Christian Medical Schools and Evolution

[JackD]

Do christian medical schools ever take the position that evolution doesn't exist?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[volley1]

I would assume not because if they made a public statement about it, they wouldn't get much respect from the medical community

 

[ChubbyChaser]

i doubt many of them believe it anyways. There are ways to be a christian and believe in evolution.

 

[JackD]

I probably should have read the title before i posted this thread. Is there anyway to change the title name?

 

[Tired]

Do christian medical schools ever take the position that evolution doesn't exist?

Evolution never came up when I was in med school.

What does evolution have to do with medicine?

 

[Geekchick921]

i doubt many of them believe it anyways. There are ways to be a christian and believe in evolution.

I'd say the majority of Christians believe in evolution. In truth, I think only the most die-hard Bible-thumpers (and the oldest, especially those in a religious vocation) don't.

Hell, I went to 13 years of Catholic school (K-12), and I'm pretty sure I was taught evolution in my high school bio class. And I'm pretty sure my alma mater is associated with Jesuits, and I'm sure I was taught it in Bio 101.

 

[Picklesali]

Evolution never came up when I was in med school.

What does evolution have to do with medicine?

The only relevance I can think of is the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and super bug viruses. Though I think even "bible-thumping" Christians would find it hard to deny the occurence of horizontal gene transfer...

 

[dd128]

Yeah I don't really see why evolution would come up a lot in med school, so there wouldn't be much of a point taking a stance for or against it. But as they are members of the scientific community I doubt any of the professors and what not have any issues with evolution. Arguments against evolution are pretty much one sided anyway....sorry if I'm walking a dangerous line here. Don't want to incite aanything. Peace and love to all!

 

[Karen12345]

Evolution never came up when I was in med school.

What does evolution have to do with medicine?

Medicine has a lot to do with biology. Biology has a lot to do with evolution.

This may be one of the reasons med schools require all of us to take general biology before applying.

 

[FinchHead]

I was pretty positive that everyone entering medicine had enough intelligence to understand evolution (until I saw a thread on SDN with some guy denying it...).

Still, the vast majority must.

 

[DoctorDreamer]

I went to two private Christian universities, and am a very passionate Christian. As such, I can assure you that I have never had a professor (or any Christian remotely educated in science) state that evolution is not true.

That does not mean that they believe in evolution (although some do), but most will not go around bashing the theory.

On a separate note, when did evolution and creationism become mutually exclusive? I find evolution a lot easier to believe when I think of God orchestrating it than if I consider it random chance...

 

[Geekchick921]

I went to two private Christian universities, and am a very passionate Christian. As such, I can assure you that I have never had a professor (or any Christian remotely educated in science) state that evolution is not true.

That does not mean that they believe in evolution (although some do), but most will not go around bashing the theory.

On a separate note, when did evolution and creationism become mutually exclusive? I find evolution a lot easier to believe when I think of God orchestrating it than if I consider it random chance...

 

[Depakote]

I would find it hard to believe that any medical school would... not that it really comes up.

Side note, I can change the thread title for you. I'll fix it for now, but post if you have something specific you want it to be.

 

[taponthecloud]

On a separate note, when did evolution and creationism become mutually exclusive? I find evolution a lot easier to believe when I think of God orchestrating it than if I consider it random chance...

Generally, a lot of people chose to believe in this version of the design argument; however, even though it may be easy to believe, this doesn't mean it is true. Evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive because creationism is the antithesis of science; creationism is based on faith whereas science is grounded in a large body of evidence.

EDIT: Additionally, many people often make the mistake of saying that evolution was a random process. Rather, there is nothing random about Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

 

[dd128]

Generally, a lot of people chose to believe in this version of the design argument; however, even though it may be easy to believe, this doesn't mean it is true. Evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive because creationism is the antithesis of science; creationism is based on faith whereas science is grounded in a large body of evidence.

EDIT: Additionally, many people often make the mistake of saying that evolution was a random process. Rather, there is nothing random about Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

They are exclusive, one is based in science the other is not. Yet you can still believe (of course not prove) God was responsible for creating the universe, and evolution is a process through which life was created. Either way, I think we're getting off the topic of the tread

 

[taponthecloud]

They are exclusive, one is based in science the other is not. Yet you can still believe (of course not prove) God was responsible for creating the universe, and evolution is a process through which life was created. Either way, I think we're getting off the topic of the tread

Why not believe that Thor, Zeus, or the Golden Calf created the universe then?

 

[1956Goldtop]

some people might and that is there prerogative. The Christian God comes up in this argument because it is among the more popular religions and thus many people believe in the creation account associated with such beliefs.

 

[taponthecloud]

some people might and that is there prerogative. The Christian God comes up in this argument because it is among the more popular religions and thus many people believe in the creation account associated with such beliefs.

Is it right to believe in something because it's comforting or because billions of people believe in it as well?

My point is: what's the difference between the belief in the Christian god and say... the Olympian gods? How does one justify his/her belief in one particular god rather than another if there is no evidence for the existence of either?

 

[THH]

Why not believe that Thor, Zeus, or the Golden Calf created the universe then?

Oh Goodie! I think we went whole 24 hours without a thread with a religious argument! We are certainly due for a new one that will rehash the exact same thing, over and over and over again!

 

[joyrunner]

Religions have a history of vehemently refusing to believe science because they thought that it was incompatible with their Text. I'm particularly thinking of the church persecuting Galileo and other astronomers for stating that the planets revolve around the sun because it seemed to contradict a story in the old testament. However, Christianity moves on eventually and accepts the science, and isn't any worse for it.
More on topic, my alma mater is a small christian university and teaches evolution, and there are a lot of students on campus that get their panties in a wad over it. One guy gave an apologetics speach about it in my Public Speaking 101 class. Anyways, the bio dep't's official line is that it's on the MCAT and grad schools expect the bio students to know it, and they want their students to be competitive for grad/med school, so they have no choice but to teach it. However, in my classes it's presented (by christian professors) as valid theory. I imagine a christian med school would be similar.

 

[lacesoutdan]

There are ways to be a christian and believe in evolution.

I don't understand how you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. The Bible says what it says. Where does it say you can pick and choose which parts you believe in?

I was pretty positive that everyone entering medicine had enough intelligence to understand evolution (until I saw a thread on SDN with some guy denying it...).

Still, the vast majority must.

Ron Paul was a physician and he doesn't believe in evolution. But you're right, the majority do.

 

[DoctorDreamer]

To say that science and faith are mutually exclusive is to discredit many of the scientists we have relied on for hundreds of years. The vast majority of people who have observed our universe (Darwin included) say that their observations have only led them to believe in the existence of something greater. Science is based on observation of the world around us... Who's to say that world was not created? If this universe just popped up oout of nothingness with no one helping, this Earth is a scary-butt place and I want off.

While I do not personally believe in the Greek Gods, I also do not believe that creation by Zeuss and evolution would be mutually exclusive, either. I spoke of the Christian God because Christian medical schools were the topic at hand... Not Greek Mythology med schools.

Natural selection is not random, but the theory of how life began, from which all life evolved... Now that is random... Or orchestrated by a higher power.

On a separate note, most of the exceptional doctors I know pray about their patients. Not all, but I'd be thankful for a surgeon who asks God to guide his hands. I wouldn't give a hoot whether my doctor believed in evolution or not. I do tend to believe in evolution... But if my doctor thought faith and science were mutually exclusive, I'd rather he/she have faith.

That said, it was not my intent to start an argument, but simply to answer the OP's question. Anyone who wishes to "set me straight" in their minds is free to attempt to do so through PM, but I have no desire to afflict the rest of this forum with such a discussion.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

I don't understand how you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. The Bible says what it says. Where does it say you can pick and choose which parts you believe in?

Oddly enough, this position is espoused by fundamentalist Christians and atheists, but not by the vast majority of religious people.

 

[Ebuff]

Evolution never came up when I was in med school.

What does evolution have to do with medicine?

Your joking, right? Evolution is the basis for a majority of scientific knowledge. HIV, tuberculosis, bacterial resistance are some of the most immportant issues in medical science and all have to do with how we and our diseases evolve. The reason for the scare behind bird flu is that we are afraid that a new virus will evolve in other animals and create a disease that human immunology isn't evolved to handle. Genetic variants occur throughout human populations that need to be studied so that better treatment plans cacn be developed. The basis of gene therepy is trying to understand how genes evolve and how we may be able to manipulate evolution. Through understanding of evolution, physicians were able to understand why populations heterozygous for sickle cell were at an evolutionary advantage in combating malaria. The examples go on and on. Yes, a family physician stiching up a wound may not need to understand evolution, but overall understanding of evolution concepts is critical to medical treatment plans and medical research. Phycisians don't have to "believe" evolution, but they had better understand evolution concepts that play a critical role in understanding disease and treatments.

 

[DoctorDreamer]

I don't understand how you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. The Bible says what it says. Where does it say you can pick and choose which parts you believe in?

I'm with you whole-heartedly, but I believe what those of us who are Christians who believe in evolution are stating is that God did create the Earth - He may have/probably created it through evolution. God made the world, who are we to say how he made it?

Does that make more sense?

 

[KeyzerSoze]

Your joking, right? Evolution is the basis for a majority of scientific knowledge. HIV, tuberculosis, bacterial resistance are some of the most immportant issues in medical science and all have to do with how we and our diseases evolve. The reason for the scare behind bird flu is that we are afraid that a new virus will evolve in other animals and create a disease that human immunology isn't evolved to handle. Genetic variants occur throughout human populations that need to be studied so that better treatment plans cacn be developed. The basis of gene therepy is trying to understand how genes evolve and how we may be able to manipulate evolution. Through understanding of evolution, physicians were able to understand why populations heterozygous for sickle cell were at an evolutionary advantage in combating malaria. The examples go on and on. Yes, a family physician stiching up a wound may not need to understand evolution, but overall understanding of evolution concepts is critical to medical treatment plans and medical research. Phycisians don't have to "believe" evolution, but they had better understand evolution concepts that play a critical role in understanding disease and treatments.

He was obviously referring to evolution as the origin of species, not any of the things you mentioned.

 

[TheLesPaul]

Oddly enough, this position is espoused by fundamentalist Christians and atheists, but not by the vast majority of religious people.

I think the vast majority of religious people assume that since there are scientists who believe in evolution and are Christian, the two must not be mutually exclusive, and accept that (rather than delve into it themselves). It's not about picking and choosing; it's about realizing which parts of the Bible were (potentially) metaphorical, and that goes into a whole lot of Hebrew knowledge that most people just don't have. It's simpler just to accept the word of someone who's knowledgeable.

Your joking, right? Evolution is the basis for a majority of scientific knowledge. HIV, tuberculosis, bacterial resistance are some of the most immportant issues in medical science and all have to do with how we and our diseases evolve. The reason for the scare behind bird flu is that we are afraid that a new virus will evolve in other animals and create a disease that human immunology isn't evolved to handle. Genetic variants occur throughout human populations that need to be studied so that better treatment plans cacn be developed. The basis of gene therepy is trying to understand how genes evolve and how we may be able to manipulate evolution. Through understanding of evolution, physicians were able to understand why populations heterozygous for sickle cell were at an evolutionary advantage in combating malaria. The examples go on and on. Yes, a family physician stiching up a wound may not need to understand evolution, but overall understanding of evolution concepts is critical to medical treatment plans and medical research. Phycisians don't have to "believe" evolution, but they had better understand evolution concepts that play a critical role in understanding disease and treatments.

I think one can understand the concept of microevolution (which includes the sort of genetic variation you describe due to already present natural variation) without subscribing to macroevolution (which involves the creation of new species due to addition of new genetic information through mutation).

 

[dd128]

I think one can understand the concept of microevolution (which includes the sort of genetic variation you describe due to already present natural variation) without subscribing to macroevolution (which involves the creation of new species due to addition of new genetic information through mutation).

My evolution professor would probably have pulled you out of his class and lynched for suggesting such a thing

Though I don't believe in being to subscribe to microevolution and exclude macro, micro is the one that is mostly applicable to medical studies as was suggested with HIV, horizontal gene transfer etc.

 

[Crixivan]

I believe that the Abrahamic religions require the world to be only a few thousand years old in order to establish the heritage of mankind. Multiple scientific disciplines refute this notion.

We had some people gasping in the audience when topics such as the lost palmaris longus in many humans, the arrangement of dermatomes in upright-walking individuals, Hox genes (and the inactivity thereof seen in snakes), the persistence of pronephros in fish, and the evolution of brain tissues were discussed in class, but I tend to agree with Tired.

Patients don't care that the same anesthesia you use on them will work on non-human primates too as long as it puts them to sleep.

 

[bodonid]

The one med school I have been accepted to is a private southern baptist school in the deep south. The college (not the med school specifically) states evolution does not exist. Does this count?

 

[Lokhtar]

The one med school I have been accepted to is a private southern baptist school in the deep south. The college (not the med school specifically) states evolution does not exist. Does this count?

Wow. Which one, if I may ask?

 

[dd128]

The one med school I have been accepted to is a private southern baptist school in the deep south. The college (not the med school specifically) states evolution does not exist. Does this count?

Seriously???

This is mercer right?

 

[bodonid]

Wow. Which one, if I may ask?

I take that back. I can't back it up with anything. My school is Mercer University in Georgia. They are a part of the Southern Baptist Convention, but I can't find anything that says they don't teach evolution. But if they did, they would be kicked out of the southern baptist convention, I think.

 

[zpiff]

On a separate note, when did evolution and creationism become mutually exclusive? I find evolution a lot easier to believe when I think of God orchestrating it than if I consider it random chance...

The point of the Genetics and the Theory of Evolution is that it's based on statistics and probabilities of random events.

 

[taponthecloud]

To say that science and faith are mutually exclusive is to discredit many of the scientists we have relied on for hundreds of years. The vast majority of people who have observed our universe (Darwin included) say that their observations have only led them to believe in the existence of something greater. Science is based on observation of the world around us... Who's to say that world was not created? If this universe just popped up oout of nothingness with no one helping, this Earth is a scary-butt place and I want off.

To be honest your first statement about Darwin is false. Also, again let me re-iterate that science is about seeking truth through evidence. Just because it makes you more comfortable thinking that the world is created by a maker, doesn't make it true. Some patients who have come down with cancer may wish that their physician had never told them the truth about their disease and would wish rather to stay in the dark. Other people wish to know the truth.

Natural selection is not random, but the theory of how life began, from which all life evolved... Now that is random... Or orchestrated by a higher power.

Well, the "theory of how life began, from which life evolved" is called evolution by national selection. You're mixing up the definitions. The process by which life began on this Earth was a NON-RANDOM process.

On a separate note, most of the exceptional doctors I know pray about their patients. Not all, but I'd be thankful for a surgeon who asks God to guide his hands. I wouldn't give a hoot whether my doctor believed in evolution or not. I do tend to believe in evolution... But if my doctor thought faith and science were mutually exclusive, I'd rather he/she have faith.

I think this is a moot point because doctors and surgeons who are non-believers in god care as much for their patients and have just as much hope in their recovery. Just because they don't directly "pray" to a higher being doesn't mean you shouldn't acknowledge their compassion.

While understanding evolution is not essential to a physician's everyday practice, the belief in the scientific process and evidence-based knowledge (as opposed to faith) is the mark of a true scientist and investigator. To this extent, I think you should "give a hoot" whether or not your doctor makes his/her decisions based on faith vs. evidence.

Medicine is not a straightforward cut and stitch profession. Many times you will be asked to make difficult ethical decisions. In such cases you must be objective and precise- you must rely on evidence, rather than allow your faith and own belief to guide your judgment- since you don't want to impose your personal beliefs on others.

 

[Spidey10]

Medicine has a lot to do with biology. Biology has a lot to do with evolution.

This may be one of the reasons med schools require all of us to take general biology before applying.

Thank you. I was wondering when someone was going to post this. Modern biology is nothing without evolution.

 

[joyrunner]

I take that back. I can't back it up with anything. My school is Mercer University in Georgia. They are a part of the Southern Baptist Convention, but I can't find anything that says they don't teach evolution. But if they did, they would be kicked out of the southern baptist convention, I think.

This was the same situation with my undergrad. The SBC threatened to kick my school out too. Never happened because they would lose their academic reputation if they didn't teach it. I bet Mercer teaches evolution if its necessary.

 

[neuroprotector]

I'm with you whole-heartedly, but I believe what those of us who are Christians who believe in evolution are stating is that God did create the Earth - He may have/probably created it through evolution. God made the world, who are we to say how he made it?

Does that make more sense?

Actually, quite a few Christians have no trouble reconciling evolution with theology. For example, the Catholic Church's official stance is that evolution exists (which explains why the aforementioned Jesuits taught it), even on a "macroevolutionary" scale.

The difference is in the why, as it is with most theological questions. It's logically sound to posit that evolution works by its own momentum, that is, it selects for the most effective organism over time. Jesuits, along with many Christians, would not refute this. All they would add is something along the lines of "God intended it to be that way," which checks out in both schools of thought.

There's a lot of uninformed animosity on both sides of the issue. Many non-religious individuals assume all religious people believe strictly what they hear about evangelicals (The world was created in six days, "I didn't come from no monkey!", etc). But like most things, belief in God doesn't preclude belief in science, just as it doesn't automatically make you a good person, or a "bible thumper." Interestingly, many religious people also believe that their views are constantly under siege by closed-minded nincompoops. They're both right.

 

[RySerr21]

On a separate note, most of the exceptional doctors I know pray about their patients. Not all, but I'd be thankful for a surgeon who asks God to guide his hands. I wouldn't give a hoot whether my doctor believed in evolution or not. I do tend to believe in evolution... But if my doctor thought faith and science were mutually exclusive, I'd rather he/she have faith.

If you can somehow get your hands on this study, read it! It was coined "The Great Prayer Experiment"

H. Benson et al., "Study of the therapuetic effects of intercessory prayer in cardiac bypass patients", American Heart Journal 151: 4, 2006, 934-42


Just in case you can't get your hands in a copy I will sum up the study/results:

1. they wanted to answer the question "does praying for patients help them recover"

2. study was double blind, 1802 patients who received coronary bypass surgery randomly assigned to three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didn't know it. Group 2 got no prayers. Group 3 got prayers and knew about it.

3. prayers delivered by the congregations of 3 churches in Minnesota Massachusetts and Missouri. all prayers included the phrase "for a successful surgery with a quick, helathy recovery and no complications"

4. Results reported showed there was no difference betwen those patients who were prayed for and those who were not. there was a difference between those who knew they had been prayed for and those who did not know one way or the other....those who knew they had been prayed for suffered significantly more complications than those who did not.

if you want more details then find and read the entire study



in conclusion....i hope my doc doesnt pray for me!!!!

 

[HanginInThere]

in conclusion....i hope my doc doesnt pray for me!!!!

Nah - I don't care if my doc prays for me, as long as s/he doesn't tell me about it!

 

[RySerr21]

Nah - I don't care if my doc prays for me, as long as s/he doesn't tell me about it!

haha true that

 

[WrightMD]

The question I always ask christians is if modern Homo sapiens have been around for at least 100,000 years, why did christianity only get invented about 2,000 years ago. Why would god choose to wait for at least 98,000 years to reveal "the truth"?

On a couple occasions the response has been, "the earth is only six to ten thousand years old."

 

[taponthecloud]

The question I always ask christians is if modern Homo sapiens have been around for at least 100,000 years, why did christianity only get invented about 2,000 years ago. Why would god choose to wait for at least 98,000 years to reveal "the truth"?

On a couple occasions the response has been, "the earth is only six to ten thousand years old."

God likes to do things in a very roundabout way...

 

[dd128]

The question I always ask christians is if modern Homo sapiens have been around for at least 100,000 years, why did christianity only get invented about 2,000 years ago. Why would god choose to wait for at least 98,000 years to reveal "the truth"?

Who knows, what do you really expect them to say? I don't think there is any real way to answer that question without asking God...

 

[VoiceofReason]

What's this micro and macro evolution garbage? I've taken introductory genetics, molecular genetics, and human genetics and I've never heard these terms uttered in the classroom. They sound like terms that are propagated by people who never bothered to educate themselves on genetics and evolution.

 

[dd128]

What's this micro and macro evolution garbage? I've taken introductory genetics, molecular genetics, and human genetics and I've never heard these terms uttered in the classroom. They sound like terms that are propagated by people who never bothered to educate themselves on genetics and evolution.

It's mostly bs that proponents of intelligent design and the like use to say they can believe in some type of evolution, but still believe we were created by a higher power. Like you said, most people educated on the subject know there is no difference between micro and macro. It's just looking at the same thing on different scales.

 

[Concubine]

What's this micro and macro evolution garbage? I've taken introductory genetics, molecular genetics, and human genetics and I've never heard these terms uttered in the classroom. They sound like terms that are propagated by people who never bothered to educate themselves on genetics and evolution.

I think most people refer to "microevolution" as the process through which natural selection acts on a smaller scale (change in allele frequencies). For example, Darwin's finches. Through selective pressure, beak size and shape changes without necessarily involving mutation. Macroevolution, at least in the context I've heard it referred to as, is the process of mutation that results in an adaptation. For example, the "development" of an eye or limb. The theory of evolution, at least in the larger sense of species changing to different species, requires this.

 

[Concubine]

It's mostly bs that proponents of intelligent design and the like use to say they can believe in some type of evolution, but still believe we were created by a higher power. Like you said, most people educated on the subject know there is no difference between micro and macro. It's just looking at the same thing on different scales.

Actually, they are distinguished from each other in both scientific literature and textbooks...

But, there has been a movement to join the two as our understanding of evolution "evolves".

 

[Spidey10]

What's this micro and macro evolution garbage? I've taken introductory genetics, molecular genetics, and human genetics and I've never heard these terms uttered in the classroom. They sound like terms that are propagated by people who fail to do the proper research..

It's anti-evolutionist propaganda put out by the religious folk. In any case, hundreds of thousands of years of micro evolution would lead to the evolution of new species. "New" DNA is generated in a variety of ways including chromosomal duplications, gene repeats, mutations, deletions, tandem repeats, and horizontal gene transfers. There are more ways, but I can't remember them off-hand. These have all been proven to occur. Micro and macro are two sides of the same coin, it's the same evolution just on different time scales......but they aren't real terms so.....

 

[VoiceofReason]

These threads depress the hell out of me... I'm serious. Belief in a higher power is just magical thinking, like believing that a shirt can bring you "luck", and it has no place in science or medicine.

Ah, according to wikipedia the two terms have fallen out of favor in science since their inception in 1927 by a russian dude. That explains why you don't hear them anymore, it's a senseless and misleading distinction.