Skip to comments.Citizen MD [American Medical Association op-ed against Intelligent Design]
Posted on 12/03/2005 6:18:54 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
click here to read article
PatrickHenry has contributed far more resources to these threads than I have seen from you or most other posters, including myself.
I am glad you acknowlege that.
And I rather doubt the authorities will, either, if it continues.
If you insist such an exchange did not take place, I'll provide links to the direct posts so that everyone can understand.
Funny thing is, PH hasn't posted here since last night. Why the *Oh so the great PH chimes in."? It's not like he was even posting anything then (post 250) *at* anybody either. These creationists really fear the Grand Master. :)
And, it just so happens that the government (regrettably) has a near monopoly on education, and that ID supporters are attempting to use the government and schools to promote their theory (instead of establishing their theory through scientific channels). The analogy holds.
Why aren't there dozens or hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in major journals that propound what ID predicts and what its mechanism is? Don't give me the old canard about scientists "keeping it out"... a physics luminary like Einstein worked very hard to disprove and discredit quantum mechanics, but the scientific community was persuaded by the arguments and usefulness of QM. Where are the arguments for ID? What is its fundamental usefulness as a theory?
There are no arguments for ID, no explanations for its mechanics, no usefulness as a theory, because it isn't science. Please tell me exactly what ID predicts will occur in the future, what mechanism it operates by, and how that enhances our knowledge of the way the universe works...
No wonder American children don't do well with science, even leaving religion out of it, if science teachers can't find away to show the students something of the history, applications, and moral influences in a positive manner, then America will continue to fall behind in its edge in science.
Most humans don't compartmentalize...what they learn in English may help them in math and vice versa. An understanding of history and philosophy may help a student with his geometry(when I understood what Pythagoras was trying to do with mathematics, ie. get closer to the gods, I began to understand the reasoning behind mathematican and geometric PROOFS).
Science has a bigger problem in this country, then some proposal to allow a little creationism into biology class...the entire issue regarding its teaching across all the realms of science(chemistry,physics, ect) needs to be re-examined.
Most of it of course, especially in public schools, has to do with NEA inteference with attempts to upgrade the quality and education of new teachers. I think you have more to fear from leftist politics and unions stifling the education of students then you would from a school board here or there allowing a little religious discussion into a biology class. It seems that the politics of sexual identity gets more funding in the public schools then a lot of science classes.
I think some of you science teachers and workers in the field need to step back and take an overall look at the public school systems and see just who the real enemies of science education are. What the religious folk may be proposing pales in destructiveness to what the liberal progressives and their PC, EMOTION AND GUILT LADEN proposals are doing to our schools.
Just who are the real enemies of science anyway? Step back from compartmentalized views of science and take a very good look.
Ahhh he just likes to see a good dust up...and yes I do acknowledge his contributions!
If it's my post you're talking about, be sure to quote it all.
I'm sure your "authorities" would be very upset at the idea of coopting democrats. :-)
This is a conservative website, not a RINO cheerleading club.
I was just saying Hello to Patrick...meant no insult at all!
Patrick should know by now I'm no enemy of real science, my interests are more philosophical and political anyway. I ask questions. I play the Devil's advocate and I want to see that those scientists advocating a more materialistic view of life be forthcoming about their own biases and how that view impacts their work when they criticise those who have more of a theistic view of life which may or may not color their scientific work.
I'm all in favor of an understanding of history and philosphy. That's why I support what used to be correctly called a liberal education.
Thus science majors took history, govermnent, economics, philosophy, music appreciation, Engish literature, foreign language etc classes along with non science majors.
Unfortunately, non science majors did not take science classes in the same way, it was one or two classes like "biology for non science majors."
Resulting in well rounded scientists and one sided everyone else, a trend which I understand is continuing.
No way am I going to dilute the science classes. If I had my druthers I'd increase the science requirements for everyone else instead.
Why should it when the fruits of science can be so easily turned against men?
WMDs and toxic environments are every bit as much a "legacy" of science as is modern medicine.
And if anyone complains that these powers are in the control of amoral practitioners, or that the general populace deserves a seat at the table, then they are knuckledragging luddites.
They need to be put in their place!
The child was dead. It was an attempt to save her life. She lasted twenty days. Christian Barnard's first heart transplant lasted......18 days.
dead = "dead"
Oh I wasn't calling for dilution....a DNA double helix doesn't change despite the politics of the land. Just asking that you take a good look at what is really damaging the quality of science teaching in America...and it isn't religious folks.
By the way, another thing to keep in mind is that there is a certain Islamic sect that would kill both you and me if they could get their hands on us. I don't think you have that to fear from the Kansas school board.
Guess who the Kansas School Board called as a witness.
Yes, I have something to fear from the Kansas school board.
And don't forget, according to the Kansas school board science no longer looks for natural or even primarily natural causes.
The child was alive and could quite possibly have lived longer using a chimp rather than a baboon heart.
You seem to have an odd definition of dead, even in quotes.
I don't think the Kansas school board is going to shoot you nor most Christians for that matter. The Kansas School board called a lot of witnesses, evolutionary biologists too, unfortunately they never bothered to show up to defend their point of view.
You made the point that there are Islamic groups who would be happy to kill me.
I pointed out that the Kansas school board called Mustafa Aykol as a witness and you seem to have jumped to their defense.
So, I will ask you if you know who he is?
Wrong. As with any group that refuses to play by the rules -- in this case that your views must first succeed, on merit, as science before they deserve a place in science curricula -- and instead pursues affirmative action, bar lowering, or other special dispensation; "diplomacy" and other forms of appeasement will only encourage them to pursue such illegitimate avenues more vigorously.
Surely you would agree with this principle if the focus were on appeals for affirmative inclusion of environmentalism (as opposed to scientific ecology), of identity group icons in history, or any of the numerous curricular emendations constantly sought, and too often obtained, by the political left.
The only appropriate and effective response to this is absolute, unapologetic and unbending INSISTENCE and high and hard-nosed academic standards; restricting curricula to covering material with objective academic merit.
When creationism, or ID, or any non- or extra- evolutionary view has earned such merit, I have no objection to teaching it, which in such case will happen as a matter of course anyway. In the meantime I'm not "shifting" one single, solitary inch.
Add me to the list. :-)
He wrote an argue ment in NRO stating in part that ID might be a possible bridge between Islam and the West. He speaks out strongly against the "Atheistic materialism" of the west and aginast the directions of western science in particular.Mustafa Akyol is a political scientist, journalist and a freelance writer living in Istanbul, Turkey. He is also director at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform, based in Istanbul.
So? Where were the evolutionists when they were invited to express their views? I know there was some "brave" talk by some that to go to the hearings was to "dignify" the hearings regarding the proposals to allow teaching of ID or creationism along side evolution, there-fore most of the "driving leadership" of the "evolution crowd" decided to stay away. (Besides it was in Kansas...not California or any eastern sea-board locale where such a dust-up would make a big splash in the main stream papers).
Well I say, nothing ventured nothing gained. The evolutionists should have gone and expressed their point of view, strongly and forcefully!
Star Wars is "space Opera". :-)
I should read the whole thread before posting. LOL!
My point is made.
He is not a scientist.
But somehow, according to the Kansas school board he is qualified to speak on evolution.
Here's his background:
Mustafa Akyol: Free Muslims Coalition
And here's a bit more insight about him:
"Mr. Akyol denies their self-evident interpretations, and that is his right, but he should try to convince not a Western audience but over a billion Muslims who curiously share the views of the Muslim texts and authorities quoted by the courageous authors mentioned above. Mr. Akyol prefers to try and persuade Westerners of the perfection of Islam, simply denying that the horrors that occurred in Muslim history, chronicled with great accuracy by Dr. Bostom, either didn't happen, or were not done by Muslims. This sort of twisted logic is little removed from the warped thinking which justified the bizarre accusations that the CIA, Americans, or Zionists must have perpetrated 9/11 because Muslims could not commit such horrors. Many books elaborating this preposterous thesis were disseminated in Europe, and in the Muslim world.
It would be meaningless to answer all of Mr. Akyol's affirmations, accusations and denials, including the genocide of the Armenians. His total rejection of the history of dhimmitude, despite copious documentation by both Muslim and non-Muslim sources, and its replacement by a glorification of a just and peaceful Islamic rule over tens of millions of subjected, non-Muslim peoples, precludes any understanding between those who call a jihad a genocidal war, and those who call it a liberation (even having the temerity to deny the jihad genocide of the Armenians). Mr. Akyol invokes testimonies which are contradicted, multiple times over, by others he chose to ignore. "
from this source:Jihad Watch: Bat Ye'or vs. Mustafa Akyol on Islam's "Golden Age"
Strange folk you defend.
Actually I suspect that neither you nor the Kansas school board looked very carefully into his credentials other that Discovery Institute ... anti-evolution ...must be ok.
And the scientists were back n their labs, working on science, as they should have been.
We need a "somebody mentioned science fiction" ping list.
When Debakey (sp, i'm sure, is wrong) got his early "success," there was a lot of overenthused overreaching. The evos think this is a poster child thing, but it could have been no more than a flippant remark made by a professional. I'll do some reading about Baby Fae, though, and I'll bet there were some ideas (wrong ideas) about the operation that had nothing to do with the Descent of Man.
The rules themselves are evolving. Change is a painful thing--you're throwing away the good cards in your hand from sheer emotion. Not that I expect you to listen to me. It's more amusing that you don't. It's clear to me how you could easily win the day, but tantrums and whining work against you.
Do you think standards of academic integrity SHOULD "evolve"?!
Hah. I thought this whole thing was bogus. But there's a lot that's bogus going on in science these days--plagarists and phony data--just google up "unenthical scientists" and you'll waste a day of reading.
here's one source..".One concern was the difference in blood groups of the potential donors and the recipient: common baboons are virtually all AB, A, or B types. The recipient was type O. Crossing the ABO barrier has historically been shunned. However, scattered reports of human kidney- and heart-transplant survival, despite ABO mismatching, were of some encouragement. The transplant team also felt that crossing the ABO barrier might be less significant than crossing the species barrier and that the baby's immune system might fail to recognize it as being as significant as the species barrier.
Should they proceed? All of the other tests were progressing nicely and showing a significant likeness between Baby Fae and one particular potential baboon donor. The team would be vulnerable to criticism if the risky transplant was not successful. The decision to proceed became a judgment call. This was, after all, a compassionate effort to save a baby's life--and, maybe, eventually, the lives of many other babies.
The Institutional Review Board had been following developments closely and was aware of the surgeon's ongoing discussions with the baby's family and of her condition. Final approval of the IRB was granted on October 24, two days before surgery.
Meanwhile, sophisticated, time-consuming immunological tests were employed to help choose the best tissue-matched donor. Bailey's research had discovered that some baboons are more closely tissue-matched to some humans than are other humans. The longest test, the mixed-lymphocyte culture, took six days, but the transplant team was determined not to rush into surgery without having vital information. At midnight, Thursday, October 25, Baby Fae almost died. She was already on maximum life support and was almost taken to surgery before the tests were completed. Decisions were being made on an hour by hour basis." http://www.llu.edu/info/legacy/Legacy3.html (loma linda) There's lots more out there, just hit a single dogpile search with keywords "baby fae baboon chimpanzee"
This is all complete BS--that Dr. Bailey chose a baboon rather than a chimpanzee because "he didn't believe in evolution"-- what's going on here is a hidden agenda. I suspect a DNC agenda.
How low can these fanatics go--i
Sometime do a google on "unethical scientist plagarism fraud data"--you can read at some length how academics and their integrity are faring.
For lurkers and anyone else who wants solid information on the tragedy of Baby Fae
Baby Fae: The Unlearned Lesson
Here's a quote from the article regarding an interview:
"...The reporters had been forbidden to ask direct questions about the operation, so they queried Bailey on the issue of why he had chosen a baboon in view of the baboon's evolutionary distance from humans. Bailey replied, "Er, I find that difficult to answer. You see, I don't believe in evolution.""
aforesaid link is associated with antivivisection--this Baby Fae hokum is from a PETA-esque group.
Good grief. As if you can't go to the link, check out the mission statement...
Or at least a 'Robert A.' is God ping list.
What is it about a fatal condition that you find hard to understand? Well, doctor, why aren't chimp hearts the rage now?
Yes. Why do you think your link is the end all and be all to the situation? Here is more from the Loma Linda link mamzelle addressed to me.
Bailey's associates in neonatology and cardiology had too often experienced the heartache of having to tell young parents that there was no hope for their new babies. The only possibility for these babies to live a really normal, active life, he thought, would be a heart replacement. What about animal hearts? (Fifty thousand valves made of calf- and pig-heart tissues were used to replace faulty human-heart valves every year.)
But animal hearts had been tried unsuccessfully in adults on four occasions, the first time by Dr. James Hardy, on January 23, 1964, at the University of Mississippi. He transplanted the heart of a chimpanzee into the chest of a 68-year-old man in a last-ditch effort to save the man's life. But the patient was too weak and died almost immediately. Controlling rejection is usually the greatest challenge in managing a patient following organ transplantation. Rejection in a cross-species transplant would be even more difficult to control than in most human-to-human transplants.
I tried to locate that quote through my own searches, but only found it on evo-fan sites and this nutcase animal-rights site. If you like associating with the PETA crowd, watch out where they throw the blood.
Leads me to think that either he didn't say it, or that it was a throwaway remark that had no meaning in this context. I'm happy to hear if there's some independent verificiation that this remark had anything to do with his choice of heart. Pigs had already had some success--I don't know why he wouldn't have used a chimp if there was some reason to use it other than an evo-kook thinks it's a better choice...? A close relative on the family tree is not always the best choice for a transplant--not even between humans!
At any rate, I'm not much interested in defending this surgeon's overreach that happened over twenty years ago--a lifetime in terms of the gains in medical knowledge. He entered into an ethical no-chimp's-land with this Hail Mary's pass. I'm pretty certain he didn't expect Fae to live very long as much as he wanted very much to learn something that would save the next baby.
Do the evos hate Seventh-Day Adventists, too? Is there something in their theology that approves of baboons and doesn't care for chimpanzees?
Bailey's account of how he cared for the first three newborn human-to-human heart-transplant patients was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, October 9, 1986. Accompanying the article was an editorial congratulating Bailey and his staff for their successes. The editorial was written by scientists from Stanford University School of Medicine.
In November, 1986, the California Legislature approved Resolution No. 481, honoring Bailey and his associates, in recognition of the one-year anniversary of the first successful newborn-heart transplant, on a patient named "Baby Moses." (It is firmly believed that there would not have been a "Baby Moses" had there not been a Baby Fae. Both the donor and recipient were referred to Loma Linda because of the widespread publicity on Baby Fae. The publicity on "Baby Moses" then made the scientific community and the public aware that newborn-heart transplantation was possible.)
Dr. Sandra Nehlsen-Cannarella, Baby Fae's immunologist, accepted an invitation to join the faculty of Loma Linda University School of Medicine. On March 1, 1985, she opened Loma Linda University's Immunology Center, where she directs both clinical and research laboratories involved in the immunology of transplantation and maternal-fetal compatibility.
Baby Fae's daring surgery was a landmark case. It has become a reference point in the public's awareness of hypoplastic left-heart syndrome and the serious efforts being made to save doomed babies. It became the cornerstone of a successful, international, infant-to-infant heart-transplant program begun in Loma Linda about a year later. Baby Fae struck a uniquely human chord in most people: the capacity to hope, and to cheer those who take great risks to help one little person.
Plus, it was a team that went through this experience and not a single doctor.
The reason they tried an animal heart on Baby Fae was that there simply were not enough infant-sized hearts for all the babies who needed them. Who would have thought that it was REALLY because a Seventh-Day Adventist was not properly deferential to the Evo-god? Looks like we have a new species of primate...and they evolved their own tinfoil hats.
I know nothing of the Baby Fae affair nor do I particularly care. You disputed From many - one's choice of source through claims of potential bias and a bit of guilt by association; I simply returned the favour.
Is that what I said?
"Is there something in their theology that approves of baboons and doesn't care for chimpanzees?"
Did I say or imply they did?
Do you wish to compare the PETA crowd with Loma Linda University Medical Center any further?
Yeah, that'll do too.
Life is a fatal condition.
The good doctor appears not to be on record as trying to obtain a human heart.
Sorry, not my standard of medical practice.
And how is any of what you quoted relvant to failing to attempt to obtain a human heart or even a chimpanzeeheart?
I detest PETA because they put animals above people and if they had their way an enormous amount of solid research would never happen.
Nevertheless the article is backe by solid refs including one to the quote.
6. Gould SJ: The heart of erminology What has an abstruse debate over evolutionary logic got to do with Baby Fa[e]? Natural History 1988;97:24.
I consider this a reputable source.
You seem to go for a lot of guilt by association. I don't.
As it happens most public libraries, and my basement library have complete sets of Natural History Magazine, going back pretty far.
I'll check out Gould's sources when I get a chance.