organization."

The above quote is from the second article. So I guess an allopathic school is doing the same thing?


Also from the 2nd article...
"The vice dean at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Terri Workman, said in an emailed statement that "the proposed school in Lynchburg does not affect us in that we are recruiting from a different pool of students."

That kinda sounds to me a little condescending. Lol

Originally Posted by DrMediterranean

"And in Bristol, Tenn., King College is in the process of establishing a medical school. Last year, the proposed King School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center earned a $25 million grant from the Tobacco Commission, the largest sum ever awarded by the organization."

The above quote is from the second article. So I guess an allopathic school is doing the same thing?

looking into King College's medical school website, they go out of their way to list and thank every last donor out there, even those who donated small amounts.. but completely ignores the $25 million from the Tobacco Commission. I guess this is one of those "the devil's had [the money] long enough, and quickly cash the check." situations. How much a huge donation from the tobacco comm means? Probably only very minor things, but i can't imagine they dont expect to pull some physicians from the school for their usage. Similar to the guy who testified to congress that tobacco is no more dangerous than smoking lettuce. Sure a crazy person can come from any school, but i *think* the assumption is that they can rely on this school to be more likely to put one out with a higher frequency if they have a subtle imprint on it. But thats just my assumption.

Also from the 2nd article...
"The vice dean at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Terri Workman, said in an emailed statement that "the proposed school in Lynchburg does not affect us in that we are recruiting from a different pool of students."

That kinda sounds to me a little condescending. Lol

hahaha. a little bit, right?

Perhaps the future students of liberty can do a remake of this classic commercial!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

Originally Posted by heroes31

If D.O.s expect to be treated as equals to M.D.s .... It makes a mockery of our profession and makes all D.O.s and D.O. students look bad. Who ever is in charge of deciding what schools are allowed to open must squash this idea ASAP!

That train left the station a long time ago. It is only a matter of time before the US Dept of Education turns over accreditation of DO schools to the LCME, since COCA is a joke. Maybe that will bring about the final merger of the two degrees and force the diploma mills to close, go chiropractic, whatever.

Try doing a little research instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction--the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission is a commission founded to distribute money that the state recieved in a $206 billion settlement with the four largest tobacco companies to pay for treatment of tobacco-related disease. AFAIK, the tobacco industry has no say in how the money is spent.

The question of whether Liberty University should have a medical school is another question entirely.

Originally Posted by K31

Try doing a little research instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction--the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission is a commission founded to distribute money that the state recieved in a $206 billion settlement with the four largest tobacco companies to pay for treatment of tobacco-related disease. AFAIK, the tobacco industry has no say in how the money is spent.

The question of whether Liberty University should have a medical school is another question entirely.

Thanks for the clarification, that is an important distinction.

Originally Posted by K31

Try doing a little research instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction--

But 90% of posts on SDN wouldn't exist without conjecture and knee-jerking.

Originally Posted by DocEspana

didnt think its model was for-profit... but that worries me even more if it is. I'll have to re-skim myself.

I was incorrect, it is not for profit. I just didn't read very well.

"Liberty officials estimate the new schools would generate $19 million annually in new spending in the tobacco region, as well as 219 new jobs and $1.2 million in state and local tax revenue. "

Originally Posted by K31

Try doing a little research instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction--the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission is a commission founded to distribute money that the state recieved in a $206 billion settlement with the four largest tobacco companies to pay for treatment of tobacco-related disease. AFAIK, the tobacco industry has no say in how the money is spent.

The question of whether Liberty University should have a medical school is another question entirely.

Ahhhh....much better now

Just to muddy the waters a little bit, the tobacco commission is not without fault. Im unclear as to who runs it and decides where the money goes in Virginia (it varies state by state as there are 52 different tobacco commissions for nearly all 50 states and multiple territories), but the Virginia commission has been under a prolonged judicial review for multiple claims of corruption and embezzlement of the state's >1billion chunk of the total settlement. Though, the other side of the coin is that it is probably among the committees most invested into giving back to its community in direct ways as its subsidizing tobacco farmers (which is a good thing, despite what my anti-tobacco streak wants to say) and communities that house tobacco farm land. That area is depressed and for all the corruption and questionable morals it *supposedly* has, the virginia commission has given a huge amount back towards building up a hard-hit area. This school is just one example of giving back.

Should another school have recieved that money instead? Oh hells yes, says this liberal northeastern elitist. But at least it is going towards building the community in some way, rather than lining Forbes', and other officials with supposed oversight's, pockets

Hmm... I have been following this for a little while too, but have not shared my opinions. I want to mention a few things, but mainly the Christian school/creation/evolution issue.

1) There are quite a few doctors out there who are agnostic, atheistic, or ... you name it. There are people out there (including me) who would actually like more Christian doctors in practice in the country. They are generally ethical, professional, and courteous (again, a generalization). Is that a bad thing?

2) Seems a bit harsh to call Liberty a radical, right-wing school (Although, Jerry Falwell was quite vocal and sometimes embarrassing, yes). My point is this: have you ever had a chance to talk with some students who have graduated from there? You may be surprised. There are several liberty grads at my DO school where I am a first-year and they are all fantastic people. They're not right-wing loonies. They have conservative beliefs with conservative convictions, just as you have your beliefs and convictions, I am sure (addressing the OP). Loma Linda is a Christian school and I don't hear many people getting on its case. That school has Christian principles just like Liberty would. It's probably because of Liberty's reputation for certain other issues like point #3.

3) Also, I hear people harping on the evolution question a lot too. But seriously, does a belief in Darwinian evolution really necessitate being a good doctor? Even if you think that it is insane not to believe in the big bang or evolution, just consider, does the day-to-day decision making of a physician really tie into a fundamental belief in evolution? I know several fantastic, well-loved physicians who are born-again Christians and don't believe in evolution. They are doing just fine. Believe me, I have grappled with both sides for years and examined arguments for both ad nauseum. There are plenty of faith-filled assumptions on the evolution side of the debate as well.

***As an aside, one of the basic science faculty at my school does not really support evolution. He is not a Christian. Having an open mind to possibilities is truly a good thing (especially considering how evolution dogma has been preached as the only possible solution for explaining man's presence on the earth for so many years. I understand that no one can prove the existence of God, because that is in "the realm of faith" but there's some serious faith required when you critically examine the evidence as put forth by evolutionary scientists. In my opinion, evolution is the best argument that the secular, world can come up with once they have decided God does not exist -- of course, there are exceptions to this... like NIH director Francis Collins). Furthermore, for many, the wonders of the scientific world point towards the evidence of a creator.***

4) As concerns the tobacco, it appears that someone helped clarify that above with the expanded definition of the funding organization. It's an interesting question though: what if someone like Altria decided to donate to a medical school? Should the school reject the money simply because it is coming from a cigarette company? I can see arguments for both sides. I could see the school definitely be mocked for that, unfortunately. Even, as it appears to be in Liberty's case, the tobacco connection is fairly "innocent" will the "guilt by association" stigma linger for years to come. Hard to tell.

5) As concerns the increase in schools, I am right there with the rest of you in thinking that rapid school expansion should be tempered with an increase in available post-graduate positions. This is probably the biggest problem.

6) Not sure about COCA not knowing anything about the new school though. Seems strange. Could a school just "announce" they are opening a new osteopathic school without at least going through some of the preliminary channels?

I posted this in a different thread but:

http://blogs.du.edu/today/news/unive...medical-school

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/co...dosprings.aspx

Now, the UCCS is a 'branch campus' so it would be similar to AZCOM, SOMA, and LECOM-B, but DU is a stand alone. Two new MD schools in the making as well, and those are just ones we know about. So, with all the new proposed schools, the big question, as was said earlier, is will residency spots increase, or will there be a group of us left in the lurch...

We are well on our way to ending up in the same dilemma that law students are currently in: Churning out far too many graduates for the number of jobs available, leaving people with a lot of student loan debt they can't pay off.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...cant_pay_bills

I have worked with doctors who didn't believe in evolution or that denied global warming. That doesn't mean that someone is clinically incompetent of course, but it does make you wonder if they really are scientifically literate. I think it does tarnish the academic reputation of our profession when we affiliate ourselves with scientifically dubious viewpoints.
(But then again I am someone who wishes that Cranial OMM was no longer taught).
When you already are fighting a stigma against the perception that DOs are the intellectual inferiors of MDs, this kind of stuff is just asking for people to have negative perceptions of our profession and it would be very irresponsible for the DO leadership to give approval to this project.

Originally Posted by SBB2016

I posted this in a different thread but:

http://blogs.du.edu/today/news/unive...medical-school

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/co...dosprings.aspx

Now, the UCCS is a 'branch campus' so it would be similar to AZCOM, SOMA, and LECOM-B, but DU is a stand alone. Two new MD schools in the making as well, and those are just ones we know about. So, with all the new proposed schools, the big question, as was said earlier, is will residency spots increase, or will there be a group of us left in the lurch...

I agree... We can only hope that residency spots increase.

.

I think there is some 20,000 unfilled physician positions right now. That is expected to increase dramatically in the near future. I am not so worried about a job as I am a residency. I am limited in geographic area, and Denver has very few FM or IM spots. I think there's like ~30 FM (5 locations, 6/hospital) and ~20-30 IM...

Haven't read the articles as I on a break right now, but I read a decent amount of the comments. A crazy fundamentalist med school funded by big tobacco? Wouldn't that be like a church trying to raise money for mission trips by selling cocaine or offering abortions?

Haha, yeah maybe not THAT bad... But similar!!

Maybe they should make DO's pass the USMLE. That would be a nice wake up call for some of these new start up schools who's goal is to get their students to eek out a 400 comlex score in order to graduate. I think osteopathic students should be held to the same standards as our MD colleagues, else we are going to make fools of our profession with this mass influx of semi-qualified students entering new glass house medical schools. I don't want to be associated with graduates like this. Maybe I'm being selfish, but the future of our profession looks to be in for some embarrassment unless COCA can get their act together and start having some control about what it should take to open up a new school.

Originally Posted by DoktorB

Maybe they should make DO's pass the USMLE. That would be a nice wake up call for some of these new start up schools who's goal is to get their students to eek out a 400 comlex score in order to graduate. I think osteopathic students should be held to the same standards as our MD colleagues, else we are going to make fools of our profession with this mass influx of semi-qualified students entering new glass house medical schools. I don't want to be associated with graduates like this. Maybe I'm being selfish, but the future of our profession looks to be in for some embarrassment unless COCA can get their act together and start having some control about what it should take to open up a new school.

Agreed 100%. This profession is shooting itself in the foot...and will likely rely on OMM to stop the hemorrhaging dorsalis pedis.

Originally Posted by DoktorB

Maybe they should make DO's pass the USMLE. That would be a nice wake up call for some of these new start up schools who's goal is to get their students to eek out a 400 comlex score in order to graduate. I think osteopathic students should be held to the same standards as our MD colleagues, else we are going to make fools of our profession with this mass influx of semi-qualified students entering new glass house medical schools. I don't want to be associated with graduates like this. Maybe I'm being selfish, but the future of our profession looks to be in for some embarrassment unless COCA can get their act together and start having some control about what it should take to open up a new school.

I agree. In fact I think all students should have to take the USMLE and then take a supplemental exam on OMM. However, that will never happen. The COMLEX is a cash cow and the AOA/NBOME will never drop that kind of revenue even if it would ultimately open doors for DO's and advance the profession.

Originally Posted by DoktorB

Maybe I'm being selfish, but the future of our profession looks to be in for some embarrassment unless COCA can get their act together and start having some control about what it should take to open up a new school.

Not selfish at all...this kinda stuff is pretty worrisome, especially for someone who is still a pre-med (although, I still have the chance to bail )

1) To address why physicians should accept the reality that is evolution: Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution. Now, if you don't think that a basic understanding of biology is necessary to be a good physician, then by all means, go to Liberty Med. And come out a dufus. I have always been puzzled at how Liberty can even offer a Biology degree at all. What do they do? Say "God created the world. The end." then hand out degrees?

2)

Originally Posted by DoktorB

Maybe they should make DO's pass the USMLE. That would be a nice wake up call for some of these new start up schools who's goal is to get their students to eek out a 400 comlex score in order to graduate. I think osteopathic students should be held to the same standards as our MD colleagues, else we are going to make fools of our profession with this mass influx of semi-qualified students entering new glass house medical schools. I don't want to be associated with graduates like this. Maybe I'm being selfish, but the future of our profession looks to be in for some embarrassment unless COCA can get their act together and start having some control about what it should take to open up a new school.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by DoktorB

Maybe they should make DO's pass the USMLE. That would be a nice wake up call for some of these new start up schools who's goal is to get their students to eek out a 400 comlex score in order to graduate. I think osteopathic students should be held to the same standards as our MD colleagues, else we are going to make fools of our profession with this mass influx of semi-qualified students entering new glass house medical schools. I don't want to be associated with graduates like this. Maybe I'm being selfish, but the future of our profession looks to be in for some embarrassment unless COCA can get their act together and start having some control about what it should take to open up a new school.

I haven't taken boards yet, but I understand your sentiment.

Originally Posted by TheRunner

1) To address why physicians should accept the reality that is evolution: Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution. Now, if you don't think that a basic understanding of biology is necessary to be a good physician, then by all means, go to Liberty Med. And come out a dufus. I have always been puzzled at how Liberty can even offer a Biology degree at all. What do they do? Say "God created the world. The end." then hand out degrees?
.

Disagree with this sentiment though. Believing in creationism does not mean one is unable to understand biology.

Originally Posted by Postal

Disagree with this sentiment though. Believing in creationism does not mean one is unable to understand biology.

building on that. Most/nearly all creationists believe in microevolution. AKA the idea that evolution exists as a selective process that drives organisms to better adapt to their environment and can cause change in species. They dont believe that microevolution, over billions of years, could create the diversity of life seen today.

I agree with you that doubting macroevolution does not make you incapable of being a fully competent scientist and biologist. BUT, its the effort with which they attempt to create false information (aka the 6,000 year old dinosaur fossil) that worries me greatly. If I understand geology correctly, true fossils cannot be found at 6,000 years. Its not enough time for the process.Yet they parade it around as peer reviewed scientific proof that macroevolution could not have occurred.


admittedly, this is all the crazy undergrad. A crazy undergrad that, I have to admit, has one very capable law school attached to it. (They are ranked as the #1 or #2 best law debate team in the nation in recent years). But I'd be hesitant to see if they could repeat that apparent success with a med school.

Originally Posted by TheRunner

1) To address why physicians should accept the reality that is evolution: Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution. Now, if you don't think that a basic understanding of biology is necessary to be a good physician, then by all means, go to Liberty Med. And come out a dufus. I have always been puzzled at how Liberty can even offer a Biology degree at all. What do they do? Say "God created the world. The end." then hand out degrees?

I see what you are saying. This doesn't translate to most accredited conservative Christian colleges though. I went to a small, conservative Christian university that pushed creationism, but I received an excellent education in the basic sciences as well. They are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the lifestyle that was encouraged at my university allowed me to focus on my studies and do very well in the sciences. Some of the most accomplished physicians in this country are no doubt creationists..does that invalidate everything they have contributed to medicine?

DocEspana -- my school taught the whole "macro and microevolution" bit. Most people have a good at this description of how nature works (myself included after I reached my junior/senior year), but it is one perspective..and I agree that it doesn't necessarily taint one's understanding of scientific principles or disease pathophys. After all, we can't expect to see anything close to what creationists would call "macro" evolution occurring in our lifetime. On the other hand, it would be foolish for anyone to deny any evolutionary change at all..especially in the age of bacterial resistance. This is where they would say "micro" evolution plays in. I am past the point of caring

Originally Posted by Postal

I haven't taken boards yet, but I understand your sentiment.


Disagree with this sentiment though. Believing in creationism does not mean one is unable to understand biology.

The vast majority of PhD scientists would disagree with you. Actually, only a very small minority would agree with you. What you are asserting is akin to believing that the sun revolves around the earth. Creationism is a blatant falsity. (As the saying goes, We have the fossils. We win.) If you don't understand evolution, you can't understand basic biology. If you can't understand basic biology, you can't be a very competent physician.

Originally Posted by TheRunner

If you don't understand evolution, you can't understand basic biology. If you can't understand basic biology, you can't be a very competent physician.

That is a very circular and circumstantial argument that doesn't translate to reality.

I don't think that understanding evolution is an issue for someone who pursues a degree in Biology. Some just choose not to believe it is how the world was created. How does that affect their competency as a physician? I fail to see a correlate.

Originally Posted by serenade

If COCA gives Liberty a medical school....

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.

Originally Posted by DoktorB

That is a very circular and circumstantial argument that doesn't translate to reality.

I don't think that understanding evolution is an issue for someone who pursues a degree in Biology. Some just choose not to believe it is how the world was created. How does that affect their competency as a physician? I fail to see a correlate.

If they are willing to deny basic scientific evidence, or worse, misrepresent scientific facts, how can you trust them to utilize science in other issues? The point of science is to test, and if needed, change our beliefs and preconceptions about how the world works. If they can't do that, I'm not sure if a scientific discipline is for them.

Originally Posted by DocEspana

building on that. Most/nearly all creationists believe in microevolution. AKA the idea that evolution exists as a selective process that drives organisms to better adapt to their environment and can cause change in species. They dont believe that microevolution, over billions of years, could create the diversity of life seen today.

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.

I agree with you that doubting macroevolution does not make you incapable of being a fully competent scientist and biologist. BUT, its the effort with which they attempt to create false information (aka the 6,000 year old dinosaur fossil) that worries me greatly. If I understand geology correctly, true fossils cannot be found at 6,000 years. Its not enough time for the process.Yet they parade it around as peer reviewed scientific proof that macroevolution could not have occurred.

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.

admittedly, this is all the crazy undergrad. A crazy undergrad that, I have to admit, has one very capable law school attached to it. (They are ranked as the #1 or #2 best law debate team in the nation in recent years). But I'd be hesitant to see if they could repeat that apparent success with a med school.

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.

Originally Posted by DoktorB

That is a very circular and circumstantial argument that doesn't translate to reality.

I don't think that understanding evolution is an issue for someone who pursues a degree in Biology. Some just choose not to believe it is how the world was created. How does that affect their competency as a physician? I fail to see a correlate.

Originally Posted by boggvir

If they are willing to deny basic scientific evidence, or worse, misrepresent scientific facts, how can you trust them to utilize science in other issues? The point of science is to test, and if needed, change our beliefs and preconceptions about how the world works. If they can't do that, I'm not sure if a scientific discipline is for them.

^ 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.

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.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

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.

I hope for your sake you aren't serious

Originally Posted by boggvir

If they are willing to deny basic scientific evidence, or worse, misrepresent scientific facts, how can you trust them to utilize science in other issues? The point of science is to test, and if needed, change our beliefs and preconceptions about how the world works. If they can't do that, I'm not sure if a scientific discipline is for them.

Yea, it seems that way. I would tend to agree with what you are saying here. Liberty seems pretty darn right wing and takes things to the extreme. My response was aimed more at the generalizations that were being thrown out there about sceintific education at schools that favor creationism.

Originally Posted by Starlightembers

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.