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
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. Sixty statements, all supporting evolution.
Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. By the American Astronomical Society.
Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. President of the National Academy of Sciences.
Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution. Excellent statement.
Project Steve. Nat'l Center for Science Education: the overwhelming number of genuine scientists supporting evolution.
The "Clergy Letter Project". 10,000 clergymen endorse evolution.
Statements from Religious Organizations. In favor of evolution.
BTW, nice dodge, but it doesn't answer the question I asked:
"And how would they go about doing that? How do you disprove the existence/influence of a supernatural force? Tell me what scientists could show that would disprove ID."
Which was in response to your statement:
Scientists should be busy trying to disproving ID rather than aborting the thought of it. Yet they are not scientists enough to do what they advocate to do, to let science itself decide.
Can you answer the question, or not?
Historically you mean?? If only that is what I had said. Poor Galileo's plight is getting a little long in the tooth to allow modern scientists to go running for the protection of his martyr's robes every time they are challenged. My point is that scientific hysteria over ID is "like" any other hysteria. And scientists acting dismissive is the same as anyone else doing it. Anyone who has to bolster their argument by silencing the opposition, is afraid of their own position's strength (or lack thereof).
What could scientists do that would disprove the theory of evolution? Not all scientific theories are falsifiable. That is why falsifiability is no longer a demarcation criterion in the philosophy of science.
"The A.M.A. is a self-serving political whore. I've been practicing medicine for 26 years and I've yet to hear anything really substantive (that I agree with) come out of that forum." ~ Dawgmeister
You, and most other informed people who don't have a personal agenda to advance.
Shrinking AMA Calls the Shots on Anti-gun Policy
WASHINGTON Despite a declining membership, the American Medical Association is having significant success with its campaign to infuse politically correct anti-gun propaganda into the mainstream of the medical profession.
Many patients are startled to find their doctors asking them if they have any guns in the house. Because this is a matter related less to medicine and more to politics and household safety, many patients are simply refusing to answer. In some cases, they are telling their doctors to back off, according to letter writers responding to NewsMax.coms previous report on the issue.
Compounding the irony is that this entire campaign is driven by an organization whose numbers are shrinking. AMA, once the respected voice of the mainstream of the medical profession, has become just another left-wing interest group. Declining membership does not prevent AMA from presuming to speak for all doctors or from aggressively weaving its leftist dogma into the doctor-patient relationship.
Dr. Lyle Thorstenson, an ophthalmologist from Nacogdoches, Texas, told Physicians Weekly that AMA gains 30,000 members a year and loses 33,000. At this rate, he says, it will be left with no members by 2023.
Further, recent trends have indicated that of those enrolled in AMA, only about 60 percent have been full members. The rest are mostly students and residents, says the weekly.
Michael Perrone, an assistant to a member of the New Jersey Legislature, tells NewsMax.com that his own investigation revealed AMA's membership has nose-dived (in part because of scandals that have wracked the organization) from a huge majority of the nations doctors in the 1960s to only about 30 percent today.
And even that low figure, he says, is inflated with "thousands of free memberships, including thousands of medical students.
A Good Way to Lose Business
What, then, would motivate an organization that has its hands full with internal problems to stick its nose into whether you opt to exercise your Second Amendment rights to own firearms and keep them in your home for your own protection? In some instances, doctors who have followed AMAs line have lost patients in the process. [snip] Click link below to continue.
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com Wednesday, March 6, 2002
If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
They would use the same criteria that you would use to prove that others beside yourself don't have minds but instead are just pre-programmed robots.
If this is so then why are those who would expose such "grave weaknesses" directing 99.99% of their effort toward pushing the debate in front of high school students, and into other such popular and political venues where there can be no possible decisive result; and only 0.01% of their effort toward making their case before the professional scientific community, for instance with original scientific research?
Don't you realize how utterly bizarre and ahistorical the behavior of antievolutionists is in this respect? No group of scientists who sincerely believed they possessed a superior new theory, or a compelling refutation of an existing theory, would ever, or have ever, behaved in this way.
A scientist pushing a new, fringe, controversial, etc, idea will seek to recruit working scientists, or at least advanced science students likely to soon begin a research career, who can help develop and advance his ideas; NOT high school students, or even college students taking intro-biology to fulfill a course requirement, who can contribute nothing!
A scientist who sincerely believes that his new ideas have real scientific merit wants other scientists in the end to notice, consider and test those ideas. Therefore such a scientist will NEVER attempt to force adoption of his ideas in secondary school and introductory curricula, knowing this can only INCREASE hostility toward them in the scientific community, as it will appear to be an attempted "end run" around the process of peer review.
It is no more or less of a response than you would see towards a widespread, politically powerful movement to teach astrology as a serious discipline in public schools.
You've got that exactly backward. As a theory of universal common descent, "Darwinism" required rejection of spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non-life as a mundane or normal process of nature). Clearly if living things are continually coming into existence, then all living things cannot be related only by biological reproduction. Spontaneous generation, in contrast, was accepted and incorporated into the previous and competing evolutionary theory of "Lammarkianism," and was also accepted by many pre-Darwinian creationists.
Theories that take scientists years of hard work to learn, and which have taken centuries to test and refine, they are able to see through in seconds; all it takes is a quick trip to one of the creationist websites.
And the rapier-like wit of some the debaters! Stunning. Some examples:
Underdetermination (of the Quine-Duhem sort) makes evolutionary theory per se immune to falsification by the finding of a Precambrian rabbit. Which is more likely: that the rabbit found in what we thought was a Precambrian stratum is actually Precambrian, or that the stratum is not actually Precambrian, or that there was some anomaly that allowed this rabbit (which lived long after the Precambrian era) to become embedded in this Precambrian stratum? A certain view of evolutionary history (or certain proposed phylogenies and taxonomies) might be falsified in this manner, but not evolutionary theory per se.
A case could be made in support of evolutionary theory as an inference to the best explanation, no matter what the fossil record looked like.
Bump your post.
It's a turf war, pure and simple. Fear. They fear they'll lose the freedom to openly ridicule their own students, fear a loss of prestige, loss of postion--perhaps even loss of money, lest a grant find its way into the ID crowd.
You can get a pretty good idea how their students are treated by the way they behave here.
Pasteur did nothing of the sort. Dariwnists do not attack Edward Jenner. You need to re-read your History of Medicine text.
This happens most often with pediatricians, who have one of the wussiest medical organizations.
You might be surprised to know that virtually no doc is happy about this--and you might be surprised how many docs, at least in the past, used to pack heat under the white coats in the ER.
Here's a clue about all medical organizations--they are made up of the doctors who are dying to get away from clinical work--they don't want to see patients. So, they try to find a related job in admin, business or politics. Most docs hate the politics part, so they don't pay much attn to it. And there's always that power trip--"I get to tell other docs what to do."
Well, no. They don't have much authority--except in setting standards of care. That's why you find docs asking questions they don't really want to ask--they fear someone accusing them of not providing proper standard of care.
Don't take these orgs as representing anything other than busybodies who don't like doing real doctor work.
So, when Hare Krishna's try to get "transcendental meditation" into the public school curricula, we shouldn't fight a "turf war" against them?
Likewise we shouldn't fight a "turf war" against radical environmentalists who substitute scientific ecology with ideological environmentalism?
Indeed whenever curricula is reworked by ethnic, ideological or other "affinity" groups, we should simply stand aside?
Or is it only FOR YOUR AFFINITY GROUP that we should stand down? (Thought so.)