[Coyoteman]

I don't think that PhDs fully understand the problem, given their rather myopic single field view...in four years, medical students obtain the equivalent of a half dozen PhDs.

False. Ph.D.s are required to contribute something original to the existing body of knowledge in their field.

MDs are simply required to learn (by rote) as much as they can in four years. They do no research, and make no original contributions.

Evolution has no clinical relevance...

That seems not to be the case. Read the article.

...there simply isn't room in the curriculum to replace medically relevant subjects with Darwinism.

You gave yourself away with the "Darwinism" comment. That is a term favored almost entirely by anti-evolutionists. Scientists rarely use the term, but anti-evolutionists must think they can get more mileage out of using a loaded term. Must be one of their talking points.

Ever seen the term "Einsteinist" or "Newtonist"?

[Old_Mil]

False. Ph.D.s are required to contribute something original to the existing body of knowledge in their field.

You and I both know that this is pretty much an overly pompous statement, given what most PhDs end up "contributing." Even in the sciences.

MDs are simply required to learn (by rote) as much as they can in four years. They do no research, and make no original contributions.

First, rote memorization is only a small part of medicine. Synthesizing that information and applying it clinically to solve problems and understand pathology and treatments is the greater portion. Furthermore, MDs and DOs do a great deal of research these days.

As far as "giving it away", I've never concealed the fact that I don't believe in evolutionary science.