Is there a reason why religiously affiliated universities are opening up DO schools?

[GC1000]

I have listed how religious beliefs adversely affect the health and access of healthcare of the public. I have also linked this to physicians themselves promoting this sort of ideology and behavior. Serenade already explained that there's nothing specifically about those beliefs that impedes the literal practice of medicine since medicine is just a subset of skills that require applied knowledge, but I think I've done an adequate job of describing how such beliefs can adversely affect the health of a population which, by extension, is the true purpose of the practice of medicine. The specific example towards Creationism, which I've already listed, is that equating an irrational mythology with science fosters distrust and creates a shaky foundation for the rest of science. Furthermore, I described how medical training requires that one accept evolution because young-earth creationism is explicitly contradicted by evolution and that any other stance on the subject as a practitioner of medicine is only a product of self-delusion, a la Ben Carson. So, yes, it matters that these principles be taken into account when you are educating medical professionals because evolution is such an important cornerstone of the basic life sciences unless you want to intentionally produce self-deluded physicians.

Also I disagree with strongly with that statement in bold. The ability of a physician to functionally practice the profession of medicine does not equate to the value or substance of their medical education. You can go ahead and read it straight from my signature, "Education for a Life, not a Living." I don't think that needs further explanation, your logic just doesn't work there.

I don't have a pathological disdain for religion. I like religion. I like that it exists. I think in many ways it adds lots of value to peoples lives and I think the free expression of faith is one of the most important liberties a person can have. However, as a responsible human being I will never tolerate any individual's faith somehow impeding the overarching ethical framework of society; in this case, it impedes the proper education of physicians and harms the public for reasons I have already listed. I think a strong faith is perfectly serviceable without having to resort to mythological fetishism and draconian text interpretation.

As an aside, what is utterly remarkable about young-earth creationism is that it adds very little value to the practice of your own faith. What does it add? Nothing. Nothing at all. It was a widely unpopular literal translation in the times of the ancient Jewish scholars and it is a widely unpopular literal interpretation today, especially outside of the borders of the United States (where the majority of the Christian population resides). It is a moot point, an unnecessary stake of contention that seems to exist solely to highlight the continued isolation of Evangelical Christian groups in the US.

Again, nothing specific. How does creationism impede science, specific example?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lucca]

It is difficult to argue with anti-religious people spewing their hatred. They have been indoctrinated by carefully selected information. I find it amazing that people who study biology believe everything happened by chance. It seems the have lost their ability to think critically.

Please tell me more about how my holistic evaluation of the world around me is "carefully selected" in such a way that it allows any possibility of divine order and simplicity to be immediately washed away.

 

[Lucca]

Again, nothing specific. How does creationism impede science, specific example?

Okay, I'm going to spell it out:

If you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific consensus then you will deflate the value of the scientific consensus. If you deflate the value of scientific consensus then you open room for more indefensible ideas to seep into your worldview. Sometimes those ideas become psychologically if not physically dangerous: See green vaccines, homeopathy, the oppression of women (if you believe the bible literally then you also believe that women are lesser than men, and don't give me that "fulfillment of the law" bull****, that was St. Paul himself and you can quote me on it, I was raised Catholic), Ayurveda, Supplement-Peddlers.

Examples from science in general:

If the earth is 6000 years old then what about:

The geological record
Genetics
Microbial Resistance
Viral Recombination
Genetic Algorithms
The weather record
The growth and distribution of species
The age of the universe
The expansion of the universe
The inflationary stage of cosmology
The dinosaurs
Carbon Dating
Half-Lives of Radioactive Materials
Half-Lives of basic atomic structures, the proton, electron, etc
Petroleum and fossil fuels
The calculated orbit of the heavenly bodies
The Cosmic Microwave Background
Hawking Radiation
Heat Death
The law of general relativity
The law of special relativity
All of thermodynamics
.....

The age of the universe plays a fundamental role in basically all of science. This is intro-class knowledge, come on.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Both of your points being what they are, you still have not given an example. That's all I'm asking for. Think of Ben Carson as a tool (it doesn't bode well, however, for people who say that while also championing the likes of Bill Nye, who is about as massive a tool as they come--after Bill Maher, of course), but you admitted that he is an amazing neurosurgeon. That's what my questions were driving at. His Creationist views do not equate to bad patient outcomes. They do not inhibit his position and role as faculty at one of the best medical training sites on the planet. They do not limit his contribution to the field of medicine. So why the eff do any of you care if a religiously-affiliated institution opens a medical school?

I think the last few posts have made the case that there isn't a case to be made against such institutions having medical schools. Evidently, someone who is a creationist can apply the science well enough to be a peds-neurosurgery baller and successfully manage departments of scientists.

Personally I like Bill Maher. He's humorous and always has well thought out panels with big names like Cornell.

I think the issue that you're failing to see isn't that he's a bad doctor per say. Though I would say that poor advocacy is detrimental in public health and is a duty of a doctor.

My point is that a doctor should seek to be well informed and accept reason for the sake of his community. I think given Ben's positions of homosexuality he is detrimental to the health of his community. Likewise are those who accept that sparing the rod is good or those who believe in other social and scientific inaccuracies.

The simple truth is we need to look at it not at the individual level. But at the societal level. It is better to have more scientifically accurate doctors than it is to have more who are biblical literalists.

It's as simple as that. I think truth should be worth more than non-truth and I believe that as a society we must step up and become better for the future. And if that makes me a tool, then so be it.

 

[GC1000]

Please tell me more about how my holistic evaluation of the world around me is "carefully selected" in such a way that it allows any possibility of divine order and simplicity to be immediately washed away.

Have you ever been presented with facts about one type of animal becoming another with different genes? Even bacteria after many many many life cycles still have the same genes regardless of the selective pressures. No such proof exists.

 

[Lucca]

Have you ever been presented with facts about one type of animal becoming another with different genes? Even bacteria after many many many life cycles still have the same genes regardless of the selective pressures. No such proof exists.

..............What..

Animals don't "become" other animals. That's not how evolution works. I don't even.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[GC1000]

Okay, I'm going to spell it out:

If you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific consensus then you will deflate the value of the scientific consensus. If you deflate the value of scientific consensus then you open room for more indefensible ideas to seep into your worldview. Sometimes those ideas become psychologically if not physically dangerous: See green vaccines, homeopathy, the oppression of women (if you believe the bible literally then you also believe that women are lesser than men, and don't give me that "fulfillment of the law" bullcrap, that was St. Paul himself and you can quote me on it, I was raised Catholic), Ayurveda, Supplement-Peddlers.

Examples from science in general:

If the earth is 6000 years old then what about:

The geological record
Genetics
Microbial Resistance
Viral Recombination
Genetic Algorithms
The weather record
The growth and distribution of species
The age of the universe
The expansion of the universe
The inflationary stage of cosmology
The dinosaurs
Carbon Dating
Half-Lives of Radioactive Materials
Half-Lives of basic atomic structures, the proton, electron, etc
Petroleum and fossil fuels
The calculated orbit of the heavenly bodies
The Cosmic Microwave Background
Hawking Radiation
Heat Death
The law of general relativity
The law of special relativity
All of thermodynamics
.....

The age of the universe plays a fundamental role in basically all of science. This is intro-class knowledge, come on.

And all this complexity happened by chance? Hmmm... seems logical, ever win the lottery five times in a row?

Did you ever question this garbage? I'm sure you believe this is 100 percent proven theory.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Okay, I'm going to spell it out:

If you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific consensus then you will deflate the value of the scientific consensus. If you deflate the value of scientific consensus then you open room for more indefensible ideas to seep into your worldview. Sometimes those ideas become psychologically if not physically dangerous: See green vaccines, homeopathy, the oppression of women (if you believe the bible literally then you also believe that women are lesser than men, and don't give me that "fulfillment of the law" bullcrap, that was St. Paul himself and you can quote me on it, I was raised Catholic), Ayurveda, Supplement-Peddlers.

Examples from science in general:

If the earth is 6000 years old then what about:

The geological record
Genetics
Microbial Resistance
Viral Recombination
Genetic Algorithms
The weather record
The growth and distribution of species
The age of the universe
The expansion of the universe
The inflationary stage of cosmology
The dinosaurs
Carbon Dating
Half-Lives of Radioactive Materials
Half-Lives of basic atomic structures, the proton, electron, etc
Petroleum and fossil fuels
The calculated orbit of the heavenly bodies
The Cosmic Microwave Background
Hawking Radiation
Heat Death
The law of general relativity
The law of special relativity
All of thermodynamics
.....

The age of the universe plays a fundamental role in basically all of science. This is intro-class knowledge, come on.

All planted by Satan to make us not believe in the good book. You know... That didn't even translate Jesus's name right....

 

[GC1000]

..............What..

Animals don't "become" other animals. That's not how evolution works. I don't even.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I assume you believe in speciation. Is there evidence any species has become a different species that has different genes? I'll answer that, NO.

 

[Lucca]

And all this complexity happened by chance? Hmmm... seems logical, ever win the lottery five times in a row?

Did you ever question this garbage? I'm sure you believe this is 100 percent proven theory.

I think when you say "chance", you actually want to say "thermodynamics"

In the beginning the universe was this primordial soup of subatomic particles. Certain fields had slightly larger concentrations than others, these areas eventually coalesced and this same principle, following the laws of thermodynamics, led to the creation of the universe, the heavenly bodies, etc. Extremely shortened and over simplified version, of course, but I recommend you read Hawking's An Even Briefer History of Time, it will take a whole of 20 minutes and you will learn a lot even though the whole section on the "Big Crunch" has been disproven since the 2011 nobel prize on universal expansion. The laws of thermodynamics are a lot like chance, yes, but they follow prescribed mathematical rules. It is perfectly acceptable to believe a God created these rules. Of course, by Occam's razor, it is simpler to say that he didnt.

 

[didymus]

I have listed how religious beliefs adversely affect the health and access of healthcare of the public....

Actually, you have not made a strong case in the least--not one that passes muster for me, in any case (and I am not a fundamentalist Evangelical, either, for the record). I think what you attempted was to make a case about how wrong beliefs "adversely affect the health and access of healthcare of the public," not religious ones specifically. Now, there are a number of peoples (atheists particularly) who will argue that religious beliefs are inherently wrong beliefs. Well, that's their/your prerogative to think that, however, I don't think such a case can be irrefutably argued. One of the specific examples you brought to light was anti-vaccine movements. Now, these are not new by any means, but because of the proliferation of internet access, such beliefs have proportionately proliferated.

I like this example because a popular atheist with a big audience on a nightly basis actually rejects the science of vaccines (He's the tool I mentioned before: Bill Maher). So, in this instance, we can see how wrong beliefs are the real culprit, not necessarily religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is, the grand-sought-after utopia of scientific secular humanism is a pipe dream. Removing religious beliefs from one's context does not automatically position that person or culture to start holding right beliefs. I hope you see the distinction and can agree with that much at least.

I will never tolerate any individual's faith somehow impeding the overarching ethical framework of society...

I found it quite humorous that you made an appeal for the "overarching ethical framework of society," while proclaiming "[you] will never tolerate any individual's faith somehow impeding" it. That's a good one. The largest concentration of atheists globally resides in The People's Republic of China, where human rights abuses abound, and are documented in great detail. So, whose society are you talking about where you are afraid of having its overarching ethical framework impeded by religious people? Are you suggesting that your understanding of ethics (or morality) are not subconsciously influenced by the history of Christian thought in the Western world? Shoot, even my vocally-athiestic philosophy professor in undergrad admitted that his moral values where chiefly influenced by Christian moral principles that have pervaded Western society for centuries.

Now, for a couple things you said that miss the mark a bit:

The ability of a physician to functionally practice the profession of medicine does not equate to the value or substance of their medical education.

Perhaps not. But the ability of a physician to practice the profession of medicine well (successfully, effectively, and so on) does, in many ways, equate to the value and substance of their education. Would you agree? Does a religionless education directly correlate to a more successful practice of the profession of medicine? If you say Yes, do you have sources you can cite? If not, are your concerns unfounded?

*side-note* The logic was airtight in that argument. You have not yet demonstrated that you can refute the argument, so, to date, you have not shown any leaks in the logic.

I described how medical training requires that one accept evolution...

Gotta stop ya there. The self-deluded Dr. Carson rejects evolution and practiced medicine more successfully than you or I probably ever will. So, no, it doesn't.

Again, despite the fear mongering, the accounts of history are replete with examples of devoutly religious people making critical contributions to science and medicine. You have every right to make your self-righteous stand against the big, bad Religion Machine that is systematically destroying the very framework of proper society (which, ironically, Religion created and defined for thousands of years). Enjoy your "cause."

 

[Lucca]

I assume you believe in speciation. Is there evidence any species has become a different species that has different genes? I'll answer that, NO.

That's not how speciation works either....... There isn't some quantum leap in the genetic codes of different species, simply gradual changes caused by different kinds of isolation or adaptive differences eventually (over very long periods of time) lead to two members of a once linked species being unable to interbreed. IT's the ability to breed that differentiates species. Again. Bio101.

 

[CooIBreeze]

And all this complexity happened by chance? Hmmm... seems logical, ever win the lottery five times in a row?

Did you ever question this garbage? I'm sure you believe this is 100 percent proven theory.

Ever play the lottery for billions of years?

 

[GC1000]

All planted by Satan to make us not believe in the good book. You know... That didn't even translate Jesus's name right....

Take a moment to critically think about sexual reproduction and how inconsistent it is with evolution. Why would this evolve? I don'tthink evolution can think into the future about potential benefits. Sexual reproduction is a complex process on many levels.

 

[Lucca]

Actually, you have not made a strong case in the least--not one that passes muster for me, in any case (and I am not a fundamentalist Evangelical, either, for the record). I think what you attempted was to make a case about how wrong beliefs "adversely affect the health and access of healthcare of the public," not religious ones specifically. Now, there are a number of peoples (atheists particularly) who will argue that religious beliefs are inherently wrong beliefs. Well, that's their/your prerogative to think that, however, I don't think such a case can be irrefutably argued. One of the specific examples you brought to light was anti-vaccine movements. Now, these are not new by any means, but because of the proliferation of internet access, such beliefs have proportionately proliferated. I like this example because a popular atheist with a big audience on a nightly basis actually rejects the science of vaccines (He's the tool I mentioned before: Bill Maher). So, in this instance, we can see how wrong beliefs are the real culprit, not necessarily religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is, the grand-sought-after utopia of scientific secular humanism is a pipe dream. Removing religious beliefs from one's context does not automatically position that person or culture to start holding right beliefs. I hope you see the distinction and can agree with that much at least.

I found it quite humorous that you made an appeal for the "overarching ethical framework of society," while proclaiming "[you] will never tolerate any individual's faith somehow impeding" it. That's a good one. The largest concentration of atheists globally resides in The People's Republic of China, where human rights abuses abound, and are documented in great detail. So, whose society are you talking about where you are afraid of having its overarching ethical framework impeded by religious people? Are you suggesting that your understanding of ethics (or morality) are not subconsciously influenced by the history of Christian thought in the Western world? Shoot, even my vocally-athiestic philosophy professor in undergrad admitted that his moral values where chiefly influenced by Christian moral principles that have pervaded Western society for centuries.

Now, for a couple things you said that miss the mark a bit: Perhaps not. But the ability of a physician to practice the profession of medicine well (successfully, effectively, and so on) does, in many ways, equate to the value and substance of their education. Would you agree?Does a religionless education directly correlate to a more successful practice of the profession of medicine? If you say Yes, do you have sources you can cite? If not, are your concerns unfounded?*side-note* The logic was airtight in that argument. You have not yet demonstrated that you can refute the argument, so, to date, you have not shown any leaks in the logic.



Gotta stop ya there. The self-deluded Dr. Carson rejects evolution and practiced medicine more successfully than you or I probably ever will. So, no, it doesn't.

Again, despite the fear mongering, the accounts of history are replete with examples of devoutly religious people making critical contributions to science and medicine. You have every right to make your self-righteous stand against the big, bad Religion Machine that is systematically destroying the very framework of proper society (which, ironically, Religion created and defined for thousands of years). Enjoy your "cause."

1. Young-Earth Creationism is a wrong belief. I argued that it's perfectly fine to have faith and I endorsed having faith. You can go back up to the two camps I described in my earlier posts. I am not making the argument that atheism is somehow exempt from this, but atheism is not a monolith. There is no atheist "Bible" or set of prescribed beliefs, only the unified idea that there is no deity or divine power, there is also no moral framework associated with atheism and the policies of Communist china are far more nuanced and far-reaching than simply "oh they don't believe in god so they torture people." Western law and morality is heavily influenced by Christianity. However, it's much more heavily influenced by Classical Greece and Rome than it is by Christianity.

2. No, the ability to practice medicine and the value of a medical education are not same thing. Although becoming a clinician is the primary goal of a medical education, medical school also has the goal of providing enough understanding in the basic sciences to become a successful (or at least competent) clinical researcher. Evolution is a necessary concept here.

I'm done here, I concede, you win. I think I'm just gonna stick to Pre-Allo.....

 

[GC1000]

That's not how speciation works either....... There isn't some quantum leap in the genetic codes of different species, simply gradual changes caused by different kinds of isolation or adaptive differences eventually (over very long periods of time) lead to two members of a once linked species being unable to interbreed. IT's the ability to breed that differentiates species. Again. Bio101.

Yes, but according to evolution there is a common ancestor, so changes in genes must have happened through evolutionary processes and yet no proof can be given. Natural selection doesn't necessarily account for new genes, just changed in EXISTING genes. Again the fundamental part of evolution has no proof at any level. It is sad our science classes remove critical thinking.

 

[Lucca]

Yes, but according to evolution there is a common ancestor, so changes in genes must have happened through evolutionary processes and yet no proof can be given. Natural selection doesn't necessarily account for new genes, just changed in EXISTING genes. Again the fundamental part of evolution has no proof at any level. It is sad our science classes remove critical thinking.

Sad indeed.

 

[didymus]

Okay, I'm going to spell it out:

If you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific consensus then you will deflate the value of the scientific consensus. If you deflate the value of scientific consensus then you open room for more indefensible ideas to seep into your worldview. Sometimes those ideas become psychologically if not physically dangerous: See green vaccines, homeopathy, the oppression of women (if you believe the bible literally then you also believe that women are lesser than men, and don't give me that "fulfillment of the law" bullcrap, that was St. Paul himself and you can quote me on it, I was raised Catholic), Ayurveda, Supplement-Peddlers.

Examples from science in general.....

The age of the universe plays a fundamental role in basically all of science. This is intro-class knowledge, come on.

These are still not specific examples of how holding or teaching Fundamentalist Christian doctrine equates to bad patient outcomes in the practice of medicine. You haven't spelled out a damn thing. You have continued to avoid the question by answering indirectly. There are plenty of examples that utterly refute your assertions and accusations that believing the world is 6,000 years old will make someone a bad--or keep them from becoming a phenomenal--physician. I get it that another poster is asking about "science" in general, but you started this most recent debate by responding to my posts. Mine deal directly with the education of doctors, and the practice of medicine, since this thread started off by lamenting Christian schools hosting medical programs.

You can dislike and/or disdain the anti-evolution position, but I still don't think you can make the argument that it specifically impedes the delivery of high quality medical care to patients by a physician who holds them, or went to a school that teaches them as apart of undergraduate or graduate theological curricula.

 

[GC1000]

Sad indeed.

The sad part is you were soon fed during your education and never bothered to think critically.

 

[didymus]

I'm done here, I concede, you win. I think I'm just gonna stick to Pre-Allo.....

Don't leave now. It's just getting interesting! Also, I lurk pre-allo as well, so it may be difficult to escape my persistence

1. Young-Earth Creationism is a wrong belief.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But if it is, it should be grouped with wrong beliefs, not religious beliefs. You weren't just picking on Young Earth's either, you had some harsh words for the religious at-large.

...but atheism is not a monolith...

Christianity is not a monolith, either. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but the vast majority of Christians globally accept evolution as the method by which God created the world. It is the officially endorsed position of the largest group of Christians globally (Roman Catholics), and the Eastern Orthodox Church (2nd largest) also accepts the scientific explanations for how species adapt and come to exist. The difference is not in the explanation of how, but in the answer to why. This is chiefly where secular scientists and those who are religious diverge.

...there is also no moral framework associated with atheism...

So what was this ethical framework of society you were so adamant about protecting against religious folks?

Western law and morality is heavily influenced by Christianity. However, it's much more heavily influenced by Classical Greece and Rome than it is by Christianity.

Source?

Also, how can you make a distinction between the two since both became so heavily Christian by the 4th century C.E. (edited)?

I respect your decision to stop discussing this. I was enjoying the back and forth myself, but I appreciate you wanting to move on.

 

[Lucca]

Don't leave now. It's just getting interesting! Also, I lurk pre-allo as well, so it may be difficult to escape my persistence



I don't necessarily disagree with you. But if it is, it should be grouped with wrong beliefs, not religious beliefs. You weren't just picking on Young Earth's either, you had some harsh words for the religious at-large.



Christianity is not a monolith, either. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but the vast majority of Christians globally accept evolution as the method by which God created the world. It is the officially endorsed position of the largest group of Christians globally (Roman Catholics), and the Eastern Orthodox Church (2nd largest) also accepts the scientific explanations for how species adapt and come to exist. The difference is not in the explanation of how, but in the answer to why. This is chiefly where secular scientists and those who are religious diverge.



So what was this ethical framework of society you were so adamant about protecting against religious folks?



Source?

Also, how can you make a distinction between the two since both became so heavily Christian by the 4th century B.C.E.?

I respect your decision to stop discussing this. I was enjoying the back and forth myself, but I appreciate you wanting to move on.

I'm well aware christianity is not a monolith, I addressed that in my first post. Morality does not equal ethics. Also, I think you meant 4th century CE and not BCE. I make the distinction since the philosophers of classical greece layed out most of the groundwork for ethics, law, and education for the Western world. The work of the classical greeks was the framework for most of western education until the 19th century after all, and even today it persists as a centerpiece of study for theology and philosophy. However, it was the imperialism of rome that spread these ideas but Rome was already well into being an imperial power before it became Christianized. Even then, the argument that morality arose from christianity does not make sense since similar moralities arose independently in the east without any christian influence - see specifically, Ancient Chinese and Japanese philosophy.

It's not that I don't find this discussion interesting, it is just that I don't think this topic deserves this much of my energy. The position of young-earth creationism and all other literal interpretations of religious texts are simply incorrect and I don't wish to argue that position anymore as I fear it'll descend into solipsism. Also, I just don't see how allowing clearly wrong ideas to be perpetuated by the institution of medicine could, in any way, be anything but a blemish on the profession at large. It's not as if people in this country need any more reasons to keep bashing the profession.

 

[didymus]

I'm well aware christianity is not a monolith, I addressed that in my first post. Morality does not equal ethics. Also, I think you meant 4th century CE and not BCE. I make the distinction since the philosophers of classical greece layed out most of the groundwork for ethics, law, and education for the Western world. The work of the classical greeks was the framework for most of western education until the 19th century after all, and even today it persists as a centerpiece of study for theology and philosophy. However, it was the imperialism of rome that spread these ideas but Rome was already well into being an imperial power before it became Christianized. Even then, the argument that morality arose from christianity does not make sense since similar moralities arose independently in the east without any christian influence - see specifically, Ancient Chinese and Japanese philosophy.

It's not that I don't find this discussion interesting, it is just that I don't think this topic deserves this much of my energy. The position of young-earth creationism and all other literal interpretations of religious texts are simply incorrect and I don't wish to argue that position anymore as I fear it'll descend into solipsism. Also, I just don't see how allowing clearly wrong ideas to be perpetuated by the institution of medicine could, in any way, be anything but a blemish on the profession at large. It's not as if people in this country need any more reasons to keep bashing the profession.

Yes, C.E., you're right; that's what I meant to type and I corrected it above. Also, I don't believe that morality arose from Christianity, only that we, in the West, cannot make an argument that our morality has not been significantly influenced by Christian morality. You're right that literalist interpretations are often incorrect because they fail to account for cultural and literary nuance. The most reputable Bible scholars don't argue that the Bible can't be trusted, just that it should not be taken literally (or scientifically); it was not written as a literal or scientific text--after all, such writing would have been foreign to the authors of the texts throughout those centuries.

Finally, I agree with you about the great potential for decreased credibility when institutions like Liberty University open a medical college. I think that will definitely happen. Frankly, my heart sank a bit when I saw for the first time that LU opened a medical school. That was not where the debate was going in this thread though; it became largely about how people or institutions that teach things like YEC cannot produce good doctors. I still maintain--and no one has refuted it--that that is just not true. The profession may take a hit because LU has a bad reputation throughout most of the country, but they may still produce fine professionals in the field of medicine, even while promoting certain unscientific religious views in their other colleges.

Take care.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Take a moment to critically think about sexual reproduction and how inconsistent it is with evolution. Why would this evolve? I don'tthink evolution can think into the future about potential benefits. Sexual reproduction is a complex process on many levels.

Uhhh... you might want look at the sexual reproductive physiology of polyps and sea cucumbers and the like. Complex is not the word I would use to describe it.

And even in humans sexual reproduction has clear evolutionarily consistencies both physiologically and behaviorally.

I mean it just sounds like you haven't put in the time to figure out why you're wrong.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

It has never occurred to me that people in SDN were so intellectual and smart...

 

[Cipher9422]

The imposition of a minority interpretation of a specific creation myth loosely adapted from a minority group's religious tradition explicitly contradicts the goal of science to act as a majority consensus based on repeatable, objectively verifiable results with some measurable power of prediction. Not only does creationism explain nothing, it predicts nothing since none of its assumptions match up with the evidence that is immediately available.

Essentially:

Thing A: Predicts nothing, adds nothing of value, is a bastardized, non-canonical theory with zero corroboratory evidence in spite of being a hard-line and inflexible position argued from "authority".
Thing B: Explains everything within a known margin of error, can be used to accurately predict future phenomena, is an evolving and malleable concept built and sculpted by consensus through experiment and observation.

If you think that Thing A is the same as Thing B in that both should be taught in a setting specifically meant to teach people Thing B, then you are wrong. If you believe that the equation of Thing B with Thing A does not somehow raise disturbing questions about the validity of the institution of Thing B in the minds of the young and ignorant then not only are you wrong, but you are delusional. If you believe that these disturbing questions won't translate into explicitly harmful irrational behavior such as vaccine dodging, homeopathy-chasing, and quack-funding then you are all of the above but a ***** as well.

From Quora: "How can one believe in Science and Religion at the same time?"

Answers generally fall into the following camps

1. Those that believe religion is a set of beliefs/rites/myths that either should not be tested or are expected to be accepted even in light of contradictory data. This view of religion is deemed incompatible with science and can only be explained through ideas such as cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization, or doublethink.
2. Those that believe religion is a set of personally verifiable beliefs that should be tested and adjusted based on new data. This view believed that the two disciplines are not in opposition, if not actually complementary.

Creationism falls into Camp 1. The "Faith and Science" of Aquinas, the Islamic Renaissance, Eastern Medicine, and the age of reason following the Reformation are examples of Camp 2.

You missed the whole point of his post. Actually, it seems you missed the whole point of faith. I would like to believe that you aren't ignorant and realize faith and religion have a purpose in society. It seems to me you instead are too stubborn to admit this.

 

[Cipher9422]

Irrationally held beliefs generally impede the general public rather than the practitioner themselves.

Please review the effects of dechristianization during the French Revolution.

History is the best predictor.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

.....

 

[rzoo14]

Please let this thread die...

 

[touchpause13]

I can't even.

 

[GC1000]

Uhhh... you might want look at the sexual reproductive physiology of polyps and sea cucumbers and the like. Complex is not the word I would use to describe it.

And even in humans sexual reproduction has clear evolutionarily consistencies both physiologically and behaviorally.

I mean it just sounds like you haven't put in the time to figure out why you're wrong.

And yet no hard evidence, just look at this, look at that. Even the most simple life is complex. Did you ever create life? Certain creatures may be less complex relative to others, but that doesn't make them simple.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

And yet no hard evidence, just look at this, look at that. Even the most simple life is complex. Did you ever create life? Certain creatures may be less complex relative to others, but that doesn't make them simple.

You really don't have a solid grasp on bio do you? Or maybe you just can't see things from a reasonable point of view. Oh well, we all have choices we make in life. You choose to be obedient to a book, I don't.
I think the moral of the story is wear armor to prevent stoning.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Please review the effects of dechristianization during the French Revolution.

History is the best predictor.

I don't think changing the months really did all that much. The French throughout the revolution remained Catholics and any attempt to remove Christian iconography from their minds essentially failed absolutely.

 

[touchpause13]

I'm sure it doesn't take much for your head to hurt. You're obviously not very smart based on your posts on SDN and your stats.

Quoted for posterity. This kid is not going to engage with you in an productive manner. Just let him stew by himself.

 

[GC1000]

Quoted for posterity. This kid is not going to engage with you in an productive manner. Just let him stew by himself.

Offer some evidence! Am i asking for too much? Your brain is probably hurting again.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Offer some evidence! Am i asking for too much? Your brain is probably hurting again.

I'm pretty sure you ignored a large part of this convo. But alright, I have no interest in changing the way you live your life.

 

[rzoo14]

Mods, please lock this thread. There isn't any productive discussion going on here now. The unfriendly back and forths are useless.

 

[GC1000]

I'm pretty sure you ignored a large part of this convo. But alright, I have no interest in changing the way you live your life.

I'm pretty sure you never offered any specific evidence supporting your view that species evolve. No evidence on any level that any creatures have this ability. Then you remark with comments making it seem as if you have some superior knowledge base, a classical evolutionary debate tactic to belittle anyone who disagrees with you while not resorting to facts.

 

[touchpause13]

Stahp

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I'm pretty sure you never offered any specific evidence supporting your view that species evolve. No evidence on any level that any creatures have this ability. Then you remark with comments making it seem as if you have some superior knowledge base, a classical evolutionary debate tactic to belittle anyone who disagrees with you while not resorting to facts.

Why does the bat echolocate when it has perfectly functional eyes? And will use its eyes in a lite up room and not echolocate. Why is it a mammal?
Why does the bug click to counter the echolocation?
Why does the bat have a behavior that allows it to circumvent the clicking?
Why does the bug dive when the bat pinpoints on it?
Why does the bat counter this with another type of behavior?

If they are created then all of these things are arbitrary instead of an obvious evolutionary arms race.

 

[GC1000]

Why does the bat echolocate when it has perfectly functional eyes? And will use its eyes in a lite up room and not echolocate. Why is it a mammal?
Why does the bug click to counter the echolocation?
Why does the bat have a behavior that allows it to circumvent the clicking?
Why does the bug dive when the bat pinpoints on it?
Why does the bat counter this with another type of behavior?

If they are created then all of these things are arbitrary instead of an obvious evolutionary arms race.

Evolutionary arms race?? Sounds like the story my biology teacher told. And these fish started to walk on land...bush...blah. why are humans the only ones who have the ability to think ave reason abstract? Your questions don't prove evolution and I'm sorry for you if that is what you call science.

 

[GC1000]

Stahp

Do you notice how your posts are completely pointless? Rarely do you make posts that contribute. Usually you use pictures or piggy back of others.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Do you notice how your posts are completely pointless? Rarely do you make posts that contribute. Usually you use pictures or piggy back of others.

Do you notice how your posts are complete bollox and full of vitriol? You're more offended at her than me.

 

[touchpause13]

So you are stalking me now?
If you would have actually looked carefully at my post history you would see that I mostly post in the lounge so off topic or pictures is part for the course.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Evolutionary arms race?? Sounds like the story my biology teacher told. And these fish started to walk on land...bush...blah. why are humans the only ones who have the ability to think ave reason abstract? Your questions don't prove evolution and I'm sorry for you if that is what you call science.

You avoided my point either by choice or because you don't know enough. You also avoided that fact that the bat is a flying mammal, which contradicts the bible.
And claimed human exceptionality when in reality plenty of animals are more than avid reasoners. Look at Crows even, they can differentiate art styles better than art students.
Or dolphins who can strategize and have very human behaviors.

 

[touchpause13]

In regards to this thread, no one is going to change each others mind and I don't see the point of getting into it with someone who has been plain rude.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

In regards to this thread, no one is going to change each others mind and I don't see the point of getting into it with someone who has been plain rude.

Because he's losing badly and his inflated ego is on the verge of supernova.

 

[medickdb]

If you really hope to have a proper debate in the future, I highly recommend you stop attacking another's character even if you may be skeptical as to what he or she is claiming. I know there have been a few edited posts in the past few hours, especially from one particular poster.

 

[GC1000]

Do you notice how your posts are complete bollox and full of vitriol? You're more offended at her than me.

Do you notice how you have yet to furnish any evidence? It seems you were indoctrinated in school and never bothered to question anything. Maybe your lack of critical thinking ability affected your low mcat. Did you end up with any acceptances?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Do you notice how you have yet to furnish any evidence? It seems you were indoctrinated in school and never bothered to question anything. Maybe your lack of critical thinking ability affected your low mcat. Did you end up with any acceptances?

Keep on thinking mammals don't fly yo.

 

[GC1000]

You avoided my point either by choice or because you don't know enough. You also avoided that fact that the bat is a flying mammal, which contradicts the bible.
And claimed human exceptionality when in reality plenty of animals are more than avid reasoners. Look at Crows even, they can differentiate art styles better than art students.
Or dolphins who can strategize and have very human behaviors.

No animals have the ability to think and reason anywhere close to humans. This is likely the most advantageous ability for any species to have and evolution would predict more species would have this ability, but they don't.

You can't say because animals have complex defense features it must be an evolutionary arms race. Prove that any such mechanism exists.