I don't get you about this, believers of supernatural.....

[thesometimesaint]

Amazing you visit a doctors' office and now dismiss biology.

Don't know about turning iron into gold. but we can turn a close cousin of lead into gold.

SEE https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-lead-can-be-turned-into-gold/

Edited March 23, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Amazing you visit a doctors' office and now dismiss biology.

Don't know about turning iron into gold. but we can turn a close cousin of lead into gold.

SEE https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-lead-can-be-turned-into-gold/

Amazing you visit a doctors' office and now dismiss biology.

You can skip general biology all together and be no less competent as a doctor.  The bulk of their knowledge and practice is in physiology, pathophysiology, anatomy, biochemistry, and pharmacology.  Cellular biology and microbiology are important, but basic biology is too broad of a study to be very useful in medicine, and the theory evolution is not applicable. 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You can skip general biology all together and be no less competent as a doctor.  The bulk of their knowledge and practice is in physiology, pathophysiology, anatomy, biochemistry, and pharmacology.  Cellular biology and microbiology are important, but basic biology is too broad of a study to be very useful in medicine, and the theory evolution is not applicable. 

I have no idea as to what that means.

SEE "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I have no idea as to what that means.

SEE "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution.

It means that doctors in general don't know crap about evolution and it doesn't affect their practice in the least.  It means that you don't have to believe in evolution to be a world-class doctor.  It has absolutely NO impact on their practice.  Doctors don't need the broader context of theories of speciation and evolution to practice successfully in the more specialized practice of medicine.

It means that I can go to a doctor who completely denies evolution and still not be worried in the least about his competency as a doctor. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You can skip general biology all together and be no less competent as a doctor.  The bulk of their knowledge and practice is in physiology, pathophysiology, anatomy, biochemistry, and pharmacology.  Cellular biology and microbiology are important, but basic biology is too broad of a study to be very useful in medicine, and the theory evolution is not applicable. 

Evolutionary theory is hugely important in pathology due to the role evolution plays in adaptation of viruses, bacteria and fungi. Doctors working in that field use evolution constantly. Likewise the recent emphasis on the role the human biome plays on human health is inherently an issue of evolution.

Certain types of doctors can get by without worrying about this. Say a skeletal surgeon. But to extrapolate this to medicine is simply incorrect. Of course the reality is that far too many doctors are largely ignorant of science in the same way your local auto-mechanic is ignorant of physics. That this is a good situation is quite an other matter.

Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

The most common course requirements include:

• Biology, cell biology, microbiology, genetics, physiology.
• Biochemistry, chemistry, organic chemistry.
• Calculus, physics, statistics.
• English.

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Evolutionary theory is hugely important in pathology due to the role evolution plays in adaptation of viruses, bacteria and fungi. Doctors working in that field use evolution constantly.

Not so much.  The broader theory of macro evolution of all species does not impact their practice in the least.  They can believe that God created Adam from the dust and still practice good medicine.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not so much.  The broader theory of macro evolution of all species does not impact their practice in the least.  They can believe that God created Adam from the dust and still practice good medicine.

Sorry, really is. Go read the papers on pathology and they're all steeped in evolutionary theory. If you want some good podcasts the This Week in Virology, This Week in Microbiology and This Week in Parasitism all are fantastic, regularly deal with medicine, and of course evolution.

Also there is no micro vs. macro evolution. That an artificial distinction creationists made to avoid the problem that evolution of bacteria can be seen in the lab.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not so much.  The broader theory of macro evolution of all species does not impact their practice in the least.  They can believe that God created Adam from the dust and still practice good medicine.

Which is just to point out the unfortunate reality that one can be a doctor without really having a broad understanding of medicine. There's lots of people with practices who are ignorant of pathology and so forth.

But note that this wasn't what I was contesting. The broad field of medicine doesn't just include such doctors. There are many fields, pathology being the most obvious one, where you have to understand evolution. If you're just a GP that's not necessary and honestly most GPs aren't exactly great at diagnosis. Most of what they do is set broken limbs, give shots, prescribe antibiotics, and tell patients to go see a specialist because they don't know.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The most common course requirements include:

• Biology, cell biology, microbiology, genetics, physiology.
• Biochemistry, chemistry, organic chemistry.
• Calculus, physics, statistics.
• English.

One can take a few semesters of chemistry or biology sadly without really understanding science. The doctors who do understand it tend to study it on their own. It's quite easy to pass biology and chemistry without understanding the basic methods and stances of science. Heck, you can even pass lower division physics without really getting an idea about the philosophy of science. 

[thesometimesaint]

When I started college it was as a Chemistry major. But transferred to Social Work after 2 years of  course work. I don't claim to be a chemist, but I do have a pretty good understanding of how it works.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Sorry, really is. Go read the papers on pathology and they're all steeped in evolutionary theory. If you want some good podcasts the This Week in Virology, This Week in Microbiology and This Week in Parasitism all are fantastic, regularly deal with medicine, and of course evolution.

Also there is no micro vs. macro evolution. That an artificial distinction creationists made to avoid the problem that evolution of bacteria can be seen in the lab.

I work in international travel medicine (infectious disease), I do know what I am talking about and keep up on the literature.  Of course an understanding of the principles of mutation and adaptation are required, but to come to the same conclusions of the broader evolutionary theory is not required.  The only course that any medical practitioner will take on the broader theory of evolution is the same general biology class that anybody who wants an associates degree will take.   

Edited March 23, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The most common course requirements include:

• Biology, cell biology, microbiology, genetics, physiology.
• Biochemistry, chemistry, organic chemistry.
• Calculus, physics, statistics.
• English.

Yep, I took them all (except for calculus).  Those are just the pre-requisites to the core medical classes. Biology is the same course that anyone who gets an associates degree has to take.  The theory of evolution is not taught in core medical classes. 

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

I work in international travel medicine (infectious disease), I do know what I am talking about and keep up on the literature.  Of course an understanding of the principles of mutation and adaptation are required, but to come to the same conclusions of the broader evolutionary theory is not required.  The only course that any medical practitioner will take on the broader theory of evolution is the same general biology class that anybody who wants an associates degree will take.   

Except that mutation and adaptation is evolution. Your point is more that doctors can inconsistently deny the history of evolution while believing evolution. Which I agree happens however intellectually questionable it may be. In the same way a doctor can believe lots of incorrect things about medicine which won't affect him so long as they don't screw up enough to get brought before a board. Indeed sees in the alternative medicine community lots of MDs asserting very strange things. The very notion of evidentiary medicine which many have been pushing for the past decade or two arises because medicine strangely can be so disconnected from scientific theory and evidence.

Now personally I'd just say many doctors are just plain bad doctors and that this ability to be so at odds with the scientific aspects of medicine is the fundamental problem. I'm not sure everyone would agree with me there. When talking about how evolution (or any other established scientific principle for the basis of medicine) isn't necessary for doctors all we're really saying is that doctors don't need to believe in correct medicine. They don't even need to be good doctors at all. They can be accepted as MDs even if they think energy through chakra points matters more than chemistry or even deny the science of chemistry. In this their incorrect beliefs regarding evolution aren't particularly special.

All that's required of doctors is that they don't make egregious mistakes and can past their medical classes.

Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Except that mutation and adaptation is evolution. Your point is more that doctors can inconsistently deny the history of evolution while believing evolution.

My argument is that one can have different interpretations and conclusions on the broader theory of evolution which is popularly accepted by biologists without negatively affecting their medical practice.  It does not make them bad doctors.  Sure, mutation and adaptation are principles of evolution, but just how evolution is defined can vary greatly among medical practitioners and should not be used as a tool to judge competency.  

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

My argument is that one can have different interpretations and conclusions on the broader theory of evolution which is popularly accepted by biologists without negatively affecting their medical practice.  It does not make them bad doctors.  Sure, mutation and adaptation are principles of evolution, but just how evolution is defined can vary greatly among medical practitioners and should not be used as a tool to judge competency.  

Which is just to say what counts as a good doctor isn't medical knowledge.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Which is just to say what counts as a good doctor isn't medical knowledge.

I disagree.  I wouldn't call the theory of evolution "medical knowledge".  It simply is not taught in medical schools and is beyond the scope of medicine.  There are some overlapping principles in each field of study, but I wouldn't go to an evolutionary biologist to gain medical knowledge, just as I wouldn't go to a medical doctor to answer a question on the theory of evolution.

Edited March 23, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I disagree.  I wouldn't call the theory of evolution "medical knowledge".  It simply is not taught in medical schools and is beyond the scope of medicine.  There are some overlapping principles in each field of study, but I wouldn't go to an evolutionary biologist to gain medical knowledge, just as I wouldn't go to a medical doctor to answer a question on the theory of evolution.

I'm skeptical about your claim it's not taught in the required biology classes in pre-med, but I certainly agree it's rarely taught in medical school proper. However there are lots of things not taught in medical school upon which medicine hinges. As I said it's quite easy for a doctor to be largely ignorant of science and still be a doctor. The reality is that the science of infectious disease depends upon evolutionary theory. Doctors can deal with disease without understanding disease it is true. Whether they would still be a good doctor with such ignorance really hinges upon what you consider being a good doctor. As I said, evidence based medicine is still trying to become widespread. Through most of the last century it's been sadly quite easy to be ignorant of the causes of disease while being a doctor. Many care only about the proximate causes and not the foundations.

Whether one calls medical knowledge only these proximate issues or the deeper issues seems somewhat arbitrary. If medical knowledge consists only of what doctors are taught in medical school then of course we have a problem since not all medical knowledge is taught in medical school. Indeed arguably most isn't  which is why there are all the journals one hopes doctors read relative to their specialties. The fact that the contents of such journals aren't taught in school doesn't make them any less medical knowledge.

If we merely mean medical knowledge deemed necessary to be a doctor then of course we're talking something different. And there I'd agree. I'd just once again point out that is somewhat circular as well as damning with faint praise. Thus my earlier comment that what counts to be a good doctor isn't medical knowledge. By which I simply meant one could be a good GP and be largely ignorant of most medical knowledge except that absolute minimum required.

Anyway, we're probably beating a dead horse. I certainly agree there's lots of ignorance on all this by doctors who I think ought know better. I'd be pretty aghast were there someone publishing on viral or bacterial pathology who didn't know basic evolutionary theory. Personally I think many doctors could use a heavy dose of microbiology study.

Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm skeptical about your claim it's not taught in the required biology classes in pre-med, but I certainly agree it's rarely taught in medical school proper. However there are lots of things not taught in medical school upon which medicine hinges. As I said it's quite easy for a doctor to be largely ignorant of science and still be a doctor. The reality is that the science of infectious disease depends upon evolutionary theory. Doctors can deal with disease without understanding disease it is true. Whether they would still be a good doctor with such ignorance really hinges upon what you consider being a good doctor. As I said, evidence based medicine is still trying to become widespread. Through most of the last century it's been sadly quite easy to be ignorant of the causes of disease while being a doctor. Many care only about the proximate causes and not the foundations.

Whether one calls medical knowledge only these proximate issues or the deeper issues seems somewhat arbitrary. If medical knowledge consists only of what doctors are taught in medical school then of course we have a problem since not all medical knowledge is taught in medical school. Indeed arguably most isn't  which is why there are all the journals one hopes doctors read relative to their specialties. The fact that the contents of such journals aren't taught in school doesn't make them any less medical knowledge.

If we merely mean medical knowledge deemed necessary to be a doctor then of course we're talking something different. And there I'd agree. I'd just once again point out that is somewhat circular as well as damning with faint praise. Thus my earlier comment that what counts to be a good doctor isn't medical knowledge. By which I simply meant one could be a good GP and be largely ignorant of most medical knowledge except that absolute minimum required.

Anyway, we're probably beating a dead horse. I certainly agree there's lots of ignorance on all this by doctors who I think ought know better. I'd be pretty aghast were there someone publishing on viral or bacterial pathology who didn't know basic evolutionary theory. 

Oh, they all take intro to biology which I acknowledged. 

I think we have a general understanding but let me beat the horse just a little more.  One can have a comprehensive understanding of virology and bacterial pathology and be a very successful infectious disease doctor and not believe in the theory of evolution as presently constituted.  For example: Some believe in a hybrid of creationism and evolution with a more limited theory of evolution - evolution within genus, family, order or class, etc.  I have heard some people who believe that all things evolved except for mankind. Others believe in theistic evolution.  It would be accurate to say that these people do NOT believe in the theory of evolution, but they all have a common understanding of the observable evidence of mutation and adaptation.  As long as doctors have that basic understanding, it doesn't matter if they agree on broader conclusions and historical implications in the theory of evolution.  That is beyond their scope of practice and is not, and should not be, considered "medical knowledge".   Even if all of their evolutionary speculations are totally bogus, it wont affect their practice.

Edited March 23, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Oh, they all take intro to biology which I acknowledged. 

I think we have a general understanding but let me beat the horse just a little more.  One can have a comprehensive understanding of virology and bacterial pathology and be a very successful infectious disease doctor and not believe in the theory of evolution as presently constituted.  For example: Some believe in a hybrid of creationism and evolution with a more limited theory of evolution - evolution within genus, family, order or class, etc.  I have heard some people who believe that all things evolved except for mankind. Others believe in theistic evolution.  It would be accurate to say that these people do NOT believe in the theory of evolution, but they all have a common understanding of the observable evidence of mutation and adaptation.  As long as doctors have that basic understanding, it doesn't matter if they agree on broader conclusions and historical implications in the theory of evolution.  That is beyond their scope of practice and is not, and should not be, considered "medical knowledge".   Even if all of their evolutionary speculations are totally bogus, it wont affect their practice.

Oh, my bad. I thought you said it wasn't taught in the pre-med biology classes.

To your other point, one can of course pass classes by giving the correct answers yet not believing them. I remember the story a friend of mine told when in grad school at UT Austin where a fundamentalist Evangelical was getting his doctorate in physics. Yet his whole goal was to find a "Christian Relativity" since he thought GR was wrong. So doctors can do the same thing. That's more or less what I meant by some doctors in the alternative medicine area who reject biological explanations for disease. So long as you can pass the exams and don't do anything egregious enough to be brought up by a board so you'd lose your license you can believe anything you want. In other words it also won't affect their practice.

To the issue of variants on evolution that's a good point. To me those are still putting ones head in the sand but one can believe them. Theistic evolution basically is evolution to my eyes. It's a pretty vague category at best. Those who just believe in "microevolution" are pretty problematic, but I agree that's not essential for being a doctor. My point would just be that while that's all true, one might well reject any other number of biological theories.

My ultimate point was just that one can be a doctor and either be ignorant of or reject a lot of medical science. And I personally would include evolutionary theory in that category. That one can do this doesn't mean one should do this. I've been pretty shocked at times going to the Instacare for an infection for a family member and hearing the ridiculous level of ignorance of basic microbiology as tied to pathology. I've long sense stopped underestimating the ability of individual doctors to be ignorant of things they ought know. My basic stance now is trust but verify for doctors. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Atheist Mormon]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

Oh, they all take intro to biology which I acknowledged. 

I think we have a general understanding but let me beat the horse just a little more.  One can have a comprehensive understanding of virology and bacterial pathology and be a very successful infectious disease doctor and not believe in the theory of evolution as presently constituted.  For example: Some believe in a hybrid of creationism and evolution with a more limited theory of evolution - evolution within genus, family, order or class, etc.  I have heard some people who believe that all things evolved except for mankind. Others believe in theistic evolution.  It would be accurate to say that these people do NOT believe in the theory of evolution, but they all have a common understanding of the observable evidence of mutation and adaptation.  As long as doctors have that basic understanding, it doesn't matter if they agree on broader conclusions and historical implications in the theory of evolution.  That is beyond their scope of practice and is not, and should not be, considered "medical knowledge".   Even if all of their evolutionary speculations are totally bogus, it wont affect their practice.

Can't agree more. I never asked my other Doctor in my Clinic wether she believes in evolution but she is a very practicing christian.