Would a Physician's Stance Creationism/Evolutionism Make You Question Their Competence as a Doctor?

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
A

Afp0731

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
371
Reaction score
253
I have been following Dr. Ben Carson's political campaign and noticed how much negative attention he receives for being both a neurosurgeon and creationist. Many people seem to have trouble accepting that a medical doctor, especially a globally-respected neurosurgeon, could reject evolution and yet still be trustworthy as a physician. What are your thoughts on that matter?
Members don't see this ad.
 
A person's strength as a scientist/doctor is largely innate intelligence and work ethic. A person's religious beliefs are defined almost entirely by that person's childhood. Ben Carson went from the very bottom to the very top, all by trusting in his religion, so of course he holds dear to it. It is his religion that got him this far, so for him to reject his religion would be stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Members don't see this ad :)
So much research is based on the fact that organisms can evolve. I don't understand why you can't just believe that God created a world in which life can evolve. How do you get antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria without evolution?
So I have no problem with a doctor thinking that we are all God's creations (that evolution does not explain THAT). I have a huge problem with a doctor who denies that evolution is a process that occurs in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 18 users
No, because you don't have to be that logical/reasonable to be a good doctor
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I doubt half of what politicians say say they believe is what they actually believe. Dr. Carson (and much of the Republican candidates) stand to benefit by professing a belief in creationism. Liberal politicians do it just as much.

Personally I want a physician who is competent and cares about my well-being. I don't see how Dr. Carson believing in evolution vs creationism changes that. I don't know anything about him personally though, so if he were a "militant believer" one way or the other, that would make me question his ability to be open-minded and his tolerance for ideas different than what he's used to.

Like many out there, I don't see how evolution threatens the existence of God. The Catholic Church supports evolution (not necessarily all Catholics do, but the official Church standing is evolution explains our physical existence and God explains our spiritual existence)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Agreed with RangerBob, in order to get a certain number of votes, certain opinions must be fake. He might secretly believe in evolution and still be deeply religious.
 
As a medical student who also majored in Evolutionary Biology and Zoology, for the most part I would have no issue. Med school is hard, getting into med school is hard, separating conjoined twins at the neck is even harder.

Understanding the facts of evolution really don't affect one's day to day operation as a doctor outside of cases related to viral and bacterial evolution (aka new strains/antibiotic resistance)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As my doctor? No.
As my president? Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Am I the only one who thinks Ben Carson should start my running for senator, then governor, then after he has political experience, then run for president? Just watching him at the GOP debate made me nervous!
 
I'm not gonna lie. I would not want a doctor who doesn't accept evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
RangerBob said:
I doubt half of what politicians say say they believe is what they actually believe. Dr. Carson (and much of the Republican candidates) stand to benefit by professing a belief in creationism. Liberal politicians do it just as much.

Personally I want a physician who is competent and cares about my well-being. I don't see how Dr. Carson believing in evolution vs creationism changes that. I don't know anything about him personally though, so if he were a "militant believer" one way or the other, that would make me question his ability to be open-minded and his tolerance for ideas different than what he's used to.

Like many out there, I don't see how evolution threatens the existence of God. The Catholic Church supports evolution (not necessarily all Catholics do, but the official Church standing is evolution explains our physical existence and God explains our spiritual existence)
Click to expand...
Seriously, I think this is the only reason Trump is having so much success. He is unfiltered. What he is saying he actually believes, this sort of transparency has been rare to see in politics and people are voting for him for that reason
 
Members don't see this ad :)
ZedsDed said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

It's pretty straight-forward, I think. I wouldn't want a doctor who doesn't believe in widely accepted scientific theories in favor of nonsense. Come on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
NotASerialKiller said:
So much research is based on the fact that organisms can evolve. I don't understand why you can't just believe that God created a world in which life can evolve. How do you get antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria without evolution?
So I have no problem with a doctor thinking that we are all God's creations (that evolution does not explain THAT). I have a huge problem with a doctor who denies that evolution is a process that occurs in the world.
Click to expand...
This. I don't really see why they have to be mutually exclusive.
Often, Christians or other religious folk have a knee-jerk response to the word 'evolution' because they think it automatically equates to origin of life, and thus is in disagreement with their beliefs. The word has been (erroneously) used to describe everything from spontaneous generation to antibiotic resistance to biochemical origins of life. The classical definition of change over time doesn't necessarily contradict any religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
SusanGMaxwell said:
Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong. If s/he starts foaming at the mouth and telling me that vaccines are going to make my penis fall off, I'm outta there. But we all walk around with delusions.
 
no. But I would give pause if my doctor tried to lecture me on either creationism or evolution. Certain private beliefs ought to be kept private in the workplace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Pusheen said:
This. I don't really see why they have to be mutually exclusive.
Often, Christians or other religious folk have a knee-jerk response to the word 'evolution' because they think it automatically equates to origin of life, and thus is in disagreement with their beliefs. The word has been (erroneously) used to describe everything from spontaneous generation to antibiotic resistance to biochemical origins of life. The classical definition of change over time doesn't necessarily contradict any religion.
Click to expand...
How is antibiotic resistance not evolution? And the people who think animals were literally all made the same day obviously take issue with evo
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think you have to understand microevolution vs. macroevolution. That is where most of the conflict will likely arise when it comes to evolution vs. religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
efle said:
How is antibiotic resistance not evolution? And the people who think animals were literally all made the same day obviously take issue with evo
Click to expand...
eh, I was including erroneous and non-erroneous definitions in that list, I should have phrased it differently. My point was that the word is used for a wide variety of concepts and thus causes unnecessary controversy.
I said it didn't necessarily contradict. Religious writings are ambiguous enough to be interpreted in a variety of ways, aka one day isn't a literal day. It's just a matter of where people believe origins/creation stopped and evolution kicked in.
 
Just curious...who thinks the big bang WAS creation? And God created by evolution.

Second question, which came first, DNA that codes for protein, or the proteins that replicate DNA?
 
SusanGMaxwell said:
Just curious...who thinks the big bang WAS creation? And God created by evolution.

Second question, which came first, DNA that codes for protein, or the proteins that replicate DNA?
Click to expand...
So when it comes to deciding the origin of life's small molecule, DNA has largely been left out of the debate. To transition from DNA-->RNA-->Protein, this is too much to just happen in the little time of Earth's existence. I believe the debate relies on RNA and Protein. Now still, to transition from RNA and Protein, the RNA World problem still faces the issue that there has not been enough time for RNA to evolve into Proteins. It is most likely it was first proteins, then which backtracked into RNA and DNA. In fact, the only reason RNA was so highly popular with the RNA World theory was because unlike protein, it had the ability to pass down information from one generation to the next. However, a recent Science study showed proteins can pass down hereditary information as well.
 
SusanGMaxwell said:
Just curious...who thinks the big bang WAS creation? And God created by evolution.

Second question, which came first, DNA that codes for protein, or the proteins that replicate DNA?
Click to expand...

Well one of those questions is legitimate, and the other is just... bizarre. How could you possibly debate whether God is a product of post-big bag evolution? I don't see how either side of that argument could make any sense at all.
 
NotASerialKiller said:
Well one of those questions is legitimate, and the other is just... bizarre. How could you possibly debate whether God is a product of post-big bag evolution? I don't see how either side of that argument could make any sense at all.
Click to expand...
I'm going to guess "created by evo" = "performed the act of creation using evo"
 
SusanGMaxwell said:
Just curious...who thinks the big bang WAS creation? And God created by evolution.

Second question, which came first, DNA that codes for protein, or the proteins that replicate DNA?
Click to expand...
1. Both science and religion at this point are asking the same circular question - Who tipped the 1st domino - did the universe create the universe, or did God create the universe (and if either did it, then how did they know to do it if nothing existed before and yadda yadda

2. RNA potentially predates life. It can act as an enzyme and holds genetic information
 
NotASerialKiller said:
Well one of those questions is legitimate, and the other is just... bizarre. How could you possibly debate whether God is a product of post-big bag evolution? I don't see how either side of that argument could make any sense at all.
Click to expand...

No, Christianity says God is not in our timeline. God created the universe, and maybe this creation was the big bang, where essentially all this **** came from no where. Physics can't explain that.
 
ndafife said:
1. Both science and religion at this point are asking the same circular question - Who tipped the 1st domino - did the universe create the universe, or did God create the universe (and if either did it, then how did they know to do it if nothing existed before and yadda yadda

2. RNA potentially predates life. It can act as an enzyme and holds genetic information
Click to expand...

RNAs can only act as an enzyme in one specific setting and proteins have recently been shown to hold genetic information. Add on that proteins have almost endless functions, it seems clear proteins should be the top choice for the origin of life
 
SusanGMaxwell said:
No, Christianity says God is not in our timeline. God created the universe, and maybe this creation was the big bang, where essentially all this **** came from no where. Physics can't explain that.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase Tyson, when you give God the role of explaining the inexplicable, he just becomes an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance

SusanGMaxwell said:
Want to elaborate a bit buddy?
Click to expand...
RNA can produce RNA
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
steelersfan1243 said:
RNAs can only act as an enzyme in one specific setting and proteins have recently been shown to hold genetic information. Add on that proteins have almost endless functions, it seems clear proteins should be the top choice for the origin of life
Click to expand...
don't we have yet to see any creation of proteins sans RNA though?
 
steelersfan1243 said:
RNAs can only act as an enzyme in one specific setting and proteins have recently been shown to hold genetic information. Add on that proteins have almost endless functions, it seems clear proteins should be the top choice for the origin of life
Click to expand...
Go search the literature. I don't really feel the need to argue about this when others have already gone through it
 
Where does the actual DNA sequence come from? I completely understand how mutations can *change* large proteins to have different functions. But how did the original protein get there?
 
SusanGMaxwell said:
No, Christianity says God is not in our timeline. God created the universe, and maybe this creation was the big bang, where essentially all this **** came from no where. Physics can't explain that.
Click to expand...
I never said it couldn't. I was pointing out that theoretical physics is stuck at a point where it cannot (and probably will not) be able to explain
 
Funny story....

While in HS I sought out Dr. Oz because my uncle needed multiple heart valves replaced. His daughter was one of my classmates, so we literally picked up the school directory and called him. I was told that he was the best surgeon at the time in the NYC area for what my uncle had and at 16 it made sense to simply call and ask for help. After a relatively complex operation, post-operative course and the retrospective wisdom of training to be a vascular surgeon for some time now, that reputation was well deserved. The direction that his 'career' has gone and the nonsense that he spouts appears to run counter to that extreme level of competency that I witnessed. Being a good doctor or even one of the best doctors in a field does not preclude you from saying/doing stupid things in other realms, especially when there are large rewards to be had such as money and political gains.

I would trust either Dr. Carson or Dr. Oz's surgical and medical expertise, maybe less than someone who hasn't been away from their field for as long as each of them has, but certainly more than my own. Them having different life perspectives or even bat-**** crazy theories on other topics plays no role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
This is one of those threads where I really want to just start trolling everyone hard.
:corny:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
ndafife said:
Go search the literature. I don't really feel the need to argue about this when others have already gone through it
Click to expand...
......well this is rather a pathetic post

First off, how dare you tell SusanGMaxwell what to do. The nerve on some pretentious SDNers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
steelersfan1243 said:
......well this is rather a pathetic post

First off, how dare you tell SusanGMaxwell what to do. The nerve on some pretentious SDNers
Click to expand...
She likes being told what to do though, have you not read the other thread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Jacob Saadoun
Would This Count as a Poster Presentation?
Replies
2
Views
466
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
T
What gpa would you say makes a URM competitive for Texas MD and top 25 schools ?
Replies
16
Views
2K
TxMed55
T
j_diggity
Should I ask if someone would be willing to make a call to an adcom for me? (OOS Texas applicant)
Replies
6
Views
629
Med Ed
Med Ed
Y
When do schools that are not rolling admissions make their decisions?
Replies
26
Views
2K
pablo213
pablo213
C
"What would you like the committee to know about you that wasn't in your application?"
Replies
12
Views
855
SCG3212
SCG3212
Top